Monday, 11 November 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that give the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 72 citizens) and Zakharov (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognises that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. We the undersigned express our concern over the sale of the Belconnen Mall due to the likely detrimental effect on the provision of community facilities presently existing in the Belconnen Mall. 1. In particular we seek guarantees that the present child care centre and community facilities be retained by incorporating the same into the conditions of sale of the Belconnen Mall and that the services will receive the same real level of funding and support currently provided by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority. 2. That a financial commitment to the building of Stage 4 of the Belconnen Mall listed under section 14C in the Ordinance of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority be undertaken. Stage 4 to consist of community facilities such as community hall, large glassed enclosed community park, exhibition space, health and fitness club, ice rink, amusement centre and office accommodation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this petition be considered. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 371 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and the senators in the Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Queensland, do respectfully pray that the present concessional import duty as exists under By-law BL8255510 be maintained and not lapse on June 30 1985 as presently planned by the Australian Customs Service. This by-law has permitted goods under Item 19 to be imported at a 2% rate of duty and has greatly benefited the Veteran, Vintage and Old Car Movement in the restoration of vehicles of 30 years age or more. While many automobile parts are produced in Australia, it is impractical to suggest they could be used during restoration of most old cars. It is reprehensible that this action should occur without debate, consultation or fair warning. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the concessional rate of duty on old cars and parts be maintained. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that because it will cause serious harm to the community, the Parliament will not legalise the possession, sale, hire, or supply of any publication or video tape, video disc, slide or any other recording from which a visual image can be produced, which displays degradation of any person, particularly women and children, or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy, mutilation, child pornography, urolagnia, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality; or the use and effect of illicit drug taking; explicit fellatio and cunnilingus; explicit nudity including touching genitalia, erect penis. Your petitioners pray the Senate, in Parliament assembed that you will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as `Capital Gains Tax after death' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and to end the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled support a change in existing legislation so that this tax be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate without any exemptions whatsoever. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 81 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women'. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operation of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 1,572 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's intentions to impose a tax on fringe benefits and so increase the level of taxation in Australia, will impose an unnecessary and harsh burden on many companies. A burden that could have an adverse effect on employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will abandon this unfair and potentially job destructive tax and your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 838 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain companies located in the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the failure in Government policy to recognise sufficiently the importance of brand-name products developed by research-based companies. Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective pharmaceuticals is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the economic viability is a pre-condition for continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information available from the research-based companies which are product originators. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective pharmaceuticals is secured through encouraging growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Sibraa (from eight citizens). Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-I present the following petition, from 88 Western Australian citizens, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders: To Honourable the President and members of the Senate-we the undersigned citizens of Western Australia declare that the ever increasing cost of fuel to the motorist particularly in country areas is imposing an intolerable burden on the rural motoring public. Petitions received. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that 11 November 1985 is the 10th anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government while it maintained its majority in the House of Representatives- (a) records its condemnation of the disgraceful actions of: (i) the then Liberal Premier of New South Wales in ignoring convention by not appointing a replacement of the same party to the Senate vacancy in 1975; (ii) the then and now Premier of Queensland in repeating that breach of convention following the death of a Labor senator; (iii) the then Leader of the Opposition for taking advantage of the situation and forcing Opposition senators to block the 1975-76 Appropriation Bills, and (iv) the then Governor-General for exercising doubtful powers while a parliamentary solution was still possible; (b) declares that such fundamental breaches of the Constitution must never be allowed to occur again; and (c) congratulates the Whitlam Labor Government for those of its reforms and achievements which have endured for the benefit of the Australian people. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses its regret that Senator Gerry Jones misled the Senate by giving notice of motion on 8 November 1985 that `the Senate congratulates the Camelia Restaurant on its endeavours to spend $1.5m in redeveloping in the Riverside development in Brisbane', thereby clearly implying that the owner of this restaurant was tendering for a new restaurant, when the Senate had been advised in an answer to a question without notice on 7 November 1985 that, due to the new tax proposals, this formerly successful business would have to close on 9 November 1985; (b) notes that the owner of the Camelia Restaurant for the last two years seven months and at the time of its closure last week was Mr James Allen and that Mr Allen has made no application for any new restaurant in the Riverside development; and (c) notes that the application for the new Riverside restaurant was made by Mr Michael Platsis, the owner of Michael's Restaurant, who has no interest whatsoever in the Camelia Restaurant, and that such application was made six months ago before the new legislation against deductibility was introduced. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent upon the moving of a motion of urgency under standing order 64 and the expiration of the time provided for discussion of the motion, I shall move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the question on the matter of urgency being put forthwith. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I welcome you back to the Senate. We missed you. My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. He will be aware that on a number of occasions before and after the last election, both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer confidently predicted lower interest rates this year. I refer him in particular to the comment by the Prime Minister exactly seven months ago when Mr Hawke said: . . . we can expect through the period of this year there will be, I would expect, a lowering in the level of interest rates. I ask whether the Minister is aware that on Friday the Prime Minister said: Well, for a while we have to live with high interest rates. Does the Minister believe that the Prime Minister's prediction of lower interest rates, which has so far proved to be spectacularly incorrect, will be achieved in the remaining seven weeks of this year? If the Prime Minister's earlier statement on interest rates, namely, that there would be a lowering in the level of interest rates this year, was inaccurate, for how long do Australian businessmen, farmers and home buyers have to wait for a lowering of the present crippling interest rates? Senator BUTTON —With regard to the last part of the question, I am not going to follow the path of prediction about this matter which, in the 11 years I have been in Parliament, I have seen as being not particularly wise when the predictions have been made by Ministers and Prime Ministers of both political persuasions. I particularly recall that the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, not only predicted a decline in interest rates but also undertook to eat his hat if interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent in a specified period. That was not even in the category of a prediction; it was a broken promise. Mr Anthony did not eat his hat and the period of the last Government was characterised not only by wrong predictions but also by broken promises. Senator Puplick —Did Peter Harvey- Senator BUTTON —There is nothing unnatural about Mr Harvey. He is a respected member of the Press Gallery. In answer to the question which I have been asked, the predictions made by Mr Keating and the Prime Minister last year have turned out to be incorrect; there is no doubt about that. But I do not interpret the Prime Minister's recent remarks as making any predictions about when interest rates might fall. I just want to make the point that it is not only the Government but also the Opposition, and more particularly the Opposition, which has had difficulty in grappling with the effects of the deregulation or the floating of the dollar and the consequences of that action by the Government. The Opposition has had that difficulty and, I suspect, so have we in the Government. Insofar as future interest rates are concerned, the Government is optimistic that there will be a steady decline in interest rates once we have sorted out the present difficulties with the dollar, which were discussed at great length in the Senate last week. Senator COLSTON —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to an article in last Thursday's Gold Coast Bulletin headed `Old Soldiers Still Fight Government'. In this article the honourable member for McPherson, Mr Peter White, charged the Government with failing to take action to reduce the long delays in determining veterans' pension claims and appeals. What substance, if any, is there to Mr White's allegations? Senator GIETZELT —I have seen the article to which Senator Colston referred. I am somewhat concerned, as well as perturbed, that a veteran such as Mr White would make such outlandish criticisms of the delays that have occurred in the determining system, and obviously without any understanding that on 1 January this year the Parliament approved the establishment of a new system beginning from that date, with the support of the Opposition spokespersons, Senator Messner and Senator Scott, representing the Liberal and National parties respectively. The purpose of that was to overcome the problem which even my predecessor, Senator Messner, had identified. There were delays occurring; over the last half dozen years it took two, three or four years for veterans to have their claims for pensions or pension increases determined. Largely, there were two basic reasons: Firstly, the ceilings imposed on the Public Service by the Fraser Government obviously played a part in the capacity of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to deal with the applications; and secondly, with the veterans moving from 60 to 65 years of age at the time the legislation was being prepared, it was clear that people would be endeavouring either to get a pension or increase their pension. So the delays had been identified by the previous Minister, and a committee was established for the purpose of looking at the defects in the existing legislation. The legislation came before the Parliament last year and on 1 January the new system was put into place. Whereas it would be true to say that several years ago there were delays of the nature nominated by Mr White, the fact is that, under the new system, by June 1986 the delay will be down to 90 days. That means that, instead of being about 300 days, the delay will have been reduced to about 90 days. I think that speaks well for the way in which the Parliament and the Government have accepted their responsibilities and indicates how irresponsible Mr White's statements were. Senator PETER BAUME —Has the Minister for Community Services seen today's Press reports indicating that the levels of poverty in Australia are rising, with 800,000 people in poverty, including 40,000 people forced to sleep out of doors, 60,000 people on the verge of homelessness, 135,000 people on the waiting lists for State housing authority accommodation, and a private rental market that cannot keep up with demands for rental accommodation? Does the Minister agree with housing industry concerns that Labor's abolition of negative gearing and its proposed capital gains tax will further reduce the availability of rental accommodation, so exacerbating the rental crisis and causing more people to be forced below the poverty line? I ask the Minister: Why are the levels of measured poverty continuing to increase, almost three years after the Labor Government came to office? What positive steps does the Minister or his Government intend to take to reverse this trend? Senator GRIMES —I did see the Press reports this morning of a report which I believe has gone to my colleague Mr West. I have not seen the report, but I would certainly be interested in seeing it. In that report, according to the Press, as Senator Peter Baume says, the claim was made that there were 800,000 people in poverty, 40,000 people homeless and 60,000 people potentially homeless. Senator Peter Baume, I notice, was very careful not to say that the figures were necessarily accurate or absolute. I can remember, in the last years of the Fraser Government, reports claiming that there were one and a half to two million people in poverty in this country and Senator Chaney answering a question in much the same way as I am answering this one. I think that absolute figures of that type are very difficult to sustain. Certainly there is too much poverty in this country. There has been for many years. The main cause of too much poverty in this country, I believe and I think most people believe, is long term unemployment. The great contribution to that long term unemployment was the policies of the previous Government from 1975 to 1983, culminating in double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and negative growth in the gross domestic product in the last year of that Government. Of course, during that time there was also considerable concern in the community about inadequate housing. There were very large waiting lists for public housing, which still persist although the position has improved. This Government recognised that problem and, as a result of the Government's policies in the first years following the National Economic Summit Conference, we caused the greatest increase in house building by way of stimulus to the building industry through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the introduction of schemes such as the first home owners scheme. We still have a homelessness problem. I doubt whether it can be defined in the way in which this report allegedly defines it. When I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare we tried to make that sort of definitive assessment of homelessness and we were unable to do so. I will therefore be very interested to read how the firm which wrote this report was able to do so. I accept that there are too many people living in poverty in this country. I accept that there are too many people who find it too difficult to get housing in this country. But I believe that this Government has done more than any other government in the last 10 years, or probably 15 years, to overcome that problem. The suggestion that the abolition of negative gearing and the introduction of a capital gains tax will make that situation worse is not an accurate statement. Certainly, the presence of negative gearing and the absence of a capital gains tax during all those years did nothing to lessen the worsening housing crisis in the community. As I said, I have not read the report. I will certainly read it with interest. I will see whether I can get any further details from my colleague Mr West in regard to the question asked by Senator Peter Baume. But I believe that, until we have all read the report, it is probably very difficult to comment sensibly about it. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen comments made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the South African Government is one of many authoritarian regimes, which contradicts the view of the Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Peacock, that South Africa is a special case? Can the Minister indicate what is the Government's view on this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have, of course, seen the comments made by Mr Howard to that effect and have noted that they are in quite stark contradiction to the position taken by the foreign affairs spokesman on this matter, a position which would, I believe, be shared certainly by every government member and by most civilised Australians. Senator Withers —Hear, hear! Senator GARETH EVANS —There is something different, and contemptibly different, about apartheid which does make it distinct, in ways which Mr Peacock has very articulately spelt out and which I am glad to hear Senator Withers acknowledge, from other authoritiarian regimes and, as such, demanding of our very special repugnance. The Government's view of the question as to why Australia actively discourages contacts, in particular sporting contacts, with South Africa and not other countries which have a poor human rights record is based on its total opposition to apartheid and the uniqueness of the evil associated with it. While many countries have a poor record on human rights and may, quite rightly, be described as authoritarian, South Africa is the only country which I would-- Senator Jessop —Why do 125,000 black people crash the borders to get down there every year? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is always a pleasure to hear the voice of the South African Embassy speaking up in this Parliament. We have heard it again from Senator Jessop. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask that the Minister withdraw that statement. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that imputation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not suggesting that he is a paid voice. I do not think that the South African Embassy would waste its money. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw the imputation. Senator GARETH EVANS —I withdraw any offensive imputation. I repeat: While many countries obviously have a poor record on human rights and may properly be described, obviously again, as authoritarian, South Africa is the only country which bases its social and political system on an institutionalised form of racial discrimination. South Africa claims to be a civilised Western Christian democracy and has set itself standards by which it is to be judged. South Africa's performance falls lamentably short of those standards. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: What does the Government acknowledge to be the war fighting capacities-to use Senator Grimes's words of last Friday-of North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar? Senator Grimes —Ha, ha! Senator CHIPP —That is what the honour- able senator said; it is in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator CHIPP —Does the Government agree that each of these bases is a prime nuclear target of the Soviet Union? In the light of these dangers to Australian territory and people, why has the Government agreed to expand Nurrungar for the new United States Defense Support Program II Block 4 satellite to be launched within the next six months? Senator GARETH EVANS —In speaking in the ANZUS debate which took place in this chamber last Wednesday, 6 November, I made it absolutely plain that Pine Gap and Nurrungar are not military bases and are not part of the United States war fighting machine in that sense. We have supported them because the functions that they perform are not of that kind but relate to early warning and verification. This is exactly what I said; it is recorded on page 1665 of Hansard. I would like honourable senators to note in particular one sentence to which I will give emphasis. I stated: In talking about the joint facilities, it must be repeated for the record, as it has been repeated every time that Ministers speak on this subject, that these facilities are not military bases. The Prime Minister said on 6 June 1984-I quote from Hansard: The facilities are not military bases. There are no combat personnel or combat equipments there, no military stores or workshops, no plant or machinery or laboratories for research, development, production or maintenance of any weapons or combat systems of any type. We are happy to host them for their early warning and verification roles, not for their war fighting capacity. The attitude and the policy of the Government in this respect are in quite remarkable contrast to those of the Opposition which wants not only full scale military bases on Australian soil but also bases with nuclear weapons installed and stored there. Those were my words. Nobody took them to the Press and beat them up with any degree of excitement because the context in which they were uttered was perfectly clear. The facilities are not military bases. We are not supporting them because of any war fighting capacity in that sense; we are supporting them because of their early warning and verification system. When Senator Grimes got to his feet, at very short notice, on a similar subject last Friday-he had either Hansard before him or my words perhaps echoing in his ears-he stated, as recorded in Hansard at page 1810: . . . we are willing as a government, and have said so-it is our party policy-to host the joint defence facilities for their early warning and verification roles; we are not particularly happy to host them for their war fighting capacity. What Senator Grimes said was exactly what I said three days earlier in exactly the same context and with exactly the same intent. Unfortunately, Senator Grimes's words were the subject of an absolutely extraordinary beat-up in the Melbourne Age last Saturday headed, `US bases have war capacity, Grimes reveals', on the basis of that one sentence. Senator Grimes can speak for himself, of course, and may choose to at some later stage; but it was an obviously ambiguous statement. It was taken in precisely the wrong way by the newspaper reporter concerned and beaten up quite extraordinarily without any reference to Senator Grimes or anyone else in the Government to determine what was actually being said. I hope that clarifies that aspect of the question. Senator Chipp —That is very clear now. Thank you. Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator is all heart. The Government's answer to the suggestion that these facilities are `a prime nuclear target of the Soviet Union'-I repeat it in the terms in which it has been given on numerous previous occasions-is as follows: We cannot know what targets the Soviet Union might choose to attack should world-wide nuclear conflict occur. The sequence of events in such a conflict and where the joint United States- Australian facilities would rank in the scale of potential targets around the world would depend on the circumstances of the conflict and judgments as to priorities, which essentially are matters of speculation. The Government acknowledges that hosting the facilities brings with it some degree of added risk of nuclear attack, but does not believe that those risks can be authoritatively defined. We do not accept that, in the very unlikely event of nuclear conflict, the joint facilities-all of the possible targets available world wide-would inevitably attract high priority as targets in a nuclear first strike, or in subsequent exchanges. The third part of the question related to the new Block 4 satellites and so on. The Government supports the maintenance and development of the joint facilities in Australia because they contribute to world peace in the ways that I have described here and on other occasions. As to the new United States DSP II Block 4 satellite, which was the subject of a question from Senator Vallentine the other day, I am able to say no more than that I have referred that question to the Minister for Defence. I expect an answer from him to be forthcoming shortly, hopefully within the next day or so. Senator COATES —My question is directed to Senator Gareth Evans as Minister for Resources and Energy and, perhaps, also as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister confirm the report in the National Times that the Indian Government has approached Australia with an offer to market Australian diamonds currently marketed through the Central Selling Organisation? In view of the worsening racial situation in South Africa, is the Federal Government giving consideration to the proposal and when is a final decision on the Indian proposal likely to be made? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that the matter which was referred to in the National Times was raised with the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, on his recent visit to India and that he has asked his Department to provide some information on the arrangements in question. Essentially, it is a matter for the Minister for Trade, I guess, to be responding on. But a couple of points can be made which may set people's minds at rest on this matter. The arrangement between some of the Argyle joint venturers and the Central Selling Organisation is a purely commercial one, and the Government's policy is not to interfere with such arrangements provided that fair and reasonable prices are obtained for exports of our mineral resources. In the case of the Argyle joint venture, the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments have appointed an independent valuer to ensure that fair and reasonable prices are obtained for Argyle output. The contract with the CSO runs for the next five years and underwrites the bulk of the funds provided to finance the project. Any change to the contract would have very major implications for the project's viability. Again, the contract was an integral part of the project as approved by the Treasurer under the foreign investment guidelines in April 1983. At that time he said that Government would wish to examine any marketing arrangements proposed after the current agreement expires. As to the substance of the question as it affects the South Africa policy, the short point is this: The sales arrangements that presently exist do not come within the ambit of the sanctions on dealings with South Africa announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 September, or the sanctions imposed following the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Territories in the next Government, Senator Lewis, and concerns the Postal Services Amendment (Continuance of Postal Services) Bill 1985 which Senator Archer introduced in the Senate on his behalf last week. Does the Bill penalise individual unionists or postal workers and how will it allow the continuance of mail services when Australia Post employees, unilaterally and quite improperly, disrupt the mail supply through industrial action? Senator Button —Nobody else will listen to him; I suppose we will have to. Senator LEWIS —No worries, Senator Button; Sir Ninian has not acted yet. The Bill that I introduced last week does not contain any penalties for unionists. It is about ministerial responsibility. Section 85 of the Postal Services Act gives to Australia Post a monopoly on the delivery of letters weighted under 500 grams. The Bill that I introduced would enable the Minister to terminate Australia Post's monopoly when Australia Post was unable to provide the service. The Minister would be able to stop militant officials taking advantage of the monopoly to blackmail the public. I remind the Senate in that regard that over 40 per cent of Australia's mail is delivered through New South Wales, where this blackmail monopoly power is exercised very frequently. The Minister for Communications would be able to prevent militants from using the monopoly power to implement their political judgments. For example, with regard to the mails to South Africa at the moment, no wages, conditions or safety issues have been raised by the unions and there is no conflict with the Government. But at present over 30,000 letters and other articles remain undelivered in Australia or have not yet been sent to South Africa. Many innocent people are being affected. There are plenty of South Africans living in Australia-migrants to Australia, perhaps married to Australian people-who are not necessarily supporters of the South African regime; in fact they may very well be living in Australia because they are not supporters of the regime. Those people are being severely affected. They are being cut off from their relatives and friends by this action of the Australian postal unions. This Government, notwithstanding its so-called special relationship with the union movement, is in fact not doing anything for those people. This Bill is about ministerial responsibility. It would give the Minister the option of doing something in these circumstances, of suspending Australia Post's monopoly and allowing private enterprise to get on with the job. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. It refers to the export of citrus fruits to Japan. Is the Minister aware that a member of the Citrus Board of South Australia has suggested that there is a pressing need to co-ordinate all Australian fruit exports under one banner? Is the Minister able to say whether the Government is in agreement with such a proposal and whether any action can be taken by the Federal Government to initiate such co-ordination? Senator BUTTON —I assume that Senator Elstob is referring to a recent example of citrus growers from all States getting their act together in order to get entry into the Japanese market. That experiment, or experience, was successful and represents a laudable degree of co-operation between growers in order to present a common front in terms of marketing quality and Japanese quarantine requirements. The Government supports this kind of approach and would like to see a great deal more co-ordination in horticultural export marketing. Indeed, there has been some such co-ordination, particularly with reference to grapes produced for the Northern Hemisphere winter. On 16 October this year there was a meeting in Canberra of all States and the Department of Primary Industry to try to seek an appropriate industry structure which would facilitate a greater degree of co-operation between growers. However, this goal is still far from being realised. It depends upon the co-operation of growers in the different States. The Federal Government has been consulting with the industry with a view to getting a greater degree of co-operation and it looks to the recent citrus growers example as an indication of the benefits that can be derived from a common approach. Senator WATSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is the Government monitoring the compliance provisions of the motor vehicle industry plan to ensure that Australian manufacturers within the plan are meeting the 85 per cent local content guidelines? Has there been any breach, and if so what action has the Government taken? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question, as to whether the Government has been monitoring the compliance provisions of the motor vehicle plan, is yes. I think it is a matter of public knowledge that that monitoring has revealed at least a prima facie case of certain transfer pricing arrangements in respect of particular companies. Insofar as the 85 per cent content rule in the plan is concerned, I have certainly not been informed by the Automotive Industry Authority, which has responsibility for these matters, of any breach of the 85 per cent rule. However, in saying that I remind Senator Watson that from time to time companies fall a little below the 85 per cent, but it averages out over a period. In that context I am satisfied at this stage that there has been no departure from the rule. I also understand, knowing the motor vehicle industry fairly well, that there are certain people who have an interest in alleging that that is so, but I do not think it is. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that the editor of the Cape Times, Mr Heard, has been charged with violating the new South African Internal Security Act on the sole ground that he printed an interview with the President of the African National Congress? What is the attitude of the Australian Government to such an attack on the freedom of speech in South Africa? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted the reports that the editor of the Cape Times, Mr Anthony Heard, was charged yesterday, 10 November, for violating the South African Internal Security Act by printing, as Senator Zakharov has said, an interview with Oliver Tambo, the President of the banned African National Congress. He is liable to a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment for that offence. This move follows the imposition of restrictions last week on the freedom of the domestic and international Press to cover township unrest. The toughening of the South African Government's stance towards the Press obviously reflects its growing dissatisfaction with both internal and external media coverage. If these reports are correct, these measures come at a time when journalists have been increasingly the victims of arrest and assault at the hands of the South African police and they constitute a severe infringement of the freedom of the Press. Mr President, it will not come as a surprise to you for me to say that Australia strongly supports the right of the news media to report first hand on matters of international interest. It regrets absolutely any form of censorship and believes that there should be a free flow of information whenever possible. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Is it the intention of the Department of Aviation to close the briefing office at Hobart Airport? Senator GIETZELT —I happen to have that part of my briefing notes open, but there is no mention of any such developments as suggested by Senator Townley. I will refer the matter to the Minister for his attention and seek an early reply. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware of the Attorney-General's comments regarding national legislation to protect consumers and customers from credit card fraud? Given that credit card fraud is emerging as a major white collar crime with more than 3,386 cases of lost or stolen plastic cards reported in New South Wales alone in the last year, when will uniform legislation be introduced? In the meantime, is any form of protection available for those whose cards are misused and whose funds are stolen in this way? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the response by the Attorney-General to a question on this matter in the House of Representatives on 14 October. The Attorney-General, in his answer, referred to the Commonwealth working group of officers examining the rights and obligations of users and providers of electronic funds transfer systems. I am advised that the working group has now completed its report and the Government will give attention to the question of legislation in this area in considering the recommendations of the report. If it is concluded that legislative protection is required the Government has no doubt that State and Territory Ministers responsible for consumer affairs will give high priority to the need for national uniformity and to avoiding delay. At present, the obligations of card holders are largely determined by the terms and conditions of the contracts they enter into when accepting a card. This includes taking reasonable care of both card and personal identification number to help prevent fraudulent transactions. In the case of Bankcard, the liability of the card holder is limited to $50 in the event of the unauthorised use of the card. However, with other types of cards which are used at electronic terminals, the card holder generally faces unlimited liability until the financial institution is notified of the theft or loss of the card. It can, of course, take some time for the consumer to become aware that the card is missing and by that time all the consumer's funds can be removed from the account. Senator Chipp —What is an example of that type? Senator GARETH EVANS —I guess building society cards and other sorts of cards where it can be done by shoving the card in a machine. There are a number of such institutions around the place that run card holder accounts of that kind. I have not got any briefing as to what they are in chapter and verse but I can find out if the honourable senator would like me to. I understand that most financial institutions usually take a sympathetic view when a consumer has funds withdrawn without authorisation. I trust institutions will continue to take this approach until a long term solution, which will, no doubt, involve in due course legislation, is achieved to this apparently inequitable situation. Senator BOSWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to the continuing widespread public concern over the Chamberlain case and the long delay by the Northern Territory Government in releasing the report investigating new evidence in the Chamberlain case which will determine whether there will be an inquiry into the conviction of Mr and Mrs Chamberlain. In view of the Federal Government's residual powers in this matter, has the Federal Government knowledge of when the report will be released and, if not, will the Minister ask the Attorney-General to contact the Northern Territory Government- Senator Robert Ray —That is like interfering in States' rights. Have you gone mad? Senator BOSWELL —So that he can advise the Senate of the anticipated release date of the report? Senator GARETH EVANS —As stated by me on 14 June last year when Senator Mason first introduced a legislative response to this issue, the Government's view has been, and I suspect would remain, for the sorts of reasons referred to by Senator Ray in his interjection, that the matter is one to be resolved by the Northern Territory Government, which since 1978 has exercised full self-government powers in relation to matters of criminal justice arising within the Northern Territory. Senator Chipp —Do you reckon they have done them well? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are very obvious difficulties of principle involved in selective interference on a case by case basis. Senator Chipp —That is a reason why we should not have statehood here. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be a conclusion that many of us would wish to draw, Senator Chipp, but I do draw the Senate's attention to that long standing government policy, the implications of that policy and the principles behind it in their application to this particular matter. As to the question of the consideration by the Northern Territory Government of the material that was put before it, I am not in a position to advise the Senate of the anticipated release date of the Northern Territory Solicitor-General's report, but I will certainly see what can be done to obtain information on this matter. What is clear is that the report of the Solicitor-General appears to be taking a long time. I understand work was done on it as long ago as early June, if not earlier, and against that background it would seem an unhappy state of affairs for the matter to drag on very much longer. I will see what can be done in conjunction with the Attorney-General to expedite that and see what further information can be passed on to the Senate as soon as possible. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. At a function in Adelaide yesterday the Greek community gathered to initiate fund raising for its contribution to the chair of modern Greek at Flinders University, which chair is to be funded jointly by Commonwealth, State and Greek community contributions. Can the Minister elaborate on the contributions from the Commonwealth, the State and the Greek community and when the appointment of the first professor to the chair of modern Greek may be made? If no professorial appointment is planned in the near future, what other steps are planned or are in place to establish the chair and the attendant department? Senator RYAN —The function in Adelaide yesterday did indeed mark the end of the first phase; that is, the getting together of the founding money for the Greek chair. The next phase will be the appointment of the chair and the ability of Flinders University to take students. It was a very important occasion because it represented the fulfilment by the Hawke Labor Government of a major commitment to the academic community and the Greek community in South Australia. In this year's Budget I announced that there would be a quarter of a million dollars available for the foundation of the chair-$100,000 for expenditure in 1986 and $150,000 for expenditure in 1987. The State Minister for Education, Mr Lynn Arnold, was able yesterday to make available to Flinders University that Government's contribution so that early activities could be commenced immediately. The Greek community, which has been campaigning for a chair of modern Greek at Flinders University, has undertaken as its part of the agreement to raise funds from the community to back up the funds provided by the Commonwealth and State governments. As planning funds now are available it will be possible for Flinders University to set about finding a suitable person to be the foundation chair of this exciting new educational venture. As Senator Crowley will be aware, those matters are in the hands of the university, which is an autonomous institution. However, from discussions I have had with representatives of Flinders University I expect that they will be moving very fast and that indeed it may be possible for some students to commence studies at Flinders University next year. In any case, I think it is very heartening to see an education initiative so genuinely supported by the particular community it is meant to serve-although, of course, all students having access to this course at Flinders University will be well served by it. There is no doubt that in an Australia which is a multicultural society increasingly there will be a need for chairs such as this chair of modern Greek to reflect the realities of life in Australia-the realities of cultural language and other influences which go to make up part of our democratic society. This is a very exciting venture and I, along with Senator Crowley and many other people in South Australia, look forward to the announcement of the professor to the first chair. Senator VIGOR —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to his undertaking on 16 May this year, when both he and Senator Chaney supported in principle an Australian Democrat amendment to prohibit the import and the export of hazardous goods. I ask: What progress has been made on this matter, especially in relation to administrative procedures and points of definition? In particular, what declarations by importers and exporters and what use of computer equipment to register notified hazardous goods can be instituted better to identify attempts to dump known hazardous products in Australia or to introduce totally untested and potentially dangerous goods into this country? Senator BUTTON —Senator Vigor was kind enough to alert me to the fact that he was going to ask this question and to remind me of the previous discussion we had had in the Senate about the matter. Because of that previous discussion I am of course aware of the matter he raises. I can say that the Government sympathises with the problem his question addresses. However, there are difficulties in attempting to remedy the problem through the Customs arrangements. Some of the problems I point to are, for example, those of obtaining accurate information as to what goods are prohibited in overseas countries and for what reasons. This latter point is particularly pertinent as it may well be that we would not wish to prohibit goods which are banned in some countries for reasons particular or peculiar to that society. There is also the difficulty with the division of responsibility for advising on hazardous goods and controlling them. Unfortunately, the responsibility is spread among a number of government departments. Perhaps more importantly, authority to deal with the sale of such goods rests principally with the States. I make that point only to highlight the fact that there is no simple solution to the problem Senator Vigor raises. I make the point also that it is not just a question of hazardous goods. The problem relates, for example, to food imports into this country, which may or may not be hazardous. Because of the lack of uniformity of State legislation at this stage there is the very difficult question of implementing control at the barrier. However, having said that, the Government is concerned to explore every possible means by which some progress can be made, and I am having the matter examined in my Department at the moment. I will be happy to advise Senator Vigor of the results of that work as soon as I am able to do so. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I understand that repatriation pensioners have been advised by letter of the intention to pay all repatriation pensions directly to bank, building society or credit union accounts and that they have also been requested to supply details of the accounts to which they wish to have their pensions paid. Why has this decision been made and have pensioners an option if direct deposits are likely to be inconvenient or otherwise unsuitable? Senator GIETZELT —I recall a similar question being asked of me at the start of the Budget session. I pointed out then that the Department of Social Security had already moved to a direct credit system for all its beneficiaries and that, following the 14 May statement, it was proposed to do likewise with all repatriation payments. I indicated then that a small number of people such as those in remote regions did not want to have direct credit dealings for a number of other reasons such as the availability of nearby banks, and that the Government would apply a flexible policy regarding this direct credit system. Letters have gone out to the remaining approximately 10 per cent of those who did not avail themselves of the first offer to change to the direct credit system. I reiterate to those honourable senators to whom requests are made by beneficiaries that it is in beneficiaries' interests to have direct credit arrangements made so that money can be paid directly to their bank accounts. But where they do not have bank accounts or are in remote areas, the Department is still prepared to be flexible and will post out the cheques, as the system previously operated. The purpose of the change in the system was to save approximately $1m in my Department, as well as it being in an overall sense a more efficient way of making regular payments to beneficiaries. However, if there are circumstances that require some flexibility, the Department is prepared to exercise it. Senator MISSEN —My question relates to the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Nassau. I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: First, was the situation of Sri Lanka raised by Australia or any other nation at that meeting? Secondly, were any proposals made at the meeting for the resolution of the escalating unrest and the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka? Thirdly, what was the response of the Sri Lankan Government to these proposals? Fourthly, what additional action does the Australian Government plan in an effort to achieve a peaceful solution to the current conflict in Sri Lanka? Senator BUTTON —Senator Missen gave notice that he intended to ask this question. I say that only because for me to take it upon myself to assume the great erudition and knowledge in the answer would be misleading. The matter was raised in the formal session at the meeting by President Jayewardene of Sri Lanka. He referred to Sri Lanka's consistent good record on human rights and the fact that these were guaranteed by the Sri Lankan Constitution. The President stated that emergency powers could be invoked when the security of the state was at issue. He expressed the hope that it might be possible to bring peace once again to the troubled north and east of Sri Lanka and that the leaders of the terrorist group living and operating abroad would call a halt to their actions. He reaffirmed his belief in the democratic principle and great ideal of non-violence. At CHOGM the Sri Lankan President privately raised with the Prime Minister remarks by our Leader of the Opposition comparing the situation in Sri Lanka with that in South Africa. The Prime Minister informed Mr Jayewardene that Australia was a democratic country and it was open to Opposition parties in the Parliament and anywhere else to say what they liked. The Prime Minister dis- sociated the Australian Government from that position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, Senator Missen asked whether any proposals were made at the meeting for the resolution of the escalating unrest. I am advised that the answer to that question is no. The third question of what was the response in that circumstance becomes redundant. Finally, he asked what additional action the Australian Government plans to take in an effort to achieve a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. The answer that I have been provided with is that Australia remains deeply concerned by the continuation of the communal conflicts in Sri Lanka and has actively encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to seek a political compromise. Australia's concerns have been expressed to that Government on numerous occasions. Mr Hayden discussed the matter in detail with President Jayewardene in May this year. The Government believes that an early and peaceful solution to the intercommunal problems is essential and supports any move in that direction, in particular the efforts presently being made by India. We welcome recent indications that some positive developments may eventuate with the establishment of a ceasefire monitoring committee. It is hoped that direct political dialogue on the communal issue will resume shortly. Australia will support any move which is conducive to finding a solution to the problem and to avoiding any action that would be unhelpful to what is a very difficult issue. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for that answer, but am I to understand that all that happened at CHOGM were initiatives from the President of Sri Lanka, with the propaganda which Mr Hayden knows to be false, and that no action was taken by the Australian Government or other Western governments to raise these issues which are vital and to put the point of view of Western countries that believe in human rights? Senator BUTTON —On the basis of the answer I have already given, the answer to that supplementary question is yes. But I again remind Senator Missen of the latter part of the answer to the question that indicated that Mr Hayden had raised these issues on several occasions this year. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. On the tenth anniversary of the sacking of the Whitlam Government, I ask: What is the nature of the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States base at Pine Gap? Is the Prime Minister concerned that CIA involvement via Pine Gap in particular may lead to a repeat of those circumstances of 1975? If not, is it because the right wing of the Labor Party has in fact given up all pretensions to being a party of reform and is now seeking to become a compliant ally, much as its Liberal Party predecessors did? Senator BUTTON —The position adopted by the present Government with regard to the United States communications facilities in Australia is no different from the position adopted by the Whitlam Government. I too heard the AM program this morning in which there was some totally unconvincing discussion of possible CIA involvement in the fall of the Whitlam Government. I must say that I have at no stage discounted the possibility of involvement of security organisations in the events of 11 November 1975. On the other hand, on the basis of such evidence as I have seen, I am not totally able to assert that any such involvement took place. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In view of the opposition to many of the governments of the States of Australia, the criticism expressed at the Northern Australia Development Conference in Darwin last week and the media reports of Aboriginal dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's proposed national land rights legislation, what are the Federal Government's intentions now in relation to the introduction of such legislation? Is it not now to be proceeded with or does the Government still stand firm? Will any such legislation be in accordance with the five principles enunciated in Mr Holding's preferred land rights model? Finally, I also draw the Minister's attention to statements made at the NADC last week regarding the Federal Government's intention to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. When is it the Government's intention to introduce such legislation? As there has been no clear statement of what such legislation would achieve, can the Minister at least explain the proposed function of the tribunal which has been mooted by the Minister, Mr Holding? Senator RYAN —I am not familiar with the proceedings of the Northern Australia Development Conference but I can assure Senator Kilgariff that our Government has not shifted its position on the issue of land rights in the last few days, weeks or months. In fact, there has been no change in policy on land rights since our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, first announced the general principles which we wish to see incorporated in land rights legislation throughout Australia. Those principles should be very well known in this place because they have been repeated on many occasions by me in answers to questions, especially from Senator Kilgariff, and in many of the debates that we have had on this subject. I remind Senator Kilgariff that the Government has considered the responses to the preferred model and has endorsed the principle of the model as a proper, reasonable and balanced basis for the implementation of land rights in all parts of Australia. The Commonwealth's clearly preferred position is that, except in the case of the national heritage protection matters, land rights should be implemented by State legislative and administrative action broadly consistent with the preferred model rather than by overriding Commonwealth legislation. The Government has been consistent in this view and the Minister's Press release of 14 August clearly set down this position. There has been no change since then. The Government will continue discussions with all the relevant Northern Territory interests to finalise acceptable legislative amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 based on the preferred model and the Toohey and Altman reviews. The Government hopes to secure the general acceptance and implementation of the basic principles of the preferred model through consultation with the States over the course of the next 12 months and in this respect will further review the progress of continuing negotiations with the States early in 1986. The preferred model is consistent with and will give effect to the fundamental principles of Australian Labor Party policy except insofar as the model does not address the question of compensation for lost land. This is a matter for consideration when the extent of the application of the first four principles is known. In his very lengthy question to me, Senator Kilgariff asked what will be the function of the tribunal set out in the preferred model. That function has been explained on many occasions but I will explain it again briefly. The tribunal will exist to give the opportunity for Aboriginal owners to oppose mining on their land and to express their reasons for not wishing a particular mining or exploration venture to take place. At the same time, it will allow those who believe that the proposed mining venture is an important and necessary one or one in which they wish to participate to put their views before the tribunal. In other words, all interested parties-Aboriginal traditional owners, mining companies and others interested in development-will have the opportunity to put their views about a proposed development which is on land owned by traditional owners under our legislation. It will then be the job of the tribunal to decide whether the opposition, in the event that opposition is expressed by the Aboriginal owners, is so great as to be upheld or whether the opposition can be outweighed by other matters of national interest put forward by those who wish to develop. The tribunal's function will be to adjudicate between opposing views on the question of a proposed mineral or any other mining exploration development on Aboriginal land. Senator KILGARIFF —I ask a supplementary question of the Minister: Is she in a position to be able to advise when the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act may be enacted? If not, will she advise the Senate at a later time when she has obtained the information? Senator RYAN —I said in my reply to Senator Kilgariff that further discussions are to be held between our Government and all relevant Territory interests before acceptable legislative amendments to the Northern Territory legislation can be finalised. I cannot predict how long those amendments will take to be finalised, but the Government hopes to secure the general acceptance and implementation of the principles which those amendments will be a part of within the next 12 months. Should more progress be made in securing the agreement of parties with a proper interest in these matters, I will be very happy to inform Senator Kilgariff of that progress. Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is there any evidence in the unemployment figures released last week to support the suggestion that Labor governments are better than conservative governments at handling unemployment? Senator WALSH —It is very clear, taking the unemployment rates as the measure of performance on a State by State basis, that Tasmania and Queensland have rates far higher than those of any other State-indeed, 9 per cent and 8.3 per cent respectively, or an average of 8.65 per cent for the two States. If it were not for those two States the average of the rest of Australia would be 7.25 per cent. So if Queensland and Tasmania had maintained records comparable to those of the four Labor States the national average unemployment rate would have been down by more than an additional half per cent, to just over 7 per cent. Let us look at the other States. Victoria has the lowest unemployment rate in the country with 6.3 per cent and the rates go up through Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia. Then we come to the also-rans, the non-Labor States of Queensland with 8.3 per cent and Tasmania with 9 per cent. So on a State by State comparison within the same time there is very clear evidence that unemployment rates are higher in non-Labor States. If one looks at the national figures over a period, exactly the same sort of conclusion has to be reached so far as national governments are concerned; that is, despite the small and short-lived blip in 1979-80, the Fraser Government presided over a continuously rising trend in the unemployment rate and the present Government, since it has been in office, has presided over a continuously declining trend in the unemployment rate, which is now down from the 10.4 per cent which we inherited in 1983 to 7.8 per cent or 7.9 per cent in the most recent monthly figures. Senator GARETH EVANS —Last Friday Senator Mason asked a question of Senator Walsh, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in my absence, about ANZUS obligations in relation to the Philippines. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has supplied the following answer: An insurrection in the Philippines by the New People's Army would not of itself lead to an invoking of ANZUS Treaty obligations. An armed attack on United States forces located in the Philippines could provide grounds for activation of Articles IV and V of the ANZUS Treaty. This was one of a number of hypothetical illustrations referred to by Mr Hayden in his speech at Lorne in May this year of the possible repercussions of treaty commitments. Australia's response to hypothetical situations cannot be determined in advance. Article III of the treaty obliges the parties to consult if the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of them is threatened in the Pacific. Article IV requires each party, in response to an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them, to act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. The commitment to respond does not extend automatically to a military response. Any one of a range of possible responses, such as diplomatic, political or economic action or logistic support, might be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. While Australia would be bound to consult, the nature of any support it might give would be a matter for decision by the government of the day. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Hamer rather wistfully asked a question on 5 November about HMAS Stalwart to which the Minister for Defence has now provided the following reply: I am not aware of the particular statement referred to. However, it is not at all unusual for defects to occur during sea trials following a ship's refit. In the case of HMAS Stalwart, time to conduct defect rectification was included in the ship's sea trials program. Since leaving Sydney the ship has identified eight equipment defects requiring external assistance and most will be rectified by uniformed staff in due course, a normal practice. Fleet Staff are required to carry out an on-board safety inspection at the completion of a ship's refit. The aim of the inspection is to ensure that the ship is safe to proceed to sea for trials. I have no information to indicate that dockyard quality control was a contributing factor in the recent tragic accident. Let me assure you, however, that quality control is generally satisfactory in our naval dockyards. Attention is always being given to improving the standard of work performed. The full details of the circumstances of this accident will not, of course, be known until the board of inquiry has completed its report, and that report has been reviewed. The PRESIDENT —During Question Time today I noted that Senator Lewis gave an answer to a question put to him by Senator Puplick in Senator Lewis's position as a senator having charge of a matter on the Notice Paper. I understand that a question seeking information from another honourable senator in charge of another matter on the Notice Paper was also asked last week in my absence. Whilst I am not suggesting for one moment that there was any breach of the Standing Orders in Senator Lewis's answer today, it may be of some interest to honourable senators to consider whether, in exercising their right to answer a question on any matter of this nature, there is any problem involved between two standing orders which could well conflict on the matter; namely, standing order 98, which permits questions of this nature to be asked and answered, and standing order 419, which says that no honourable senator can anticipate debate on a matter on the Notice Paper. I suggest that there is a potential difficulty in that area and I urge honourable senators in answering questions of that nature to bear the matter in mind. It may well be a matter that should be looked at by the Standing Orders Committee. Senator Chaney-Mr President, may I just say in response to that comment of yours that the strict application of standing order 419 would rule out of order perhaps half, if not two-thirds, of the questions asked in this place. The Opposition will certainly consider the point that you have raised, but I think there is some inherent conflict there which usage in this place would suggest has meant that operations have proceeded on the basis that Question Time permits the raising of matters such as tax, which may be the subject of legislation before us. The PRESIDENT —I am pointing out the problems that the Chair has in the matter. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Senator Sibraa, in response to a comment I made about Australia's most pampered bureaucracy or qango, Qantas Airways Ltd, the flying qangaroo, questioned whether my figures were accurate relating to the Continental Airlines return fare from Los Angeles to Melbourne to Los Angeles which I stated as $US467, less than half the Qantas fare for Australians going in the other direction. Senator Gietzelt replied that I was just indulging in a bit of rhetoric. It was not a bit of rhetoric. In fact, I obtained my figures from a Continental Airlines captain on a flight which I was on from Fiji to Sydney. Those cheaper fares are very much in line with the fares which have come about through deregulation in the United States. I stand by my figures. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from Senator Hill proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The detrimental effect on South Australians of the high interest and high taxation policies of current Labor governments. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.16) —I raise the matter of `the detrimental effect on South Australians of the high interest and high taxation policies of current Labor governments'. It might be said that the matter is raised at this time because of the South Australian election to be held on 7 December. If that is said, it is true, because that will be when South Australians have the chance not only to change the direction of the State Government in relation to these policies but also to bring home a message to Prime Minister Hawke that his high taxation policies, included within his recently released package, and his high interest rate policies are clearly not in the best interests of the Australian people. The South Australian voters will tell him that on 7 December. The South Australian Premier intends that this be a `feel good' election. It was typified by his advertisement in last Wednesday's Advertiser when two-thirds of a page was taken up with a photo of a smiling Mr Bannon sitting in a racing car. The advertisement states: `South Australians should feel good'. We did enjoy the car race. Next year there will be a major horse jumping event in South Australia. The following year there will be a motor cycle race which, I understand, will be of international significance. We are building a casino. We are told that the conversion of our old railway station will give us the most luxurious casino in Australia. A new hotel will go with it. It might be said that we have been a little late getting into the casino race and the novelty has worn off; nevertheless, we are now building the most luxurious casino in Australia. No doubt all of us like to be involved in these major events. That is not an issue in this election. We are prepared to give credit for what the Government has managed to contribute to these so-called major events. According to the polls, 75 per cent of us like Mr Bannon, the Premier of South Australia. Seventy-five per cent of us find him appealing. Clearly, on such figures, he is well liked. That also is not in dispute in this election. What this election is all about is not a popularity contest, as Mr Bannon would no doubt like, but under which sets of policies, Labor or Liberal-I say to Senator Haines that I regret I cannot include the Australian Democrats-would South Australia be better off. Would the people of South Australia be better off under the high tax policies of Labor governments or the lower tax policies of the Liberals? I am pleased to advise honourable senators that it was announced today that under an Olsen government South Australia would take a lead as the first State to abolish financial institutions duty taxation, a precedent that all South Australians would no doubt applaud. Would they be better off under the high interest rate policies of Labor, or would they be better off under a Liberal government which was prepared to bite the bullet and reduce the size of government and thus relieve pressure on interest rates? Would they be better off under Labor's large government policies? A further 6,000 public servants have been employed in South Australia in the three years of the Bannon Government which, I understand, is costing some $100m a year. Would South Australians be better off under that type of expenditure which requires the high tax and high interest rate policies which we see from Labor and which are the subject of this debate, or would they prefer to get services that can be better and more cheaply performed by the private sector? Would they prefer to get them outside government? I might say in passing that the Liberal Party surveys are putting a lie to the myth that Australians are concerned by the notion of privatisation. It appears that all Australians can see many examples of services that could be more cheaply and better performed by the private sector and would be only too pleased to see that be the case and have their taxation bills reduced accordingly. Would they be better off under Labor's tentative and ineffective responses to crime, or would they prefer to take some real and positive steps in that area? I only have to remind honourable senators of the backtracking by this Labor Government in relation to phone tapping. It was said at a crime conference some time ago that State police would be given power under judicial warrant to phone tap in the case of serious drug offences. Since then the Government has backtracked, which is evidence of its insincerity in the area of really attacking serious crime. Lastly, do South Australians really want Labor's education policies, or a program which as Senator Teague, who is an expert in this field, knows would give kids a better chance of being qualified for work and an opportunity of more discipline and competition and fewer soft options? Senator Teague —The Liberals do much better on education. Senator HILL —The Liberals have better policies on education. These are the serious questions on which this election is to be fought. These are the real issues that will be the subject of debate over the forthcoming month and upon which the voters will cast their determination on 7 December-not car races, casinos and smiling politicians. Under which alternative government would the people be better off? Senator Crowley —We know. Senator HILL —Senator Crowley may not be concerned about those people in outer metropolitan Adelaide who are battling to pay their bills and those who are worried about their kids' future. They know that their future will not be secured by car races and casinos. Car races and casinos are history from the point of view of this election. Senator Crowley —They are not running on that. They are running on their record. Senator HILL —It is an election about real issues. The Australian Labor Party wants to fight the election on the basis of smiling faces and casinos, but there are more serious issues facing the South Australian people. Let us look briefly at the record of the Labor Government in some of these critical areas. I revive a few memories for honourable senators. They will no doubt remember that Mr Bannon promised not to increase the rates of existing taxes or to introduce any new taxes. Since that promise, in fact, State tax collections under the Bannon Government have increased by 55.2 per cent. That is an increase of 55.2 per cent over three years, which I understand is a higher figure than exists in any other State in Australia. I understand that it is a higher figure than for any other single government in South Australia's history. As I indicated earlier, the State Government has included the FID tax-Labor's new FID tax on bank accounts. That was the first new tax to be imposed in over 10 years. Remember the promise that Mr Bannon would introduce no new taxes. Immediately that promise was broken. The FID or fiddle tax even taxes the bank accounts of school children. Let us add to the State's sorry record of taxation that of the Federal Labor Government and look at its policies. Under the package that is before us a capital gains tax is to be introduced. It is not just any ordinary capital gains tax. It is a capital gains tax at marginal income tax rates. Perhaps Senator Maguire will tell us what other countries in the world tax capital at marginal income tax rates. I cannot think of any. The measure is about to come into effect. On the subject of promises, we might remember Mr Hawke's promise. Mr Hawke said: `Let me say in syllables that even my opponents can understand that we will not introduce a capital gains tax'. In the next term after that promise was made, a fringe benefits tax has been proposed. It is a new and additional tax proposed by Labor. It is a tax on employers, and shows the attitude of this Government quite clearly in regard to further employment opportunities. Honourable senators should look at the predictions that we are now receiving in regard to what it will do to the car industry, which is vital to South Australia. I note that Senator Foreman, a former member of the Vehicle Builders Union, will be speaking in this debate. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the effect of the fringe benefits tax upon the car industry in South Australia. But we know who pays in the end. In the first instance it might be the employer who pays, but in the end, as always, it is the consumer who pays the cost. Let us look at the exclusion of entertainment costs as a deduction in incurring taxable income. It is true that there have been abuses that must be cut out. But the standard answer of Labor governments is to take the sledge-hammer and that is what it did in that case. In many instances it is outlawing what is a very legitimate and reasonable expense in the earning of an income. The Labor Party knows that that is so, particularly in the case of the service industries. So that deduction is being cut out and business profits and employment will suffer. Mr Deputy President, no doubt you have seen predictions from the restaurant industry, which has a real reason to complain because its businesses were set up under the existing interpretation of the taxation regime. It has found that a red pencil is being slashed through that deduction, and employment in that industry will suffer. Employment opportunities in South Australia will suffer as a result of that action. I have mentioned the Vehicle Builders Union. In South Australia under the last two years of Labor government 14,000 jobs have already been lost in the manufacturing industry. That is something that those on the other side might like to consider when they speak in this debate. I would have thought that that alone was a real reason for this Government to be particularly concerned about the employment consequences of its taxation package, but apparently it is not. It is true that some reduction in income tax rates will be offered. But I remind the Senate that that will take place in the future. It is very much a case of a person paying up now and being given a small advantage in the future, by which time inflation will have taken its toll and, in any event, his income would largely have moved into the next tax bracket. So it would seem to be very much an illusory benefit. I remind the Senate also that it has become more illusory because inflation under this Government is on the rise again. Already our inflation rate is significantly ahead of that of our trading partners, which does not augur well for the economic future of this country. Therefore, what the voters will remember on the subject of taxation is the sorry contribution of the State Labor Government and what they can see in the pipeline after the announcements by the Federal Labor Government. They will accordingly vote against those policies on 7 December. Here are some more memories: Mr Bannon promised to reduce housing interest rates. They are now higher in real terms than they have been at any time in the last 50 years. That can be related directly to Labor's large government and high expenditure policies, at both State and Federal levels. First, it was a case of governments competing in the market place for funds to maintain excessive expenditure. Now it is a case of propping up the Australian dollar which, as we all know, has crashed as a result of Labor's economic policies. Some South Australians who have saved for many years for their first overseas trip will be terribly disappointed when they find that they can no longer afford that trip because hotel accommodation, et cetera, will have doubled in price as a result of the crash of the Australian dollar. I suggest that that is a sorry economic achievement. What does the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, say about this achievement of high interest rates? Only last Saturday, after he spoke in Adelaide, an article in the Adelaide Advertiser stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, yesterday warned of continuing high interest rates and said Australians would have to learn to live with them. The high interest rates have arisen because of his poorly conceived policies. Instead of looking to rectify them or even expressing sympathy, he simply says to those living in the marginal areas: `Bad luck chaps, but you will just have to live with those high interest rates that we have inflicted upon you'. Senator Teague —We need a change of government. Senator HILL —We will have a change of government in South Australia, Senator. As a further example, what did Mr Bannon do about interest rates in South Australia? Shamelessly, in an effort to try to win cheap votes, he agreed to authorise an increase in building society interest rates but said that the Government would pay the difference; in other words, the taxpayer would pay the difference. He taxes the total community, including many who are paying even higher interest rates on their own home loans, in order to subsidise a particular sector of the borrowing community. I cannot imagine who would suggest that that is sensible economic policy. I am sure that there will not be any attempt today by those on the other side to justify that policy. In regard to interest rates, Mr Bannon should be condemned. The State Bank of South Australia, the people's bank, has been offering money to consumers at a market rate instead of at the rate which is subject to a ceiling under legislation. Unfortunately in certain circumstances it forgot to tell the borrowers that that was the case. Now, embarrassingly it is having to renegotiate. That is a sorry story and something about which, no doubt, South Australians will vote wisely on 7 December, particularly those who have been forced to buy homes in the outer metropolitan areas of Adelaide because of Labor's high interest rate policy. Mr Bannon also said that he would reduce unemployment. What is the position now in South Australia in regard to unemployment? It is largely no better off now than it was three years ago. In regard to youth unemployment we find that we have the highest level of unemployment-this is for teenagers-of any mainland State. That is shameful. Over 51,000 South Australians are still unemployed and the young people in our State are the worst off of all. How will South Australians vote in regard to that matter? What did Mr Bannon do in regard to that issue? He shamelessly took up the Federal Government's Priority One trainee scheme and renamed it YES-the youth employment scheme-and then spent $300,000 of South Australian taxpayers' money in promoting it as his own solution. No doubt Senator Vanstone in a little while will give further reasons why that scheme will not adequately address youth unemployment. It is simply part of a total election fraud. The last memory of which I remind you, Mr Deputy President, concerns the cost of living. Mr Bannon promised to contain Adelaide's cost of living. I advise the Senate that the cost of living increase in the last financial year in Adelaide was higher than that in any other capital city in Australia. Under Labor, petrol has gone up by 36 per cent. In regard to housing, an average bank loan has increased by 55 per cent; interest rates, which I have been talking about, by 55 per cent. Bread has gone up by 21 per cent; beer by 27 per cent; electricity by 41 per cent; water rates by 64 per cent; and bus fares have gone up by 43 per cent. These are the matters that those who are struggling under Labor's high tax, high interest rate policies will remember when they go to the polls to vote on 7 December. They are the real issues that South Australians will take into account. They will not be conned by Mr Bannon. I give the Senate an example. In regard to the advertisement I was talking about which portrays the smiling face of Mr Bannon, he even claims credit for Roxby Downs. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, that in the lower House the whole of his Party voted against Roxby Downs. The legislation was passed by the South Australian Parliament only because one of his members deserted and voted with the other side. In this document he claims credit for Roxby Downs and for Technology Park, another fine innovation of the former Tonkin Liberal Government; and so the story continues. South Australians are not so gullible. They will not be fooled by smiling faces in grand prix cars. What they will vote upon at the forthcoming election is performance and promises on taxation, interest rates, the cost of living, education policies and on what policies the Government and the alternative government offer for physical security of the South Australian electorate. Those are the issues upon which the electorate will vote. They are critical issues; they are issues upon which the Labor Government has failed. The Liberal Government is putting up better and more worthwhile alternatives for the benefit of all South Australians. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.35) —This afternoon I speak on the matter of public importance on interest rates and taxation which has been raised by Senator Hill from South Australia. I was rather surprised, as I know Senator Crowley was, at how much Senator Hill spoke this afternoon about the capital gains tax. Last week I had the opportunity to read Senator Hill's maiden speech in this place on 9 September 1981. This afternoon I would like to quote some relevant sections from that speech. Senator Hill said: . . . those whose wealth is increased by capital gains rather than by income do not share in the taxation burden. He continued: We cannot forever remain the only highly developed nation without some form of capital or equivalent taxation at the Federal level. I am not quoting an Australian Labor Party member of Parliament; I am quoting Senator Hill who this afternoon had the breathtaking gall to raise a matter of public importance on the detrimental effects of taxation on the Australian economy. Four years ago Senator Hill is on record in this chamber calling for a capital gains tax and this afternoon he criticised the Government of Australia for imposing a capital gains tax. I have said time and time again in this place that the Government's tax policies involve a redistribution of the Australian tax burden. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made it abundantly clear that there will be no increase in the overall level of taxation in this country as a result of the Government's tax package. It has been made clear time and time again that we are talking about a redistribution and not an increase in the tax burden. The taxation level will not rise in relation to Australia's gross domestic product. There will be no overall lift in tax levels in this country. I would like to make some comparisons between what will result from the Government's tax package and the taxation arrangements which applied under the Fraser-Howard Government in this country. It is very important to note that under the Labor Government as from September next year the bottom marginal tax rate in Australia will be 24c in the dollar. The best tax rate the Liberal Party could manage when in government was 30c in the dollar. That is the difference between the two parties. The Labor Party's bottom rate will be 24c in the dollar; the best rate the Opposition, when in government, could manage was 30c in the dollar. That is a very big difference. I think the Liberal Party has a long way to go before it can claim that it is a low tax party when the best it could manage was 30c in the dollar as a bottom tax rate. We announced that stage one of our tax cuts would apply from November last year. A tax cut of $7.60 a week applied to all wage and salary earners with incomes between $240 and $538 a week, a very significant tax cut. It was stage one of our three-year plan to reduce taxation in Australia. Those tax cuts were of major benefit to Australia's lower and middle income earners. From July next year the Government will increase the tax free threshold-the bottom level of income which is totally exempt from taxation-from $4,595 to $5,100, a significant rise in the tax free threshold. As I have indicated, the bottom tax rate will go down to 24c in the dollar. The 46c in the dollar tax rate which is paid by many middle income earners in this country will be reduced in 1987 to 40c in the dollar. This is a very significant taxation reduction for lower and middle income earners in Australia. I estimate that as a result of those changes persons on the average wage in Australia will benefit by a $6 a week reduction in income tax. That is a very large cut in tax on top of the $7.60 a week reduction which applied from November last year. I turn to the reduction in the Medicare levy and the arrangements which came into effect just this month. A single income household with two dependent children will be totally exempt from paying the Medicare levy if their income is below $15,564-quite a significant income. Those are the sorts of cuts in income tax and tax levies which have been made under this Government. I think we can justifiably claim that for lower and middle income earners we are certainly the low tax party in this country. I turn to Premier Bannon's 1985 Budget in South Australia. I point out that in that Budget he also brought in a range of taxation reductions and a range of reductions in State charges. He reduced stamp duties; he reduced the 5 per cent levy on turnover of the Electricity Trust of South Australia. That, in turn, will cut electricity bills-a very welcome reduction, I am sure. He has provided for a higher payroll tax exemption. Small businesses in South Australia are benefiting significantly from an exemption in payroll tax levels in South Australia. Those with a payroll amounting to around $250,000 a year will now no longer be liable for payroll tax. It is a very worthwhile saving. Those are some very tangible reductions in taxation which have been made by the South Australian Premier, John Bannon. This afternoon Senator Hill made nonsensical allegations about the high levels of taxation in South Australia. I wonder whether he has ever read the Commonwealth Grants Commission reports on State funding. I challenge him to find a section in a Commonwealth Grants Commission report-the Commission is the body in charge of recommending the funds that Canberra allocates to the States-which indicates that State taxes are high in South Australia, because they are not high in South Australia, and quote it chapter and verse. They are about average; they are right in the middle. This afternoon Senator Hill talked a load of nonsense when he claimed that State taxes in South Australia are high. The Commonwealth Grants Commission-the most authoritive body on Federal-State relations in Australia-has never indicated that State taxes in South Australia are high. On 10 November 1982 we had to tidy up the mess in South Australia's finances. I will tell honourable senators some of the things that were happening in that period in South Australia because I had to deal with the mess first hand. I happened to be one of the poor unfortunates who had to audit the State books and indicate just what was the order of the State deficit year after year under the Tonkin Liberal Administration. No wonder Dr Tonkin went to live overseas after the mess he left South Australia's finances in. When the Labor Party came to government and first audited the State's books it found that the recurrent deficit for a small State such as South Australia ran at $60m a year as a result of the policies of the Tonkin Government. Senator Elstob —How much? Senator MAGUIRE —It was $60m a year, an incredible figure for a small State. One of the things that had been done in South Australia under the Tonkin Government was that capital works had been bled dry as a result of its policies. Virtually no capital works spending occurred under the State Government as a result of the Tonkin Government's policy. Year in, year out, to try to cover up the hole in State finances that the Tonkin Government had created, it simply transferred capital works money provided by the Commonwealth Government in Canberra, to pay for biros, wages and salaries and pads of paper to keep the State running. That is what was going on. Vital capital works spending was being diverted to cover the basic recurrent costs of running the State. The Tonkin Government was using the mortgage money to pay the rent and the grocery bill. That is what was going on in South Australia under the Tonkin Liberal Government. This afternoon we have heard some comments about interest rates from Senator Hill. I remember analysing interest rates under Mr Howard's policies. In a two-year period in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a four percentage points rise-from 9 1/2 per cent to 13 1/2 per cent-an incredible rise in interest rates when Mr Howard was Federal Treasurer. That is the sort of impact that drove South Australia to its knees in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Senator Hill claims that interest rates are high now. I certainly do not believe they are acceptable, but the fact is that in the early 1980s we had very high interest rates on top of a depressed economy. In South Australia we had very high interest rates; we had negative economic growth; we had a reduction in the total number of persons employed; we had an increase in unemployment. We had high interest rates on top of a stagnating economy. I challenge anybody to say today that interest rates, whatever their levels might be, are holding back economic activity. We are experiencing one of the most rapid improvements in the national economic situation for many years. That improvement is certainly being shared, as Senator Crowley is well aware, in our State of South Australia, where we are experiencing very rapid economic growth. Senator Hill skirted around the figures, and he ignored the situation in the housing sector, making special pleas about people living in outer metropolitan areas. My word, that is the first time I have ever heard the Liberal Party taking an interest in people living in the outer metropolitan areas of Australia. Let us look at what has been happening in housing in South Australia under the Labor Government. When the Tonkin Government lost office in 1982-83, the total number of new dwellings approved in South Australia was 8,700. That was the legacy that that Government left South Australia. In the year that has just finished, 1984-85, the figure was not 8,700 new dwelling approvals but 15,000. That is the increase in new dwelling approvals under the Labor Government in South Australia-a tremendous increase, and one that has produced enormous benefits for the State economy. This really shows the achievements under Labor in our State. The crisis in housing in South Australia is over because the Bannon and Hawke governments gave the housing sector high priority. We embarked on a public sector-private sector partnership to boost housing activity in South Australia, because we know that housing is not just a matter of providing shelter, although shelter is a very important thing; it is also a very labour intensive sector. It creates a lot of jobs. There are a lot of flow-on jobs to manufacturing industry, which is also very important in South Australia. So, as a deliberate matter of strategy, we gave a boost to the housing sector. At the national level we introduced the first home owners scheme, and in South Australia we introduced the home ownership made easier plan, both of which have the effect of assisting lower income households to purchase dwellings by, among other things, overcoming the deposit gap, the inability to save out of low incomes a significant amount of money to put down as a deposit. That is the sort of boost given to housing and employment in South Australia under the policies of the Bannon and Hawke governments. I should like to refer to some other information on housing because many people just do not realise the extent to which the housing sector in South Australia has been boosted in the last three years. My colleague in another place, Mr Beddall, asked the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) about the role of public housing in South Australia and Queensland. I should like to place on record the sheer size of public sector housing activity in my State, because although South Australia has the second lowest population of all the States, absolutely, in dollar terms, it has the second largest public housing activity. South Australia, under John Bannon's leadership, is now spending more on public housing than is Victoria, which has three times the population of South Australia. South Australia is spending on public housing a huge amount more than your State, Mr Acting Deputy President, under the Bjelke-Petersen Government, and Queensland has a million more people than South Australia. I am not talking just about public rental housing; I am also talking about funds through public organisations to provide for owner occupied housing. South Australia, under John Bannon, is spending $183 per head of population on public housing compared with a national average of $82. So South Australia is spending on public housing more than twice the national average and almost three times the level in Queensland, where the figure is not $183, as it is in South Australia, but $67 per head of population. Last Thursday, in the build-up to this State election in South Australia, I happened to be reading the Adelaide Advertiser. I saw a comment from the Leader of the Opposition about what the issues would be in this election campaign. He said that the issues would be jobs, and unemployment. There is no reference to this in this matter of public importance today. I can see no reference to jobs or employment. Certainly Senator Hill's speech this afternoon was notable for the absence of reference to employment in South Australia. What actually happened was that between Thursday morning, when the Opposition Leader was reported in the Adelaide Advertiser as saying that employment was going to be a major issue in South Australia, and the calling of the poll yesterday, the issue of jobs dropped off his agenda. To put it bluntly, that is what has happened. The issue of jobs in South Australia has dropped off his agenda. I searched around to find why the Leader of the Opposition was talking about jobs on Thursday but other things on Sunday. Then I realised that the unemployment figures had been released last Thursday. Of course, they had shown further strong economic growth in South Australia, a further boost in the job market, and a big reduction in the unemployment rate. There went one election issue before the election had even been called. It was very unfortunate for the Leader of the Opposition to have said that. He got caught, and the issue evaporated in the space of a few hours. The fact is that in the three months to October this year compared with the three months to October last year, in South Australia there has been a 2.8 per cent increase in the number of persons at work. We are not talking about job creation schemes or band-aid measures; we are talking about long term permanent jobs in the private sector. There has been a 15,500 increase in the number of long term jobs in South Australia compared with the same time last year-a tremendous increase in employment opportunities. At the same time, unemployment has been reduced dramatically. In October 1984, 59,300 persons were unemployed in South Australia; in October 1985 the figure was 51,700-a reduction of 7,600 in one 12-month period. The unemployment rate has come down from 10.4 per cent in October last year to 8.2 per cent in October this year. That is why the Opposition Leader dropped the issue off the agenda. Before the election campaign started, the jobs issue was off the map. So he is obviously behind the eight- ball in campaigning in this election. I well remember in my previous occupation, working in Adelaide between 1979 and 1982, that consistently, in virtually every month of those three years and for almost 36 months in a row, South Australia had the highest unemployment rate of all the States. For practically the whole of that period under the Tonkin Government we had the highest unemployment rate. You would be aware of that, Mr Acting Deputy President. That was the fact of the matter in South Australia. In Question Time this afternoon we were told by Senator Walsh, and correctly, that South Australia has not got the highest unemployment rate of the Australian States. It did in the three years from 1979 to 1982, but that is not true any more. Tasmania now has the highest rate of all the States. Queensland-you are well aware of this, Mr Acting Deputy President-has the second highest rate of unemployment, not South Australia. South Australia was always the highest, but not now. That is yet another reason why the jobs issue has gone from the Liberal's agenda in this election campaign. They are some of the points I think should have been made this afternoon by Senator Hill. They were studiously ignored by him. The fact is that under the Bannon Government, South Australia has had a tremendous record of growth, employment and reduced unemployment. There have been tax cuts also. But we are not going to run on our record. We are talking about what we will do in our next term. We will ensure that South Australia wins the submarine project to continue economic growth in our State. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.55) —The matter of public importance that we are allegedly debating today, introduced by Senator Hill, states: The detrimental effect on South Australians of the high interest and high taxation policies of current Labor governments. I have no particular argument about that; quite clearly high interest rates and high taxation policies are going to have a detrimental effect on most people, particularly those who are living in States like South Australia with a large area and a small population who have large distances to travel and who are in need of significant grants-which they never seem to get-from the high taxation that is imposed upon them. On the other hand, it ought to be pointed out to Senator Hill and to others that this situation merely continued as a legacy from the previous Fraser Liberal Government. Under that Government we faced equally high interest rates, particularly in the housing area, we suffered high taxation and the people of South Australia rarely received by way of grants for things like roads and so on their fair share of what was being handed out. They did not receive a fair share according to their population; they did not receive their fair share according to the kilometres of roads that we have; they did not receive a fair share according to the amount of east-west traffic that chews up those roads and imposes an enormous burden on both State and local government for maintenance, repair and expansion. So it is encumbent on Senator Hill and his colleagues to remember that the problems facing South Australia are not just those caused by the policies of the current Labor Government. Senator Hill spent the first seven or so minutes of his speech talking about Liberal policies on education, on health and on the Public Service. He talked about car races and casinos and he said that the election was about far more serious and real issues than those. When he did finally get around to talking about the matter of public importance, about taxation, he demonstrated in a couple of sentences a rather strange inconsistency. Early on in his speech he talked about the fact that the Labor Government was removing a tax subsidy from the restaurant trade and from businessmen by removing the concession for businessmen's lunches. A little later he castigated the Premier of South Australia for daring to subsidise 10 per cent of South Australian families so that they could keep a roof over their heads and not be pushed out of their homes because of increasing building society interest rates. I find that a rather strange inconsistency. It is apparently okay to subsidise the restaurant trade and businessmen, but it is not okay to subsidise South Australian families who need to keep a roof over their heads. It is apparently all right to subsidise one particular section of the community, but it is not appropriate to subsidise another especially when that section of the community contains large numbers of children. It is a very strange attitude to be taking and I think Senator Hill needs to think a little more closely about what he is saying in that area. The matter of public importance is also a little odd when one considers that the previous Fraser Liberal Government talked about introducing a tax on food, clothing and housing-the necessities of life generally. The Liberal Party is now led by a man who is still talking about the introduction of a broad-based consumption tax, notwithstanding the detrimental effect this is likely to have on large numbers of Australian families. I also find it somewhat astonishing that when Senator Hill complains about the effect of high tax policies on South Australians he omits to point out exactly how those taxation measures got through the Parliament. I was in Darwin in the middle of last week talking to a conference on the development needs of northern Australia. When it came to the panel session I was asked a question by the Premier of Queensland who was complaining, as Senator Hill is complaining, about the fact that this Government was introducing massive tax measures that were affecting primary industry and the business sector, and that the introduction of those measures was altogether quite noxious behaviour on the part of the Hawke Labor Government. He addressed a question to me regarding our attitude to this, and it was with the greatest of pleasure that I pointed out to the five or six hundred people present-and I point it out again to any- body who is listening today-that those policies of the Hawke Labor Government were passed in this place only with the full support of all Liberal-National Party senators. Let us have a look at some of the tax measures that Senator Hill quite rightly complains are having a detrimental and deleterious effect on South Australia, a State which depends to a large extent on things such as the prosperity of its wine industry. On 7 September last year, the Senate was asked to debate and pass the Sales Tax Amendment Bills for 1984. One of those provisions included imposing a 10 per cent sales tax on wine. Coming from the State of South Australia as I do, I was particularly aware of the effect that this was likely to have in the Riverland and in the south-east of South Australia. The Australian Democrats spoke to the industries concerned and got from them the opinion that the sales tax in itself was not a problem; it was the fact that it was being introduced at 10 per cent overnight when that particular industry requires a four or five-year development period to change from one form of grape production to another. They said to introduce the tax by all means, but introduce it in four 2 1/2 per cent annual increments. We introduced an amendment to that effect. What did Opposition senators have to say about that? Through their spokeswoman, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, they said: We believe that it is inappropriate for a party that is not in government to talk of striking and phasing in a rate of tax in an area where the Government anticipates raising close to $50m. Not because we do not understand that there will be difficulties for the industry but rather because that is our general approach to Budget measures . . . Bad luck about the damage being done to the industry concerned; it was a Budget measure and Liberal and National Party senators were not prepared to do anything to stand in the way of the imposition of that tax. When we called a division on it we lost, with every member on the Opposition benches voting with the Government. On 13 June last year there were changes to the lump sum superannuation tax proposals-changes which have, as I understand it, quite severely affected businesses and in particular small business people not only in South Australia but elsewhere. Having spoken to representatives of those businesses we moved to amend the legislation so that a ceiling was imposed below which the new tax provisions would not be imposed. We did that for a number of reasons. For example, a lot of people who retire early with a lump sum superannuation payment of $50,000 or less put it into developing a new business, put it into paying off a housing mortgage and leaving another one free, or perhaps put it into travel-all things which are beneficial to the Australian economy and certainly more beneficial than taxing those lump sums at 30 per cent. What happened when we moved that amendment was something very similar to what happened when we moved amendments to the wine sales tax. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle got to her feet and referred to Senator Jack Evans. She said: For him to suggest that there is some reluctance on the part of the Opposition to make its position clear ignores what we have been saying about the proposed superannuation legislation since May 1983. We have made it quite clear that our approach to legislation of this kind is that we shall repeal it on our return to government. I suggest that anybody who believes that will believe anything, since governments are loath, no matter what party they represent, to repeal tax measures that bring them in large amounts of money. She went on to say that she was certainly not going to support `a frivolous amendment' to impose a $50,000 ceiling such as that introduced by Senator Evans. If we look at other legislation, particularly money Bills relating to primary industry, we discover that again all National Party and Liberal Party senators voted with the Government against the interests of industries, particularly those relevant to South Australia. The Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984 might not sound a particularly gripping piece of legislation, but to those people involved in fruit growing and in the cannery in the Riverland of South Australia it was particularly relevant. In line with industry requests that the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation be granted a five- year time span rather than a three-year one to develop an effective corporate plan, the Australian Democrats moved nine amendments to the Bill. What happened? When the division was called all Liberal Party and National Party senators voted against them. Again in line with industry requests to introduce a two-tiered scheme, the Democrats moved three amendments to the Dairy Produce Market Support Levy Bill 1985, and all were defeated, negatived by the votes from the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party after the Nationals had expressed sympathy for the amendments and presumably for an industry that was going under. Similar sorts of things have happened to meat export charge legislation, dried fruits levies and drought assistance producer Bills going back to 1982. In each case Democrat amendments aimed at assisting the industries concerned-industries which are of tremendous importance to the economy of South Australia-were defeated when Liberal and National Party senators, whether they were in government or in opposition at the time, voted against them. People must wonder why honourable senators, who introduce the sort of matter of public importance that has been introduced today, behave in that way. Mr Peacock said some time ago that it was in order to let the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) hang himself, which is somewhat akin to the comments made by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, but it does nothing to help the industries concerned. A recent memorandum from the Liberals ad hoc tax committee indicates that their stance is still along these lines. Under the heading relating to a capital gains tax it states: There is considerable concern amongst Liberal Senators that the Coalition may oppose the capital gains tax and defeat the Government. This would provide an issue from which a double dissolution may ensue. This is perceived to benefit the Democrats. I interpolate here that I do not see why. It goes on to state: Some will vote-- that is, some of our own Liberal senators- to support capital gains tax if the bill appears to be in danger. And presumably any other money Bill. I say in closing that if South Australia has indeed been disadvantaged by the tax policies of the Hawke Government it has been with the connivance of all Liberal and National Party senators. Since Senator Hill introduced this by saying that it was in fact a debate aimed at the next election, I suggest that all South Australian electors should remember on 7 December and afterwards that the tax burden they are currently bearing is due to votes from both the Labor Government and the Liberal-National Party coalition. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(4.10) —I congratulate Senator Hill for proposing the matter of public importance we are discussing today, namely: The detrimental effect on South Australians of the high interest and high taxation policies of current Labor governments. I am pleased to speak in this chamber today, the tenth anniversary of certain events which have not been treated, in my view, as kindly as they should have been by history. I believe that in December 1975 the people of Australia overwhelmingly gave their endorsement to those events. It was a good example of government of the people, by the people, for the people and, in my view, a triumph of democracy. Having made those views clear I query Senator Haines's comments in relation to why the Opposition does not constantly side with the Australian Democrats in blocking certain tax matters put forward by the Government. I remind Senator Haines that it is the Opposition's view, and I think it should be the view of all oppositions, that we are not here to block every government move but to caution, to criticise and, within the parliamentary arena, to do the very best we can to ensure that the Government elected by the people puts forward the best legislation possible, and that is not always achieved by being recalcitrant and refusing to pass legislation put forward by the Government. We are in a sense discussing the forthcoming State election in South Australia. I noticed an article by David English in the Australian today headed: `SA Premier plans to go it alone'. Apparently the South Australian Premier has indicated that Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, will be `unwelcome' during the State election in South Australia. I think that is very unkind of Mr Bannon, but it is not at all surprising. Reports from people who attended the grand prix indicate that as Mr Hawke was being driven around in an open car he was greeted with groans of the type which would be unkind of me to attempt to put into words in the Hansard. What the people were saying was: `Oh no, here is the Prime Minister at yet another successful sporting event'. Mr Bannon was there and he heard those groans. That is why he does not want the Prime Minister involved in the coming election on 7 December. No wonder he does not want him there. If there was Federal influence in this State election campaign South Australians would be reminded, when they cast their votes on 7 December, that that Labor State Government has a similar philosophy to the Labor Federal Government, and they would be reminded of the wonderful examples of how that philosophy affects people in the Federal arena. I can understand why Mr Bannon does not want South Australians to be reminded of that. The Labor policy is to tax, tax, tax. Mr Keating tried his reform. He carries the maxim `If at first you don't succeed, try, try again' to ludicrous extremes. It is most unkind of the Bannon Government to say it wants Federal politicians to stay out of the election campaign because we all know of the close interrelationship-Senator Maguire has alluded to this in comments he has made-between Federal and State governments. We all know that Mr Bannon was happy to accept a $34m special assistance grant from the Federal Government. We all know that he has got his so called youth employment scheme with Federal funding. We all know that he accepted $4m or $5m for the grand prix from the Federal Government and we all know that he is looking for some sort of back door deal with the Federal Government-I hope he does do whatever deal he can-to get the submarine contracts for South Australia. In an article on page 2 of the Australian today, Louise Boylen states: The Federal Government's $2.6 billion submarine replacement program will also be a major Australian Labor Party campaign issue. Mr Bannon will argue that South Australia has no hope of securing the contracts should it elect a Liberal government. Is Mr Bannon saying that if a Liberal government is elected, the Federal Government will not assist South Australia in getting the submarine replacement program contract? Is that the level we have sunk to in this country, that the Federal Government will say to a State that unless it replaces a State government with a government of its persuasion it will not get a contract? I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I will make some further comments about some things that Senator Maguire said. I gather from his speech that he believes that interest rates, being what they are, in no way inhibit business activity. I ask him to ask the small business people and the big business people what they think about real interest rates being as high as they are now, higher than they have been for many years. In fact, in the March quarter this year they were 6.6 per cent higher-- Senator Hill —In real terms. Senator VANSTONE —As Senator Hill says in real terms they were 6.6 per cent higher than at any other time for 50 years. What a disgrace. Senator Maguire did not pay a lot of attention in his speech to State taxes and charges. That is a part of this debate because the concern is with the high interest rate and tax policies of Labor governments. South Australians need to bear in mind when they go to the polls on 7 December that in 1981-82 when we had a Liberal Government in South Australia, South Australia paid the lowest per capita State taxes of all the States. However, in 1984-85 South Australia rated with the highest States. Between those times there has been an increase of 50.2 per cent. The Australian average increase for that period is 36.3 per cent, yet South Australia's increase in per capita State tax from 1981-82 to 1984-85 was 50.2 per cent. It is not just South Australia that is affected in this way; it is the other Labor States as well. During that time Western Australian State taxes on the same basis increased by 37.9 per cent and Victorian taxes on the same basis increased by 34.9 per cent. The non-Labor States have had the lowest increase in that area. South Australians should, and will, bear that in mind when they go to the polls on 7 December. It is a matter of not only State taxes but also State charges. We all heard the promises about no increases. There have been almost 200 increases in State charges, most of which have been much higher than the increase in the rate of inflation. There have been all sorts of trickery and chicanery in relation to electricity tariffs. We give a bit here and we take a bit back there or, usually, we take a lot and give a bit back. We make a lot of noise about what we give back and no noise about what we are taking. Another point I make with repect to Senator Maguire's comments and also with respect to Senator Haines's comments-I am sorry that neither of them is in the chamber to listen to my remarks-is that I have heard speakers, not only in this debate but also in other debates, constantly moaning and saying: `Look at the dismal state of affairs we took over when we came to office.' I remind people in South Australia that the current South Australian Government came in in 1982. That is three years ago and three Budgets ago. It has had plenty of opportunity to get the show on the road and it has failed dismally. This Federal Government came in in 1983 and due to an early election it is now in its third year and its third Budget. It is time to take responsibility. Honourable senators opposite are the ones who are in government. They are responsible for the parlous state of affairs that we find ourselves in. I was, of course, interested to hear Senator Haines's comments on taxation because in the last couple of days the media has indicated that the vacillations and variations by the Australian Democrats on tax is evidence that they have more positions on that subject than can be found in the Karma Sutra. I was quite surprised to see Senator Haines entering the debate today and detailing further positions on taxation policy for the Democrats. In fact, I was surprised that Senator Haines was entering the debate at all, given certain comments in the media this morning. The media reported what the Liberals are going to do and what the Labor Party is going to do. Page 2 of the Australian states: The Australian Democrats are campaigning at a disadvantage. There is a temptation to laugh at that point. They have not yet decided what form their Legislative Council ticket should take. I understand that that is, perhaps, not correct. Senator Hill —They had one but they threw him out. Senator VANSTONE —They had one but they did not like it, so they changed it. The article continues: Moreover, the conservative and progressive factions of the party have been publicly brawling over policy directions. I think it is very good of Senator Haines to take time off from the problems within the Democrats to enter into this debate today. I suggested a couple of weeks ago that the Australian Electoral Commission offer its assistance to the Democrats because they seem to have a complete inability to conduct adequately the ballots within their Party. As we offer the assistance of that Commission to recalcitrant unions, I do not see why we should not offer it to the Democrats as well. It is my view that the high tax policies of this Government do nothing for youth employment. You may remember, Madam Acting Deputy President, that several weeks ago I raised the matter of this Government's Priority One: Young Australia scheme. I raised the genuine concern that there had been inadequate consultation between the Government, big business and the unions. Honourable senators opposite, some of whom are also in the chamber at the moment, did not take seriously the proposal that I put forward. They said that they believed that the Priority One scheme was doing a wonderful job. Since that time there has been a run of media coverage. In particular, today an article carries the headline: `Youth scheme's planner now doubts its success'. That is Mr Kirby. He states what the problems are and that he doubts that the much vaunted Priority One scheme will succeed. South Australians will bear that in mind because they saw all the ads with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on television. They saw the full page ads that this Government paid for with the Prime Minister telling the youth of Australia that they were now his number one priority. They now realise what a con job that was. They remember that there was no telephone number at the end of those commercials for them to ring to find out where they could get a job. It is a good job that there was no telephone number because only one training scheme has been arranged with private enterprise. The Government said that there would be 10,000 jobs in the first year; however, there is only one private enterprise training scheme and one public sector one. It is a disgrace. No wonder the Age has a headline: `Bungling will destroy youth plan, says union'. It is no wonder that the Australian on another day had an even bigger headline: `Unions reject ``cock-eyed'' youth job scheme'. Quite right the unions are too. Let me add that the unions are not backing out of the Priority One scheme; they were never in it. It was announced before adequate consultation had taken place. It is a disgrace. Comments have been made about employment in South Australia. Not much has been said about youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is 23.4 per cent-the highest of the mainland States. South Australians will bear that in mind when they go to the polls. They know that the national average is 19.1 per cent and they are ashamed that their State has a youth unemployment rate of 23.4 per cent. The growth in South Australia in employment between 1982 and 1985 was the lowest of all the States. It was only 2.7 per cent. That is what a Labor Government has done for South Australia and it is a disgrace. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(4.24) —The matter of public importance before us today suggests that somehow or other South Australians have been disadvantaged since the election of the State and Federal Labor governments. This proposal is, indeed, a curious one. It is contrary to the facts and it is probably based on the philosophy that anything will become believable if it is stated often enough. Such a philosophy is not new to the Senate. The constant debates mounted by the conservatives in this chamber which fly in the face of reality are a daily occurrence. However, this one will no doubt take the record for the one removed the furthest from reality. The editorial in this morning's Adelaide Advertiser actually sums up the situation very well. It states: It will be an important election. The economy is on its soundest footing for a decade and the party winning government faces stability, even prosperity, with such developments as Roxby Downs coming on stream. As the editorial rightly suggests, the runs are on the board for the Bannon Government. The economy is indeed on its soundest footing for a decade and South Australians can rightly look to a future of increased opportunities and employment. Let us look, however, at what the Opposition in South Australia did when it was in government and what it has promised in the three years since South Australians passed judgment on it. The Tonkin Liberal Government in South Australia presented Budgets which reshuffled all the accounts. In 1980-81 $37m was transferred from the capital works account to shore up the funds for the day to day running of the State. In 1981-82 that somewhat questionable accounting procedure saw a further $44m go from public works to the daily running expenses. The same formula was used in 1982, when the Liberals intended to use a further $42m from the capital account to balance the books. The economic management of the Tonkin Liberals was described by John Bannon as: . . . like using the rent and mortgage money to pay your groceries-in the end it catches up with you. In this case the economic mishandling was never addressed by the Liberals. It took the Labor Government of John Bannon to make the hard decisions and balance the books-something which this hard working Government has continued to do ever since. The Tonkin Liberal years in South Australia also saw a steady drift to unemployment, the migration of South Australians to other States to find work and chronic shortages of investment and housing. Not all the blame can be put on the State Liberals for those destitute years; quite a large proportion has to be put on the Fraser-Howard Federal money managers. South Australia's misfortune actually started before 1979. For those who are not aware, they started on 11 November 1975, when the Fraser Government came into being under questionable circumstances. The South Australian Government contained the worse of the disastrous Federal policies which followed until 1979, when South Australia got an even closer view of supposed good Liberal economic housekeeping. When the Bannon Labor Government was elected in 1982 a series of natural disasters also was shaping events. The nation was experiencing a severe drought which directly affected the South Australian economy. The Ash Wednesday bushfires on 16 February 1983 did immense damage to South Australia, especially to State resources such as the pine forests. The first priority for the Bannon Government was the creation of a secure future-not the rhetoric of the Tonkin Liberals in 1979 that promised a great deal and delivered nothing, but an environment in which jobs would be created, housing shortages overcome and policies put in place to pull South Australia out of the economic rut it was experiencing. The situation at the end of 1982 required boldness and imagination. The steps that the Bannon Labor Government immediately took had five broad objectives. The first objective was to use government action to prime the economy by an immediate and significant boost to the housing and construction sector. The second objective was to face up to the underlying weakness in the State's finances and get the Budget out of the red. The third objective was to seek out new investment to strengthen the State's economic base and expand long term employment opportunities. The fourth was to establish the ground work for a new phase of economic development in the 1990s with major emphasis being given to high technology industries. The fifth objective was to get out and sell the State's advantages to put South Australia back on the national and international map. Some of the decisions that followed were hard. For example, some charges had to rise-a fact which even some Liberals testified to. The Liberal Premier David Tonkin went on the record to say in his submission to the 1982 Premiers Conference: Quite frankly, we are facing an enormous Budget problem. We face major increases in taxation and charges, over and above the cuts that we have already very successfully made. John Olsen, the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, also conceded in May 1983: Tax increases were needed to cover some of South Australia's Budget blowout. The hard decisions that were made in the early days in the Bannon Labor Government set the pace for economic recovery in South Australia in concert with the Hawke Labor Government in Canberra. Since 1983 there has been no increase in the rate of State taxation. The increase in tax revenue has followed from more jobs and hence more payroll tax and the great resurgence in the housing industry. In an article entitled `South Australia is low tax high growth State', Randall Ashbourne on 11 October 1985 in the News wrote: South Australia's leading academic and corporate economists believe the State's recovery is about to hit a new stage of growth. The half yearly report of the prestige Centre for South Australian Economic Studies makes bullish predictions for the State's financial outlook over the next year, despite clouds over the vehicle and housing industries. The report gives high marks to the Bannon Government's handling of the economy, demolishing point by point every major criticism made by the Liberal Opposition over the last two years. It says South Australia has become a high growth, low tax, low deficit State. The Olsen Liberal Opposition states that South Australia is the inflation capital of Australia. The reality is that under the Liberals from 1979 until 1982 the consumer price index rose 35.4 per cent. Under the Bannon Labor Government the figure for its first term was 23.1 per cent. In two out of the three Tonkin years inflation in Adelaide was equal to or exceeded the national average. On the employment front the Bannon Government also has the runs on the board. Twenty thousand jobs have been created this year and the job vacancy rates in the Adelaide Advertiser are at their highest since September 1974. The overall employment level has remained stuck between participation rates of 540,000 and 560,000 jobs since 1977. The Centre for South Australian Economic Studies reported that employment has now broken through the 580,000 level. Unemployment benefit recipients have fallen 8 per cent over the last year compared with a national average fall of 5.8 per cent. A survey by the South Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the State Bank of South Australia in the June quarter of 1985 showed few respondents expected anything but higher levels of employment in the coming year. Much of the strong job growth is centred on small business. The Olsen Liberal offering can be summed up by a quote from Mr Olsen himself when launching the Liberal economic plan: Unemployment cannot be solved by government. That statement by Mr Olsen shows clearly the level of humbug which is offered up by the Liberal Party. It has no idea how to do anything to an economy other than to wreck it. Other features of the Bannon Labor Government's vision for the future in terms of employment involve, firstly, the hosting of the inaugural Australian Grand Prix in Adelaide; secondly, the vast improvement in the housing industry, where new dwelling approvals for 1984-85 were almost double those in the Tonkin Liberal years; thirdly, tourist promotion overseas and interstate; and fourthly, new competitiveness in the State's industrial and primary base. One area of special interest to me is the car industry. The motor vehicle industry, which is crucial to South Australia, is enjoying one of its best periods for a decade because of the policies put in place at the Federal and State levels. Senator Hill —What about the fringe benefits tax? Senator FOREMAN —It is a funny thing that Senator Hill should mention that. One of the major manufacturers in South Australia supports it. We are told that high interest rates are also destroying South Australia. High interst rates will certainly do a lot of damage to South Australia if the Liberals are elected. The Olsen Liberal Opposition has not as yet seen the tarnish on Mr Howard's obsession with privatisation and deregulation. For instance, let us take a long hard look at the implications for country voters if the Olsen and Howard Liberals have their way on this issue. One of the less savoury elements of this Liberal policy is the call to end the 13.5 per cent interest rate ceiling on home loans. The Howard Opposition recently called for an end to this barrier and Mr Olsen seems to like the policies advocated by Mr Howard. The effect of removing the ceiling would be devastating to home buyers. Even if there were only a 1 per cent increase on a $40,000 loan, a further $480 per year would need to be paid out. The Muldoon Government in New Zealand deregulated interest rates and found that they almost doubled. The Bannon Labor Government realises the importance to the South Australian housing industry of the ceiling remaining in place. Consequently, the Bannon Government has urged the Federal Government to retain the ceiling. The Premier has also supported the State Bank's current freeze on home loan rates and has encouraged the State Bank to renegotiate loan conditions for customers dissatisfied with the loan market rate. The Bannon Labor Government has also subsidised, in the short term, building societies loan increases until the overall position on interest rates becomes clear next year. What the Bannon Government has achieved in its three years in office is nothing short of a complete turnaround in the State's potential. Since 1982 and the election of the Federal Labor Government in 1983 the tide has turned towards higher employment. The higher level of job creation has meant a significant drop in unemployment. The Bannon Government does not and never will accept that governments can do nothing about such problems. Such a remark from Mr Olsen clearly shows the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party which says that governments can do nothing. We will use this as an issue if we can. The State Labor Government led by Premier John Bannon has shown imagination and boldness in its ventures. The new railway development is the biggest project in Adelaide's history. The Grand Prix and the revival of the housing industry are just two of the achievements of a government that has been in power for only three years. Now that the decision to go to the polls has been made after the successful completion of Premier John Bannon's first term in office, the people of South Australia can judge the alternatives. Under the Liberals there would be a return to roulette. What would happen to employment would not concern the government. Funds from one account or another would be used to balance the books and when all the indicators were bad and the economy deep in recession, the Liberals would call an election and hand over the problems for the Labor Party to sort out. Under a new term of the Bannon Labor Government, South Australia can look forward to a future that has real promise. The Advertiser clearly stated: The economy is on its soundest footing for a decade. On 7 December I am sure the South Australian people will remember who achieved that and vote accordingly. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.39) —It seems appropriate that we should be debating on 11 November this subject dealing with the detrimental effect on South Australians in particular of the high interest and taxation policies of the current Labor Government because 10 years ago actions on this day led to a massive endorsement of the Liberal Party under Mr Fraser enabling it to come to government with a record majority after the economic mess left by the Whitlam Government. Senator Bolkus —I raise a point of order. I do not know what relevance this speech has to the matter of public importance. Senator Jessop is wasting time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —There is no point of order. Senator JESSOP —I am not surprised that Senator Bolkus wants to interrupt me because he will get the serve that he deserves. The Premier of South Australia, parading in the euphoria following the Grand Prix-which was a very successful event; I enjoyed it and I congratulate the State Government on what it did- Senator Collard —The cars were built by private enterprise. Senator JESSOP —It was run by private enterprise. I do not want to detract from the race and be nasty about the Bannon Government but in the euphoria of the environment created by that event, the Premier has announced an election, hoping that this will distract the people of South Australia from the miserable record that he has established economically during the three years of his Government. But this fact remains in the minds of the people of South Australia. We must emphasise it to ensure that they do not forget what has happened over the last three years. State collections during the Bannon Labor Government years have increased by 55.2 per cent; an increase in excess of that in any other State in Australia during the same period-even in excess of Commonwealth taxes. State charges in South Australia have risen, as has the State deficit. State instrumentalites such as the Electricity Trust of South Australia have had to raise tariffs, to the disadvantage of citizens, business and industry in South Australia. The major reason for the Trust having to raise its tariffs is that it has to pay at least a 5 per cent levy to the Bannon Labor Government on all its sales. This levy constituted a payment by the Trust to the Bannon Government of $25.6m for the year ending 30 June 1985. Over the last financial year the Trust has paid $52m in various taxes. Some $1m a week has to be found through Electricity Trust charges to pay the Bannon Government. This has to come out of the pockets of citizens of South Australia either through higher electricity charges or in higher costs for commercial services and goods. To rub salt into the wounds of the Electricity Trust, the Bannon Government's finance authority took over the negotiation of the Trust's outstanding loans and, as a result, the loans cost nearly twice as much as before. That is an example of the Bannon Government's abysmal record on the welfare of taxpaying South Australian citizens. Let us look at other matters that have been referred to. Senator Hill referred to the financial institutions deposits tax which in South Australia is higher than it is in any other State. Senator Teague —The Liberals will abolish it. Senator JESSOP —Exactly. Mr Bannon promised that he would not introduce any new taxes. As Senator Teague and Senator Hill said earlier, Mr Olsen, when in goverment, will abolish it. What about housing interest rates? That is a great record for the South Australian Government. Mr Bannon was encouraged by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last week who said that people have to get used to higher interest rates. What an indictment of a Labor Prime Minister who inflicts high interest rates such as we are now experiencing on the average working man struggling to pay for his house. As an example, interest rates on housing have resulted in an increase in housing loan payments of 63 per cent in the last 12 months. My daughter used to pay $530 a month for her house. She represents a very average income earning family and she told me at the weekend that her payments have risen to $636 a month. Of course, Senator Crowley does not mind that. She is not interested in the well-being of young people with young children. Senator Crowley —I am outraged. Senator JESSOP —She is not interested; she shakes her head. Senator Crowley —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I understand that under Standing Orders it is not appropriate to impute an unpalatable intention or motive to another senator. I object very strenuously to the implications in Senator Jessop's words that I do not care about people in South Australia having to pay. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —You should not impute words to another senator, Senator Jessop. Would you please withdraw? Senator JESSOP —I withdraw. But honour- able senators on both sides of the House can be excused sometimes for misinterpreting the appearances that flit across the faces of honourable senators opposite. One can be excused sometimes for interpreting them in the wrong way, which perhaps I did. We are talking about taxation. In South Australia and at the Commonwealth level we have Labor administrations. Labor administrations are renowned for discouraging foreign investment from coming into a State or the country simply because foreign companies do not trust Labor governments because Labor governments bleed those companies, individuals and private enterprises so severely that-- Senator Bolkus —I take a point of order. It is quite apparent that the honourable senator does not have much to say about South Australia. The issues of guidelines for foreign investment and the regulation of foreign investment fall within the province of the Federal Government. I do not know how the State Labor Government is responsible for it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Will you please keep to the subject, Senator Jessop. Senator JESSOP —Madam Acting Deputy President, I remind you that I am quite in order in talking about high taxation and interest rates of current Labor governments in the plural. The honourable senator is a guilty person because he-- Senator Bolkus —I take a point of order. I am not guilty of anything and I ask for a withdrawal. Senator JESSOP —I will not withdraw that because the Commonwealth Government is guilty and he is a member of the Government that I am attacking at the moment. The fringe benefits tax will create tremendous problems for the motor industry, in spite of what Senator Foreman said. We have read recently that throughout Australia fleet owners, some owning up to 50,000 vehicles, will seriously curtail their purchase of vehicles for this reason. Another example of how the fringe benefits tax will affect development in South Australia-this must be of concern to the South Australian citizens because it emanates from a Labor government-is the development of mining. I have notes here that I have received today from the Utah Development Co. Ltd. I will quote one or two points from the document: Utah Development Company Limited, Australia's largest coal exporter, provides housing for 3,500 employees located either in towns adjacent to the six coking coal mines it manages in Central Queensland- this is an example of the problems that mining companies experience in South Australia and in other parts of Australia- at rentals ranging from $8 to $15 a week. Utah estimates that the proposed fringe benefit tax could cost the mining operations it manages up to $10 million, depending on the Government's assessment of home rental values in the Central Queensland region. These sorts of things are being imposed upon export industries that employ thousands of people throughout Australia; in this instance 3,500 people are housed in company homes. It continues: Since 1980 individuals provided with housing by their employers in remote mining areas have been taxed on 10% of the deemed rental value of the house less rent paid, which recognises remoteness, lack of choice and other factors. . . . . The proposal is a corruption of the fundamental principle of fair and equitable taxation, because it sets out to tax the provider of the perceived benefit, rather than the recipient. In other words, it is a tax on employment. It is quite interesting to note also that not only is the tax now to be levied on the employer and not the employee, but also the discount from deemed rental value to allow for remoteness, lack of choice, et cetera, is to be reduced from 90 per cent to 33 per cent, representing a gross discrimination by the Government against mining companies. It was important that I read those points and I seek leave to have the document from which I read incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- UTAH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED THE FRINGE BENEFITS TAX PROPOSAL: REMOTE AREA HOUSING-UTAH'S POSITION BACKGROUND Utah Development Company Limited, Australia's largest coal exporter, provides housing for 3,500 employees located either in towns adjacent to the six coking coal mines it manages in Central Queensland, at rentals ranging from $8 to $15 a week. At the minesites single employees are provided with full board and accommodation for $15 a week. Utah estimates that the proposed fringe benefits tax could cost the mining operations it manages up to $10 million, depending on the Government's assessment of home rental values in the Central Queensland region. Several of the towns were constructed specifically to house mine employees in sparsely populated parts of the country, while others have been considerably expanded. Since 1980 individuals provided with housing by their employers in remote mining areas have been taxed on 10% of the deemed rental value of the house less rent paid, which recognises remoteness, lack of choice and other factors. BASIS OF UTAH'S OPPOSITION Utah strongly opposes the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on the employer on minesite accommodation provided to employees, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is a corruption of the fundamental principle of fair and equitable taxation, because it sets out to tax the provider of the perceived benefit, rather than the recipient. 2. It is a tax on employment. The proposal jeopardises future development and potential employment within the industry. 3. The tax adversely affects the industry's international competitiveness. Every added cost disadvantages the Australian export coal industry which is trying to maintain its competitive position in over-supplied international markets. 4. The coal industry is Australia's largest export earner, with the potential to earn further significant foreign exchange, which would benefit Australia's balance of payments position. The Government's tax proposals will work against this potential. 5. Not only is the tax now to be levied on the employer and not the employee but the discount from deemed rental value to allow for remoteness, lack of choice, etc. is to be reduced from 90% to 33% representing a gross discrimination by the government against mining companies. UTAH's POSITION In the 12 months to May 31, 1985, Utah estimates that the level of taxes and charges paid to governments by the owners of the Central Queensland mines it manages reached around 79% of total income, before payments of taxes and other government charges. These taxes included payment of a Federal Government Coal Export Duty which amounted to over $60 million for the 12 month period.The Utah-managed mines are now the only ones in Australia paying this highly discriminatory duty, which is in effect a tax on efficiency. Utah urges the Federal Government to abandon its proposal to impose yet another tax which impedes the Australian coal industry's ability to remain internationally competitive, and jeopardizes future development and employment potential. Utah also asks that as part of the Federal Government's reform of the taxation system to eliminate unfairness and inequities, the Coal Export Duty be removed. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. I heard Senator Foreman extolling the virtues of the Bannon Government in developing the Olympic Dam ore deposits at Roxby Downs. I remind the Senate that that particular project was able to commence because of an indenture Bill that was passed by the Tonkin Liberal Government. Very sadly, there was only one member of the Australian Labor Party who had the foresight to assist in passing that legislation through the Legislative Council; that was `Stormy Normie' Foster. What was his reward for contributing to the development of South Australia? What was his reward for establishing a potential export earning capacity in South Australia? What was his reward for contributing to a project which provides and will provide thousands of jobs directly and indirectly? His reward was expulsion from the Labor Party. His family was threatened over the phone by- Senator Bolkus —Who by? Senator JESSOP —I could say who it was but I do not want to say. But I know very well who it was and Senator Bolkus may know to whom I am referring. But the reward he got for looking after the interests of development in South Australia was expulsion from the Labor Party. Thank heavens that our Party does not adopt that sort of dictatorial, dogmatic, unfair approach to its members when we want to demonstrate independence. It is a disgrace. The people of South Australia will remember on 7 December just which party is interested in the development of that State, in the provision of job opportunities, in the reduction of interest rates, in the encouragement of private individuals and private enterprise to get on with the job of developing South Australia, restoring it to its proper place in Australia and lifting it out of the situation in which it is in-of becoming dependent on handouts from the Commonwealth. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.53) —I have the pleasant opportunity to summarise yet another bizarre matter of public importance brought on for debate in this chamber by the Opposition. It is interesting to inform people again just what we are debating. It is: The detrimental effect on South Australians of the high interest and high taxation policies of current Labor governments. Do I understand that the Opposition is selective in who it cares about? Why is it not concerned about the detrimental effect, if these things are true, on Australians all around the country? Why does it refer only to South Australia? The answer is quite clear because late yesterday afternoon in South Australia Premier Bannon announced the date of the next State election. This debate is nothing more than carrying State politics to the Federal arena. It is using broadcast time of the Senate to inform all Australians, but in particular those earnest South Australians who listen to Federal Parliament, that this is where the debate is happening. Is it perhaps because Senator Hill is President of the State branch of the Liberal Party in South Australia? We might ask why Senator Hill is President of the Liberal Party in South Australia? I am sure that voters would like to be reminded of who was the previous President of the Liberal Party and what he did to earn his rapid replacement by Senator Hill. I am sure that the records in South Australia will remind people why Senator Hill is now the President of the Liberal Party and why it is no inadvertence that he put this debate in front of the Senate today. Senator Vanstone —Let's not be gutless. Let's spell it out. Senator CROWLEY —We are not making it up. Mr West did it all by himself, and I do not have to speak about that. Senator Hill is President of the Liberal Party in South Australia. He is campaigning on behalf of his Opposition Leader in South Australia here rather than in South Australia. I wonder whether it is because Mr Olsen cannot manage without his support. It would be interesting to know. To go back through the debate, Senator Jessop left us with a clear understanding that it is only the Labor Party that does tough things to its members. One asks why Mr Stan Evans was not endorsed by the Liberal Party in any of God knows how many seats he tried for in South Australia. Senator Elstob —What did he do? Senator CROWLEY —What he did is not a matter of dispute or discussion, but he has not been preselected. That is clearly an example of the fact that the Liberal Party, too, is thoughtful, or less than thoughtful, about who it preselects and what it does. That is not the important issue. What is the important issue is why Senator Hill should choose today to talk about the effect of the high interest and high tax policies of current Labor governments on South Australians. He apparently has very little concern about the rest of Australia, but he wants today-the day after an election has been announced in South Australia-to do a little campaigning on behalf of Mr Olsen. It is quite clear that he ought to do so, because Mr Olsen cannot do too much for himself. Today we heard Senator Hill go on and on about how the Opposition objects to high taxes and how Mr Olsen and the Opposition would not do anything about taxes. Yet I have a nice piece of paper in my hand on which is the headline: `Some tax rises needed, says Mr Olsen'. Is that not interesting! Under that headline, in the Advertiser on 5 May 1983, it is stated: Some tax increases were needed, said Mr Olsen, to cover some of South Australia's Budget blowout. It is important to remember 1983 vis-a-vis the previous South Australian election and why there was a Budget deficit. Senator Maguire and Senator Foreman went into that in great detail in their earlier contributions. I do not need to go through it again. In summary, the reason was Liberal South Australian mismanagement. That is why Premier Bannon has had to take the steps he has taken during his very thoughtful and considered three years in government up to this election. Nothing Mr Bannon has done has been hidden from the public. He has bravely put his case to the public on every occasion. He has no reason to flinch from what members of the public will say about him because what he has said on behalf of South Australia and in dealing with the Opposition is quite clear and known by all the electors. He can stand on his record and he can say that the South Australian Labor Government will take South Australia into the next three years much more successfully than the bleating Liberals opposite, who are shouting that they do not want high taxes in the face of this piece of paper in which Mr Olsen himself is reported as saying that some tax rises are needed. Honourable senators opposite are selective in applying their high taxes. They are selective as to when they want to introduce them. `We will put them in and take them out', they say, and then castigate Premier Bannon for doing the same. If it is all right for the Liberals, I cannot see why it is not all right for the Labor Government, particularly as every single thing that Mr Bannon has done has been part of a massive economic recovery in South Australia. The selective figures cited by the Opposition are absolutely extraordinary. I say again that Mr Bannon has no need to worry about going to the electors in South Australia. He has made public every step he has taken. He has made clear why he had to increase and change the charges early in his term-because he was left such a chaotic piece of mismanagement by the Opposition. Mr Bannon can stand up in South Australia, and the Liberals will have to bite the bullet, because his voter approval is now about 75 per cent. Mr Bannon has 75 per cent popularity and approval in South Australia because he stands on his record, because he has brought recovery and improvement to South Australia. Senator Hill —A 55.2 per cent increase in interest rates. Senator CROWLEY —Members of the Opposition seem to know one figure only-55 per cent, bless their little hearts. It would be interesting to talk about that 55 per cent if Senator Hill wants to argue about that. One of the reasons that figure has increased is the enormous growth base in South Australia. South Australia is experiencing an economic boom and that percentage is artificially high precisely because of the encouragement in growth and employment. What does Senator Hill say to that? He would rather keep figures down in order to have no growth. Senator Hill is hoist with his own petard. Taking one statistic out of a whole argument is a folly and he will be hoist with that during this campaign. South Australia is recovering economically. It is experiencing growth, unemployment is falling, and inflation is down. Everything has improved since Mr Tonkin left the Premier's seat and the treasury bench. In fact, we discover that he is now leaving the State. I turn to another very small set of statistics which relate to industrial unrest. Under the Bannon Labor Government only 59 days were lost per thousand employees in that 12-month period. All the things that members of the Opposition complain and bleat about represent a grabnet of everything. I am going to talk about days lost due to industrial disputes. Under the Bannon Labor Government 59 days were lost per thousand employees in the 12-month period ending July 1985. In Queensland, for example, in the same 12-month period 373 days were lost per thousand employees due to industrial disputes. Fifty-nine days were lost in South Australia compared to 373 days in Queensland. The number of days lost in Queensland was over six times the number lost in South Australia. Queensland has an absolutely disgraceful record. It stands splendidly against the excellent record in South Australia. We have had a wild discursion into just about everything. Housing has been raised by the Opposition in this place. As Senator Maguire spelled out, in 1984-85 there were over 15,000 approvals for new houses in South Australia, which is getting very close to a 100 per cent improvement on what we had when Mr Tonkin left the treasury bench in South Australia three years ago plus one day. I say for the record that Premier Bannon has served his full term, and that is another reason why the election was called yesterday. He went his full three years. There was no calling an early election to duck from issues; Bannon took his Government to full term and he will do so again in the next three years. We stand on that record unashamedly. I repeat that in South Australia there were 15,000 housing approvals in 1984-85. Senator Hill —Is that why he doesn't want Mr Hawke in the electorate? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Hill, you are interjecting too much. Senator CROWLEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy President, I can perhaps now lower my voice a little. That is an increase of 26.3 per cent compared to an increase of 16.7 per cent around Australia. The number of housing approvals has increased dramatically around Australia because of the Federal Government initiatives in that area, and in South Australia we see the extra bonus because of the South Australian Government's very similar and allied policies. We have, as we often do in South Australia, the very best of Commonwealth-State agreements behind the dramatic increase for all South Australians from that policy of co-operation rather than confrontation. I have talked about the good figures of the very few days lost due to industrial unrest in South Australia. We see again in the housing area the benefits of the Bannon Government's co-operation with the Hawke Government. Whether it is a policy of consultation between the State and Federal governments or between government and unions, in every case Premier Bannon's consultation process has led to the most satisfactory outcome. It stands in marked contrast, for example, to the confrontational policies in Queensland, with the dramatic difference in days of industrial unrest in that State. The housing area is another in which consultation between the State Premier and the Federal Government makes a difference. In Queensland approvals were down by 2.6 per cent as compared to an increase in South Australia of 26.3 per cent. So we can approve the Bannon Government's policies of consultation and thoughtful consideration of the issues, of co-operation and discussion, and of ensuring that everything proceeds according to a well thought out program that is best for all South Australians. Again, the figures for new housing commencements in South Australia in 1984-85 stand for themselves. Senator Hill —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We have been extremely patient. This is a debate about interest rates and taxation and the high policies of the Hawke Government and the Labor Government in South Australia in those fields. For the last five minutes we have heard Senator Crowley talking about housing policy and industrial relations policy, which have nothing to do with this debate. If Senator Crowley wants to have a debate on those subjects tomorrow it is up to her, but we and the people of South Australia want to hear her addressing the question of interest rates and taxation policy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Those matters were raised in the debate earlier and Senator Crowley is entitled to deal with them too. Senator CROWLEY —Thank you, Mr Deputy President; that was a thoughtful decision. How could it not be relevant when I am simply addressing, as the last person to speak in this debate, the issues raised by the Opposition? If Senator Hill wants me to talk directly to tax, I will do so and will talk about the complaints of that poor man during his contribution. He referred to the terrible problems with the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax hitting those people who want to eat at no charge, on the taxpayer. I quote from an excellent speech in this place by Senator Maguire on 6 November 1985. He said: A comment was made by Mr Harold Lasky, the Managing Director of Diners Club Ltd. Most of his business comes from the entertainment area of the community. He said: I think the people who are genuinely involved in a lunch to discuss business will continue to do so. I move on because this is, after all, a debate which directly addresses tax. As Senator Hill wants to talk tax, I will talk tax directly to Senator Hill. Senator Maguire continued: I quote now from a response to the changed tax arrangements for company cars. That point was raised by way of complaint and carping criticism by the Opposition in this debate. To continue: Mr Graham Longbottom, Deputy Managing Director of Mitsubishi Australia-- he is a man with some understanding of the car industry-- said: Mitsubishi could be unscathed as fleet owners, looking for more value for money, could move down to smaller cars. He said that this would suit Mitsubishi, which offers cars in the small car range. In regard to the claims made about the impact of the tax package on the farm sector-- not too many of these were mentioned in the Opposition's contribution to this debate, but I believe there are claims by the rural sector in South Australia-- I simply refer to a comment by Mr Jim McCarter, the rural affairs editor of the Adelaide Advertiser. He said: Land values generally do not increase at a rate much different from the inflation rate, so farmers are likely to pay little or no capital gains tax. Senator Hill —He will be struggling to get a vote from you. Senator CROWLEY —We do not always necessarily look for votes from people. What we are interested in sometimes is putting the facts on record. Senator Hill's policy, in his speech today and elsewhere, is to put a program of disinformation in front of voters so that even genuine Liberal voters are confused about why they are voting Liberal. Our policy is not to necessarily persuade everybody to vote for us. I do not expect that will ever be the case. What is important, though, is to counter the misinformation provided by the Opposition. Another complaint that the Opposition made was that everything in South Australia was in a total state of disaster, that Labor was not fit to rule, and so on. I quote from the South Australian Corporate Affairs Commission: A total of 12,103 new business names was registered, the highest 12-month total in the history of the registry office. That figure is for South Australia in the last 12 months, the year 1984-85. That is a very curious state of affairs from a State about which the Opposition-if I can believe it-complained so much that the taxes would remove incentive and completely rort the economy. That is not so. The Corporate Affairs Commission in South Australia gives the lie to that with that little piece of data and figure. I could quote many more examples, but I conclude by saying that Premier Bannon is an honourable Premier. He has made very clear to the electors of South Australia every time what he is doing and why he has taken the decisions he has taken. That is why the voter approval of Premier Bannon in South Australia is so high and will remain high. He is an honourable Premier. He is a man of formidable integrity. He has turned out to be, in the face of the Opposition's best wishes, a man of competence and comprehensive economic ability. He has brought South Australia out of a disastrous recession left to us by the Liberal governments, State and Federal, in the preceding period. In co-operation with the Federal Labor Government, he has achieved great things. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(5.09) —I understand that there is approximately five minutes left in which to discuss this matter of public importance. As a senator from South Australia, I wish to say a few words on the matter of public importance, which was brought up by Senator Hill. All State Premiers and Prime Ministers today have to be financial managers. It is very important that the leaders in the community, whether Premiers or Prime Ministers, be financial managers. It is very important for the people of South Australia to look at what is happening in the bankruptcy area. In all the States governed by Labor there has been a reduction in the bankruptcy rate. South Australia has the second lowest bankruptcy rate in Australia. This year there were 662 bankruptcies-a reduction on last year's figure. By way of illustration, in Queensland there were 1,000 bankruptcies. In Queensland the number of bankruptcies has increased by 15.6 per cent and in South Australia it has decreased by 14.6 per cent. That is an important matter for the people to consider when they go to the ballot box to vote on how a Premier or a Prime Minister has performed. It is important that they be business managers. It is possible that Mr Bannon will obtain for his State the submarine contract. I do not have any doubt about that. All I ask is that the people of South Australia judge whether Mr Bannon or Mr Olsen would be the best business manager. Mr Bannon is a top businessman. He has brought stability to the motor industry. As my colleague Senator Foreman disclosed in an earlier speech, he brought the Grand Prix to South Australia. Many people within my own Party thought that it would not be possible to pull that off. However, it proved to be highly successful and provided a benefit to the State in terms of millions of dollars of advertising. Senator Hill —A chance to get taxes down. Senator ELSTOB —The taxes that had to be imposed by Bannon came about because of the actions of the former Tonkin Government. The Tonkin Government was the worst business manager in the State's history. It left a deficit of $60m. No State government can run a deficit of that magnitude. States cannot run deficits of any kind. Bannon had to reduce the deficit. It is important that he retain leadership of the South Australian Government. Senator McIntosh —He will. Senator ELSTOB —He will. He will win an overall majority. The people of South Australia understand that South Australia has the best opportunity of obtaining the submarine contract. Senator Vanstone —Why? Senator ELSTOB —Because it will bring many new industries to the State and will open up and develop many opportunities. Anyone in the know is aware that the two States that have the best chance of obtaining the contract are Western Australia and South Australia. Senator Hill —By coincidence both facing elections. Senator ELSTOB —South Australia has the opportunity. Over a number of years Labor governments in South Australia have put in place top management in a large number of fields. They have helped industry and have received the confidence of industry. That is not what the Liberal Party has done. There is too much infighting within the Liberal Party both at the State and at the Federal level. There is not stability in the Liberal Party. There has not been stability for the past 20 years. A party which has infighting cannot be run properly. There is plenty of infighting on a State and Federal level. The Liberal Party does not concern itself with the improvement of people's lives. It is interested simply in financial matters. The Liberal Party provided more opportunities for people in this country to be dishonest. What is more, it allowed people to evade and avoid taxation. In fact, it encouraged them to do so. Senator Teague —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy President, I would like you to ask Senator Elstob to withdraw that remark, which is that Liberals allowed more opportunity for dishonesty. It is offensive to me as a Liberal. I believe it also to be downright untrue. I think the remark is objectionable and I would be very grateful if he would withdraw such a charge. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Standing Orders provide for detrimental remarks about individuals to be withdrawn, but not in the collective sense about parties. Senator Elstob may withdraw to facilitate the proceedings of the Senate, but he is not obliged to do so. Senator ELSTOB —It is on record that over a number of years the Liberal Party has allowed the situation to deteriorate. Because some people in the business field have been able to avoid or evade taxation, other business people have become uncompetitive. A country cannot be competitive if one section of its community is avoiding or evading taxation. This has stifled business in this country. That is why the people of South Australia, and Western Australia, when an election is held in that State, will support Labor governments. They will support them because they are the top business managers today. Leaders must be top business people. Senator Cook —They create more jobs. Senator ELSTOB —They create jobs and they create the wealth which creates employment. If there is more confidence people will invest. Senator Cook —Get inflation down. Senator ELSTOB —Inflation has been the greatest killer in this country for many years. It has been caused simply by a lack of management in the Liberal Party. That is why the people of South Australia most certainly will re-endorse the Labor Government and will return it to office. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under Standing Orders for the consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. Debate resumed from 7 November, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(5.17) —When I last spoke in this debate I was discussing the Budget, the Hawke Government's tax reform package and what has happened to the Australian dollar. But today being 11 November 1985, I think it is important that in the six or seven minutes remaining to me in this debate I talk about the quality of democracy in Australia. I think it is important that out of the constitutional debacle of 11 November 1975 emerged two clear points for constitutional reform in this country; two clear points which have still not been enacted in terms of achieving those necessary reforms so that the quality of democracy enjoyed by the citizens of this community can be regarded as being among the best in the world. One of those reforms, I assert strongly, is that the Governor-General should be required to accept the advice of the elected government in the House of Representatives, so long as that government has the confidence of the House of Representatives, and that he ought not be able to act on his own motion, as occurred a decade ago on this day. Were the Governor-General able and bound to accept that advice, we would not have had the events that occurred 10 years previously. The other major reform that should occur is a reform of the powers of this chamber. The powers of this chamber should be reduced so that the Senate cannnot choke off the supply of money Bills to the elected government, and thus bring about a constitutional crisis as occurred 10 years ago. With those two reforms, Australia would be on the road to being a democracy, and a democracy in the full sense of the word. Given that today is 11 November, I want to say a few words about the quality of democracy in my State, Western Australia. We saw last week the announcement of new electoral boundaries in Queensland. We have seen the enshrinement in that State of a government which commands on average about 36 per cent or 37 per cent of the vote. We have seen the complete destruction of the concept of one vote one value, the underpinning concept of what democracy is all about. In my maiden speech in 1983, when I first came to this Parliament, I drew attention to the very severe gerrymander that is occurring in Western Australia; a gerrymander that, because the Legislative Council in that State controls the affairs of the State, has seen Labor in office, but not in power; a gerrymander that has meant that those in privileged positions in the Legislative Council have protected that privilege by voting against all reasonable efforts that the Burke Labor Government has made to reform the electoral system in order to base it on the one vote one value system. In the two minutes remaining to me, let me give the Senate some of the statistics. There are two divisions for electoral purposes in Western Australia, the metropolitan and the rural areas. Sixty-eight per cent of all electors in Western Australia are enrolled in the metropolitan area. In the Legislative Assembly they elect 52 per cent of the seats, but in the Legislative Council only 41 per cent of the seats. Thirty-two per cent of all electors are enrolled in the rural area. They elect 47.4 per cent of the seats in the Legislative Assembly, but 59 per cent of the seats in the Legislative Council. That is, 32 per cent of the electors can control a House which has unlimited powers of review which can in turn control the program which a democratically elected government has been given a mandate to enact. That passes for democracy in Western Australia. Let me focus directly on the Legislative Council. In the metropolitan area there are on average 19,500 electors per electorate; in the rural area, on average the figure is about half-10,200 electors per electorate. As I have said, those electors, with that type of malapportionment, are able to elect a number of Legislative Assembly members who can control the fate of the Government. But in the Legislative Council the situation is even worse. In the metropolitan area, 83,000 electors constitute a metropolitan province, whereas in the rural area the figure is 27,000. In other words, 83,000 versus 27,000 equals democracy in Western Australia. If that constitutes democracy and a fair go for all, those who make that argument have a strange idea of what constitutes fairness, reasonableness and a properly balanced electorate system. The 29 districts with the lowest enrolments in Western Australia elect 29 out of the 57 legislative councillors. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.23) —I have given a good deal of consideration to what I propose to say because during the life of this Government I have attempted to give credit where credit is due, and I do not wish to sound alarmist. But since the Budget was brought down in August this year I have been giving it, together with the tax package, considerable thought. I have analysed that Budget and with the assistance of some expert help, not least of which came from the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library, I am in a position to make a statement which I do not think the Government will like. I am loath to make that statement because as an official of one of the largest, in fact the largest, union affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, I am concerned that the prices and incomes accord should be kept in place. What I say is that the Government does not need a Governor-General to oust it from office. All the Government needs to do is to continue the trend of the attacks of successive governments on the one-income family. The standard of living of most Australian families will be eroded because of the failure of the 1985 Budget-we are now debating the appropriation Bills-to redress the unfair economic burden that they carry. Unless the Government reverses this injustice it will face a critical electoral backlash whilst the accord will be strained to breaking point. I intend to show by stating facts and figures that this Budget and the tax package to come will further exacerbate the problems faced by one income families in Australia today. Since 1976 the one income family on average weekly earnings has had imposed upon it a massive 435.7 per cent increase in taxation at the same time as average weekly earnings have risen by only 135.4 per cent. I seek leave to have a document prepared by the Legislative Research Service of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY STATISTICS GROUP Comparison of Tax paid by Taxpayer on Average Weekly Earnings with Dependent Spouse and Four Dependent Children 1976-77 1985-86 Percentage increase $p.a. $p.a. % Income-AWE (a)... 9,364 22,039 135.4 Gross Tax... 2,667 5,244 . . Less General Rebate... 610 . . . . Less Spouse Rebate... 500 1,030 . . Net Tax... 1,557 4,214 . . Family Allowance... 1,069 1,600 . . Effective Net Tax Paid (b)... 488 2,614 435.7 (a) AWE for 1985-86 assumed to be AWE for 1984-85 plus 8%. (b) Net Tax less Family Allowance. Compiled at request by the statistics group of the Legislative Research Service. Senator HARRADINE —The worker whose family is existing on one income and who is receiving the weighted average weekly award rate has had imposed upon him an even greater percentage increase. Whereas in 1976 he was paying no notional increase, today he is faced with an amount of some $226. The Government's taxation package will further exacerbate the problems of the one income family compared with the two income family. On present tax scales the one income family on average weekly earnings is paying $785 more in direct taxation than the two income family on an equivalent income. After September 1986-after the much heralded tax package is inserted into legislation-the one income family will be paying not $785 but $809 more than the two income family. Let me turn to the one income family on weighted average weekly award rates. At the moment that family is paying $272 more in direct tax than the two income family on an equivalent income. After the tax package is in place in September 1986 the one income family will be paying $342 more than the two income family on an equivalent income. That is a scandal and it needs to be exposed so that the Government can rectify the position. In addition, the failure of the 1985 Budget to restore the value of family allowances means that a mother with four children is now $55.35 a month worse off in real terms than she was in 1976 when tax rebates for children were abolished in favour of the new family allowance system. The value of family allowances has been eroded by almost 50 per cent since 1976. There is an attack not only on the one income family but also, in effect, on the mothers of children, whether they be of one income families or dual income families. It is a failure of this Government and successive governments to recognise the economic value of the input of the mother into the home. That applies not only to the mother who is a full time homemaker but also to many families which, because of economic pressures, have to rely on two incomes to make ends meet. Typically, a spouse goes out to work part time and has to come home and face her economic contribution to society in the home. Of course all of this is of great concern, but what of the full time homemaker? If she has four children not only is she now $55.35 a month worse off in real terms but also she is worse off because the spouse rebate has not been adequately attended to over the years. In 1983 the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, promised to increase the spouse rebate but he did not do so. The Government's failure to recognise the economic worth of the homemaker will force even more families to take on two jobs either to make ends meet or to maintain living standards. Families are faced with a large number of costs, not only income tax costs. If we look at related costs and the pressures that families are under now we can see that to impose an economic burden of the magnitude of 436 per cent over that period exacerbates the problem enormously. Families are now faced with ever increasing mortgage interest payments and that is a real fear among families struggling to keep up the monthly payments on their homes. Senator Puplick —Not only families. Senator HARRADINE —It applies not only to families; but I am talking about the actual rate of increase that has been applied to them. There have been increases in local government rates, power charges, fares and sales taxes. I noted with interest an article in the Canberra Times of 7 November in which Alan Thornhill stated that the average family is paying $39 a week in protection money, that is, in indirect tax to support Australian industries. I do not believe that families object to that, but they are having that impost on top of the others, which is leading to economic breakdown and other breakdowns in family life. Of course, all of this means that more and more people will be forced through economic circumstances to go into the paid work force, because very often now families cannot live on one income. A secondary effect of this on the labour market will be to block off job opportunities for young people. Is it not ironical that in this International Youth Year there is so much unemployment amongst the young? Is it not ironical that in this Budget the Government has declared youth priority one and yet, in this very year, employment in the Government's own departments has fallen to an all-time low. Whereas in 1966 young people under 21 constituted 22.6 per cent of the Australian Public Service, they now constitute only 6.3 per cent. Clearly, this tragic state of affairs for youth has been brought about by deliberate policy decisions which still remain in force, denying youth, particularly young girls, their fair share of Public Service jobs. A major cause-indeed, it is an overriding cause-of the decline in full time job opportunities for youth, not only in the Public Service but also in commerce and industry generally, has been the failure of successive governments to develop policies enabling families to live decently on one income. Many families have been forced to take on two jobs, either to make ends meet or to maintain living standards eroded by government budgetary policies and, as I said before, high mortgage interest rates. Despite the rhetorical tributes paid by politicians and governments of every stamp to the family, their pro-family talk is cheap. No one is prepared to spend seriously on the family. Governments wait until after it has broken down. Then the pensions flow in and the massive tide of counsellors, social workers, lawyers, psychologists and everybody else pours in on the family or the remnants thereof, and they act more in the role of undertakers than of rescuers. Whilst this work is necessary, particularly in our society, it serves in the main to fatten up the middle class bureaucrats and professionals while frequently proving futile for the families themselves. Yet governments continue to provide seemingly limitless funds to deal with the smash-up of the family and family life in our country whilst refusing to recognise the difficulties faced by intact families, especially those on low or medium incomes, and especially those with dependent children who are seeking education. Governments and their agencies do not recognise the value of the family until it is too late. The only piece of legislation that I know of that recognises the value of the work of the mother or the wife in the home is the Family Law Act-but only after the breakdown of marriage and the division of property. What we must do is develop urgently measures to provide economic justice to the family whilst it is in one place, whilst it is intact. We should provide this economic justice, which will ease the material problems which often aggravate and commonly trigger their collapse. The family, when it functions, is the most productive and efficient provider of social services in our society. It nurtures, socialises, educates and provides recreation for its members. It prepares and fortifies them for their role as future and present citizens. It is the central institution of our society. When it goes wrong, the rest of the society goes wrong. For this reason, the good of families should be the central concern of government policies. But amazingly, governments behave as if families or, at the very least, their problems did not exist. The tax policy is a case in point. The tax policy does not recognise families for the purposes of taxation. Yet-let me put it in this way-income sharing is part of family life. A marriage and a family really contain an income- sharing contract where transfers are continually taking place from persons with capacities to persons with needs. Is that not, as we have heard it so often from the Government, one of the Government's taxation principles-that taxation should be about the transfer of moneys from persons with capacities to persons with needs? But although the Government's taxation system has that as a guideline-and indeed, other taxation systems over the years, in one way or another, have had that, at whatever priority, as a guideline-it does not recognise or, to put it most mildly, it seriously underestimates the value of this kind of family sharing to society, and thus places an undue burden on the one-income family. Amazingly, governments behave as if families or, at the very least, their problems, did not exist. More than this, governments drive one to the conclusion that family life must be considered in high places. We have to come to this conclusion. The Government may have some other explanation, but what conclusion can one draw from the failure of the Government to recognise the burden being placed upon the one income family other than that people in high places in government or their advisers consider the one-income family as though it were a vice which the poor, particularly, must be persuaded to abandon in return for a tax reward? What other explanation is there? Why penalise the one-income family as the Government does now? An explanation is called for and I will be waiting to hear from the Government what its explanation is. In the trade union movement we have a large number of glossy magazines to be distributed to all our members. The magazines say what a good thing the accord is. There are merits in the accord, but the fine print is not all there. Once the workers start feeling the pinch-particularly those workers on one income-and start comparing what they are receiving out of the package with what a dual-income family which receives in excess of $50,000 a year is getting out of it, there will be that backlash of which I spoke in my opening remarks this afternoon. I believe that the Government should heed the warning signs now and do something about rectifying that problem. If the Government did take that action it would find that the employment situation would improve. I agree that the economic aspects of the problem must be tackled, but in tackling the economic aspects one should not ignore the social aspects of the problem of unemployment. The fact is that there are more people in or seeking paid work than there are jobs available. In that situation would any government in its right mind adopt taxation measures which would force even more people to seek paid work in order to make ends meet? Surely one should recognise that there are socially constructive alternatives. In so recognising that, let me quote to the Government what the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said, I think in Perth, in September 1983 in his John Curtin Memorial Lecture: The plain fact is that no government in Australia will now, or in the foreseeable future, solve the problem of unemployment solely through the available methods of increasing the supply of jobs. At least equal attention must be paid to the question of reducing the demands for jobs by helping to provide socially constructive alternatives. That was what the Prime Minister of Australia said. But that statement, that very constructive idea, is not reflected in the Budget. After all, what more socially constructive work is there in Australia than the nurturing, care and development of one's own children. So many mothers with dependent children are forced by economic pressures to hold down another job. It is unfair to them, to the young unemployed and to the whole community to have allowed this situation to exist, and it is definitely unfair to exacerbate the problems of one income families as this Budget has done and indeed as the new tax package will do when it comes into place in September 1986. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.53) —On the occasion of the debate on the Appropriation Bills one is able to discuss a wide range of issues, particularly those which have some direct financial bearing on the way in which the Commonwealth will either raise or expend revenue in the course of the next 12 months. I wish to devote my time today to talking about what probably constitutes one of the gravest threats to the revenue of the Commonwealth which has arisen in recent years. I refer to the growth of what has become popularly termed as entrepreneurial medicine. I propose to say something about the current situation as far as pathology is concerned, particularly in the State of New South Wales, and to say something about some of the persons, companies and organisations which are currently engaged in a major rort of the public health system in Australia. Paragraph 4.8 at page 90 of report No. 236 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, entitled `Medical Fraud and Overservicing-Pathology', states: At the AMA's recent Federal Assembly the then President, Dr Thompson, said the Association was concerned about entrepreneurial developments in medicine. He said there was concern that: Unless one was very careful one could end up with a `depersonalised' sort of situation in medical practice. But provided that such activities were conducted legally the people employed had a proper contract which protected their interests; there were no kickbacks, the referral process did not abuse the national health scheme; and people behaved ethically, it is very difficult to object. The area is one which must, and will be examined. At paragraph 4.9 the Committee says: The Committee believes that many of the entrepreneurial medical schemes currently in operation violate these last two conditions outlined by Dr Thompson, i.e. they abuse the national health scheme and involve unethical behaviour. I propose today to talk about the abuse of the national health scheme and about unethical behaviour in medical practice. I start by congratulating Dr Thompson and, indeed, the Australian Medical Association for the efforts which it as an organisation has made to clean up its own profession in this regard. It is a pity that there is no equivalent within the medical profession of the sort of situation by which the law societies are able to regulate the unethical conduct of practitioners. That is a point to which I hope to return later. In the Weekend Australian of 28-29 September there appeared one of the most remarkable advertisements ever placed in the popular Press and certainly one of the most remarkable statements about medical practice that one could ever see. The advertisement was headed `Pathology . . . a disgusting state of affairs in New South Wales!' Three eminent, respected pathologists, Doctors Michael Barratt, Dermer Smith and Michael Harrison, inserted the advertisement which, in part, read as follows: Unfortunately in NSW there are a significant number of medical practitioners who, as O.P. Approved Pathology Practitioners, refer their patients' pathology to pathology laboratories knowing full well that the standard of pathology performed by these laboratories is low and that by so acting they are placing their patients in danger. They are acting in their own financial interest by virtue of the fee split and are putting their patients at serious risk. These laboratories, by churning out reports which cannot be trusted are a great threat to the patients of NSW. Dr Smith and Dr Barratt appeared before the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee and outlined their concerns. As I said, these gentlemen are people of the highest repute and probity and, according to the President of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia, Dr Lewis Davies, the practice with which they are associated is described as employing highly qualified specialists and Dr Smith himself is `recognised as one of the most able diagnosticians in Sydney'. We have a state of affairs in which, by the use of complex and complicated corporate arrangements, fee splitting and practices which would be regarded as unethical are indulged in not between individuals but between corporate entities. One such entity is Macquarie Pathology Services Pty Ltd in which, when we look at the structure of it, we can see there are certain trusts which hold a 100 per cent share of companies, such as Tracknew Holdings Pty Ltd, which in turn holds interests in Richard Walter Pty Ltd. Those two do business under the names Macquarie Professional Services Pty Ltd and Macquarie Diagnostic Services and companies such as Totledge Pty Ltd, Hapday Holdings Pty Ltd, Macquarie Pathology Services Pty Ltd and Ultera Pty Ltd. This enables the money and documentation to be circulated within the group for the purpose of maximisation of return and to avoid the provisions in legislation which otherwise outlaw fee splitting which were outlawed by amendment in 1977. These pathology operations seek to recruit people, not simply in their capacity as pathologists or as providers of pathology services, but most unethically of all, as the providers of mere names. A report which appeared in the Australian on 24 October 1985 read in part: Specialist pathologist Dr Roma Newman claimed colleagues had been asked to give their names for providing numbers for Medicare benefits claims for a flat `consultancy' fee of about $800 a month. The Sydney Morning Herald of the same date reported: Another two specialist pathologists, Dr R. Newman and Dr J. Grace, told the committee- that is the Public Accounts Committee- that commercial pathology companies had contacted them individually, asking them to donate their names and their ability to attract relatively high fees for a financial consideration. In Dr Grace's case the sum offered was $30,000 without any further responsibility. Here is a system whereby, in order to obtain the registered Medicare numbers, the provider numbers, of specialist pathologists, they are being invited to contribute their names and numbers to one of these pathology services for a fee, not to undertake any work, but in order to provide these services with the capacity to increase further their financial take out of the Medicare barrel. Indeed, we see from evidence presented in public and from evidence presented regarding Macquarie Pathology Services that there is a sort of standing arrangement between that company and a company known as Omniman Pty Ltd, which is a company owned and operated by Dr Geoffrey Edelsten, of whom I shall have something more to say in a moment. Once Dr Barratt and Dr Smith had made these public accusations and had done so, I believe, out of nothing more than a genuine, responsible and respectful concern for the health of their profession-I believe that they did entirely the correct thing in bringing to the attention of a parliamentary committee a system which needs to be corrected by parliamentary action-they received a letter from Macquarie Pathology Services Pty Ltd, signed by Dr Thomas R. Wenkart, Medical Administrator. After an opening paragraph, which said that they really should not have made those accusations, he went on to say: Regretfully, you joined the mud slinging, ignorant media who so flippantly write half truths, inferences and headline grabbing banners to forward their careers and the sale of papers. In effect you dropped professional standards and ethics. If anybody is responsible for dropping professional standards and ethics it is not the doctors who came before the Public Accounts Committee; it is the people whose practices they exposed before that Committee. We see an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph headed: `Labs used death threats on GPs'. We know from comments made by respected members of the medical profession that some of them have been threatened. We know that in Burwood there have been instances of the paint bombing of practices. We know that when some of these entrepreneurial systems are established within the suburban areas local general practitioners in these areas are visited by representatives of these entrepreneurial concerns and told: `You have a few choices. You can join up, you can move out or you can be financially ruined. Take it or leave it'. This is an approach to medicine which I believe is entirely incompatible with the best standards of the medical profession and entirely incompatible with the way in which the majority of Australians, indeed the overwhelming majority of Australians, want to see their health care system operated. These death threats are perhaps something which we should pay only passing regard to because there are proper methods by which they should be investigated. We hope that public exposure, such as that which appeared in the National Times edition of 11 to 17 October under the heading `The doctor and the hit-man', will in fact provide an opportunity for the proper law enforcement authorities to investigate whether there is any criminal behaviour involved. If there is, we trust that the Government will ensure that that is properly pursued and that if persons have broken the law they are brought to justice. I give one example of what we could perhaps call a friendly warning which was contained in a letter sent by Dr Edelsten to a Health Insurance Commission investigation- Senator Tate —Is it under his signature? Senator PUPLICK —That is correct. The letter is dated 12 April and I quote the following couple of paragraphs in relation to the removal of tattooing: Many patients come from a socio-economic/intelligence group where aggression is commonplace. The mere mention of tattoos could provoke them into a violent rage. You could well end up being floored. I want to turn specifically to the operation of one of these entrepreneurial practices; that conducted by Dr Edelsten. I have a copy of two of the standard contracts which Dr Edelsten signs with persons who are employed in his professional services and in which the consultancy arrangements are set out. Rather than take the time of the Senate, having shown these two documents to the Minister on duty-the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt)-I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- DR. G. W. EDELSTEN, 192 HEATHCOTE ROAD, HAMMONDVILLE. 2170 Agreement This is to document and confirm our consultancy agreement regarding you working for my medical practice commencing Hours of work: By mutual agreement. Remuneration: $35,000 per annum, paid fortnightly plus 10% of gross fees on work performed by you, OR 35% of gross fees on work performed by you, whichever is the greater. This gross figure is paid to you as a Consultant and is not taxed as you are responsible for your own personal taxation. Holidays and Sick Leave: As you are considered an independent Consultant you are responsible for your own holiday and sick pay. Insurance: As this is a Consultancy Agreement, you are responsible for your own holiday and sick pay. Term of Agreement: The term of this agreement is for a minimum of twelve months from date of commencement, however, either party may give 4 weeks notice to terminate whichever is mutually agreed. Covenant not to compete: You agree not to practice as a medical practitioner either as a Principal, Locum or Assistant for 6 months following the termination of this agreement for any reason whatsoever within a distance of 5 kilometers from the surgery location where you practice on a regular basis under this agreement. Signed, DR. G. W. EDELSTEN, The Edelsten Group Consulting Agreement 074 Set out hereunder are the main terms of the Agreement reached between us: 1. Consultancy service to be provided-You are to act as a consultant registered medical practitioner, and in that regard to provide such services, acts, things and matters as may from time to time be required for the conduct and operation of medical practices conducted by me. 2. Consultancy fees-2.1 During the first ninety (90) days of the term of this Agreement, you are to be paid a consultancy fee fortnightly in arrears, which fee shall be the greater of: (a) 40% of the gross fees received by me for consulting work performed by you; (b) an amount calculated in accordance with the Sessional Rate as set out in the attached schedule; (c) the Lump Sum Amount set out in the attached Schedule. 2.2 After the first ninety (90) days of the term of this Agreement, you are to be paid 40% of the gross fees received by me for consulting work performed by you. 3. Term of agreement-Subject to the termination for breach provisions hereunder set out, this Agreement will commence on 29th July 1985, and shall continue until terminated by either party. (a) within the first ninety (90) days by seven (7) days notice either verbally or in writing to the other, and (b) after the first ninety (90) days by four (4) weeks notice in writing to the other. 4. Termination for breach-4.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement forthwith upon a breach of any term of the Agreement by the other. 4.2 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, I may terminate this Agreement forthwith if you: (a) fail to attend or satisfactorily complete an initial briefing prior to commencement of the Agreement. (b) are found guilty of any offence under any relevant legislation including, but not limited to the N.S.W. Medical Practitioners' Act or the Federal Health Insurance Act. (c) are guilty of any conduct which is, or is likely to be prejudicial to my interests, my reputation or well-being, or that of my associated companies, or of my practices, or of patients of my practices. (d) permit your registration as a registered medical practitioner to lapse, be restricted, be withdrawn or no longer be valid. (e) permit your professional indemnity or like insurance to lapse or otherwise no longer to be valid. 5. Holidays and sick leave-As this is a Consultancy Agreement, you are responsible for your own holiday and sick leave. 6. Confidentiality-6.1 Unless otherwise specifically authorised by me in writing, you shall keep confidential any and all information which comes into your possession relating to the operation of my medical practices or any of my associated companies and you shall not divulge or disclose such information to any person, firm or corporation, or in any way turn such information to commercial account or otherwise exploit such information. 6.2 This confidentiality provision shall remain in full force in effect notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement. 7. Covenant not to compete-This Agreement is specifically entered into by me in consideration of your agreement not to practise as a medical practitioner whether as a principal, locum or assistant for the term of six months next following the termination of this Agreement for any cause whatsoever within a distance of five (5) kilometres from the surgery where you consult on a regular basis under the terms of this Agreement. 8. General and further agreements-This contract supersedes any and all previous agreements, written and/or verbal, and represents the entire agreement between us, unless otherwise specified by an instrument in writing, signed by both of us. I would be grateful if you would sign this enclosed copy of this letter and the schedule attached, as an acknowledgement of your acceptance of the terms set out above. Yours faithfully, DR G. W. EDELSTEN Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. They provide for the payment of consultancy fees and for sharing of the gross fee between Dr Edelsten and the doctor involved. They also provide what are the termination agreements or arrangements for breach of contract and they provide for matters such as holiday and sick pay and questions of confidentality. One thing that Dr Edelsten's practice likes to do is to ensure that it gets maximum work out of its employees, and there is nothing wrong with that. To give honourable senators an example of that, on 22 May 1985 a memo headed `Confidential' was circulated to the medical staff at Baulkham Hills from Dr Edelsten. It stated: I am disturbed at the lack of growth of our practice. I consider that there are several major factors. They appear, in the greatest part, to be related to the service provided by the medical staff. (1) Waiting time-Despite Receptionist staff letting you know how long the patient is waiting and, particularly where there may be several people waiting for you, there appears little effort in speeding up. (2) Patients are not being asked to make appointments. Requesting patients to make appointments for follow-up is essential. Patients believe if you ask them to return, that you are interested in them and by making an appointment, you can ensure that they see you personally and your workload can be evenly distributed, thus providing a better service. (3) When they are busy, it appears that we are short on charm in dealing with patients. Please be assured that this is extraordinarily important in dealing with the public, particularly with new patients. A smile and a special effort in being pleasant is regarded as beneficial to the patients. It is interesting to note that over the last several weeks, I have has a little feedback from Reception staff re patients comments on their treatment, however, last week I had a New Zealand doctor doing 3 evenings. I had no fewer than 3 Reception staff and 5 patients call me to say how delightful and caring the doctor was. I wonder what the difference was! Re X-Ray-Utilisation of C.T., Ultrasound, mammography and tomography is far from optimum. I thank everyone for their assistance in covering nights in recent times. It is much appreciated. We are approaching the busiest time-let's make every post a winner and give the patients superb attention and care. We should then achieve record figures. I would appreciate everyone's assistance in the above matters. Regards, Dr. G. W. EDELSTEN There is a memorandum to various members of staff from one of his medical directors, Dr P. Brennan, dated 2 September 1985, which stated: Following a distress call today from Dr Edelsten regarding last weeks disastrous patient numbers (even allowing for seasonal factors) we have decided to hold individual meetings with all G.P.'s at Baulkham Hills to find ways to improve our performance. Two major immediate areas are: (1) Lack of firm patient appointments. (2) In adequate and disinterested management of the Weight Control Program. The meetings will be held this week on Tuesday and Thursday PM. Could everybody please arrange a day and time with me. Could you also bring patient case histories which document; (1) Substantial weight loss-e.g. 20 kg. (2) One or two interesting or unusual diagnoses. Here's hoping we can remain the best attended general practice in Australia. Indeed, these are the best attended general practices in Australia. They even get fortnightly printouts of how well they are doing. I have a printout from the Baulkham Hills clinic of Dr Edelsten which lists on the left hand side the practising doctors in the practice numbered from one to 11 and then in columns it notes the number of new patients, total patients, gross revenue generated, Medicare rejects, rejects resubmitted, net revenue, average per patient, number of pathology tests, number of blood tests, the cost and number of CAT scans, x-rays, ultrasounds and other services, the grand total, and the average per patient. Everybody gets one of these every fortnight to see how well or indeed how badly he is doing in terms of generating revenue compared with his colleagues. I am told by colleagues of mine in this place who are members of the medical profession that the average general practitioner is doing pretty well if he sees 120 patients in the course of a week. He is probably working under a great deal of strain if he sees 140 patients in a week. Here is a printout of the number of patients seen by each of 39 doctors in these entrepreneurial practices for a fortnight period ending 1 September 1985. Dr No. 1-one who has really struck the jackpot as far as this is concerned-in the course of that two-week period saw 1,325 patients and generated a revenue of $32,111.25. Senator Peter Baume —That is in a fortnight? Senator PUPLICK —That is an unbelievable 1,325 patients in a fortnight. The techniques to do that, of course, are quite easy. One has a system which is called group therapy for smoking. One gets 20 patients in, one talks to them for five minutes about the dangers of smoking, and one charges 20 consultations. One has a weight reduction program in which somebody is put on a diet, and he is told to come in every day or every second day and get weighed. The patient dutifully comes traipsing through the door, somebody in the practice weighs him, records the fact that he has been weighed, and a consultation fee is generated. All the patient has to do as he comes through the door is hand his Medicare card to the smiling receptionist, who puts it through one of the little machines, requires him to sign it, and he signs it blank so that anything can be changed on it before he sees anybody. Then off the patient goes quietly out the back door or again out the front door at the end of his consultation period. It is a rip-off but one, of course, which could exist and be facilitated only by a health care system designed in the way in which it has been designed by this Government and by previous Labor governments. I shall come back to that in due course. It is not as if these patients do not feel from time to time that they are getting excellent service. Some of the documents presented to the Public Accounts Committee make interesting reading. A patient, for instance, on one particular occasion had 13 pathology tests ordered, which may well have been fine. That generated a revenue of $2,089. In the period of a month in one clinic 663 patients were put through 5,723 pathology tests, for a total of $86,669.17. However, from time to time one does get some fairly extraordinary figures. Here is a printout provided by the Health Commission to the Public Accounts Committee for one patient who, on the one day, had ordered for him, and indeed the Health Insurance Commission paid up for, 94 separate pathology tests and procedures. They were billed for and paid for. Again in the Health Insurance Commission documentation provided to the Public Accounts Committee are the details of another patient who had a total, on the one day, of 97 separate pathology tests ordered, signed for and paid for, generating on that particular occasion a revenue somewhere in the order of $550-odd. Those doctors, I might say, depend for their existence upon the Medicare card, the blank signing of the form, and the process of bulk billing. If this is not to spread as an arrangement into areas such as radiology-I note that the spokesman for the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists in the Age on 20 October made a plea not to allow the sort of thing which is happening in pathology to happen in radiology-then the Government is going to have to take some significant steps to clean up the way in which the pathology system operates. As I have said, to a large extent this is the direct fault and the consequence of bulk billing. When one looks at the comments by Professor Penington, one of the most respected deans of medical faculties around Australia, on the PM program on 12 September 1985 he indicated quite clearly that bulk billing was one of the critical issues involved. On the PM program on 11 September, Dr Trevor Pickering, the Australian Medical Association Federal President, indicated quite clearly, and I quote his words: The AMA has always brought attention to the fact that where doctors bulk bill totally there is a risk of overservicing and this is one of the factors which we will be looking at. It is not as if there was not also a reasonable amount of political facilitation involved in all this. People and governments have to facilitate these services. In order to facilitate the promotion of his practice, on 11 April 1985 Dr Edelsten wrote to the Premier of New South Wales. Among other things he wrote about the New South Wales Medical Board, a board whose capacity really to regulate the medical profession and to do it with the respect and support of members of the medical profession has been substantially weakened by the way in which the New South Wales Health Minister, Mr Brereton, changed the composition and the nature and the role of medical boards. Dr Edelsten wrote to the Premier to say that the problem was that the Medical Board was interpreting the regulations about advertising medical practices in a way which prevented medical practitioners from providing `adequate signage' of their practices. Obviously this impressed somebody in the State Labor Government because on 9 May 1985 Mr Anderson, signing a letter for the Premier to Dr Edelsten, said he agreed that perhaps there might be a `different standard' for signs at his sort of practice. On 9 May 1985 Mr Anderson, signing again for the Premier, wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Health, Mr Mulock, and said: . . . there would seem to be some substance in Dr. Edelsten's claim that there should be a different standard for advertising services that are available 24 hours a day and must therefore be capable of being found at night. On 7 June Mr Mulock replied to Mr Wran that he had received that correspondence. On 19 August he agreed in a letter to Mr Wran that there ought to be a review. On 27 August Mr Wran wrote to Mr Mulock and, in terms of the review of this by the Medical Board, said: Whilst the views of the Medical Board are, of course, important I would be grateful if you would ensure that the Board is made aware of the Government's desire to have regulations which recognise the need for a more flexible approach to the advertising of medical practices- subject, where necessary, to the maintenance of appropriate standards. Pending the outcome of this review of the regulations, I would suggest that any action to enforce the present standards might be suspended. Your early advice on this matter would be appreciated. Yours sincerly, Neville Wran. Premier. The current situation is one which cannot thus take place unless there is some support from the political system or, at least, there is a failure to act in areas in which the Government has the capacity to act. When Dr Seng James Yap was investigated he was suspended from payment of Medicare benefits. However, there does not appear to have been the sort of zealous approach in this matter that one would have hoped for, or indeed expected. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts is pursuing this investigation as best it can and, with the assistance of the Health Insurance Commission, undoubtedly is making a great deal of progress. However, it alone can only identify problems. It cannot act to solve those problems. It can make recommendations but it will still require positive activity on the part of government to clean up this situation. Similarly, there is difficulty as far as the Australian Medical Association or any of the other bodies within the medical profession are concerned in regulating their profession in a way in which they desperately want to. They do not have the sorts of statutory powers, backing and coverage which the law societies in various States have. They do not have any disciplinary powers. In New South Wales, because of the way in which the Health Minister, Mr Brereton, changed the composition of the medical boards, medical practitioners are not able to act for the profession through the medical boards in the way in which they want to act. Indeed, the medical boards in New South Wales, as a result of their restructuring by Mr Brereton, have engaged in some highly dubious, partisan political operations within that State. To that extent the medical profession must therefore rely on this Parliament and at this stage on this Government to do something to clean up the mess which exists in pathology services. There is one mess which it seems to me that this Government will not be prepared to clean up. I refer to the mess which absolutely and inevitably flows from the Medicare system and the system of bulk billing, operating in the way it does. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and other Ministers of this Government positively encourage members of the medical profession to use the bulk billing system. This system has been set up to overcome what essentially are not medical problems but ideological problems on the part of the Government. To the extent that the Government continues to urge the use of the bulk billing system and to the extent it continues to believe that it is important to destroy the direct financial relationship existing between the user of the service and the provider of the service, it invites this sort of unethical and rogue behaviour. One cannot entirely blame unscrupulous people for taking advantage of a system which is so open to manipulation and to having advantages taken of it. Senator Robertson —For goodness sake! Where are your morals? What an extraordinary statement! Senator PUPLICK —It is an entirely unethical practice. Senator Robertson, as part of the Government, has the capacity to clean that up, but he will not. I tell him not to seek merely to blame people for misusing a system when the key to terminating off that misuse lies in the Government's hands. Not only does the Government fail to act but it encourages the deliberate attempt to misuse the system in that fashion. In fact what we have is certainly improper and certainly unethical behaviour which this Government has the capacity to clean up but which it does not have the political will to clean up. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.21) —The Senate is debating the Appropriation Bills for the current financial year. Traditionally in August of each year the Government of the day brings down a Budget. Traditionally that Budget contains a statement of the revenue to be anticipated, the methods of obtaining that revenue and a detailed statement of expenditure. Unless one has that full document, it is impossible to understand or to interpret whether the Government is a good manager or not. Of course, this Government has projected itself to the people as a good economic manager. This time the Government did not bring down a full Budget; it brought down a half Budget. It did so because it had failed to come to terms with the problem of what it called tax reform. The Government set up, with much noise and much public relations, a Taxation Summit; it gave clear indications of the guidelines it believed were necessary for taxation reform; and it failed abjectly to produce that result. Indeed, the result from the National Taxation Summit was diametrically opposed to the guidelines which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said were essential to any basis basic tax reform. Worse than that, the Tax Summit was aborted-that is the only word I can use-by an action of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who, unknown to his Treasurer, met secretly at a hotel with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and reached a compromise with the ACTU which was diametrically opposed to what the Treasurer and, indeed, the Government of the day said ought to be the tax reforms. Against that background a form of Budget was brought in foreshadowing that in the months ahead a series of tax measures would be introduced. Those measures have now come to light. Of course, the tax measures include a capital gains tax, a tax on fringe benefits and a tax on allowances. Against that background the public now has a chance to test the taxation program introduced by the Federal Government. The public has a chance to ask from where the Federal Government is getting its revenue, to where it is directing its expenditure and how that impacts on ordinary people. Above all, the public has a chance to test whether the Government is a good manager. Let us look at that question. Inflation is now predicted to be 8 or 9 per cent in the months ahead next year. Inflation is almost double that of our trading partners and rising. Is that good management? Is it good management to have a margin of inflation so significantly above that of our trading partners that we are being traded and costed out of world markets? Is it good management that our inflation denies our people jobs? The next factor is that the average real increase in government spending over this Government's period has been 4.9 per cent per annum, more than double the average increase over the seven Fraser years. In due course, I will seek leave to have the relevant table incorporated in Hansard. Is it good management that spending by the Government has been more than double that of the previous Government? Of course, that will affect the size of deficits. This Budget means that three quarters of a million pay as you earn taxpayers have moved into a higher tax bracket, half a million of them into the 46c in the dollar tax bracket. Is that good management? Does it give tax relief? I pause to remind the Senate of the promise of tax cuts, because that was fundamental to tax reform. Many of us today would have received the monthly summary bulletin from the National Australia Bank. The foreword contains two paragraphs that are worth quoting. It says: National Australia Bank believes low income earners small savers and borrowers are the main losers in the Federal Government's tax reform package announced in September. It goes on: The leading article in the Bank's October `Monthly Summary' suggests that tax reform tends to be the art of redistributing tax away from those who scream the hardest. The November summary says: No attempt has been made to compensate for the effects of inflation on income between now and June 1987 when the new rates come into effect. This means that the taxpayer on average weekly earnings in June 1985 and paying 22.4 per cent of salary in tax, will actually pay 23.4 per cent in tax when the new scales come into effect two years later, should average earnings increase by 8 per cent per annum in the interim. So much for the offer of tax cuts. The summary says-I invite the Government to refute it-that the result for an average wage earner will be an increase in the percentage of tax he pays. The summary goes on: More alarmingly however, no commitment has been made to index the tax scales for inflation beyond 1987-88. In other words, there is nothing in place to prevent 50 per cent-- that is the new high tax scale-- becoming the marginal rate for the majority of full-time salary earners in the near future or, looking further ahead, to prevent the 50 per cent scale from gradually assuming dominance even to the point of eventually creating a virtual flat tax system at this still substantial income tax rate. Is this tax reform? The National Australia Bank, a very reputable organisation, is saying that the so-called vaunted tax reforms of the Government are, in fact, substantial tax increases. As I have said, about three quarters of a million PAYE taxpayers move into the higher tax brackets, half a million of them into the 46c bracket. But the story is the same wherever one goes. This is the Government that says it is a good manager. The per capita overseas debt-the amount of overseas debt per Australian-has risen from $1,571 in June 1983, just after the Fraser Government went out of office, to $3,326 in June 1985. It has gone from 14.6 per cent to 25.1 per cent of gross domestic product. The public sector share rose per capita from $864 to $1,670. It almost doubled in that time. Australia's external debt servicing rose from 8.3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1979-80 to 33.6 per cent in 1984-85. Step by step we are unravelling a picture, not of good management, but of disastrous management for Australia as a trader in world markets and in terms of jobs for our people, living standards for those who already work and loss of job opportunities for those who are out of work. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —In this Budget the tax grab from the Australian community has increased by 13.3 per cent. The pay as you earn take of tax is up 29 per cent in two years. I suggest that that in itself is no measure of good government management. The Government has said that it has not increased taxes. It has indexed excise so that, stealthily, twice a year the price of beer, cigarettes, petrol and spirits is increased. In fact we have had an increase in PAYE tax of some 29 per cent in two years and an indexation of excise automatically every six months. Is that good management? I come to the next benchmark of good management. The cumulative deficit for the three years of the Hawke Government amounts to $20 billion. That is more than the combined total for the seven years of the Fraser Government. In fact, the present deficit is higher than any Fraser Government deficit and twice the average. Is that good management? I will take another test of good management by the Hawke Government. The public debt interest bill, excluding that for the States and statutory authorities, is now at an all time high of $6,724m, an increase of $1 billion over last year. It is now the largest single item of government expenditure other than social security and payments to the States. Expenditure on servicing the public debt is higher than expenditure on defence, health or education. It has doubled under the Keating treasurership from $3,378m in 1982-83 to $6,724m this year. Is that good management? Let us take some other tests. Interest rates are now at a record high. Month by month home buyers face the threat that their interest rates will rise. Overdraft interest rates are soaring to all time record heights and real interest rates are at an all time record. Is that good management? Recently, the Economic Planning Advisory Council said that over the next 10 years we must anticipate unemployment of about 9 or 10 per cent. Is that good management? At the National Economic Summit Conference three years ago the Hawke Government said it would be at about that figure by the end of this year. Step by step, under every test that is made, we face a record of very bad management by this Government in contrast to that of the previous Liberal Government. There are three more things that will do great damage to the economy and to the hopes of those who wish to see some expansion in manufacturing and other industries. I refer first of all to the imposition of a capital gains tax. Let me make it emphatically clear that the Prime Minister said in quite unequivocal terms that there would be no capital gains tax. He made a substantial promise for his re-election that there would be no capital gains tax. He has broken that promise as he has broken a long string of promises that he made to the people. The last thing that industry needs today is a brake upon its capacity to plough back and reinvest the gains that it makes. If industry is to expand, grow and employ, it must have the capital to do so. What has the Government done? Despite a strict promise that it would not do so, it has introduced a capital gains tax. With a lot of quite spurious words it has introduced two other forms of imposts-the abolition of fringe benefits and the abolition of allowances. Senator Button —You are in favour of those, are you? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am in favour of school teachers and miners in outlying areas getting the benefit of allowances because they are living in harsh conditions. Yes, I am in favour of that. Senator Button by inference in his interjection says that he is not in favour. His Government is going to abolish these allowances. I am in favour of giving an incentive to people in the mining towns, in education and in the 101 instances in which a pay package is put together to give people their just deserts for the job they do. Senator Button —That is what it is, is it? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Now Senator Button is getting agitated. So he ought to, because the mining industry is not growing. Its numbers are and have been static, and the rural industry is in the same position. If we take those precious benefits away from people who live in outlying areas we will reduce their pay package and we will find it much harder to get people to go there. The Government sneers at entertainment allowances. The fact of the matter is that under the Whitlam Government and under previous Labor governments it was generally accepted that the ordinary working expense would include meeting people for lunch or dinner, to discuss business. Nobody knows better than members of parliament that many a time over the course of a week or a year the only times we can meet people and deal with our constituents are those times. Now that has become a naughty thing. Senator Peter Baume —Expenses incurred in earning income. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —As Senator Baume says, these expenses are properly incurred in earning a living. I want to examine step by step this aspect of good management. I have with me two tables which, after I have made some remarks, I shall seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. The first deals with unemployment and unemployment trends. Against this background one should look at the relative management abilities of Liberal and Labor governments. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, almost without exception, there was total full employment. Unemployment was running at one per cent, 1 1/2 per cent or, rarely, at 2 per cent throughout the whole of that time and right up to 1972. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s inflation and the consumer price index, except in the Korea wool boom, rarely passed 2 per cent. There was full employment and low inflation and more than 70 per cent of people were able to own their own homes and to do so on a quarter of a single income. That means that a male wage earner would pay one quarter of his income to purchase his home. Today that has gone by the board. It is a question of good management. Let us take unemployment as a case in point. The tables to be incorporated show that in the three years of the Liberal Government before the Whitlam Government unemployment averaged 1.3 per cent. In the three years of the Whitlam Government it rose to 3.1 per cent in 1975, averaging 1.9 per cent over those three years. There was a steady move up in unemployment. In the seven years of the Fraser Government it averaged 5.8 per cent. In the three years so far of the Hawke Government it has averaged 9.1 per cent. Is that good management? Senator Button —What did it finish at? You are an old fraud. You know that, don't you? You are an old has-been fraud. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I pause to have those remarks put in the record because the source of the figures which I shall have incorporated in Hansard is the Parliamentary Library, which therefore is an old fraud. Those are the figures that I cited. Senator Button suggests that the Year Book of Australia is an old fraud. That is the situation year after year because the Labor Party uses a trick. It takes the latter part of the last six months of the Fraser Government, when there was an upsurge of inflation, and uses that as a suggestion that it covered the whole seven years. The fact is that, year by year, under the Fraser Government the level of unemployment was 4.4 per cent, 5.5 per cent, 6.2 per cent, 6.2 per cent, 6.2 per cent, 5.6 per cent and 6.6 per cent. Senator Button says that those figures are old frauds. In the three years of Hawke Government the figures were 9.9 per cent, 9 per cent and 8.4 per cent. Let me take the consumer price index and average weekly earnings. In the three years of the McMahon Government the consumer price index was 4.8 per cent, 6.8 per cent and 6 per cent. What happened in the period of the Whitlam Government? The figures were 13 per cent, 16.8 per cent and 12.9 per cent. There was an absolute upsurge at a time when Mr Hawke was both the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party and there was a Labor Government. At that time Australia had the worst rate of inflation, except for one very short period when there was the Korean wool boom. Australia's rate of inflation in that period was 13 per cent, 16.8 per cent, 12.9 per cent, merging into 13.9 per cent the following year. Under the Fraser Government it came down to 9.5 per cent, 8.2 per cent, 10.1 per cent, 9.4 per cent, 10.4 per cent, and 11.5 per cent. The Fraser Government had the courage to do something that the Labor Party said was wrong. The Fraser Government said: `We must have a wage freeze and that wage freeze should continue for a year'. The result of the wage freeze was that the inflation rate went down to 6.9 per cent and so on. The fact is that the wage freeze itself was a policy of the Fraser Government. Senator Button —Take the Hawke Government figures on inflation. Tell us about them. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Button naturally will get agitated when I deal with his performance in the manufacturing industry. The practice of trying to interrupt is the tactic of trying to prevent the facts coming out. Let me take average weekly earnings. Under the McMahon Liberal Government the increases were 10.7 per cent, 10.1 per cent and 9.7 per cent. Under Labor, the Whitlam-Hawke regime, the figures were 15.9 per cent, 25.6 per cent and 13.7 per cent. That represented an increase of over 50 per cent in three years, which was a record increase. In one period of 18 months there was a 37 per cent increase. In that 18-month period 138,000 people were shed from the manufacturing industry. That is the record that Senator Button, the Minister who is in charge of manufacturing, is trying to crowd out my saying. After that time, under Fraser, the figure fell to 13 per cent, 9 per cent, 9.6 per cent, 8.1 per cent and 9.7 per cent. Then, in 1980-81 there was the Hawke-ACTU upsurge of wages. In 1974 Mr Hawke said: `I know that inflation is at 16.8 per cent and going to 20 per cent but I will not let it interfere with my demands for an upsurge of wages'. Regarding housing and overdraft interest rates, let me say simply that the overdraft interest rate is now at 14.6 per cent, which is an all time high. I seek leave to have the tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- UNEMPLOYMNENT TRENDS Government Year Per- centage Average Liberal... 1970 1.1 1971 1.2 1972 1.6 1.3% Labor... 1973 1.4 1974 1.3 1975 3.1 1.9% Liberal... 1976 4.4 1977 5.5 1978 6.2 1979 6.2 1980 6.2 1981 5.6 1982 6.6 5.8% Labor... 1983 9.9 1984 9.0 1985 8.4 9.1% (Source: Parliamentary Library and Australian Year Book) CONSUMER PRICE INDEX TRENDS AND AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS Government Year Consumer price index Average weekly earnings % % Liberal... 1970-71 4.8 10.7 1971-72 6.8 10.1 1972-73 6.0 9.7 Labor... 1973-74 13.0 15.9 1974-75 16.8 25.6 1975-76 12.9 13.7 Liberal... 1976-77 13.9 13.0 1977-78 9.5 9.6 1978-79 8.2 8.1 1979-80 10.1 9.7 1980-81 9.4 13.5 1981-82 10.4 14.5 1982-83 11.5 11.4 Labor... 1983-84 6.9 8.4 1984-85 4.3 6.8 Source: Consumer Price Index, (ABS) Average Weekly Earnings, (ABS). HOUSING AND OVERDRAFT INTEREST RATES Government Year Housing loans Over- draft % % Liberal... 1970-71 8.3 n.a. 1971-72 8.0 n.a. 1972-73 7.8 n.a. Labor... 1973-74 9.1 n.a. 1974-75 11.5 n.a. 1975-76 11.1 n.a. Liberal... 1976-77 10.5 10.5 1977-78 10.3 10.5 1978-79 9.7 10.2 1979-80 9.6 10.2 1980-81 11.1 11.7 1981-82 12.8 13.8 1982-83 13.1 14.3 Labor... 1983-84 12.1 14.2 1984-85 12.0 14.6 Source: Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin. GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE PERFORMANCE Government Years Real Growth in Budget Outlays Menzies... (16) 4.0 Holt... (2) 7.7 Gorton... (3) 4.7 McMahon... (2) 3.9 Whitlam... (3) 11.1 Fraser... (7) 2.2 Hawke... (2) 7.1 Senator Button —I hope people will read them, not selectively as you did. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I read them. They were taken from the Parliamentary Library and the Year Book of Australia. They are exactly the tables that were presented in both cases. Senator Button —You read out the Labor Government's figures on average weekly earnings. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let me cite some statistics. The Minister is now getting agitated. Recently it was reported in the Press that there has been a shrinkage during the past winter of 27,600 jobs in the manufacturing industry in Australia, which is part of the portfolio of the Minister at the table who has interjected. It is stated that the latest fall means that the number of manufacturing jobs has dropped by 32,000 over the past year, and that rationalisation may add to the 157,000 manufacturing jobs that have already been lost since the most recent peak during the resources boom of 1981. So 157,000 jobs have already been lost and the number of jobs available is still falling. The Minister is now chastened, because in the last 15 years the number of jobs in manufacturing industry has dropped from 1.3 million to 1.1 million. The figure in February 1985 was 1.54 million. There has been an enormous loss of 200,000 jobs and that has happened at a time when the population has increased by 20.7 per cent. A quarter of a million more jobs ought to have been created. One hundred and thirty-eight thousand of those jobs were lost under the Whitlam Government and the core of the 157,000 jobs lost was lost under the Hawke Government and under the administration of Senator Button. EPAC has said that we will have to put up with inflation at the rate of 9 per cent to 10 per cent for the next 10 years. No Labor government has said anything to counter that statement. Indeed, Mr Hawke has said that at least 130,000 new jobs would have to be created to keep up with the increase in population. In rural areas there has been a decline in the work force. There are now only 400,000 Australians or 6.1 per cent of the work force, out of a total of over six million workers, in rural employment. In the mining industry, in which there should be an increase, there are 95,500 workers, or a static rate of 1.45 per cent. In all of these categories except the public sector and some of the service industries there has been a falling away. Of course, the crowning criticism of the Labor Government is in regard to management. The figures show that year by year governments of Liberal faith were the good managers; governments of Labor faith were the disastrous managers, the disastrously bad managers of all time. The trend in the Whitlam years is now being relived and refuelled, as we will have an inflation rate next year of 9 per cent. I refer also to the sorry scene overseas. The Opposition is not alone in its judgment. The world has sat in judgment of the Hawke Labor Government. When the Australian dollar was floated the world said that it should be devalued by 20 per cent and it has continued to say that. I do not refer only to the United States of America, but also to Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Germany. Each of those countries has put a value on Australia by saying that the country's management has been bad and that we need to devalue the dollar in recognition of that. What about all of the glorious talk we have heard? A few weeks ago Mr Hawke promised that interest rates would fall. He promised that in his election policy speech. But today he whimpers that the Australian community will have to get used to high interest rates. One by one on every test the promises are broken. Yesterday or the day before a boast was made in this place that unemployment had fallen. In fact the figures show that employment had also fallen. What the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, who is at the table, failed to make clear was that the participation rate had fallen. That is, people were not coming forward and saying `I want a job' because they had lost their spirit. During almost the whole time the Hawke Government has been in office the participation rate has been lower-with one or two exceptions-on a month by month basis than it was when the Fraser Government was in office. Instead of there being an average 8.4 per cent unemployment rate this year, the real unemployment rate, if the participation rate is taken into account, is of the order of 10 per cent. I have shown that at every test the Labor Government has failed in economic management and, by contrast with past Liberal governments, it has been a miserable failure. The real economic managers of Australia have been the Liberal governments, as they will be in the future. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(8.21) —I see this debate as an opportunity to raise the question of whether Australian taxpayers should be required to contribute to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and then see the Government appropriate money from that Fund for the purpose of an overseas government suppressing political dissidents and in a very brutal way dealing with its poor peasants in the countryside. Senator Sheil —Oh, the Russian Government. Senator TATE —The honourable senator is trying to divert me. I will not be diverted from what I think is a very important matter. We are not sending arms to Russia; we are not involved in a defence co-operation agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I hope we never will be because I have condemned, as strongly as members of the other side of the chamber, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, for example, which is a brutal suppression of the rights of the people, mainly Moslems, who live in that country and who want to determine their own political future. I am speaking of the Philippine people, who also want to determine their political future free of the corruption which is endemic in that country. In recent weeks, even in the United States of America this has led to spokesmen appearing before Senate committees on behalf of the Administration pointing publicly to the almost inevitable collapse of President Marcos's regime, which is riddled with corruption and cronyism, and dependent on the activities of military and paramilitary groups which, as I have said, have carried out brutal retributions and terrorist acts against their own people. That is the question I am raising. The question of suppression by the USSR of the rights of political dissidents in that country is one for another occasion but it is one which I would be quite happy to join with honourable senators on the other side of the chamber in condemning, as did a committee of this Parliament a couple of years ago in its report on human rights violations in the USSR. But let us not be diverted. The Australian taxpayer is contributing a sum of money-I will come to that in a moment-which is not large in dollar terms but is important symbolically. The broad range of Australians, ordinary people like me who had not had much cause to think about the Philippines, apart from memories that were handed on through the family because of our association with the war in the Pacific and the great efforts of the United States and other allies in ridding that area of the Pacific from the Japanese invaders, were given perhaps their first insight of this. However, it was the trial of Father Brian Gore that probably helped to focus the attention of Australians on the way in which the military is used by elements within that regime to force its corrupt and dictatorial method of government on ordinary and poor peasants. Once those peasants start to organise and exhibit some sort of political or industrial consciousness and try to take on the power of the sugar barons or the coconut barons, the military is used to suppress them. Unfortunately, the judiciary does not show the independence which it ought, and the judges are obviously cowed and fearful not only for their livelihoods but even for their lives should they go against the tremendous power of the cronies who have the great monopolies in what used to be the staple exports of that unhappy land. Senator Peter Baume —You could not say that about the committee of inquiry into the Aquino assassination, could you? They showed some courage, did they not? Senator TATE —Elements of them did. I think all committees looking into matters of high political sensitivity have their uneven performances. The fact is that, as we commenced the Budget session, I felt it right to raise the question again with the Government because with the departure of Father Brian Gore from the Philippines I think there was perhaps a lessening of interest in the activities there. One was always conscious that once the world media was removed from surveillance, by journalists and particularly television cameras, then retribution and revenge would be taken. Indeed, we have seen how regimes understand the power of the international media. Therefore we have the present embargo on journalists, particularly electronic media journalists in South Africa, for example, reporting to the world what is going on there. So when the media were withdrawn from the Philippines, and particularly from Negros, one might have expected retribution to be wreaked on the people who supported Brian Gore. In fact, that is exactly what happened. On Thursday 27 June, during our winter recess, a Christian leader and his four sons were massacred by unidentified armed men, believed to be elements of the seventh infantry battalion, in Father Brian Gore's old parish in Negros. This was a leader of the Christian community on that island. The five were reported picked up by soldiers at their house and were taken to an unknown destination. The victims were found by local residents the next day, 27 June, at the river near Camingawan. All the victims' hands were tied behing their backs and three of them were stripped naked. The wife and mother of the family, who lost a husband and four sons, described how armed men entered the house by breaking a door and how they terrorised the whole family. She said that some of the soldiers' faces were covered by black cloth and they were wearing fatigue uniform with combat boots. She described the brutality that preceded their abduction. Of course, they were found in the river the next day. That is not an isolated instance; that is but one example of the terrorising of the local population which is undertaken by the military and paramilitary forces in the Philippines. I therefore think it is legitimate to raise the question whether Australian taxpayers might be contributing to that suppression by the military aid that we give to the Philippines. I have said that that aid is not large in money terms. In fact it comes to $1.5m a year. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a description of the current and planned activities for 1985-86 under that defence co-operation agreement. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Current and planned activities, 1985-86 Expenditure 1984-85 Actual ($m) 1985-86 Estimate ($m) Variation ($m) Philippines Projects Nomad Maintenance Assistance with the development of maintenance and supply systems for Nomad aircraft through the attachment of a civilian engineer to the Philippines Air Force at Cebu and the completion of the overhaul of six Nomad engines in Australia.... 0.658 0.428 -0.230 Mobile Medical Facility. Provision of in-country consultancy assistance and materiel including equipment and vehicles to establish a mobile field medical facility... - 0.413 +0.413 Other Project. The provision of vehicle workshop and miscellaneous equipment, as well as costs of annual program of planning visits... 0.018 0.020 +0.002 Sub-total Projects... 0.676 0.861 +0.185 Training and Study Visits Training in Australia for some 55 Filipino personnel including joint and single service staff college; Navy executive officer, underwater medicine and technical/trade training; Army survey, military engineer instructor and officer and NCO corps training; Air Force air traffic controller, flying instructor and C130 technical training. Visits to Australia by some 10 officers to attend the 1985 Annual DCP Regional Seminar, the 1985 Army Health Services Exercise and an explosive Safety Seminar... 0.680 0.632 -0.048 Total Philippines... 1.356 1.493 +0.137 Senator TATE —I thank the Senate. That incorporation means that I do not have to take quite so long to describe the elements of that aid. In the main, it comprises a Nomad aircraft maintenance program, a mobile medical facility, the provision of a vehicle workshop, and miscellaneous equipment. As will be appreciated, these are fairly neutral in some senses. They are not, for example, the sending of ammunition, rifles or particular weapons. But of course I do not underestimate their use in some military situations. The most interesting aspect, I think, of the information that was revealed in the Senate Estimates Committee hearing on this matter was the fact that the larger part of our contribution of $1.5m, in fact almost $640,000, is spent on the training in Australia this year of some 55 Filipino servicemen-or Filipino armed services personnel, I should say, in case there are some women amongst them. It is the training within Australia of these 55 service personnel which I think raises important questions that need some answers, because we do not want to wake up one morning and switch on AM and hear that a military commander who undertook some of his training in Australia has in fact been guilty of some terrible massacre against the people in his military district somewhere in the Philippines. I fear that that is what might happen. I asked in the Estimates Committee whether we took any steps to put under scrutiny the use to which our military aid was put, or the activities in which those military personnel who were trained in Australia engaged. I had preceded this by asking a question in the Senate of Senator Gareth Evans, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 23 August-the earliest opportunity in the Budget session-I asked: Has the Government noted reports that the Philippines military was involved in the massacre of a parish leader and his four sons in Father Brian Gore's former parish in Negros? . . . What assurance can the Minister give that Australian taxpayers are not aiding and abetting cruel and deadly repression by the military arm of the corrupt Marcos regime? Senator Evans, having acknowledged the reports of which I spoke and have detailed for the Senate, said: The broad objective of our participation in defence co-operation programs with regional countries is to assist them to develop capabilities, to counter external threats-- I interpolate and emphasise `external threats'-- and to deter the emergence of such threats. He went on to say: Obviously, this Australian Government could not condone and would not abet in any way activities of proposals for activity under the defence co-operation program which threatened human rights. Yet we know that the military in the Philippines has been perverted and suborned to be used as a means of repression, against not only the communist rebels and insurgents but also ordinary Filipinos who are trying to express some sort of political or in many cases simple industrial union-type activity which is not to the liking of those who control that country. So when it came to the Estimates Committee I asked how Australia goes about ensuring that our military aid does not aid and abet this vicious repression against political dissidents which is in fact so well known to us. On 12 September 1985 I put this question to Mr Nockels of the Department of Defence. With all due respect to Mr Nockels, it was like getting blood out of a stone. For example, I asked whether Nomad aircraft could be used in operations directed at the suppression of rebel activity or some other domestic political military operation which the Government felt a need to suppress. Mr Nockels answered: That is always a possibility. There was a little concession. I went on to say: I am asking, then, whether our military attaches really ensure that, for example, Australian Nomad aircraft are not used in such operations . . . how do they do so? Mr Nockels went on to talk about Nomad aircraft in Indonesia, which was not extremely helpful. I asked: What about the Philippines aircraft? He said: The Philippines purchased those aircraft; they were not given by us. The inference I was supposed to draw was that because they had purchased them we had lost all control over or knowledge of the way in which they were disposed of and utilised by the military in the Philippines. Luckily, I had read the estimates, so I said: Yes, but as I understand it, your point was that through maintenance contracts we keep their use under some sort of scrutiny and therefore the military attaches would be aware if they were used in the suppression of rebel activity or in operations mounted against the NPA. I noted that about half a million dollars had been set aside for the maintenance of these aircraft in the Philippines. Mr Nockels then acknowledged that that was correct and said that we had personnel on the ground involved in supporting and assisting the development of a maintenance program for those aircraft. He said: That quite obviously gives us an indication of the use of those aircraft-where they are going and what they are doing. I asked whether they were based with the Philippines Air Force at Cebu, and he said that that was correct. I then asked: Have they been used in operations against either Muslim dissidents or the NPA? Mr Nockels replied: As previously noted to this Committee, to the best of our knowledge the aircraft are used in a military support role, in the movement of personnel and senior officers. Once again he was not getting to the point, so I asked: Are they used as a transport of convenience for senior personnel on ordinary, routine inter-island visits throughout the Philippines or are they used in mounting operations-I do not know the terminology-of a combat character? Mr Nockels answered: They are used to move servicemen and personnel. I cannot comment on the specific task which those personnel would be directed towards at their destination. I then said: I appreciate that you may not be able to comment, but are the Australian military attaches, in ensuring that the Government policy of not aiding and abetting the suppression of internal domestic dissidents, able to report to the Government about specific tasks undertaken? To this Mr Nockels replied `Yes'. I said: `And do they?' and Mr Nockels said `Yes'. My point is this: If it is the case that Australian military attaches in the Philippines, as Mr Nockels has said before the Senate Estimates Committee, are able to and, in fact, make reports to the Australian Government, in order to ensure that the Australian Government's policy of not aiding and abetting the suppression of internal domestic dissidents, I believe we should take advantage of the fact that the Parliament has given a reference to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on this general question and have the military attaches appear before that Committee and give evidence as to the actual use of Australian military aid in the Philippines as well as the personnel trained here, which of course is a much more difficult task. I asked Mr Nockels a little later, and the Estimates Committee transcript stated: Senator TATE —Do Australian military attaches keep track of these people when they return to the Philippines? Mr Nockels-It is obviously very difficult to follow every serviceman trained. Senator TATE —I realise that. So the answer is no? Mr Nockels-That is correct. So the personnel-55 of whom we are training in Australia this year in a range of activities, and hundreds whom we have trained over recent years-go back to the Philippines and could be engaged in any type of military operation at the direction of the relevant military commander. As we know, those military commanders are so often in cahoots with and aiding and abetting the corrupt politicians who are in charge of the Philippines at present. I hope that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence will take the opportunity to find out from our military attaches precisely what is going on so far as we can be told. If we cannot be told in detail and if we cannot be given the assurances that our military aid and the personnel we train here keep within the parameters and the criteria set by the Australian Government-which, I recall to the Senate, is that such military aid and training of personnel should be directed to meeting an external threat and not at suppressing internal dissidents-I believe the case for ceasing all military aid to the Philippines is even stronger than is presently being mounted by many people, individually and in groups and voluntary organisations throughout the community, who have made this plea for so many years. For the interest of members of the public I read into the record the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has requested a Sub-Committee: 1. To investigate and report upon the situation in the Philippines and its implications for Australia with particular reference to: 2. the importance of the Philippines to regional stability and Australian interests; 3. the current political and economic situation in the Philippines and likely future developments; 4. the state of Philippine-Australian relations and appropriate Australian policies towards the Philippines. That Sub-Committee will be chaired by Mr Gordon Bilney, of the Australian Labor Party, from South Australia. I believe it is a very important inquiry and I certainly urge those many individuals, community groups and various organisations, who have shown a tremendous interest in the whole question of Australian-Philippine relations, to make submissions in writing and, if possible; to seek to appear before the Committee in order to acquaint its members, who cover a very wide spectrum of political views in Australia-some dozen of them-with the feeling of those concerned Australians who have been following events in the Philippines. For those of us who have followed events in the Philippines-this is no more than an indication, hopefully drawing on what is already known to many honourable senators-it is interesting to note that only a fortnight ago the United States Administration, in evidence before its relevant Senate committee, indicated that the Philippines is headed towards civil war on a massive scale within three years unless very substantial and real reform is undertaken by the Government of President Marcos. That seems to be a hope rather than a real possibility. This assessment was not made by some minor official; it was made by Mr Paul Wolfowitz, an Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr Richard Armitage, an Assistant Secretary of Defence, both of whom have been involved for many years in Philippine affairs. They gave, as I say, the most dire estimates yet made by the United States of America Government of the situation in the Philippines. One newspaper stated: Mr Wolfowitz said Mr Marcos's response to American pressure had been ``inadequate and disappointing'', adding that ``each month that is wasted or used badly'' allows the insurgents to build momentum. He said that the insurgents' New People's Army, estimated by Pentagon officials as having 14,500 soldiers and many more active supporters, did not have the strength to overthrow the Government, but that the situation could reach a military stalemate in three to five years, resulting in ``a civil war on a massive scale''. The question that I really put to the Senate and to the Government is whether we really want to be aiding and abetting a situation developing in the Philippines where, if a civil war erupts in the next three to four years, Australian military aid and Australian trained Philippine service personnel may be involved in what would be a very terrible, vicious and brutal suppression of people who are, as I say, attempting to exercise some political and quite often industrial self-determination. It is in that situation that I believe it is proper on the occasion of the consideration of appropriations to note this appropriation by this Government of moneys which all Australian taxpayers have forwarded to the Federal Treasury. I believe the earmarking of money for this particular purpose must have a very large question mark put against it. I certainly hope that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, having heard what am sure will be a very widespread expression of concern from individuals and community groups about the military aid and defence co-operation agreement that we presently have with the Philippines, will make a recommendation which will enable the Government, with full parliamentary support, to withdraw from that particular form of military aid and to use the moneys thereby liberated for more humanitarian causes within that unhappy country. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.43) —I begin my contribution to this debate by congratulating Senator Tate on an excellent speech. He may or may not be pleased to receive plaudits from this side of the House but his concentration upon the entitlement of the people of any part of the world to be free of repression, to be free of any repressive regime, and his drawing attention to Australia's funding of what may be inappropriate aid in terms of that repression we can only applaud. The honourable senator has had perhaps a difficult year, having presided, I think with great distinction, over a very difficult committee a year or so ago. I assure him that he has the congratulations of honourable senators on this side of the House upon the job that he did there. As I listened to Senator Tate talk about the Philippines I thought of the situation facing us in South Africa. I would like to reiterate that for those of liberal persuasion the starting point for considering problems in southern Africa at present has to be our complete and utter abhorrence and rejection of any system of government, such as the state system of apartheid that operates there, which is a system based on inequality and repression and secured by statute on the basis of racial difference. Such a system is totally abhorrent to all of us who have come down through the liberal philosophical tradition. Goodness me, we fought these battles last century, if not necessarily on the basis of race, on numerous other bases. We were the people who were fighting first, of course, in the early part of the nineteenth century to end slavery, to change the Factory Acts, and to try to obtain religious toleration. We were the people who sought the franchise for all adults in our community. To see now a society where race is used as a basis to deny full citizenship, as South Africa does, as a basis to deny the franchise, as South Africa does, as a basis to deny the right to travel freely within the nation, as South Africa does, as a basis for not allowing people to marry whom they wish, as South Africa does, and as a basis for securing inequalities in education and in the right to promotion, has to offend and be totally offensive to all those who come from the liberal philosophical tradition. In view of the debate at present it is worth making that point and reminding honourable senators that the statement made on behalf of the Opposition and in the name of the then Leader, Andrew Peacock, on 19 August made that crystal clear. Of course, the debate in Australia is not whether some people support apartheid and some people do not. We on this side reject it as totally unacceptable. I think that the Government made its position similarly clear when it said that it totally rejected apartheid. Senator Walsh —Are you sure you speak for everyone? Do you speak for Senator Boswell? Senator PETER BAUME —I speak for everyone in my Party. That is our position. We reject apartheid. The argument is about the best way to effect change in that system. My Leader, John Howard, in answer to a question recently on television and radio in relation to the appointment of our former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, by the Labor Government made it quite clear that he welcomed the appointment. He was asked whether he did not see differences between his stand and that of Mr Fraser. Mr Howard said that there were no differences between them on their abhorrence of apartheid; the differences related to the ways to effect change. We make it clear we will not have a bar of supporting the system of apartheid. It is offensive to every ideal of freedom and liberty on which we have based our political beliefs and our political position. Listening to Senator Tate I was reminded of course that today, 11 November, is an important anniversary. For those who may not remember, we are wearing poppies because today is the sixty-seventh anniversary of the ending of the Great War in 1918. I am sure that this morning honourable senators were aware of the fact that this is a very significant day, commemorating as it does that war which was to be a `war to end all wars' but which was sadly only the prelude to further war. It was a war in which this country suffered grievously and a war which we remember with a fair amount of sadness. In November 1985, 67 years later, it is possible for me to look back on the last 40 years almost as a belle epoch. Perhaps it is not quite like the belle epoch at the end of the nineteenth century when there was genuine peace for an unprecedented 40 years throughout Europe. However, imperfect beings as we are, for the past 40 years now we have managed to avoid nuclear conflict. The position today is that the world looks more secure and safer from the risk of nuclear holcaust or nuclear conflict than it has for many years. If we look at the kind of society we are to bequeath to our children we see it has to be a society that will continue that current belle epoch so our children will be able to grow up free of the risk or prospect of nuclear war. This does not involve some argument as to whether we have certain bases in our country or whether we do not. The people who argue that those bases make us nuclear targets tell us in the next breath that the first nuclear weapon fired in anger means the end of everyone and that it does not matter whether we are the first target or the last because any nuclear conflict is likely to prove fatal to us all. Liberal concern is liberal concern about peace and the maintenance of peace. Again, if we have arguments with any of our political opponents, they are not about that goal. They are about the best way of securing that goal not just now but for decades to come. On looking back over 40 years and looking today at the fact that there is no high risk of any kind of nuclear conflict, we believe that the policies which we have followed, which have been the basis of our foreign policy, and which largely underpin the policies of the Australian Labor Party too, have enabled us to maintain the peace. The Russians today are more prepared to talk to the United States because the United States is strong. The dangers we in this country face are the dangers which arise more from those who preach unilateral disarmament either openly or indirectly through the various peace movements, not out of malice but because they do not understand where their policies take us. Those people pose the great danger to this country, whether they be Australian Democrats or members of the Nuclear Disarmament Party, or what is left of whatever it is called these days. They appeal to the romanticism and idealism of the young but give them no decent policies to match those which have worked now for 30 or 40 years and which will continue to work. There is no benefit to anyone in this Parliament in being party to policies which make this world less safe. To pretend that by putting a notice on our streets which says that a particular municipality is nuclear free we are doing anything to advance peace is, of course, an act of self-delusion which is a not inconsiderable part of much of what is going on in this debate. This country is not a nuclear power-we do not have nuclear weapons-nor do we want to be, but we value the peace which we have enjoyed for all my adult life. Like many of my colleagues here, I am old enough to remember the horror of the films and photographs of World War II and to have had it reinforced by the conventional wars that have occurred, alas too frequently, in the last 15 years. Nevertheless, the policies of keeping strong alliances and talking from a position of strength have enabled the world today to be more peaceful and further away from the risk of nuclear conflict than it has been for many years. If that is our goal, let us at least acknowledge that for 40 years we have been successful. Let us end this nonsense of saying that in some way we have failed totally. The people who are failing this country are those who are urging unilateralism, as I said, either openly or through a series of indirect proposals. In the time allowed I wish to raise several other matters relating to government policy and activity. I start by referring to some of the matters raised by my colleague and friend, Senator Sir John Carrick, who drew attention to the parlous state of Australia's economy today. I acknowledge that the Labor Government can cite some growth figures and certain profit figures which look quite satisfactory but there must be some reason why the international judgment on this country is negative and why world markets have decided that this Government, wherever it is taking Australia, is taking us the wrong way. Several matters concern me, including the deficit, the number of Australians still unable to find work, high interest rates which threaten so many businesses, expenditure levels of this Government and the fact that our currency is in disarray. The Government may not care about the deficit. It may claim to have cut back, but the fact remains that its deficits over its period in government have added enormously to the debt we will bequeath to our children and leave for them to repay. As a nation living beyond its means, every dollar that is borrowed by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, and by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, must be repaid by someone. The debt will be repaid by our children long after Senator Walsh has departed the scene. It will not be his worry; he will leave it for another generation to bear and to carry. The debt he will leave them will give them less capacity to manage their own affairs. In 10, 15 or 20 years time more and more of their budget will be spent in rolling over and servicing the loans and the debts which have been incurred by the Hawke Labor Government to date, just as we are having to roll over the Whitlam loans and the Whitlam debts, incurred one decade ago but still here for us to pay off. This indebtedness is one of the great burdens that Senator Walsh and his colleagues will leave to other Australians to pay off when they have had their fun. Senator Sir John Carrick talked about the jobless figures and about the level of unemployment. I was attracted to an article in the Australian newspaper of 8 November in which the jobless figures were discussed. The figures for the last month show that fewer Australians are participating in the work force now than was the case a month ago. We have the paradox of the Government announcing with great fanfare that the number of registered unemployed people has dropped. But then we discover that the number of people employed has also dropped and that the labour force itself has shrunk. We will applaud every new permanent job that is created. We are not here to pretend that no jobs have been created; but I do not want the Government saying how wonderful it is that 23,000 extra people came off the unemployment rolls in October when in fact the employment level fell by almost the same amount-actually a little more; it fell by more than 26,000 people. The Government should be saying that the situation remains as serious as ever. If some of the Ministers were to go out into parts of my electorate where poverty is great, where hope is missing, where jobs cannot be found, and tell those people how good the employment figures have been in the last month, they would be given a very different answer. What is the Government's answer to interest rates? The answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is: `You will have to learn to live with them'. What does that mean? It means that every one of us who is paying off a mortgage has just received another letter stating that our monthly repayments will be greater. Our monthly repayments have to go up because of the financial mismanagement of this Government, which is giving us record interest rates and record real interest rates-certainly the highest for the last half-century. Real interest rates are enormously high and are continuing to rise. We will see a number of businesses in Australia go to the wall or fail, simply because they cannot afford to service the money they must borrow to keep running. That is one of the legacies of the high interest rates which are part of this Government's program. Of course, interest rates have to be high because the mismanagement going on in Australia today has left our currency in disarray. The trade weighted index, which is a measurement of the value of our currency, is lower now than it has ever been. It has dropped by an enormous amount-I think by 25 per cent-in the last three months. While other currencies have been falling, ours has been falling faster. The judgment of the international community is that Australia's money and Australia's economy are not worth much. We are not much of an investment prospect. People do not want our money. Australians are still travelling abroad but it is only when they arrive overseas that they find what this currency drop really means. Senator Kilgariff —They are beggars. Senator PETER BAUME —They are beggars. We are now the paupers travelling the world because each dollar we take out from Australia will not buy us even US70c. We change our money and we pay enormous prices just to eat and to travel around. That again is a legacy of Senator Walsh and his fellow Cabinet Ministers and Mr Hawke and his Government. They are leaving for our children and their children the highest interest rates, the worst currency, an unemployment situation in disarray and a huge debt burden. In the area of welfare, one of the saddest things that have happened recently has been the Government's inability to resolve a crisis over emergency relief. In the economic climate that I have described, it is not surprising that people's needs-for welfare payments by way of the unemployment benefit and for the supporting parent's benefit-have increased, but among these people there is a continuing urgent need for emergency cash relief. This concerns people who have been hit by unexpected events, who have had sickness, who have a debt burden, who cannot manage, and most of them on welfare. We have seen an argument between a Cabinet Minister in Canberra and a Cabinet Minister in Macquarie Street, Sydney, about who should bear the burden of emergency care, who should pay the money. We have seen the Labor Government in New South Wales, to up the ante in the argument, withdraw $2 1/2m or more of emergency care. The money is not there. So while Mr Walker and Senator Grimes battle out who is responsible for having withdrawn this money we find that the needy for whom the money was meant are now not able to receive it. The week before last, when the Senate was not sitting, I travelled first to the suburb of Miller in Green Valley and later to the Mount Druitt town centre, to the big Mount Druitt shopping town. On each occasion I visited the Sydney City Mission, one of the great welfare agencies of New South Wales. The purpose of those visits was to talk to that agency about the experience it was having in terms of calls for emergency relief and its capacity or incapacity to meet those calls. The level of poverty in western Sydney is real. The cutting edge is very sharp and that withdrawal of emergency relief money has been a tragedy. When I visited the Sydney City Mission in Mount Druitt a number of people waiting for assistance agreed to talk to me. They were absolutely aghast at the fact that they were suffering partly because two Labor governments could not resolve an argument about who was going to pay the money and because one of the Labor governments, the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales, had withdrawn money, leaving the needy without. Following that visit, I noticed that Mrs Merle Hurcomb, director of the Sydney City Mission, issued a challenge. I refer to the Daily Mirror newspaper of 7 November which reports that Mrs Hurcomb issued a challenge to Mr Frank Walker, the New South Wales Minister for Youth and Community Services, and to our colleague in the Senate, Don Grimes, the Minister for Community Services, to go out to Mount Druitt, join her at the Sydney City Mission, and listen for themselves to the level of unmet need which they have brought about and be asked what they intend to do about it. Mr Walker says that it is all the Federal Government's fault. To Senator Grimes's credit he has not entered into the argument at that kind of puerile level. What we should do is take the two Ministers, lock them in a room and not let them come out until they have some resolution to this silly argument. In the meantime there are families that cannot feed their children. There are people who are about to face eviction. There are people who will have their electricity cut off. There are people who have gone for emergency cash relief to be told that none is there because the Labor Party governments cannot get their act together. I wish to raise one other matter in relation to welfare and that relates to the Government's proposed tax package. Following that I want to say a few words about affirmative action and the status of women. The new tax package proposes that fringe benefits should be taxed. The Government has announced that exemptions will be made only for religious bodies. It appears that the Government is unaware that many of the great welfare bodies in this country are not religious bodies. For example, I mentioned a moment ago the Sydney City Mission. It does not consider itself to be a religious body; it is a welfare body. Perhaps the Government is unaware that some of the people who will be judged to be receiving fringe benefits are doing nothing of the kind. Let us consider the case of a home established to take half a dozen handicapped children and consider the fact that that home has a live-in person who is there to help care for those handicapped people to enable them to live in a semi-independent way. Under the legislation, as has been announced, it is the understanding of the welfare bodies that that accommodation will be taxable in the hands of the welfare agency as if it were a fringe benefit or a perk. What kind of perk is that? The people who are doing a service to the community- Senator Watson —They will be penalised. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, they will be penalised. The welfare agencies will be penalised. If they are penalised and their funds are diminished the people who will be penalised are their clients. We can argue with Senator Walsh about the rightness or wrongness of the fringe benefits tax; but I put to Senator Walsh, as a matter of compassion, that if the great welfare agencies can demonstrate to him that this tax will fall inappropriately on their clients, on their capacity to do their job, the Government should be big enough to acknowledge that it has to allow exemption for the great welfare agencies. Let us consider the case of a spastic centre which operates mini-buses, some of which the drivers take home. The drivers start on a run the next morning and pick up people progressively bringing them to the centre. They take the bus home because that is part of their job; it is where the pick-up route starts. That will now be considered as a fringe benefit and the welfare bodies will be taxed. It is an anomaly in what the Government has proposed. While we do not accept the basic premise on which the Government works, I put it to the Minister that this anomaly is worth responding to with generosity and in a decent way because it is only the poor and the disadvantaged who will suffer. In the time available to me it is not possible to discuss the other matter which I wished to raise. I merely say that it is a very sad time for Australia. We do not know where our economy is heading. We do not know whether this Government has the capacity or the will to give the national leadership that will restore confidence in our currency. We certainly hope so. For our part we are intent on doing anything we can to assist this Government to strengthen the Australian dollar and the Australian economy, and to try to provide a better climate than we have at present. But with record interest rates, with unemployment as high as it is, with the currency in disarray, it is very hard to have confidence in the future. The Budget which this Government has brought down does little to inspire on this side of the chamber any hope that things are improving. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.11) —One of the conventions of this Parliament is that in debating certain Bills senators are permitted to stray somewhat from those Bills. Tonight we are ostensibly debating the appropriation Bills. In speaking to those Bills I wish to refer to three issues which I believe are of vital importance to the nation and, specifically, to the people of the north of Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick spoke about our alarming overseas debt. Senator Peter Baume spoke about disadvantaged people. Tonight I will speak about the problems of the north. The two senators who spoke previously spoke about matters relating to money. Senator Peter Baume said that he hoped that the Government would be able to show leadership. I add that, while Senator Baume said that the Opposition supports the Government in regard to the present problems, which concern money, money, money, the nation as a whole must realise that as individuals, groups and towns they have very serious responsibilities. The three issues which I will speak about tonight are the general development of the north, youth unemployment and coastal surveillance. I will begin by talking about coastal surveillance. I have spoken in the Senate on many occasions about this problem. At times one despairs about coastal surveillance. When some people on the beaches in the south hear the words `coastal surveillance' they perhaps think it refers to some type of shark patrol and that while they are enjoying themselves on the beach at weekends this surveillance warns them about sharks. It seems almost impossible to impress people, particularly those in the south, about the problems of the north in regard to coastal surveillance, which has such a dramatic effect on people, whether or not they realise it. One reads in the Press and hears these days about the police encouraging people on certain days to phone in and say that they believe somebody is selling drugs-dope and such. The police are looking for information so that they can crack down on the importation and sale of drugs in Australia. Of course, people who follow the media may have seen a report that was in the Press not so long ago that one of the biggest sales of drugs in Australia by one of the biggest drug rings took place in Victoria a little while ago. The drugs were worth about $40m-an incredible amount of money. But the eventual gathering-in and conviction of this drug ring was brought about by an informer. My interest is in northern surveillance because I come from the north and I represent the Northern Territory. Thus, perhaps I am more aware than other people of the necessity for northern surveillance. Last year I was able to go to Indo-China and see countries which are under various stresses and strains. I had the opportunity of going into the Golden Triangle where poppies grow very prolifically. Part of that huge crop now comes into Australia in many ways. Some people may say: `So what?'. If they were more aware, as people in Australia should be, they would find the result of this crop in Darwin, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne or some of the little towns throughout Australia. That is where to find the results of the produce of the Golden Triangle-the poppies, opium and heroin. This produce is being sent to places throughout Australia. This is possible because there is insufficient surveillance in the north. Honourable senators will be aware that coastal surveillance is, as I have said, a matter which I have raised in this place on previous occasions. I raise it again today because the Federal Government continues to ignore the need for substantial improvement to the coastal surveillance operations presently in place. There is no doubt that more surveillance will cost additional money. It will cost the Government, and therefore the taxpayer, money. However, if any areas of expenditure need additional funding they are the areas of defence and coastal surveillance. I do not believe that such additional expenditure would be begrudged by the majority of Australians. I assure honourable senators that it would not be begrudged by the people of the north, who are only too well aware of our vulnerability. Last week we had the spectacle of a convicted drug runner appearing in a television interview. He told Territorians how easily he managed to bring drugs into this country from South East Asia. He landed at Tindal Airport, which is near Katherine in the Northern Territory. I do not know whether the interview was broadcast in any other parts of Australia but it should be a matter of concern to all Australians that aircraft can so easily elude the coastal surveillance operation presently in place. We have all read about Mr Tait who was arrested in Thailand on very serious charges. He may not survive. In this interview he talked about flying an aircraft from the northern islands into northern Australia as if it were commonplace. He talked about the routine flights that he made from the northern islands. His aircraft was cleared through Darwin and landed at Tindal near Katherine. It was loaded with drugs and made these flights regularly. Honourable senators might remember that on one occasion a Royal Australian Air Force Hercules aircraft intercepted him and he eventually crashlanded at Tindal and set fire to his aircraft. But the situation is as he was indicating; that is, that it is so easy now, as it has been over the last few years, for such a smuggler to operate into Australia. Every time a light aircraft such as that comes into Australia, it could be carrying millions of dollars worth of drugs. This week a campaign has been launched to try to close down drug dealers. I commend the Government for taking that action. But I must stress that the Government should be doing all that it can to ensure that drugs do not get into Australia in the first place. Customs officers are no defence when pilots such as Tait are able to fly aeroplanes into this country and land at remote or deserted airstrips where couriers are waiting to pick up their illegal cargo. As I have said before, on a rough count of airstrips in the north of Western Australia, the north of the Northern Territory and northern Queensland there would probably be about 900 to 1,000 on which such smuggling aircraft could land. There are a number of other dangers associated with an inadequate coastal surveillance. The Federal Government, with its problems in determining a course of action in regard to Irian Jayan refugees, should be more aware than ever of the risk of illegal immigrants entering Australian territories. Apart from the fact that they are disrupting the Government's immigration program, they may also have the potential to bring in disease, and any plants or animals brought in illegally are a potential threat to our valuable agricultural and pastoral industries. So, as I have said before, northern surveillance covers more than drugs. At the end of last month a meeting of the Intergovernmental Standing Advisory Committee on Coastal Protection and Surveillance was held in Darwin. One of the conclusions of the State and Territory representatives involved was that there was a need for a night surveillance capacity to be developed by the Coastal Protection Unit. That unit is made of Federal, State and various other authorities-24 to 26, I think. They also considered the possibility of current littoral patrol arrangements being broadened in order more directly to assist in the prevention of illegal entry of persons and goods. A few days ago I picked up a Press release. It was signed by Assistant Commissioner Plumb, who was chairing the second meeting of the Intergovernmental Standing Advisory Committee on Coastal Protection and Surveillance. It is my desire that this Press statement be incorporated in Hansard, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I seek the leave of the Senate for such incorporation. Leave granted. The Press statement read as follows- `The second meeting of the intergovernmental standing advisory committee on coastal protection and surveillance was held yesterday in Darwin. The sessional chairman for the meeting, assistant commissioner N. D. Plumb of the Northern Territory police said that the meeting had achieved considerable progress in the area of co-operation between the States, Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. Mr Plumb said that decisions taken at the meeting included the need for an effort on the part of all participating States to strive for a better level of co-operation particularly among the fishing fleets, yachting and boat clubs and Australians living in coastal areas. He said that delegates had agreed to devise a better system for the passage of information between various government authorities and also to arrange for an interchange program of State and Commonwealth personnel who have a direct responsibility for coastal protection and surveillance. Mr Plumb went on to say that the meeting had agreed to explore the feasibility of requiring all Australian vessels capable of putting to sea, to have an identification number which could be displayed for coastal surveillance purposes. The meeting agreed that this identification feature should also be recommended in international forums by Australia. The meeting also decided to arrange joint exercises between various areas of government responsible for coastal surveillance and protection. It was also agreed that the various States would investigate the arrangements that could be put in place to more effectively co-ordinate State and Territory resources in their own jurisdictions. The States and the Territory concluded that there is a need for a night surveillance capability to be developed by the C.P.U. and for the possibility of the current littoral patrol arrangements to be broadened in order to more directly assist in the prevention of the illegal entry of persons and goods. All of the States and the Territory agreed that their resources could be made available to assist the C.P.U. in the joint coastal surveillance and protection effort. The head of the Commonwealth delegation, Deputy Commissioner John Johnson and Assistant Commissioner Plumb commented that they were encouraged by the positive attitude displayed by the State and Northern Territory Government representatives, and said that it had become clear that the standing advisory committee is a valuable mechanism for allowing an exchange of views and achieving a high degree of co-operation. The sessional chairman advised that the next meeting will be held in Broome in the first half of 1986. Assistant Commissioner N. O. Plumb. 30th October, 1985. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. People who are interested in northern surveillance will find this Press statement interesting reading because it clearly indicates that the government officials who are responsible for surveillance are working extremely hard in an endeavour to improve this situation. They are very genuine people. But this Press statement could easily have been written five years ago, because whilst people have been endeavouring to bring about a better surveillance and better safeguards for the people of Australia, very little has happened in the last five years, as the statement indicates. The people involved in this Commonwealth unit have sought the co- operation of the people of the north in looking for suspicious people in coastal vessels, in light aircraft and so on. While I commend them for endeavouring to protect the people of Australia, I think that the Government must do much more. Despite the fact that we hear so much in the media about surveillance, it absolutely appals me that coastal surveillance in the north-where we were building up this unit that supposedly was going to protect the north and stop drugs, illegal immigrants and all those things that could introduce disease into Australia-is being cut back. I suggest that coastal surveillance in the north is now paid mere lip service. Despite the fact that the Government is spending money on defence, on the Orion aircraft that can operate far into the Indian Ocean-that is very desir- able-the patrol boat bases in Darwin, Cairns and various places around the coast and the buildup of Norforce, the operations of those charter aircraft which fly along the coast, from Broome through the Kimberleys to Darwin and Gove and the Gulf of Carpentaria around to Cairns and carry out this most important work, are being cut back to such a degree that they are no longer viable; they no longer carry out their duties in a way that provides some protection. That is an extremely serious situation. While the Government is developing the Tindal FA18 base, the benefits of that project will only be seen in the future. I am talking about the protection of the north coast and this Committee says that it supports 24-hour surveillance. At present the north does not have night surveillance, the radar facilities are pitiful, and the surveillance carried out in the daytime is absolutely deplorable. One wonders just how much and what kind of drugs are being brought into the north of Australia. Mr Tait, who is now under the sentence of death in Thailand, said in a frank interview in the last week or two that one must be absolutely fearful of what is happening with the bringing of drugs into Australia. He said that by the week he used to fly twin-engineed aircraft into Australia loaded with drugs. Clearly the States and the Territories are in agreement that something must be done to upgrade coastal surveillance, yet still surveillance flights from northern bases are made only in daylight hours. Surely the Federal Government does not believe that drug smugglers, illegal immigrants and other wrong doers operate only during the day. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I wish to talk on a couple of other issues including youth unemployment in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, which has a very youthful population. Many young people have made their way to the Territory, as they see it as a place where they can make a life for themselves and prosper. Recent figures show that about 80 per cent of the Territory's population is under the age of 40. This is indicative of the future in the north because the young people of Australia are looking for opportunities and they see those opportunities in the north. With such a young population, getting young people into jobs both now and in the future is a matter of priority for the people of Australia, and particularly of the Northern Territory, because that is where we wish to encourage them. We, as much as anyone else in this country, are up against the selfishness and greed of the unions, which are contributing to the low rate of youth employment. I believe the unions have created an exclusive club. We have seen this particularly in reports in the media in the last two weeks. Many members of unions are in well paid jobs and are determined to be even more well paid. I have no quarrel with unions being part of a democratic society as I believe they are a necessity. Workers do have the right of protection, but we now have a situation where unions are using their political muscle to improve the conditions of their members, I suggest, at the expense of the young people who are trying to break into the work force. Union insistence upon minimum wage levels has led to young people being priced right out of the work place. While unions have a duty to their members, they should realise that they also have a duty to the community. Unfortunately, recent events give no indication that there is any acknowledgement by unions of that wider community responsibility. Only last week they picked up a 3.8 per cent wage rise which will flow through to the community and, no doubt, to parliamentarians also. The unions are apparently not concerned that the employers, who will have to foot this Bill, will now find it even more difficult to divert funds into creating new jobs as a result of increased wages. This lack of concern for those outside their exclusive club was also recently demonstrated in Mudginberri abattoir dispute. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which placed a picket outside the abattoir, was in fact opposing the payment of better wages to the employees at Mudginberri than its own members received. How could it argue that it was protecting the interests of those meat workers? I do not believe that the AMIEU could make such a claim. The fact is that the picket was established not because the employees of Mudginberri were working under poor conditions or for inadequate pay but because the union had been bypassed in the agreement of conditions by the owner and his employees. It did not matter to the union that the workers at Mudginberri were satisfied with their wages and conditions. I believe the Mudginberri dispute has struck a note of fear in the unions of this country who for too long have adopted an entirely selfish and tunnel-vision view of their role in the Australian community. They now realise that Australians who are not part of the union club are waking up to the fact that there may be other ways of conducting relations between employers and employees with the intention of allowing more people, particularly young people, into the work force. Such a move would not only add to job opportunities for the young but also increase our productivity and competitiveness. We have so many older and more experienced people in the unions these days who can look back to their entry into the work force, in a professional or other capacity, and remember how they were given an opportunity to gain experience while being employed in lowly paid jobs. It is a pity that the unions are now disregarding the youth of Australia by not allowing them to enter the work force because they are insisting that if they do enter the work force they be paid a quite high salary when they have no experience. I suggest that in doing this they are protecting themselves. I have sons and daughters, as most of us in the Senate have, who are looking for the opportunity to gain experience. They are looking for opportunities and they are looking for experience. I suggest that, until the unions change their attitudes, there is going to be considerable disruption and unemployment amongst young people. I think it would be a very good thing if the unions would about-face and encourage young people to come into the work force. I suggest that the unions support the present Government and its plans now for youth employment assistance and the gaining of skills. A point was made very forcefully by Des Keegan of the Australian in relation to the North Australian Development Conference held in Darwin last week to the effect that we should be making ourselves competititve in world markets. I believe that many people in Australia think that the points Des Keegan made in the Australian a few days ago really have some considerable force, for if nothing else our wheat dollars should provide an incentive for overseas tourists to come to Australia. Yet, prohibitive penalty rates in the hospitality industry, as an example of employment, and in other elements of the travel industry, detract from our appeal as a tourist destination. Mr Keegan made the valid point that tourism, which as I say is a means of employment, is a fine renewable resource which could plug a big hole in our current deficit account and create a lot of employment. He cited figures which detailed the massive financial benefit which has occurred in Spain as a result of the tourist boom. He went on to say that with the facilities we have here we should be able to capitalise in the same way as Spain and other Northern Hemisphere countries with far less than Australia to commend them. I agree with Mr Keegan wholeheartedly, and particularly from a Territory point of view I acknowledge the potential importance of the tourist industry. The North Australian Development Conference, which was held in the north last week, was attended by people from various parts of Australia who heard some fine speakers, almost all of whom were supporters of the Northern Territory and other States in the north of Australia, in their respective bids for an opportunity to develop our resources, whether they be mineral, agricultural or tourism. There is something special about the Territory's attempts to become more financially independent of the Commonwealth. Believe me, nothing would please us more than to be able to say that we are increasing our contribution to the national income. As I say, the Territory's case is a special one. It is special because we do not have control of our national parks, because we do not have control of the minerals under our soil, because we do not have the right to determine policies concerning Aboriginal welfare and because we do not receive royalties from certain mining operations or from off-shore developments. Those things make the Territory special and very different from the States of Australia. I have seen two recent Press reports-doubtless there have been many others-in which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) said that there is no special case for the north. In the Territory's case, at least, I beg to differ. We have been made a special case. We do not want to be a special case, but we have been made a special case by the actions of successive Commonwealth governments which have withheld from us the power to deal with our resources in a productive way. Both Mr Kerin and the Federal Government will be pleased to hear that we do not want to be special. We want to be like everyone else in Australia. We want sovereignty over our land and we want responsibility for its development. This is denied us. An indication of the impatience of the Northern Territory with the Federal neglect under which we presently labour is in the private development of the gas pipeline from central to northern Australia. Not so long ago Senator Walsh described it in this chamber as a pie in the sky. The investors who are pouring millions of dollars into the project do not agree with him. The people of the north do not want to be regarded as a special case, but we do want the opportunity to develop what we have. What we have in the Northern Territory is almost 10 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves-330,000 tonnes-equivalent in energy terms to the oil of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; an estimated 128 million tonnes of manganese ore at Groote Eylandt which currently supplies 10 per cent of the world market; one of the world's largest lead-zinc deposits-227 million tonnes at MacArthur River; gas reserves in the Amadeus Basin in Central Australia, which although barely explored can supply the energy needs for 30 years to come of the Northern Territory and, I would suggest, of the rest of Australia or of parts of Australia; and off-shore gas reserves of petrol as well as terne, which we share with Western Australia, which will create up to 4,000 jobs in the construction phase and 600 permanent jobs, with expenditure of $3 billion over a 10-year period. The fields will supply overseas gas requirements for at least 20 years. At today's values they will earn $750m annually in export income. Adjacent to Darwin we have up to 26 million barrels of oil in the Jabiru field. Add to this our tourist potential and it is clear that the Northern Territory is deserving of something better than the derisory treatment it is presently getting from the Commonwealth Government in the form of attacks by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). In the Territory we are being told that effectively we are to be treated financially in the same way as the States. Within two years we will be funded in the same way as the States. No account will be taken of our isolation and our scattered population. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Jones) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.41) —I wish to canvass two issues afforded by the debate tonight on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I refer to the structural weakness in the Australian economy and the future of the forest-based industries of Tasmania. The 1985-86 Budget is a document that said little and did little about the fundamental weaknesses in the Australian economy. Therefore, it is no small surprise that in so many areas the Budget has proved to be off course. It is scandalous that the Australian Labor Party has failed to address the fundamental and serious economic problems confronting our great Australian nation at present. At the moment the Government appears to be adopting a wait and pray attitude, hoping perhaps that things will turn out for the better eventually. One would be a super optimist to expect that the Budget estimates which are often based on inaccurate predictions and a lack of understanding of the realities of the international market place would have any reliability or accuracy. I think it is interesting to ponder the reaction of the Reserve Bank of Australia shortly after the release of the Budget. It is true that unemployment has fallen and that a number of new jobs have been created. Congratulations are in order on that score. However, part of a government's Budget strategy is to create new jobs. Why is this Government now determined to throw thousands of people out of work in the hospitality and the car manufacturing industries through the introduction of a new and short-sighted anti-fringe benefits tax legislation? Again so much of the success of the Budget depends on an improvement in all sectors of our industry. However, it is this very area which will be expected to bear the brunt of the Government's new tax package which has an anti-business bias. It is quite obvious why the Government left taxation out of the Budget. Of course the earlier document was meant to lull the people and the media into a false sense of security. The Budget promised cuts in the deficit. It promised pegged wages, reduced unemployment and incentives for rationalisation and growth. What was not said at the time was that the proposed new tax package would virtually nullify any gains that could have been expected from the Budget promises. The Government's announced intention to push for full wage indexation in the recent national wage case went the way of so many of its good intentions-sweetheart deals with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and a 3.8 per cent wage rise across the board last week. All of these will further undermine international confidence in our ability to manage the economy-not to administer it but to manage it. There is a big difference. If Mr Keating had kept to his Budget time pledge of full discounting without qualification, the business community and the financial markets would have been a lot more reassured. Instead, the dollar fell to a record low and so, I think, has the Government. In response to this latest instance of government mismanagement the business community-it is still shocked by the ferocity of the anti-business bias in this tax package-is being forced yet again to sustain increases in wage and production costs and also increases in taxation. The tax measures recently announced are supposed to be revenue neutral but it will not be long before the Government will be looking for a new source of revenue to counter the loss of previous oil receipts-about $7 billion. Just around the corner next year we will see a new tax package designed to raise real revenue. On top of what has just been announced, that will hurt. The business strategy was built around an expansion of our economy, particularly an increase in productivity, exports and business confidence. Therefore, it seems ludicrous that the Government should set about attacking the business community, the lifeblood of economic expansion, and quashing any incentive to invest, expand, create new opportunites and reward achievement and excellence, through new anti-business tax proposals. Contrary to good Labor Party philosophy, the proposed capital gains tax will stop new entrants into the farming community. It will lock in existing investment because farmers cannot afford to move out. The Labor Party will perpetuate a landed class, contrary to its socialistic ideals, and will make it very much more difficult for new entrants. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) should not laugh; this is serious. It affects his Government's socialist proposals. The rationalisation policy for the motor vehicle industry, which could have revitalised a struggling sector of our manufacturing industry, will now be virtually destroyed by ill-advised tax measures. This is but one example of the Labor Party's determination to give with one hand and take away with the other. The Government has now lost its nerve on tax reform and spending restraint. One has only to look at the altered expectations of cuts in the area of veterans' affairs to realise that so many of the promises of significant cuts in spending were dependent on legislation that was, or will be, eventually watered down. For example, the Government was unable to hurry the Veterans' Entitlements Bill through the Senate. As a result, the huge savings anticipated in the Budget did not and will not eventuate. Only last week, the Government softened its stand on cuts in the area of child care. Up in smoke went another cost saving. I am not saying that these changes were not necessary, only that when the Government was making cuts from Budget estimates, it was making paper dolls instead of effective and responsible economic determinations. The Budget plan to cut the deficit has been thwarted by the way that the devaluation is widening and the balance of payments deficit is growing. Although gross national product rose by about $40 billion, three-quarters of it was effectively financed by debt. Over 50 per cent of our increasing indebtedness is overseas debt. Our exports must rise. They have risen as anticipated, but growth has been limited to only a small number of areas. Returns from primary production, which is the basis of our export industry, have been so depressed that the returns will make little impact on our growing foreign debt which has risen from $7 billion to over $50 billion in just five years. Imports were expected to fall as a result of the devaluation of the dollar but this has not really happened. Australians, in their race for expansion and growth, have in fact increased the level of imports-a factor which has obviously widened the trade deficit. Australia's failure to develop an export oriented industrial base in the past, and the continued failure of our struggling manufacturing industries to become more competitive at home and on international markets, has resulted in the poor standing of our economy in the eyes of the Western world. Australia is rapidly becoming structurally locked into dependence on imports of industrial manufactured products and on foreign capital rather than local capital for development funds. The Budget assumption that our industries would rally in response to devaluation has so far been proved to be false. The upward spiral of devaluation-or the downward spiral of devaluation, whichever way one looks at it-followed by price increases, followed by wage increases, followed by inflation, followed by further devaluation, will surely reach its ultimate conclusion. The shaky dollar is a direct result of unrealistic Budget strategy and economic mismanagement by the Government. While the Australian Labor Party today celebrates its great tenth anniversary, I wish to remind its members that the Australian economy now is in a similar position to that which it was in when the notable Dr Jim Cairns was Treasurer. Australia is currently experiencing the highest real interest rates since the Depression in order to prop up the falling dollar. Just how long can we really expect Australian people, home owners and the business community, to survive these huge interest repayments? That remains to be seen. High interest rates are another nail in the coffin of business expansion and development. Australians have increased their borrowing from low interest sources in other countries. This is escalating our foreign debt problem at a time when we should be doing all in our power to try to reduce it. The Government must be prepared to take action to reduce government spending, to throw out its anti-business tax package and to come up with a new proposal that will reward incentive, excellence and ambition and offer incentives to the business community not only to become more competitive in the local and international market-place but also to develop some new industries. The Government must be prepared to control the level of borrowing from overseas, to regulate the growth of imports and to restore confidence in our economy by very much sounder management. The other issue that I wish to develop tonight is the future of the forest based industries, particularly the woodchip industry in Tasmania. Scarcely a week passes without at least some story in the media about the impact of wood chipping and its future in Tasmania. These stories have ranged from local councils which have reaffirmed the value of revenue and local employment generated by logging in their municipalities to the various industry and conservation groups pressing their respective cases on the future of Tasmanian forests. The Tasmanian Chamber of Industries and the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council, both very powerful and representative bodies, have endorsed the importance of continued wood chip export operations in Tasmania beyond 1988. The Tasmanian Chamber of Industries' news editorial expressed the issues involved very succinctly as being that: . . . in considering the granting of woodchip licences beyond 1988 the Federal Government is inevitably involving itself in the future of the entire forest based industry in Tasmania. Because this industry is so critical to our economic well being, it is not an issue in which the Federal Government can give something to both sides simply to protect its electoral standing with the conservationists. The question of how much of Tasmania's forests should remain as wilderness is a decision for the State Government to make and one for all Tasmanians to make. There is a tremendous feeling amongst my constituents in Tasmania that they want Tasmania and Tasmanians to determine their future. The Commonwealth agreement for Tasmanian concessions is likely to be unacceptable. By a recent action, going back several months perhaps, in postponing the tour of Tasmanian forests by Federal Australian Labor Party colleagues, Bob Graham, MHA, a Labor member for Denison, revealed that the State Labor Party is fully aware of the depth of feeling in the electorate about this issue and the desire of the Tasmanian people to retain control of Tasmania's destiny. The people of Tasmania are very much aware of the impact of wood chipping on the Tasmanian scene, both environmentally and economically. They are fed up with these fly-in, fly-over tours of the so-called horror spots by some Federal politicians, who then return to Canberra and roundly condemn the role of forest-based industries in Tasmania. Both Senator Sanders and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) have made these tours amidst considerable media attention and have commented on the so-called failure of regeneration after clear felling. Forestry Commission officers have replied that they too are unable to see from the air the young seedlings and regrowth in new areas. They thus conduct ground surveys in order to assess the progress and success of their regeneration programs. I draw the Senate's attention to comments by the Leader of the Democrats in a recent speech to the Senate, condemning what he saw as a nefarious industry, when he said: On a recent trip to Tasmania I saw scenes of incredible devastation as the woodchippers pursued their dreadful course. From a Tasmanian perspective, I do not think this was a particularly balanced or even a thorough assessment of the environmental or economic impact of the wood chipping industry in Tasmania. A great deal of media attention has been focused on these exclamations of horror by politicians after touring clear-felling operations. I draw the Senate's attention to a very successful scheme which has been operating in southern Tasmania. Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd has opened up its operations and has been conducting warts and all tours in particular areas such as the Florentine Valley. For example, that company, in co-operation with two private tour operators, has for the first time shown people real forests and the impact of proper forest management practices. It is all very well to state emotionally that each week a space equal to 200 Melbourne cricket grounds is devastated for wood chips. It seems an awe inspiring statisitic, but until such an area is visited by Mr and Mrs Average Australian, they find it difficult to visualise the magnitude and volume of Tasmania's forests. Areas of natural beauty have been left aside for preservation by the Forestry Commission and by the industry for years, long before conservation became an emotive issue. But a sad fact which must be remembered is that these areas have been locked up. They are vast tracts of Tasmanian forests that have been preserved as part of the natural cycle. I think we must remember that after a while a tree reaches maturity and then rot begins to set in; so a mature forest eventually disintegrates. While conservationists may be horrified by clear-felling, before the beginning of wood chipping a century of selective logging by saw-mills had left the forests in a sorry state. Any attempt to stop the removal of pulp wood for export from the National Estate areas would not automatically exclude the harvesting of sawlogs. Instead, it would mean the disruption of a regeneration program which is based on years of experience of clear-felling both for pulp wood and sawlogs, followed by a total reafforestation. The beginning of the pulp wood industry in Tasmania provided an economic outlet for wood that could not be used for sawlogs and the waste material generated by saw-mill operations allowed the regeneration of forests which had been devastated by successive sawlogging operations since the earliest days of white settlement. The opportunity to utilise the pulpwood resources of Tasmania has made the regeneration of forests after logging not only practical but also of tremendous economic value to Tasmania. The forest-based industries are now Tasmania's second largest employer, having created some 4,400 jobs, directly and indirectly, in the wood chip export industry. The forest-based industries earn a value added $250m for Tasmania-an income second only to our manufacturing industries and ahead of our agricultural earnings. The wood chip industry earns more than $100m a year in export earnings for Tasmania. The industry has the potential in the next 10 years to earn $1 billion in export income and will maintain the present employment level. Many of the jobs provided by these industries are of crucial importance in country areas which are hit by the rural recession. The wood chip industry has estimated that over the next 10 years the total area harvested by the forest-based industries will represent only 4 per cent of the total area. These forests will be replaced in turn by regenerated stands of forests of even higher quality. A Legislative Council select committee report calculated that if the Federal Government decided to ban the taking of pulp wood from areas listed on the National Estate, the opportunity cost at present day values would be over $13m per annum. If the Government went a step further and placed a total embargo on logging operations in areas listed in the National Estate, the opportunity cost to Tasmania would be reckoned at about $21m. These costings clearly show the enormous wealth potential of the forests and the conservation movement seeks to lock up all these areas and reserves. At present I cannot envisage that the value of tourism in these locked up areas would ever compensate for the loss of a multi- million dollar earner for Tasmania. I wish to highlight the role of a very important group which is often overlooked by conservationists and the public and yet which plays a very crucial role in the management or our forest resources. I refer to these professional foresters of Australia. As public servants who are responsible to State governments, they are not encouraged to adopt a public profile or to speak out on contentious issues. These foresters are truly professional in their conduct and training and are acutely sensitive to the need for balance between the ideals of development and preservation. All too often their role is overlooked by the media when they produce their reports opposing the forces of industry and conservation. A little publicised event last year demonstrated the vulnerability of these public servants to extreme criticism by some conservationists who are often biased and inaccurate and risk discrediting the entire forestry profession. Last year the chief of the Victorian Forest Commission was sacked by the Minister responsible because he failed to tolerate extreme conserva- tionists and was too blinkered in his approach. The Minister is understood to be convinced that conservationists deserve a stronger hearing in forests policy making matters. Having mentioned the dangers of narrow and inaccurate reporting to the reputation of professional foresters, I draw attention to the pragmatic and realistic claims of the Forest Action Network-FAN-which is a coalition body representing a number of conservation groups. It has produced a forest industry study which ideally it would like to see adopted as official policy. This organisation recognises the importance of forest based industries to the Tasmanian economy and it would like to see an expansion of employment opportunities and a greater downstream of production within Tasmania. In its concern for economic viability and employment benefits for the wood chipping industry, this organisation shares the development aims of the industry generally to assist in the preservation of both natural beauty and of our forestry industry. I conclude with a remark about Mr Cohen. The recommendations that have been made by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment must be totally rejected to avoid an unwarranted, uneconomic and disastrous intrusion by the Commonwealth into Tasmania's management of its land resources. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, must temper Cohen's environmental recommendations with a proper regard for economic employment and trade considerations. However, the Primary Industry Minister's Press release of 29 October did not augur well for balanced decision making, as he described Cohen's recommendations as timely, moderate and well directed. Although Tasmania is not opposed to receiving advice from the Commonwealth, particularly its agencies on forestry matters, the Commonwealth has no constitutional prerogative to instruct any State on its land use management. No State would tolerate such interference by the Commonwealth in its constitutional responsib- ilities. Furthermore, Environment Minister Cohen's recommendation, if implemented, would see an ongoing Commonwealth intrusion into the future operations of the industry. The people of Tasmania will reject this intrusion by the Commonwealth, as will their Government and industry. The effects of Commonwealth involvement in the industry, in line with Minister Cohen's recommendation, would be completely catastrophic. For example, 25 per cent of Tasmania's forest resources would be closed off by Canberra. It is not the wish of Tasmanians. It is important that we continue to have these areas of forest, which have been used for almost a century, as production areas. At least 3,000 Tasmanians could lose their jobs if the recommendations were put into full effect. The Commonwealth is now seeking to control the use of about two million hectares of land, or almost 30 per cent of Tasmania's land area. Newsprint production by Australian newsprint mills would be reduced by 50 per cent if those recommendations were not altered. It would substantially reduce the output of many of the hardwood sawmills. It would shut both of the State's veneer mills. It would jeopardise the future of the pulp project in northern Tasmania and would also undermine international confidence in our ability to deliver, because of the severe penalties that are imposed for infringement, which could result in termination of licence. The problems go beyond the Minister's control. While he has found that there is no overriding environmental reason for not granting licences for the export of wood chips from Tasmania, his recommendations concerning areas listed for the National Estate were governed by the constraints imposed on any Federal Minister by the Australian Heritage Commission Act to take action against anything which infringes upon the National Estate. I believe Minister Cohen's recommendations must be totally rejected. I appeal to Mr Kerin to act in a sensible way to enable wood chipping operations to take place under a proper management program. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(10.08) —I think everyone in the Australian community is recognising that this country is in serious economic trouble. We are not in the same sort of mess as New Zealand, which seems to have insoluble problems. Nevertheless, broadly speaking, we are in the sort of position New Zealand was in 10 years ago. The trouble is that the Hawke Government is not beginning to address-to use the favourite expression of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-our fundamental economic problems. In fact, much of what the Hawke Labor Government is doing is making these economic problems worse. Let us look at the stark reality of those problems. We are trading with the rest of the world at an annual loss of about $10,000m a year, and possibly more. At the moment this year's trade deficit looks like being about $12 billion. As a consequence of this trading loss our dollar has been falling sharply against the United States dollar and even more sharply against the currencies of our trading partners, because many of their currencies are appreciating against the US dollar. We have a net overseas debt of $52 billion and it is heading towards $100 billion in a few years' time. Our inflation rate is rising and is almost twice that of the average of our trading partners. Yet, faced with all these problems, we are granting ourselves pay rises we cannot afford and borrowing money overseas to support our current standard of living, which is very bad business in anyone's terms. We have just given ourselves a wage rise. For a country which is trading at a loss, as we are, that is insanity. We are talking in terms of using our productivity improvement next year. It should be used to make ourselves more competitive on the world market. What are we going to do? We are going to grant a pay rise to union employed workers as a result of productivity improvement. Of course it is called superannuation, but it is deferred pay-an extra cost of employing labour. For a country such as ours which is trading at a loss to do this is stark, raving insanity. It is true that not all these problems are our fault. The terms of trade have turned against us. This can be seen in the sugar and wheat industries and mining products. World prices for practically all of our products have fallen. Yet surely what we must do is adjust to the real world and realise that we are competing in a highly competitive environment. The world does not owe us a living and will not give us one. We must earn it by our own efforts. We do not deserve a living if we try to borrow to preserve or increase a standard of living which is beyond what we are earning. The Hawke Government has often been accused of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I do not think this is a good analogy, for our economy is not doomed. We are basically a very prosperous country. We have immense natural resources and a homogeneous population. We could be a highly vibrant and efficient unit if only we could get some of our serious defects straightened out. I do not think the analogy with the Titanic is a good one. I think the Hawke Government is more exactly like the Chamberlain Government in Britain in its handl- ing of the rise of nazism. It tried to appease it; it tried to pretend it was not a problem; it tried to pretend that it could talk it away. Honourable senators will remember that Chamberlain went to Munich and came back waving a piece of paper called the accord. He said: `This is peace in our time. I have solved all of our problems'. He had not, of course. What he had done was deflect the British people away from making proper preparations and taking the actions they should have taken in time to prevent the catastrophe that ultimately hit them. Waving a piece of paper and saying that it represents peace in our time is very much an appeasing way of trying to ignore the problems and pretending that they do not exist. That is the way this Government is tackling our problems. What we must do in the short term is restrain our costs so that we can remain competitive, or improve our competitiveness, on international markets. In the long term we need to reorganise some structural aspects of our economy and institutions so that we will become more efficient. What do we need to do today? There is no doubt that our system of handling industrial relations and wage fixing is one of the worst-probably the worst-in the developed world. We have now had the system for 80 years. Surely we should have realised by now that it works very badly indeed. I point out here, in answer to some sneering remarks made by Labor senators about the unacceptability of looking at overseas examples as to how we might solve our problems in these areas, that our present conciliation and arbitration system was imported from New Zealand-and look what has happened there. Eighty years ago we were, per capita, the richest country in the world. Today we are about fourteenth and still falling. This is very closely related to the gross defects of our system of wage fixing and of solving industrial disputes. I do not suggest for a moment that it would be possible for us to totally change our system of industrial relations overnight. The present system is too much of a sacred cow. Today we need to recognise its defects and work towards overcoming them. What is wrong with our present system of wage fixing and of the prevention of industrial turmoil? There are almost too many defects to mention, but I will list some. Fundamental economic decisions are made by people without relevant training or responsibility. The system is infested by lawyers and legalisms. The decisions of the arbitration system are enforceable, effectively, on only one party. The unions generally ignore them with impunity. The right of the individual to work where he chooses, provided that he is qualified, whether or not he wishes to join a union is not recognised. We have not moved with the times in the direction of a flexible working week and have built up an elaborate system of penalty rates which destroys jobs, particularly in the hospitality industry. One of the obvious ways we can exploit the depreciation of our dollar is by encouraging tourism. Our industrial system and our penalty rates make this much more difficult to achieve than it should be. We have committed a cruel fraud on the young, cynically used by adults to protect their jobs, by pushing up youth wages to levels where many of them are unemployable. We have not solved the problem of divided State and Federal industrial jurisdictions, despite our clear constitutional power to do so. Perhaps most important and damaging of all, our fixation with centralised wage fixing and the so-called comparative wage justice have led us to impose an uneconomic flow-on of wages to businesses that cannot afford to pay them and should not be obliged to pay them. The result: Destruction of businesses and unemployment. All these defects, the result of 80 years of tinkering with a fundamentally unworkable system, cannot be cured overnight. Their cure does not and must not involve the destruction of the unions or even a head-on confrontation with them. Unions have a vital role in our society. Anyone who believes that workers without effective unions would not be exploited is living in a dream-world. One has only to look at black workers in South Africa or all workers in the Soviet Union to see what happens when there are no effective unions. But, like all organisations, unions must be prevented from abusing their power. Still less do we want to emasculate the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In fact, we would like to see its powers increased, or rather, restored. One of the worst of the many socially damaging actions of Mr Hawke was the deal he did to get left wing support for his candidacy for the presidency of the ACTU. He agreed-and he kept his promise-to reduce the power of the ACTU to discipline its member unions. Much damage to the Australian economy has flowed from that action. What do we as a nation need to see happen? We want to make it possible-no, easy-for individual enterprises and their employees to reach legally enforceable wage and conditions contracts. We want tribunals to be more flexible and to take account of the ability of businesses to pay and to get away from the rigidities of so-called comparative wage justice. We want them to be prepared to examine old and dying sacred cows, such as penalty rates and excessive youth wages, and to see whether the interests of the economy as a whole and the unemployed in particular would be improved by changes. Above all, we want them to be aware of the economic consequences of their actions. We live in a highly competitive world economy, and the best answers are not necessarily to preserve industrial harmony by splitting the difference between competing ambit claims. All this will involve changes in our industrial relations systems, changes in personnel, in skills and in attitudes. It is up to the Opposition, I believe, in the years ahead, to make clear what is needed, what is essential, and the benefits which would flow to the whole community. The first thing we must do is to bring unions back under the rule of law. A century ago it was the employers who were acting ruthlessly and almost uncontrolled by law. This gross unfairness has since been remedied and employers are very much ruled-perhaps too closely-by law. We need to make the unions responsible for the actions they take which damage firms or individuals-actions taken in definance of the law or decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Why are they not responsible for their actions? Why should people suffer from this type of behaviour? We have an elaborate system for the resolution of industrial disputes, but the essential feature of such a system must be that the umpire's decision has to be accepted. It has to be accepted by the employers; why should it not be accepted by the employees? One can see the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in its attempt to put unions above or beyond the reach of the law by what it did when it set up the National Crime Authority. This authority was set up to deal with serious crimes such as theft, fraud, tax evasion, illegal gambling, illegal drug dealing, vice, extortion, violence, bribery and corruption-all serious offences, one would have thought. But the Hawke Labor Government specifically exempted any investigations by the National Crime Athority of such offences if they arose out of genuine industrial disputes. Such offences as theft, fraud, violence and bribery and corruption cannot be investigated by the National Crime Authority if a genuine industrial dispute is involved. This seems to me to be absolutely outrageous folly. For another example of the desire of the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions to put unions above the reach of the law let us look at what happened when the ACTU was supporting illegal actions by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union in the Mudginberri dispute. A group of workers, who were not members of that meat workers union, had reached an agreement satisfactory both to management and to the employees concerned and which was sanctioned by the Arbitration Commission. The union is involved in illegal and very damaging standover tactics. The words of the President of the ACTU on this issue are illuminating. He said: While the theory might be right that the rights of the individual are supreme, the reality is that we have to deal with representative groups. In other words, all power to the unions; the rights of the individuals do not count. If we wish to get a more fair and balanced industrial relations and wage fixing system we must get rid of that attitude. Unions and their supporters must recognise that they, like every other group in the community, are responsible and answerable to the law. When we have that we can develop a sensible and balanced system of industrial relations. That is one of our great problems-the fact that our system of wage fixing and industrial dispute solving has not worked despite 80 years of tinkering with an unworkable system. That is not the only problem we have as a nation. Another very unusual feature is the extent of the involvement of the Government in business, particularly in the key areas of the national infrastructure of communications and transport. Governments or government institutions are basically not good at business. Public servants are generally not entrepreneurial. The business cannot go bankrupt. These institutions tend to be regarded by their workers as sheltered workshops from which they can force concessions beyond the ability of the business to pay, knowing that in the end it will be supported by the government. There are many strikes going on in Victoria now. The transport industry is a perfect example. The transport system is being used as a sort of sheltered workshop, a place where people are guaranteed employment whether or not it is economic or necessary. They still think that they have a right to employment. We must look at all the business organisations run by the government and examine each of them on its merits to see whether or not it can be more efficiently run by private enterprise. Not all of them can be. In a country such as Australia, some structural businesses must be run by government because there is no other way they can be operated. Many of the businesses, for historical reasons, have been run by the government. What applied 100 years ago may no longer be appropriate. We must look at them seriously and ruthlessly to see whether that is the best way of running them and, if not, what alternative arrangements can be made. One of the most illuminating remarks which is constantly made about the so-called privatisation issue is that it would lead to a great deal of shedding of labour. That is a very illuminating judgment of the extent of overmanning and feather-bedding that goes on in government businesses at the moment. Certainly if we shed or transfer to private enterprise any part of the government's activities there will be surplus labour, a shedding of labour. Senator Tate —How do you know? Senator HAMER —Because every organisation we look at is grossly overmanned. Look at the Victorian railways. When the suggestion was made of bringing an XPT train to Victoria-after a lot of trouble it is being manned by two people from New South Wales-the Victorian railways unions insisted on it being manned by three people, knowing of course that the third person would be totally surplus to requirements, just to provide jobs. If we could get the Victorian railways, just one example of a government enterprise, run efficiently there would be a substantial shedding of labour and a substantial drop in costs. If it ran more efficiently it would benefit the whole community. Senator Zakharov —Do you think the people who staff the stations are excess as well? Senator HAMER —No. Very few people man stations late at night. I think they should be manned. The best way to man them is not to have a ticket collector sitting there. One of the most useful proposals, and a good example of privatisation, is to sell off the stations, make them shopping centres, and man them at night by people who have an incentive to get people to travel by train. This is the sort of lateral thinking that we must use. We cannot go on and on with the old and inefficient way, with the Victorian railways losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This country cannot afford it. In the key areas of communications and transport we have a very inefficient system run by a Public Service which is not suitable for running those sorts of enterprises. We could transfer parts of these activities, not necessarily all of them. An example I gave was in the rail system. Perhaps we should look at leasing or selling off the stations to people who wish to run shopping centres. That would be one way in which we could get money back and run the stations much more efficiently than they are run now. We do not have to sell the whole system. But there will be surplus employees because of the amount of feather-bedding and unnecessary labour in all these government enterprises. The people who will be displaced in the transfer to private enterprise must be fairly compensated. There will not, overall, be a net loss of jobs. One of the things hindering the economic development of this country is the very inefficient infrastructure we have in the communications and transport sectors. If we can improve their efficiency-I believe we can greatly improve them-the whole economy of this country will run much more efficiently. The result of such an improvement in our economy will of course be the creation of new jobs in many areas, and that is the way in which I think we must go. It will not be a blanket approach of privatising everything. We must get away from accepting that certain industries historically, and almost accidentally, have been run by the government. We must look at each of them and say: `Is that an efficient way to do it? If not, how can we run it better in the interests of the consumer and the whole community?' That is the way we must go. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —There are some questions which need to be answered and which are of interest to the residents of Oxley in the Australian Capital Territory. The questions are: Where are the buses? What has happened to the street lighting? Oxley is a fairly new suburb in Canberra, but not all that new because it has had some people living there for close on two years. As far as the buses are concerned, some months ago it was believed in the area as a result of inquiries that the buses would appear in early or late October. That gives a little bit of leeway, but in fact the buses did not appear in October of this year. The best information that the people living there have been able to obtain now is that the buses should be running for the commencement of the 1986 school year. A lot of people are deprived of the benefits of public transport. A bus service would be particularly relevant to young people who do not have other means of transport, except if they are able to get their parents to do the pick up and delivery of school children service, to many elderly people who may live there and to others who do not have motor vehicles readily available. Oxley is different to other suburbs in that the bus service has not gone in at the time one would normally anticipate such a service would be introduced. As far as the street lighting is concerned, as has been put to me, people who inquire are pushed from pillar to post from the National Capital Development Commission to the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority. It is widely felt that Oxley is perhaps being neglected by having to wait for Gilmore and Isabella Plains to catch up and then it will all be done at once. If that is the case, it is not fair to the citizens living in Oxley. They, of course, have been required to pay rates on their land from the time that they purchased it, but they are not getting the same municipal services in their suburb as other people do or at the time that they expected them when they purchased their land. I think that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) ought to be able to tell us what is happening, whether or not the bus service will be commencing soon and when the street lighting will be installed. As one constitutent said in a letter to me, referring to both the buses and the street lighting: You don't expect them straightaway but I do think that fair is fair. I hope that the Minister will, at the earliest possible opportunity, let the Senate know what the position is so that the residents of Oxley will know what the future holds for them. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.32) —Tonight I want to use the opportunity of the adjournment debate to set right a matter that was brought up last Friday. Last Friday I moved a notice of motion noting that the Camelia Restaurant, which was Brisbane's oldest licensed restaurant, had closed. I am grateful to Senator MacGibbon for setting that matter correct today in a notice of motion that he gave in the Senate. After my notice of motion on Friday, Senator Jones moved a contradictory notice of motion, which said: That the Senate congratulates the Camelia Restaurant on its endeavours to spend $1 1/2m in redeveloping in the Riverside development in Brisbane. Of course, this was totally incorrect. I then received a message from the owner of the Camelia Restaurant, Mr Allen, and I think it may be appropriate if I read it into the Hansard. His message of last Friday reads: I resent being misrepresented in Parliament, and seek the Senate to set the matter straight. I am the current owner of the Camelia Restaurant, the oldest licensed restaurant in Queensland-a restaurant that ceases to exist today, destroyed specifically by the actions of the Federal Government, and their oppressive tax attack against the business community. I have not invested any monies in the Riverside project in Brisbane. The investment referred to by the Senate was made by a previous owner who sold out several years ago. His investment in the Riverside project was committed prior to the announcement of this destructive tax package. I have not and will not invest any moneys in the upper end of the restaurant industry in the current economic climate in Australia. The Federal Government is effectively destroying that market sector. Today I close, for the last time, the doors of the Camelia. Its name will be lost forever. I intend to open a bistro in that location with fewer staff and lower overheads, so that I may stay in the industry I love. I think that this should be recorded in Hansard to point out once again how Senator Jones continues to put his foot in it in this place. He shoots from the hip at every opportunity and usually ends up in trouble. The seriousness of the plight of the restaurant and hospitality industry is such that it is estimated that in Queensland alone over 1,500 people have been added to the dole queue. I believe that in total the figure was 3,700 people at last count. That count is continuing upwards all over Australia. Members of the Government which has brought down this oppressive tax on the restaurant industry do not realise the hurt that is being caused to people in small businesses in the restaurant industry. These are people who have striven to put a small business together and employ people. It is a terrible thing to have to watch one's business being ripped away by someone in the Government who has no conception of what small business is all about. That, coupled with high interest rates, will mean that we will see many more restaurants go to the wall just as the Camelia has done. Many small businesses will end up in the same plight as the Camelia. They will end up broke and bankrupt. This Government makes inane comments about free lunches. Senator Messner —Mr Keating says that they will find jobs easily. Senator BOSWELL —I hope Mr Keating will find jobs for them. He will probably find jobs for them under the community employment program in which many unemployed Australians end up to reduce this Government's unemployment figures. As we have heard many times tonight, they are false figures. All the Government is doing is taking people out of real jobs and propping them up in Government-sponsored CEP jobs. That is not solving the problem; it is adding to the problem. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.37) —There are several matters I wish to raise briefly in the adjournment debate tonight. The first matter concerns identification cards. I was delighted to see reported in the media today that apparently there is growing opposition within my own party, the Liberal Party, and elsewhere to the issuing of ID cards. I think it is important to record that there has been a vast misconception as to the likely cost and real effectiveness of ID cards. I am glad to see that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is probably in a good position to comment in relation to this matter, is present in the chamber tonight. I believe that to have an effective ID card we would need to have the silicon chip card, the so-called smart card. This is the card which costs at least $50 per issue. This is the card necessary for us to have any hope of having an effective means of decreasing social welfare and taxation fraud. That cost of $50 is just for the manufacture of the card itself. If we add the sort of figures we have obtained from the Government recently, not only in the course of Estimates committees but also in relation to charges levied for Freedom of Information Act applications, one would have to say that the very minimum charge for processing any individual identity card would have to be $50. However, the net result is that the cost of a basic effective ID card would be $100. Therefore, the cost of issuing cards to the 12 1/2 million Australians who would need to be issued in the first place with such cards would amount to $1.25 billion. That would have to be expended before we would save the first dollar. Senator Tate —It makes your figuring improbable. Senator PETER RAE —I did not hear Senator Tate's comment as to whether he meant my figuring was improbable or the Government's figuring was improbable. I say that my figures are not improbable but are more accurate than anything that the Government has produced. Senator Messner —They said $35m in the first case. Senator PETER RAE —That is ridiculous. That is the same sort of thing which happened when the Medicare card was issued. Some families received three cards and some families none. The whole thing did not work. The whole matter fell foul of the bureaucracy when during the doctors' dispute information on doctors' income, which was supposed to be sacred, was leaked to the media from the sacred area of the computer. One imagines that that could happen again. To return to reality, if one takes $50-which is a fact-as being the cost of a safe kind of card one might do a job which is nearly as good perhaps as a passport. Having regard to passports, people such as Trimbole and others have been able to skip back and forth into the country without any apparent untoward interference from the country's authorities. Senator Aulich —Room to move? Senator PETER RAE —Yes, there is room for further comment. On the Government's figures, the very minimum cost would be $50 for processing. That is a cost of $100 per person, or a total of $1.25 billion for something which Senator Grimes's own Department has said will not be successful. The Australian Federal Police have said that it would not be successful. Almost any organisation which is in a position to have an informed view on the subject has said that the more than likely result will be that not only will it be unsuccessful, but it will facilitate fraud. Senator Tate —Why don't you stay here and fight it instead of going to Tasmania? Senator PETER RAE —We can spread the fight further by using the information I can give here tonight. The honourable senator can continue it, and I can spread the fight further against the intrusion of bureaucracy, of Big Brother, and made sure that we defend the country against Big Brother. While I am talking about Big Brother-- Government senators interjecting- Senator Messner —Would you Tasmanians mind if we went home? Senator PETER RAE —Honourable senators can have their conversation if they want to. I will try to make my comments. I did not hear anything said during the interchange but earlier I heard Senator Tate expressing concern about the Philippines. I did not have any disagreement with that concern except from the point of view of the limitation of the area within his sights. I wanted to check the extent to which we provide military aid and defence co-operation aid to the Philippines. I find that the estimate for the current year 1985-86 is $1,493,000, which is about one nine-hundreth of the amount it would cost to introduce identification cards into this country. That is the first point. The second point is that it would not be likely to stop a revolution in the Philippines, nor would it be likely to assist one very much, particularly as most of the areas of assistance relate to Nomad aircraft and other forms of civil contract work, to assist with light vehicle and fire-fighting equipment and so on. I am not disputing the point made by Senator Tate, but I wish to add that I find even more obnoxious, even more objectionable, what is happening in a country such as Iran. We read that last month, October, 200 political prisoners were executed in Iran, according to an authority which I would accept as being likely to be reasonably accurate. I have expressed concern in the past about what is being done on a basis which is comparable to apartheid, singling out an individual group as a result of their religious attitudes or colour or whatever. That is what is happening to the Bahaist in particular in Iran. I find it so offensive and so little mentioned that I want to mention it again tonight. While we are thinking about some of the objectionable things going on in the Philippines, let us think about some of the objectionable things going on in Iran. Let us remember that the estimate is that about 500,000 people have been killed in the past six years in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Senator Tate —I mentioned that in my remarks. Senator PETER RAE —I know; I am just summarising. But let us think about some of these other things. Let us think also about Vietnam. The best information I can obtain is still the information from the Nordic group which keeps under surveillance what is happening there. Ten years after the end of the war in Vietnam about 200,000 political prisoners are still held in custody in that country on the pretext of re-education or some other excuse. This Parliament needs to mention from time to time the matters of concern in other countries. We may not be perfect but what we can do in a free society is try to redress, or at least expose, some of the injustices and horrors which are taking place through the misuse of power in various countries in the world. The list is very long indeed. I do not want to take up the time of the Senate in mentioning more than those three countries tonight. In conclusion, from the point of view of Australia's aid programs, we could be said to be misdirected in taking aid away from the Philippines because of its abuse of human rights when one compares its record with that of other countries to which we provide some form of assistance. The general principle of directing our aid to countries which support the freedom of the individual is something which I warmly support. That is why I conclude, as I started, by saying: Let us not have in this country the intrusion of Big Brother. Let us not have the loss of freedom or the expense of the control of the individual contained in the proposal for the identification card or, as it is euphemistically and absolutely erroneously called, the Australia Card. If that is what Australia is all about, I will be ashamed to be an Australian. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.48) —Honourable senators will recall that on 29 January this year His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, appointed 21 February as `the day for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to assemble for the despatch of business' and required senators to give their attendance accordingly at Parliament House. Unfortunately, Senator Georges is not in attendance in this Parliament today in order to attend to the business which the Governor-General required him to assemble with his fellow senators to despatch. From media reports one is led to believe that our colleague has been arrested. I do not know whether that is the case but I ask you, Mr President, particularly in light of the resolution passed on 26 February 1980, to inform the Senate of the status of our colleague and whether this might impair his ability to fulfil his constitutional role in attending this Parliament. Honourable senators may recall that on 26 February 1980-I have no doubt that Senator Jim Cavanagh was a party to the framing of this resolution; I see that our former colleague and Mrs Cavanagh are with us in the gallery this evening-that resolution stated: (1) It is the right of the Senate to receive notification of the detention of its members. (2) Should a Senator for any reason be held in custody pursuant to the order or judgment of any court, other than a court martial, the court ought to notify the President of the Senate, in writing, of the fact and the cause of the Senator's being placed in custody. I am anxious to know whether the arresting authority or the court concerned has notified you, Mr President, as it should in terms of that resolution, of the status of our colleague Senator Georges. I am sure that other senators will be interested in the reply that you may be able to give. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.50) —We have had a mixed bag on the adjournment debate tonight. Senator Reid raised a matter concerning the citizens of Oxley and is in grave danger of getting repetitive strain injury in her arm from working the parish pump again. She is concerned about the buses that have gone missing and the street lamps that have not appeared. I am afraid that I have no knowledge of the subject but I will refer the matter to my colleague to see just what the problem is. I certainly do not like to think of the people of Oxley being in the dark and without any means of transport. Senator Boswell raised the latest chapter in the saga of the Camelia Restaurant in Queensland, to which I have been listening with interest, with Senator MacGibbon moving one notice of motion, followed by Senator Jones moving another, I think Senator Boswell the third and now Senator Boswell has had a go on the adjournment. The Camelia Restaurant, as I suppose most honourable senators would know, closed down allegedly because of the removal of the tax deductions for business lunches. Those of us who remember the Camelia Restaurant remember it as a quite pleasant place but one of its main features was the extraordinarily high price of the food and in particular the wine served with the food. One would suggest that if the cost of the food and in particular of the wine had been reduced the restaurant would not have had to close and I suggest that it would have made a handsome profit equal to that it made before. I think it is significant that it is the first and only restaurant that we know of in Queensland or in the whole of Australia that has had to close for this reason. Senator Peter Rae raised the matter of identification cards. He has done so before and I daresay he will do so again. The Government is at the moment looking at the introduction of ID cards and their efficiency and effectiveness. I will refer his remarks to Dr Blewett, who is the Minister concerned with the subject. Senator Rae also mentioned the problems of Iran, Korea, South Africa and many other countries and, I believe, incorporated a list of countries where political persecution occurred, I think from the point of view of reprimanding Senator Tate, who I believe suggested that we should look at the small amount of military aid we give to the Philippines because of the undoubted abuse of that aid. I did not hear Senator Tate speak but I am sure that he spoke with his usual learned clarity and restraint. I cannot imagine that he said anything that would have provoked Senator Rae so I suppose that what Senator Rae-- Senator Peter Rae —Nor was it intended to, let me interpose for the record. Senator GRIMES —Good. I just point out to Senator Rae, as he made a reference to apartheid, that the difference between South Africa and all these other countries is that South Africa has written very firmly into its constitution the persecution of black people in that country. That takes place in a country which claims to be civilised and I think that is the basis of the abhorrence of most people to the apartheid regime. Mr President, I believe that, to use the vernacular, Senator Georges is in the jug again, but you probably know more about that than I do; so I will let everybody rest tonight and leave that matter to you. I hope that we can all get home and have an early sleep. The PRESIDENT —In response to the matter that has been raised by Senator Tate, firstly let me say how delighted I was to hear Senator Tate make reference to the presence in the presidential gallery of our erstwhile colleague and my close friend, former Senator Jim Cavanagh and his wife. Senator Cavanagh served in the Senate with me from the day I started in the Senate in 1962 until he left, with a number of our other colleagues, in 1981. I must say that it is a pleasure not only for me but for all honourable senators to see former Senator Cavanagh and Mrs Cavanagh back with us this evening. In response to the matter about which Senator Tate principally spoke on the adjournment, I must say that Senator Childs came to see me this afternoon in my office and raised with me the question of the arrest of Senator Georges in Queensland. Senator Reynolds also saw me shortly after Senator Childs had been to see me. When Senator Childs came to see me I had with me the Clerk of the Senate who informed me and Senator Childs that he, the Clerk, and another of the Senate's senior officers had had discussions with the solicitor representing Senator Georges this afternoon. Senator Childs's attention was drawn to a Privileges Committee report of 1979 concerning the arrest of a senator, the contents of which report were adopted by the Senate at that time. In short, the report said that where a senator had been arrested or proceeded against by police officers acting as officers of the Crown, the matter was to be regarded as one of a criminal nature and, therefore, in that event was not the subject of privilege of the Senate. I understand that Senator Georges was, in fact, charged with an offence under a Queensland Act which provides for a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for six months. The previous report, the one to which I have referred, confirmed that it must be regarded that the privilege of freedom from arrest is not available in such matters. I understand that subsequent to the discussion that the Clerk and I had with Senator Childs the Clerk also had a discussion with the solicitor representing Senator Georges. I am told that Senator Georges has been charged. He expects to appear before a magistrate at 10 a.m. tomorrow. I expect the court to advise me, as President of the Senate, that Senator Georges has been before that court. I expect that that advice will come either from the court or from the Queensland Attorney-General. I am also told that it is expected that upon Senator Georges's appearance before that court a date will be set down for the hearing in due course. That is all I can say at this stage. Senator Georges has not been before a court. It is expected that he will be before a court tomorrow. I expect that either the court or the Queensland Attorney-General, acting in accordance with practice, will advise me that a senator has been detained in that State. Senator Tate —Do you know the charge? The PRESIDENT —I am now told that it is a charge under section 4A of the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I hope that tomorrow the matter about which you have just spoken, Mr President, which was raised by Senator Tate, will be referred again to the Senate Privileges Committee for consideration as to the timing of the bringing of charges for what can only be called minor offences under State legislation. The courts charged with dealing with such matters should have regard to the timing of the sitting of this chamber. I believe it should at least be considered by the Privileges Committee and perhaps made known to the courts that the Senate does not expect to have its members detained from performing their duty in this place while they adhere to the court's program in appearing on some minor charge under the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act or similar legislation. It seems to me to be puerile in the extreme and something which ought to be referred to and considered by the Privileges Committee and made plain to the courts of Australia, both Federal and State. This chamber should not be treated in the flippant way in which, apparently, it runs some risk of being treated if the information which you have been given so far, Mr President, turns out to be correct. The PRESIDENT —In respect of the matter which Senator Peter Rae has just raised, the honourable senator will realise that any matter coming before the Senate is not a matter for me, but a matter for the Senate to propose. I am told that on the last occasion on which this matter arose, again in relation to Senator Georges, the particular matter to which Senator Rae has referred was drawn to the attention of the magistrate. I am told that the Clerk of the Senate also drew the matter to the attention of Senator Georges's solicitor this afternoon. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(11.00) —Mr President, I seek your indulgence also to make a comment on the detention of Senator Georges in Queensland. I think that the point that should be made concerns the question of fingerprinting a well-known Government senator. I would like to take the opportunity to quote from the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act under which Senator Georges has been charged. Section 43 in relation to fingerprints states: Where a person has been arrested on any charge in respect of which the person may be arrested under this Act, or is in lawful custody for any offence punishable on indictment pursuant to `The Criminal Code', the officer in charge of police at the police station to which he is taken after arrest or where he is in custody, as the case may be, may take or cause to be taken all such particulars as may be deemed necessary- I repeat that phrase: `may take all such particulars as may be deemed necessary'- for the identification of such person, including his photograph and finger prints and palm prints . . . I ask you, Mr President: Does anyone in this chamber, any reasonable person in Australia, or in Queensland for that matter, really believe that it would be deemed necessary to take the fingerprints of a well-known Queensland Labor senator? I think that the question of the enforcement of this fingerprint requirement-which has been virtually at the whim of the police officer in charge, remembering that Senator Georges has not yet appeared before a court-is the one that has had him forcibly detained in the watch-house this evening. Bail was offered, and because Senator Georges did not believe that it should be deemed necessary that his fingerprints be taken for identification purposes, as stated in the Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act, he refused to comply with this condition. It is essentially a condition that has been imposed not by a court but at the whim of a particular police officer. Of course, what must concern the Senate is how political was this action which has been taken today and to what extent precedent is being established in regard to the future detention of members of this place or members of this Government if it suited the political motives of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. I would certainly hope, Mr President, that in the light of further information that I am sure will come to your notice and the notice of honourable senators in the next 12 hours or so, the Senate will express very clearly to the Queensland Government that we will not tolerate the enforced incarceration of Senator Georges or any other member of this place, or indeed any member of the other place, for political purposes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.05 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Federal Police Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 Nos 292, 293. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 291. Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 287. Fisheries Act-Plan of Management No. 1-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Declaration under sub-section 4(4), dated 31 October 1985. Health Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 290. Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc., acquired for Defence purposes-Churchill, Queensland. Statements (2) by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7(1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 288. Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 294. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985 No. 289. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1985- No. 57-Artificial Conception. No. 58-Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 59-Child Welfare (Amendment). States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act-Directions under sections 37 and 41 to vary Schedule 19, dated 29 October 1985. Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of Act: A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act to come into operation on the date specified: Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Amendment Act 1985-14 November 1985 (Gazette No. S 461, 7 November 1985). The following answer to a question was circulated: Senator Gareth Evans —I wish to provide the additional information which I promised in my reply to Senator Missen's question on Tuesday, 5 November, about charges levied by the Ethiopian Government on shipments of relief grain. I am grateful to the honourable senator for bringing to my attention the article in the Christian Science Monitor. The structure of port charges can vary considerably from country to country. I am therefore unable to confirm the accuracy of the comparisons made by the honourable senator between Ethiopian ports and other ports in the same region. Nevertheless, I can confirm that Ethiopian charges are significantly higher than those applying in Mombasa and Port Sudan. Moreover, consignments to relief agencies other than the Government of Ethiopia's Relief and Rehabilitation Commission have attracted additional levies. High charges are a matter of concern, not only to ourselves and other donors, but also to commercial shipping companies operating to Ethiopian ports. Australia, along with other donors, requested the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Ethiopia to negotiate reduced charges with the Government of Ethiopia. As a result of these approaches, reduced charges for all aid and relief shipments have been agreed by the Ethiopian Government. The new charges apply from 10 November and eliminate the discrimination against relief shipments not consigned to the Relief and Rehabilitation Commission. Overall, however, the charges remain higher than other comparable ports and we will seek further reductions. As to the senator's question whether funds received as port charges are used by the Ethiopian Government to purchase military hardware, the Australian Government is not aware of any earmarking of port charges for such purposes. I am aware that the Ethiopian Government makes large expenditures on men and equipment for its military operations in Eritrea and Tigre. As I said in my answer to Senator Missen's question on Tuesday, we hope that the Ethiopian Government will accord priority to famine and drought relief efforts. The Government shares with the international community and other major donors a concern to ensure that priority is accorded to famine relief, and that relief assistance reaches famine victims in all parts of Ethiopia. I can assure Senator Missen that the Australian Government's concerns have been made known in forthright terms to the Ethiopian Government. Most recently, during Mr Hayden's visit to the United Nations in New York in October, he met with Ethiopian Foreign Minister, Goshu Wolde. In this meeting, Mr Hayden expressed the Government's concerns about relief distribution and the priorities of the Ethiopian Government. We are confident that the Ethiopian authorities understand and accept Australia's interests and concerns in this matter.