Wednesday, 19 March 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there are political prisoners in the Polish People's Republic. That preparations are under way for another mass trial against members of the Confederation of Independent Poland. That human rights are denied under the Communist Government of the Polish People's Republic. That people of any nation in the Free World could find themselves under Soviet Occupation. That the inhuman totalitarian system of Communism is openly heading towards controlling the entire world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should do all in its power and authority, through the Government of Australia, to alleviate the suffering of the Polish people and to ensure the right of all people everywhere to freedom of speech. That the Australian Government will not shut its eyes to the plight of others lest we see our own freedom of thought and speech reduced to mere mockery. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 560 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled and to the Australian Government: This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: foreign warships visiting Australian ports give acceptability to the increasing militarization of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; W.A. endures a visit of a foreign warship on average every 1.5 weeks; a situation of de facto `home-porting' facilities exists in W.A.; there is increasing citizen concern that nuclear armed/nuclear powered warships put Australian ports and people at risk in many ways. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Australian Government refuse entry to Australian ports to all foreign warships. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Uranium mining and processing is dangerous to the health and well-being and ecology of the Earth and its citizens. By-products of uranium are toxic for periods of up to 500,000 years, and are an intrinsic part of the production of nuclear weapons. Existing safeguards are inadequate, and are not properly monitored. The policy of the Australian Government permits the entry into Australia territory of vessels and aircraft without the assurance that they are not nuclear powered or armed. Such vessels pose a threat to both the security and well-being of Australia and its citizens. The presence of foreign military and communication bases on Australian soil seriously endangers the health and well-being of Australia and its citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable Senators will take cognisance of the above and take immediate action to remove the above dangers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: the Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, eg petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 180 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that woodchipping and clearfelling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway Forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, humbly pray that the Parliament act to outlaw the practice of the large petrol companies also controlling petrol retail outlets in competition with independent petrol distributers and retailers who they supply, thus acting in a position of unfair competition, and leading to the large companies exerting unconscionable pressure on those independent distributers and retailers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 196 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 the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 20 citizens), Michael Baume (from 28 citizens), Parer (from 10 citizens) and Sanders (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jessop (from 114 citizens) and Parer (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will- Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual Restrict Rights to those specified by the Bill. We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 274 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 proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 346 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights will do nothing to advance the rights of Australians, because it is dangerously ambiguous and will cause confusion within the legal system; it endangers our Federal system; and, it is to be administered in an authoritarian manner inconsistent with the present legal rights of all Australians. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Senate rejects the Australian Bill of Rights Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That certain Trade Unions are currently forcing employers and employees to join union-controlled Superannuation schemes through industrial blackmail, thereby extending the Unions' economic power and at the same time infringing individual rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: (i) Guarantee that Occupational Superannuation is a matter of individual choice (ii) Declare illegal industrial standover tactics which force people to join superannuation schemes controlled by, or sponsored by, trade unions. (iii) Protect those companies and their employees who establish their own superannuation arrangements at the enterprise level. (iv) Ensure that union or industry-based schemes are not disguised pay rises by providing that employees must also make contributions. (v) Provide that control of the funds of such schemes is vested in the elected representative of the contributors to those schemes (vi) Oppose any backdoor attempts at achieving compulsory unionism. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government pass on the full benefits of lower international oil prices on March 1st, 1986; and (ii) that the Hawke Labor Government does not increase or extend fuel taxes And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 152 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned believes: (1) That the practice of female circumcision is barbaric. (2) That this practice is objectionable and alien to the standards and beliefs of a majority of Australians. (3) That the practice contravenes the notions of individual rights and liberties that are strongly held in Australia. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should request the Government to use its powers to eradicate the barbaric practice of female circumcision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coleman (from 52 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, nine sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1985 No. 236 and made under the Superannuation Act 1976, be disallowed. Senator COONEY —by leave-The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is in the course of correspondence with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) concerning the reviewability of certain discretionary decisions under the regulations. The Committee has not yet finalised its views on the matter. However, today is the last day on which a senator may give notice of motion. I do so to protect the Committee's freedom of action. Senator PARER(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for its blatant neglect of students wishing to attend tertiary institutions in Queensland; (b) notes that the increase in places at tertiary institutions over the current triennium in Queensland is nothing more than window dressing; (c) notes that the students of Queensland are disadvantaged and deprived, as the availability of places is such that they suffer the lowest participation rate of any State or Territory in Australia; and (d) deplores the great loss, both in personal and national terms, of the denial of tertiary education opportunities for thousands of qualified and able young Queenslanders. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, recognising that this and previous Governments have ignored their own foreign investment laws in regard to the company Industrial Equity Ltd (IEL)- (a) notes that IEL claims that its New Zealand parent company controls only 14.6 per cent of voting rights, but that in reality the company controls a far greater proportion than this; (b) notes that the Federal Government, through the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Attorney-General's Department knows about this situation, but the Treasurer (Mr Keating) refuses to act, despite the fact that IEL is attempting to take over the Sydney gas utility Australian Gas Light Company Limited; and (c) considers this is yet another indictment of the present Government in its refusal to shoulder its responsibility to protect the public interest regarding takeovers. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls upon the Queensland Government to- (a) apologise to the Australian Pensioners' League for locking an elderly pensioner delegation out of the Queensland Parliament and refusing to allow these pensioners to meet the Minister responsible for granting electricity rebates; (b) bring pensioner benefits into line with other Australian States, so that senior citizens are able to enjoy the full concessions provided by more caring Governments. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns this Labor Government's litany of broken promises in its treatment of Australia's Aboriginal people, especially in its pathetic backdown over implementing a national Aboriginal land rights policy; (b) condemns this visionless Government's failure to implement such a land rights policy, in accord with its 1983 electoral promises and its endorsed policy platform; (c) regards this cave-in to powerful vested interests, such as the mining industry, and to reactionary State Governments, especially in Western Australia and Queensland, as yet another `nail in the coffin' of a supposedly reformist government; (d) suggests that this backdown, as well as those over uranium mining, East Timor, woodchipping and saving the Daintree rainforest, illustrate that the Labor Government has lost its claim to moral leadership and concern for the principles of peace, justice and environmental preservation; (e) urges those members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) who still cherish the Party's reformist principles to unite at the forthcoming ALP National Conference in an attempt to reverse this trend towards political expediency; (f) calls on the Government to give an undertaking that it will immediately counter any propaganda campaign in the media by the mining industry or other powerful vested interests, who are doing so much to promote the community backlash against the legitimate rights of the Aboriginal people; (g) demands that the Labor Government, as a matter of the highest priority, implement a vigorous educational campaign to foster an awareness among Australians as to the plight of Aboriginal people and their deep spiritual ties to the land; and (h) reminds the Government and the people of Australia that there can be no peace without justice and that unless the Aboriginal people can obtain justice, European Australians will suffer the consequences of Aboriginal oppression. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the price of oil is falling even further with $US8 per barrel now suggested as a possibility; (b) this must mean the cessation of Australian oil exports which in 1985 made up the bulk of Australia's $2.4 billion total exports of oil, liquid petroleum gas and distillate; (c) Federal government taxes and other revenue relating to oil exports take approximately 80 per cent of the proceeds of export sales; and (d) as a result, the Government faces a serious revenue drop amounting to as much as $2 billion a year if oil prices remain seriously depressed, calls on the Government to reveal its proposals for countering this severe revenue loss which threatens to blow the Government's forward deficit for 1986-87 financial year from its present $6.4 billion to over $8 billion. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the latest figures for working days lost in Australia because of industrial disputes, released yesterday by the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics, reveal that Queensland headed the list with almost twice the average of the 6 States; (b) in the 12 months to November 1985, Queensland lost 427 days per 1,000 workers followed by Victoria with 247, New South Wales with 214, Western Australia with 198, Tasmania with 149 and South Australia with 54; (c) the Queensland figure represents an increase of 48 per cent in working days lost over the previous 12 monthly period; (d) the Australian average of days lost in the 12 months to November 1985 per 1,000 workers was only 237, despite being pushed upwards by the appalling result in Queensland, condemns the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government in Queensland for its policies of confrontation that are ruining the spirit and the letter of industrial relations in that State, and playing a significant role in dragging down the economic effort of Australia in general. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for- (a) plunging the housing of Australian families into the worst position in 50 years by doctrinaire and unbalanced policies; (b) creating and maintaining a high interest, high tax economy that makes home ownership an unattainable goal for many young Australian families; (c) presiding over and causing a rapid decline in the availability of rental housing, causing extreme hardship to low income families in particular; (d) creating uncertainty by not releasing after 6 months, details concerning the taxation policy on investment property; and (e) destabilising the finance market by artificial and sectoral constraints which will have long-term detrimental effects on home ownership funding. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 190A, I give notice that it is my intention, at a later hour this day, to withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting relating to the disallowance of the First Home Owners Regulations (Amendment). I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has been considering a provision in these regulations under which the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has prescribed the Secretary to the Department of Social Security and the Commissioner of the Australian Taxation Office as persons to whom may be given confidential information relating to applicants for grants under the first home owners scheme. The objective behind the prescription is to counter fraudulent social security and tax claims. The Committee did not object to that aim but it suggested that, in order to protect privacy, the regulations should expressly set out the type of information to be released and the circumstances in which it could be released. As the regulations stood they placed no legal impediment in the way of releasing any information in any circumstances to the departments concerned. The Committee has received an undertaking from the Minister that he will have the regulations amended so that the new regulations will expressly set out the circumstances in which defined types of confidential and personal information may be released from the first home owners scheme to the Department of Social Security and the Australian Taxation Office. These matters were settled only this morning and consequently I seek to withdraw the Committee's notice of motion on this day when it is due for debate by using standing order 109A. I seek leave to have the Minister's letter incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances The Senate Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Senator Cooney, I refer to your letter dated 18 March 1986, and to our previous correspondence in connection with the First Home Owners Regulations (Amendment) (Statutory Rules 1985 No. 267). As indicated in my previous letters, I am mindful of the views of the Committee and share your concern that the privacy of citizens be protected from any unwarranted intrusions by the bureaucracy. I have reconsidered the matter as requested and agree to amend the Regulations to describe the type of information to be divulged and the particular conditions to be satisfied before this occurs. You will appreciate that it may take some time to develop Regulations and identify the nature of information which may be sought by the Australian Taxation Office or the Department of Social Security. Pending the development of the necessary legislative proposal I agree not to alter the administrative policy which is described in detail in my earlier letters. In the meantime I will continue to use the certification procedure set out in Section 29 (2) (a) of the First Home Owners Act 1983. This will ensure that the rights to privacy of individuals providing information to my Department in connection with their First Home Owners Scheme application will be afforded a necessary measure of protection. I trust that the above agreement satisfies the requirements of your Committee. Yours sincerely STEWART WEST Senator COONEY —The Committee thanks the Minister for Housing and Construction for the assistance he and his officials have given it in this matter and commends the Minister for his willingness to amend the regulations and allay its concerns. Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day, for the disallowance of the First Home Owners Regulations (Amendment), be postponed till a later hour of the day. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Aboriginal Land Rights-Text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 18 March 1986. 2. Canberra Theatre Trust-Annual Report 1984-85. 3. Operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956-Annual Report 1984-85-Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 4 standing in my name for this day, relating to the disallowance of Regulation 5 of the Student Assistance Regulations (Amendment), be postponed till eight sitting days after today. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Judiciary Act 1903 to facilitate the bringing of class actions. Bill presented by Senator Vigor, and read a first time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.15) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- On 15 March 1962 President John F. Kennedy of the United States inaugurated World Consumer Rights Day. In doing so, he spelt out seven rights which consumers should be entitled to: the right to safety the right to be informed the right to choose the right to be heard the right to redress the right to consumer education the right to a healthy environment. The Class Actions Bill which I am bringing forward today, 24 years later, will bring the right of redress of Australian consumers into the 20th century. It will also provide practical protection to small business people, such as the owner-driver truckies, who are at the mercy of unscrupulous insurance operators, or unconscionable contracts designed by financiers. Furthermore, it will give an incentive to manufacturing industry to institute quality control procedures which will hopefully make our goods synonymous with the highest standards of reliability, and therefore more attractive to overseas purchasers. We cannot afford to remain a country attached to mediocrity and to the protection of the shonky industrialist or merchant. That, unfortunately, is the situation at the moment, simply because ordinary Australians do not have in their grasp proper remedies for dealing with situations where they have been cheated or have suffered damage as a result of poor business practices. The costs of litigation in this country are prohibitive, except for the very rich, or for those who qualify for legal aid. For a lot of ordinary honest Australians the option of legal redress is not available in practice. Our legal system itself is quite antiquated in many respects, despite the efforts of some tireless individuals. Long delays in legal processes and an inability of our courts to deal efficiently with many matters have led to the creation of administrative forums, such as small claims courts and residential tenancies tribunals, to deal more informally, expeditiously and inexpensively with the resolution of disputes. Despite the valiant attempts of various reformers, the procedures used in our legal system have advanced very little since the passage in the United Kingdom in 1873 of the Judicature Act. In 1910, in the case of Markt & Co. Ltd v Knight Steamship Co. Ltd, it was held by a majority of an English Court of Appeal that a representative action could not be brought on behalf of the 45 traders whose cargo was lost when a Russian cruiser captured, and then sank, the ship the Knight Commando on finding that it contained contraband. Two of the three judges held that there was no interest common to the traders because their claims to compensation on account of the breach of an implied undertaking that the Knight Commando would not carry contraband, were based on separate contracts of shipment. This ruling effectively closed off the common law opportunity to sue for damages in a representative capacity. This Bill is aimed at re-establishing that remedy at law. In the United States, from the same representative action foundation has sprung a quite robust system of class actions, though not without its problems. I have examined American developments, the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission in the nine years since its reference on class actions and standing, and the splendid 1977 report of the Law Reform Committee of South Australia relating to class actions. I wish to pay tribute to that Law Reform Committee chaired by His Honour, Mr Justice Zelling. Its pellucid report includes a draft Bill for a Class Actions Act which has been of great inspiration in the drawing up of this Bill. I commend to all honourable Senators a perusal of that report, because it goes to the heart of differences between Australian and American legal practice, and in its recommendations deals most effectively with some of the problems which the American system has highlighted, particularly in the past two decades since the adoption in 1966 of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civic Procedure for the United States District Courts. By taking our lead from the South Australian Law Reform Committee, we have fashioned procedures which will make justice available to all Australians without putting at risk the conscientious and scrupulous trader or manufacturer. I have already mentioned the high cost of litigation, which effectively prevents many people from pursuing their rights through the courts. Small claims tribunals have now been established in the States. These are unfortunately often under-resourced, and as a result are not always able to mediate effectively in disputes. They are certainly unable to cope with any large scale problem such as systematic fraudulent conduct on a mass scale, or general quality control negligence. The point is made very strongly in the August 1984 publication of the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisation, `The Role of Prosecution in Consumer Protection', that the State agencies are not able to deter corporate misbehaviour. In this report we see that for every consumer affairs conviction in Australia, there are more than 200 written complaints which do not lead to a conviction, and conservatively over 2,000 unwritten complaints. I do not believe that we should tolerate a situation in which the same shysters continue to fleece decent Australians day after day, year after year. We certainly should not be encouraging sharp and unethical practices, and that is what a lax legal system does. Our trading reputation is brought into disrepute. There is an enormous wastage of time, effort, and often money, to rectify situations which should never have occurred in the first place. I want the system to reward the honest and scrupulous trader, merchant, manufacturer or corporation. I want those who stick to ethical behaviour, and try to provide a real service to the community to prosper! Every time we eliminate an unscrupulous operator, we can be certain that our available resources will be used more effectively as a result. This Bill will aid that process. A good way to achieve this is to enable people to band together for the purpose of obtaining relief where they have suffered loss or damage through negligence or malfeasance. Currently the unscrupulous rely on the high cost and trouble associated with litigation to merely engender in an individual an angry but powerless acceptance of what has happened. Once we adopt class action these sharp operators will find it essential to clean up their act if they are to remain in business, as their penalties will be too great. That will be good for the whole community. We will find fewer dangerous products on the market, be exposed to fewer sharp practices, experience fewer toxic spillages or emissions, and be subject to less false advertising. It is important to realise that the class action mechanism does not create new offences. The same standards of proof will be required of the plaintiffs as under any other court actions. Ordinary honest Australians will no longer be intimidated just because they do not have the financial resources to match giant corporations and agencies. Instead of being frightened off by the prospect of an adverse court decision which could ruin them, they will be able to group together, combine their evidence, and properly test the matter in the courts. `Equality before the law' will take on a real meaning. That is surely a minimum requirement for a just society. Not just consumers can benefit in this way. The lessees in a shopping complex could join together in an attempt to force management to comply with some neglected or abruptly altered aspect of their contractual agreement. Farmers whose interests might be adversely affected by an authority's plans would more readily be able to mount a challenge on the legality of what the authority was proposing. Employees subjected to injurious or discriminatory practices could challenge a corporate wrongdoer. In each of these cases at present, the relative imbalance of resources often allows the Goliath to act with impunity. This David is trying to stop that through this Bill! Class action can also be of benefit to the defending companies. For even though individuals are generally deterred from seeking legal redress by their lack of resources, there are circumstances in which a long run of lost individual cases with all of the attached legal costs can cripple a company. The uncertainty over how many extra suits can be expected and how to make provision for the future can jeopardise an entire operation of a company. Class action is much cleaner and less may be spent on litigation, more on remedy. This process of attrition has happened with A. H. Robins in the United States. Since 1972, there have been more than 10,000 law suits filed against A. H. Robins on account of the Dalkon Shield's involvement in causing pelvic inflammatory disease, spontaneous abortion, sterility and death. More than 9,300 actions have been settled for over $378m in damages and $107m in legal costs, the largest award to an individual being $6.2m. In 1984, consumer groups were successful in getting the Food and Drug Administration to organise a programme of removal of all Dalkon Shields still in use, at the expense of A. H. Robins. Similar steps are being taken in Australia, except that the company is not being asked to pay for the removal of the devices. On 2 April 1985, A. H. Robins announced that it was setting up a $615m reserve fund to pay future claimants. On 21 August, it changed its mind and filed for protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code which provides for corporate reorganisation and a cut-off point for liabilities. At that stage over 5,000 suits by victims seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages were pending. This has led to the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia establishing 30 April this year as the date by which claimants against A. H. Robins must register with the courts. Well over a thousand Australian women have done so already. It is amazing that we had neither the legal mechanisms nor insurance requirements for such actions to be taken here. Another interesting American case where the protection of generous bankruptcy proceedings was sought, was that of the asbestos miner and manufacturer Manville Corporation. It filed for bankruptcy in 1982 and has recently proposed to emerge from bankruptcy by paying $2,500m to settle the claims of asbestos-disease victims. Just as A. H. Robins has done, Manville declared at the time that it was financially healthy but needed protection from the continuing burden of litigation. I remind honourable senators that we too have had major problems with asbestos at both Baryugil in New South Wales and Wittenoom in Western Australia. Although the facts of the matter would have been common in a lot of cases, we have forced victims to `try', sue, even beg, for compensation one at a time. They have not always been able to obtain proper redress. The matter remains a blot on our industrial conscience. Insurance companies are able to continue their practice of settling out of court with other insurance companies, but taking individuals right through the legal process in a game of brinkmanship. They might well consider this practice if a class action were available to the group of such victimised people. If this Act were in force, it would be far less likely that anyone caught with a batch of dangerous goods would seek to ship them on elsewhere in Australia. The absence of a consumer affairs prohibition order would not, as now, provide them with cover for such heinous activity. Motor car manufacturers would be far more likely to quickly establish the causes of a batch of lemons, would take more rapid remedial action both towards the consumer and the workplace. Rural buying cartels would find it much more difficult to impose harsh and unfair conditions on the farmers or growers from whom they were buying. Waste disposal companies would think twice before dumping toxic materials which could affect people's health or the environment. Many other cases can be cited. I wish to refer to some aspects of the Bill to highlight its features. Before doing so, I should point out that this measure is quite different from the American situation in three fundamental aspects, and hence certain criticisms voiced in the United States are totally without foundation here. Firstly, we do not have `contingent fees' for lawyers, whereas that practice is the norm in the United States and may lead to litigation which would not occur elsewhere. In any case, before a class action can proceed in accordance with my Bill, the plaintiff's counsel must convince the court that the action is brought in good faith and appears to have merit. Secondly, ever since the 1974 decision in Eisen v Carlisle and Jacquelin to the effect that the plaintiff would have to mail a notice to over 2 million buyers of odd-lot shares on the New York Stock Exchange between 1962 and 1966, the problem of giving due notice to all members of a class has often caused a United States class action to become unmanageable. In my formulation, the court is given discretion to deal with this contact in the most sensible manner available. Thirdly, in the United States, there is strict liability and courts may impose punitive damages. It is enough in the United States to merely establish that damage or loss has occurred. Under our common law negligence also has to be proved. In addition, American courts can impose damages far in excess of the losses actually sustained by plaintiffs, either through the minimum damages provisions of legislation such as the Truth in Lending Act, 1976, or the treble damages provisions in anti-trust cases. While section 11 of the Australian Industries Preservation Act, 1906, modelled on the U.S. Sherman Act, allowed treble damages, the advent of the Trade Practices Act 1965-66 coincided with the repeal of that section. Overall then, neither the tendency to litigation nor the cost and damages pressures are as great in Australia as they have been in the United States. The Bill that I have introduced certainly cuts out any frivolous attempts to bring about class actions. Not only must the action be brought in good faith and appear to have merit, but also the representative party has to demonstrate its capacity to adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the members of that class. A period of time is made available for members of the class to be given notice of the action and to opt out, if they so choose. If they do not, they are bound by the decision and are not able to litigate separately. That introduces a degree of certainty for the defendant. If the Court gives judgment for the plaintiff in a class action but does not determine questions of law or fact that affect only individual members of the class, there is an orderly procedure for the filing of individual claims and their assessment. This may well occur if there are separate contracts or transactions made or entered into between members of the class and the defendant, and an evaluation has to be made of the damage suffered in each case. While the relief sought is allowed to be monetary, it of course can take many other forms such as honouring of a contract, an end to a discriminatory practice, or the clean up of environmental damage. A Class Action Fund is established to accept moneys appropriated out of Consolidated Revenue, moneys not able to be distributed to members of the class, refunds of moneys that are advanced by the Attorney-General for the purpose of facilitating the action, and interest on these moneys. Having given Australians a real chance of exercising their legal rights, we must not allow technical barriers to snatch those rights away in practice. Hence major attempts to notify members of a class may be covered by the Class Action Fund if the merits of the case and the financial resources of the plaintiff are such that the Attorney-General acquiesces. Where funding for costs has been advanced in this way, it is recoverable against costs subsequently awarded to a successful plaintiff. Costs can be awarded to defendants in relation to those matters peripheral to the class action proper. The courts are further able to asses the proportion of solicitor and client costs to be borne by the members of the class, and the way in which any deficiency between the net amount available for distribution and the total of individual entitlements is to be handled. The Judiciary Amendment (Class Actions) Bill is a real opportunity for this Parliament to show that it cares about justice in Australia, the cost of that justice and the effectiveness of the avenue that leads to it. I urge honourable senators to give it proper attention and to also address themselves to other much needed reforms of the legal system. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator McIntosh) adjourned. Motion (by Senator McIntosh) agreed to: That the time for presentation of the report of the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs and Defence on the acquisition of land for the Army be extended to 31 August 1986. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —by leave-The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has sought to extend its time of reporting on the subject of Army land acquisition to enable it to consider documents which are central to its terms of reference but are not yet publicly available. The most important of these are the Dibb report on the Australian defence forces, the revised Commonwealth land acquisition legislation and the environmental impact statements on the Bathurst-Orange and Cobar sites. Despite this extension of time it is the Committee's intention to produce a first report on the subject in the next period of sitting of the Senate. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(10.18) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 March 1986. I seek leave to make a brief explanation. Leave granted. Senator AULICH —As honourable senators no doubt are aware, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card is reluctant to ask for permission to meet during the sitting times of the Senate. But in this case circumstances are extenuating in that Mr Lars Tegnhed, who is the Director of the National Swedish Tax Board, is in Australia and able to give evidence to the Committee. He will not be here beyond Friday. Therefore, the Committee, believing that his evidence would be extremely valuable in the whole question of an investigation of an Australia Card, feels that it should have a specific public meeting for the purpose of hearing evidence from Mr Tegnhed. Accordingly, I seek the concurrence of the Senate in this matter. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-One understands the reasons given by Senator Aulich for a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Australia Card during Senate sitting times. My opposition to the general principles of Senate committees and other committees meeting during sessions of the Parliament is well known. The reasons are obvious and I do not want to press them now. All I would like to do at some stage is to obtain from you, Mr President, a detailed list of how many times this sort of request has been made, and how many times Senate and other committees have met during times when the Senate is in session. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to propose amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 arising from the Government's review of foreign investment policy, the results of which were announced on 29 October 1985. The modifications to the policy have been designed to streamline the existing processes, facilitate certain types of investment proposals and contribute to the Government's wider aim of reducing the burden on business of government regulation. The policy modifications were decided upon having regard to the continuing need for a balance to be struck between the economic benefits of foreign investment and community concerns about foreign ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources. That need, I believe, has been recognised by all parties for over a decade now and will continue to be recognised by this Government. The Government welcomes and encourages foreign investment that has beneficial economic effects and is consistent with the needs and aspirations of the Australian community. In its assessment of proposals for investment in Australia, the Government continues to give substantial weight to their development and employment creating aspects; to keep the degree of foreign ownership and control within acceptable bounds; and to ensuring that through the Australian equity participation guidelines there are opportunities for Australians to participate in the development of local industries and resources. As announced on 29 October 1985, the necessary amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act arise from the Government's decisions to exempt acquisitions by foreign investors of existing mining exploration rights and to increase the `offshore takeovers' threshold. These two proposed amendments affect sections 5 and 13 of the principal Act. Acquisitions by foreign interests of mineral exploration rights generally do not raise sensitive issues concerning ownership and control of Australian resources and are not, therefore, required to satisfy the normal policy criteria. Proposed mining developments resulting from successful exploration will still need to be submitted for examination under foreign investment policy and such proposals will continue to be subject to the Australian equity participation guidelines. The proposed amendments to section 13 of the Act will raise the threshold above which offshore takeovers are subject to examination under the Act. Offshore takeovers are those where an offshore company with assets in Australia is acquired by another offshore company. This type of transaction does not involve any reduction in Australian ownership and control and has been found in practice to be unlikely to raise issues contrary to the national interest. At present, the Act requires the notification of offshore takeovers if the value of the Australian assets involved exceeds $3m, a threshold which has not been adjusted since it was established in 1975. The proposed amendments will raise the threshold to $20m. Where the Australian assets represent 50 per cent or more of the worldwide assets of the business being acquired, the notification requirement remains irrespective of the value of the Australian assets. The Bill proposes some additional amendments to the Act which do not affect the features or administration of the Government's foreign investment policy. They are designed to tidy up the Act and bring it up to date following changes in other Commonwealth legislation. They will, for instance, remove from the Act those provisions which have been made redundant by amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act and the Judiciary Act. The Bill will have no financial impact. The proposed amendments to section 5 and 13 of the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 represent only one part of the overall package of foreign investment policy modifications announced on 29 October last year. The changes announced at that time that did not require statutory implementation have already been implemented by administrative action. Under those changes, the `opportunities test' was abolished, certain thresholds under foreign investment policy were increased significantly and policy in respect of merchant banks, other non-bank financial institutions, insurance companies and real estate was liberalised. In total, the changes to foreign investment policy announced last October represent a major step towards reducing the regulatory costs of foreign investment policy. Based on past experience, the changes will either exempt from examination or simplify and streamline the examination process for around one-third of proposals that have been subject to foreign investment screening. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to the removal of those parts of regulations which are burdensome and contribute little benefit to Australia. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(10.22) —On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, I move: That Order 111A of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment) (being Export Control Orders No. 2 of 1986) and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders Prescribed Goods (General) Orders The Senate is dealing with regulations that allow the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to all intents and purposes to dodge a Federal Court decision of 16 December 1985. The Minister and the Department have an obligation under law to provide export meat inspection services on request. The regulations we are now debating give the Minister and the Department discretion on four possible grounds: First, efficiency; secondly, staff safety; thirdly, industry interests; and, fourthly, national interest. No amount of flowery language can disguise the fact that the Opposition considers this a cop-out. We have here a very necessary service because, without it, Australia cannot export its meat to other countries. The service is recognised by other countries and provides the imprimatur to our meat exports so that they meet the health requirements of this nation and those to which we export. Without the service, no matter what else happens along the train, meat cannot effectively be exported from this nation. It comes as no surprise to anybody interested in this debate that the catalyst for these regulations was the Mudginberri dispute. I might also point out that this service, which is necessary and has been provided by Commonwealth meat inspectors, is funded to at least 50 per cent by the producers in this country. Yet they have had no say in it. They have no say in its efficiencies. They have been annoyed and devastated by this Government's action and its inability to come to grips with the situation that existed at Mudginberri last year. The Government has seen fit to provide these regulations which allow it a cop-out from its responsibilities, responsibilities that the Opposition and the industry see as belonging to the Government in providing this very necessary service. It is just coincidental that at this time the Senate is also debating the Bill of Rights. We have listened almost ad nauseam to the Government proclaiming its commitments to human rights. But we look at the Mudginberri affair and what do we find? We have an arrangement between the employer and the employee on wages and conditions, and we have an agreement which was ratified in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, an arrangement which was to the mutual benefit of the employer and the employee and, dare I say, to the community and the nation. We had an export abattoir operating efficiently, operating with the goodwill of all concerned, and operating in harmony-and it also had markets. Yet we saw a picket line put on by another group of meat workers belonging to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. It is significant that we should ponder at this time, with all the flowery language from the Government about the necessity in this nation for a Bill of Rights-something that we have opposed quite vehemently-about the rights of workers to negotiate. What about their rights? I ask members of the Government to cast their minds back to that group of people who have been considered to be the foundation of the union movement-the Tolpuddle Martyrs. Significantly, they were also involved in primary industry. They were farm labourers. They were treated very harshly by the authorities at the time because they wanted the right to negotiate. From that small beginning, the great union movements of the world have evolved. Yet now we have regulations introduced to allow the Government a cop-out because a group of workers has sat around a table and negotiated a satisfactory agreement with their employer. They have made competitive what was once a meat works which was not very competitive. They have earned themselves higher salaries than they could ever have hoped to earn previously. They have provided jobs in the Northern Territory. It must be noted that almost two-thirds of beef cattle in the Northern Territory are killed elsewhere because of the high cost structure up there. So, we have a group of people who have met every criterion that one would want to think about on how to negotiate, how to look after themselves and how to make suitable arrangements with their employer. We have a government that is bringing in the nefarious Bill of Rights and talking about human rights whilst, at the same time as it is doing that, bringing in regulations which allow it to cop out from its responsibilities of providing a meat inspection service so that these people can go about doing what they want to do, providing very much needed export dollars for this nation, handling stock in the Northern Territory and providing jobs there-anything that one can think of. Yet this Government is copping out by trying to introduce regulations which negate its responsibility to provide that very much needed export service. We are a trading nation. If we are not trading, we are in trouble. At present we are not trading too well. The cumulative current account deficit, to February this year, is running at $9.468 billion. It has almost overtaken the total current account deficit for 1984-85, which was $10.534 billion. In other words, in 1985-86 we are heading for a current account deficit in the vicinity of $13 billion-plus. Significantly, the cumulative three-year current account deficit for the Hawke Government-we are into anniversaries now; we have heard all about the Government's three-year anniversary recently-is in excess of $30 billion. In other words, we have imported $30 billion more than we have exported. Our overseas debt is running at in excess of $70 billion, which is double the debt of $36.4 billion when the Hawke Government came to power. In other words, we are consuming more than we are producing and buying more than we are selling. The beef industry is a major contributor to our export earnings. The last figures I was able to get rather quickly were for 1983-84, when the beef industry contributed $1.114 billion or 4.5 per cent of our total exports and 17.6 per cent of our agricultural exports. The people of Australia have to realise-an education program should be in train-that we are a trading nation, that if we are not trading we are in trouble and that if we are not trading well we are also in trouble. That is the situation at present. In other words, any responsible government should be doing all in its power to encourage anybody who can export, most of all an exporter who is doing so with a suitable arrangement with his employees. The Government should be doing all it can to encourage exports and should be educating the people of this nation, particularly the work force, to the fact that we need to trade and that, if we do not trade, we are in trouble. There are some points to remember about the Mudginberri dispute. I remind honourable senators, and anybody else who is interested, that at one time the Commonwealth meat inspectors at Mudginberri lived on site. Some time before this dispute came to a head they were moved from Mudginberri to live in Jabiru. That is quite significant and should be remembered when we talk about cop-outs by this Government. It is quite significant that the Commonwealth meat inspectors moved from Mudginberri, where they were on site, to Jabiru. In other words, if and when a dispute arose and a picket line were formed, they would have to cross that picket line, which, as history would have it, is what happened. It is also significant that, although the Northern Territory inspectors, who are as well qualified as the Commonwealth inspectors, could have been licensed, they were not. So, we have three cop-outs. We have the most recent cop-out, which we are debating today. We have the cop-out of moving the Commonwealth inspectors from Mudginberri to Jabiru so that they would have to go past a picket line. We also have the cop-out that the Minister for Primary Industry chose not to license the Northern Territory inspectors to handle the meat for export from the Mudginberri abattoir. It is also significant-the chamber should be reminded of this-that the picket line at Mudginberri was in breach of all the regulations which apply to the Kakadu National Park. If any of us tried to do the same thing, to live on site in a camp and cut down trees, we would be in all sorts of trouble. Even in regard to that aspect this Government has not met its commitments and responsibilities. Quite significantly, after the negotiations took place and the Mudginberri abattoir started to work, its killing costs were reduced from $140 per head to $40 per head. Interestingly, the last figures available for the Katherine Meatworks indicate that its killing costs were $159 per head. It closed down, it is still closed down, and no wonder. Following the negotiation that took place and with the arrangements that were made we saw increased productivity, increased wages, lower killing costs, a competitive abattoir which had markets, but all to no avail. Every criterion one would wish-every criterion of the union movement-was met, yet because of the intransigence, almost conservatism, of the AMIEU, it was all to no avail. It was not only because of the AMIEU. This Government is also in the grip of the AMIEU and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is not game to take any decisions, and has to do what it is told. As a result we have this tragedy in the Northern Territory. What makes matters worse now is that the Government, having been ruled out of order and having been told to accept its responsibilities by the Federal Court of Australia, is now looking for a cop-out. It is almost like McEnroe playing tennis and taking on both the linesmen and the umpire. But at the end of the day McEnroe has to knuckle down. At the end of the day this Government chose not to knuckle down and obey the decisions of the linesmen and the umpire but to change the rules of the game. That is what these regulations are all about. No matter what flowery language the Minister uses and no matter what examples he gives of other Commonwealth legislation, this is purely and simply a cop-out. It is seen as that by the Opposition and it is seen as that by the industry. This industry is currently the one bright spot in the whole of our export orientated industries. There is still a good export market for our beef, and the beef industry is holding up. As I said previously, as a trading nation one would think that we would be doing everything in our power to encourage this nation to trade and to encourage anybody who is in the export business to become more efficient. The name Mudginberri will live long in this nation in the annals of industrial relations. It is almost like the Alamo. In the Alamo, of course, a small group of people stood out against some insurmountable odds. I think Mudginberri will be remembered not so much for a small group of people standing out against insurmountable odds; it will be remembered in the annals of Australia's industrial relations that we had a group of people who, with good will, sat down around a negotiating table and negotiated how they would work, negotiated the wages to the mutual benefit and satisfaction of both sides, went about their work with increased productivity and went about their work of providing much needed export dollars for a nation which is in grave trouble, yet the Minister for Primary Industry saw fit not to help them by providing the meat export service. The legislation says that the meat export service should be provided and it is the opinion of the Opposition that that service should be provided. It is the opinion of the industry-I remind this chamber once again that the industry is paying 50 per cent of the cost of the service-that this service should be provided. I think common sense also would dictate that in an economy that is in such a bad state as ours is for a trading nation the service should be provided at all times. In the last couple of weeks there have been disputes at two meatworks in Queensland-Biloela and Merinda-holding up once again much needed export dollars. It is very necessary that this Government take a long hard look at what it is doing. It is in its interest, the interest of the union movement and the interests of all Australians that Mudginberris should be allowed to happen. Nothing that this Government does should prevent that happening and prevent the export of beef to other countries, bringing into this country much needed dollars. Motion (by Senator Collard) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Chaney, for the disallowance of Prescribed Goods (General) Orders No. 100a being debated and voted on with Business of the Senate, Order of the Day relating to the disallowance of Prescribed Goods (General) Orders No. 111a. Motion for Disallowance Motion (by Senator Collard for Senator Chaney) proposed: That Order 100a of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders, as contained in the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment) (being Export Control Orders No. 2 of 1986) and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.42) —We are debating motions to disallow two regulations. The important regulation is Order 111A, directions by Minister, of the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as amended, which reads: Notwithstanding anything provided in orders, where the Minister considers that it is desirable, taking into account the national interest, that a decision which may be made by the Secretary under orders is made in a particular manner, so as to achieve a particular result, the Minister may direct the Secretary to make that decision in that manner or in such manner as will achieve that result. I indicate at the outset that the Australian Democrats will support the motion for disallowance of this regulation. The matter at hand is relatively complex. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) raised the issue in the House of Representatives that it is normal practice for government to proceed in the manner in which the Government is proceeding. The Government has instanced a number of Acts, for example, the Telecommunications Act 1975, section 7 of which reads: The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission, in writing, such directions with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, as appear to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest. I invite honourable senators to compare that wording `as appears to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest' with the phrase in this regulation `taking into account the national interest'. The next Act mentioned by the Minister was the Postal Services Act 1975, section 8 of which states: The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission, in writing, such directions, with respect to the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, as appear to the Minister to be necessary in the public interest. Again we see the phrase `in the public interest'. The next Act referred to and relied upon by the Government was the Australian Tourism Commission Act 1967. Under this Act, unlike the other two that I have mentioned, the directions given by the Minister do not have to be tabled. It is interesting that this Act was introduced under a Liberal-National Party government, in other words, under the Opposition parties which are now making so much noise on this issue. Under at least one of the Acts referred to by the Government, the direction was not required to be tabled, although similar directions were provided. One sees a similar situation in the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, in which the direction must be tabled. This again is of interest. The direction to the Commission, section 18 (2), says: Where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest to do so, he may, by notice in writing to the Commission, give directions to the Commission with respect to the performance of its functions or duties or the exercise of its powers. Once again the phrase `in the public interest' is stated quite clearly. An Act relating to the rural area, the Wheat Marketing Act 1979, states in section 11: The Minister may give directions to the Board concerning the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, and the Board shall comply with those directions. That Act was passed under a Liberal-National Party government. Under that Act the directions are not required to be tabled, so the Parliament would not even have the benefit of the items being tabled. Let us consider more recent Acts, such as the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980. Again, this was a Liberal Party Act. We find similar provisions in section 11 (1): The Commission shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with such general directions as are given to it by the Minister in writing. Schedule 1 to the Commonwealth Functions (Statutes Review) Bill 1981 contained amendments to the Wool Industry Act 1972. They included adding the following to section 76: (3) Where the Minister is satisfied that the retention by the Corporation of land or a building to which this Part applies is not necessary to the maintenance by the Corporation of a minimum wool storage capacity, the Minister may, by writing under his hand, direct the Corporation to dispose of, in such manner and on such terms and conditions as are specified in the instrument of direction . . . Obviously, in that Act there is no reference, because it concerns a different matter. Another Act relied on by the Government is the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983, an interesting Act. Section 19 (2) states: Where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable in the public interest to do so- again we see the phrase `in the public interest to do so'- he may, by notice in writing to the Commission, give directions to the Commission with respect to the performance of its functions or duties or the exercise of its powers. The interesting thing about that Act is that section 20 provides for remuneration of costs for complying with directions. That is an interesting feature that came in in 1983 that may well form part of the operation of the Government's proposals on export inspection, if we proceed with them. Looking at the next item that I will refer to, the Building Industry Act 1985, this is again a rather interesting Act. The important thing here is that there are circumstances in which inspectors are required to inspect, for example, the progress in building work. Honourable senators will remember the Building Industry Act 1985 because it is one that we passed through this chamber only last year and concerned the Builders Labourers Federation. I must admit that there was unanimous support from all parts of the chamber for this. If we are looking for a matter of principle, it is probably about the best one around. I refer to the `orders by Minister in relation to Federation' in section 5 (1) which states: Where the Commission makes a declaration under section 4, the Minister may, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is desirable to do so having regard to the public interest- here we find a phrase similar to that now used in this regulation- in securing the prevention and settlement by conciliation and arbitration of industrial disputes- in other words, it does refer to the type of case that we are talking about- extending beyond the limits of any one State or in maintaining peace, order and good government in a Territory- It then continues under (a) and (b) to state what it is able to do. In other words, the Minister is able to act, under the Building Industry Act of 1985, which was supported by the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats, to perform a function which is very close to being analogous to the situation we are talking about here. However, there is still one distinctive feature missing from that and I suggest that, of all those Acts that I have now rehearsed, the building one is probably the closest and yet it still misses out on one of the essential features in this matter. I refer to the fact that under this regulation a service is provided and it is partly paid for by the recipients of that service. In those other Acts there is no question of any payment for service. So I suggest that any of the items currently relied upon by the Government as being analogous to the situation with which we are dealing here really fall down. None of those propositions that I have rehearsed are analogous to this situation because they do not contain all of the elements that we are looking at, that is, an industrial dispute, a withdrawal of a service and that service being partly funded by the recipients of it. It will be interesting to see whether the Government, in responding to this, has actually been able to find any more analogous items in legislation that has been passed. I suggest that the arguments presented by the Government by drawing attention to things that have happened elsewhere are not valid arguments. I will turn now to what I think is a substantive proposition that really must be tackled. I refer to how we deal with the issues that the Minister raised in the statement that he made in the House of Representatives. I remind the Senate that we are not discussing the Mudginberri dispute; we are discussing whether there will be an extension of the Minister's power with regard to the provision of export inspectors. That refers not only to meat but to all inspectors. The issue is whether the Minister should have that type of discretion. I suggest that in the exercise of ministerial discretion, as we see it in many Acts, the Parliament has progressively sought to hedge around ministerial discretion in such a way as to have it reviewable. An initial development in that circumstance was to enable a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Since this regulation is in general a ministerial direction to a department, in the normal course of events it would be reviewable by the AAT although I am not sure what the AAT would make of such a reference considering the fact that it has to have regard to the national interest. I am not sure that that reference could be handled in any successful way by the AAT and I am of the opinion, as is my party, that it would be an inappropriate body to deal with what essentially would become a highly charged political activity. With regard to the various technical criteria-it is important to refer to them-I have a very interesting letter from the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales which raises some excellent points. For example I will read paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 for the benefit of honourable senators who have not received this correspondence. Paragraph 7 states: Disallowance of this Order will not require the Commonwealth to supply Export Inspection Services to recipients who do not satisfy technical criteria. I am not at all sure that this is correct; in fact I think it is probably incorrect. But the point is that this reference to technical criteria is very important because of a number of matters that the Minister has raised. The industry could be forced, by the disallowance of this motion, to bear some considerable additional costs. This hinges on whatever legal interpretation one would want to give to the comments made by the judge with regard to the withdrawal of export inspection services in the Mudginberri dispute. I feel that in many ways it is a typical lawyer's reaction-one of extreme caution or putting the extreme case. Quite frankly, all that the judge said was that it should be provided; that there was no discretion. Of course, if it was impossible to provide meat inspectors, there was no obligation. The Department, in its advice to the Minister, and the Minister's proposition in the House of Representatives have suggested that the interpretation to be given to those comments made in the judgment is that there would be an additional cost-something around $2.5m if I remember correctly, half of which of course would have to be borne by the industry. For example, backup people would have to be provided in case people were sick or additional backup people in case cars broke down, and the like. Quite frankly, I think that is taking the whole situation to extremes-- Senator Boswell —Twenty per cent more. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Boswell interjects that we have 20 per cent more. If he refers back to the Hansard when his Party was in government he would find that in fact the bloating of that export inspection service occurred mainly under the Fraser Government. In fact, I attacked that Government precisely over the way that it was operating in imposing additional costs-costs which that Government imposed for the first time on the people who received that service. Until the movement by the Liberal-National parties in this regard the service was free of charge. If Senator Boswell really wants to know, it was under the direction of a National Party Minister that for the first time half the charges were imposed on the industry and that cost recovery program was started, although it was not at the level that the current Government has put it. But I also remind the honourable senator that he knows very well from our discussions at the last election that he voted to increase the costs to the people who receive these services. He could in fact have made sure that they did not have the additional-- Senator Boswell —I did not; I demand a retraction. Senator MACKLIN —Sorry, the honourable senator left the chamber; is that right? However, his Party voted for them. Paragraph 8 of the letter from the LGPA states: To our knowledge there is no precedent for the Government to withhold a service essential to the conduct of business and only available from the Government unless either: (i) the recipient does not satisfy technical criteria, or (ii) the relevant legislation expressly states operational criteria which have not been satisfied. This Order will be defeated at whatever stage debate takes place. I understand that the Government will seek an adjournment, which we will not oppose, on the ground that it wishes to have further discussions with the industry. That is something we have never opposed and do not intend to. As I understand it, the industry has requested those discussions, so I am certainly not going to stand in the way of their taking place. I have already indicated to the Senate that the Australian Democrats will oppose this Order at whatever time the vote is taken. It does not really make any difference to us whether it is now or later. I would like to make a number of suggestions to the Government regarding this matter. Firstly, the technical criteria for the withdrawal of any service ought to be provided in regulations. In other words, the type of unfettered discretion provided under Order 111A is not allowed. There are technical reasons why services may have to be withdrawn, and I think these can be spelled out. They are known to everybody who knows anything about this industry. In the past under a variety of circumstances some services have been withdrawn and there has been no dispute about that because of technical matters. However, I believe that when one comes to the crux of this matter, at some stage or another-as I have already said, there are already a number of instances-Ministers, under legislation introduced into this chamber by both Labor and Liberal governments, have been given discretion by this place to withdraw services in the national interest. How will we define what is in the national interest? I suggest that one way of overcoming this type of problem is to make that judgment reviewable; in other words, make that a matter of parliamentary scrutiny. Undoubtedly, that could not be done by regulation. I refer the Senate to the Willocks v Anderson High Court of Australia case of 1970, which was referred to the High Court, so the learned judges were very interested in it. That case stated that it was not possible to confer, by regulation, those types of powers. Therefore, I do not believe that it is possible for the Government to confer by regulation reviewable powers on the Parliament; it would have to be done by amendments to the legislation. I refer to some recent cases where this has occurred. Senator Peter Baume, the shadow Minister, would remember them. After some extended debate in this chamber the Government agreed to place into the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 the ability for this chamber to review ministerial decisions. I believe that was a very interesting advance and is an advance which could well be followed up. In other words, I am suggesting that there may need to be a two-pronged approach to deal with any technical problems that may arise. The Government felt that previously it had had the power to withdraw services: Indeed it had withdrawn services in the past. The Minister has said that it was always assumed that this situation could occur and it was only when a court said that the Government did not have that power that it was not able to do so. So there are instances, based on technical reasons, when services have been withdrawn. It may be necessary for us to look-undoubtedly, we will-at any regulations that the Government may wish to bring in with regard to the technical withdrawal of services either in this or any other area. I suggest that, if the Government wishes to go further than that, the current position of the Australian Democrats is that that matter ought to be reviewable by the Parliament. Hence we would ask that any action taken in terms of that type of ministerial discretion based on the public interest be done by way of amendment to the Act and certainly not by way of regulation. There are, of course, a very large number of instances where that has occurred to date. Paragraph 10 of the letter to which I referred earlier states: There has been inadequate consultation with interested parties on the issues contained in the Regulation. I agree with that. Yesterday the Government expressed the view to me that it would wish to have those discussions. That is reasonable and it should have occurred earlier, as the various industry bodies, such as the LGPA have pointed out. The irony of the situation is that if this order had been brought in prior to the Mudginberri dispute we certainly would not be having this debate. The matter has been raised as a result of that debate. The reason I make that point is this: We are talking about not only a technical matter but also a very political matter. Because it has that very hard political edge I believe that the final decision ought to be made by this chamber, not by the Minister in terms of directions to his Department or anywhere else. The Government is moving to a position where these types of hard political points have to be made in that way and the Parliament should take back much of the power it has delegated willy-nilly in the past. I support the proposition that I have been enunciating and that we can see in more recent legislation. In summary, I simply again put on the record that the Australian Democrats will be voting to support, at whatever vote is taken, the disallowance motion moved by the Opposition parties. As the Opposition parties well know I had drafted a disallowance motion which I had intended to move on the same day but they beat me to it by getting the call before me. There is unanimity that this Order is not acceptable. What will take its place will have to be a matter of discussion between the Government and the industry. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, has indicated that he is now proceeding to undertake those types of discussions. The Government has requested that the matter be adjourned in order to allow it to discuss this matter with industry. I think that is perfectly acceptable. We are aware that a time limit has been set by Standing Orders and if that time is exceeded this Order is automatically disallowed if debate is not resumed. I am quite happy to accept the bona fides of the Government to have a discussion with the industry on this matter. Hopefully, when the Government does so the result will not be the type of outlandish proposition which we have before us. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.58) —I wish to speak very briefly in this debate. Other speakers will canvass the issue; indeed they have already. Senator Macklin has expressed very clearly the view of the Australian Democrats. I confirm that at a later stage of the debate-I understand that such later stage has been agreed to-the Government will move that this matter be adjourned in order that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) may have discussions with the industry, discussions which may well be consistent with some of the views that have already been expressed. I refer briefly to the history of the matter. Amendments to the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders arise following a decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia following legal action by the Mudginberri abattoir against the Commonwealth. Honourable senators will recall that when the Mudginberri dispute arose the Commonwealth endeavoured to provide inspection staff for the abattoir and on four occasions staff were directed to report for duty. They refused, on direction from their union, the Meat Inspectors Association, on the grounds that the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union picket had been endorsed. The Mudginberri abattoir subsequently took action under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act seeking a review of the Department's decision not to use other avenues to supply staff. On 14 August last year, Mr Justice Neaves dismissed Mudginberri's application. An appeal was than made to the Full Bench of the Federal Court and that decision was reversed. In its judgment the Full Bench said: there is no such discretion (in the Orders) and there is a duty to provide inspectors . . . It also said: . . . the duty does not extend to doing what is impossible. The Court did not define what it meant by `impossible'. Although `impossible' is not defined, it is known to exclude the welfare of the meat industry and the national interest. However, the Court said, without expressing a view one way or another: that for practical reasons (it may) be desirable that the duty be . . . qualified; if so it would seem to be a simple matter for the Minister to make an appropriate order. Senator Macklin —It is easy for judges to say. Senator BUTTON —Of course, judges who do not have the benefit of the quality of the debate in the Senate. Senator Walters —They are only trying equitably to carry out the law for everyone. Senator BUTTON —Stop rabbiting, Senator. Senator Walters —Something which you keep ignoring. Senator BUTTON —I cannot keep ignoring Senator Walters, and I do not intend to. If she interjects again I will not ignore her. The recent decision of the Federal Court showed that, unless there are amendments to the Orders, no discretion exists in legislation and there is a duty to provide inspectors when requested. The Government believes that, on the basis of this decision, the Export Inspection Service cannot operate in a cost-efficient manner, nor can safety, welfare or national interest issues be considered when providing inspectors. The supply of inspection services requires a discretion because of the many operational variables involved. The Department will have to do a number of things to give effect to that stated position. In making the amendments the Government of course recognises that discretionary powers exist in other Commonwealth legislation where services are provided by government authorities. The Federal Court said, without expressing a view one way or the other: that for practical reasons (it may) be desirable that the duty be . . . qualified; if so it would seem to be a . . . matter for the Minister to make an appropriate order. Decisions on management efficiency considerations, safety and staff will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I gather that the debate will rage for the statutory time of two hours but I just want to indicate that it is the Government's intention to pursue, as expeditiously as possible-there is certain discipline in all that, as Senator Macklin has pointed out-discussions with the industry about this matter. Those discussions are highly desirable in the interests of the industry as a whole. For that reason at the appropriate time we will be seeking an adjournment, cognisant as we are of the disallowance provisions in the Senate Standing Orders and the desirability of those discussions being expedited as much as possible. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.15) —The Senate is discussing cognately two motions to disallow certain orders which have been made in relation to the provision of meat inspectors. It is quite clear from what has taken place already in the debate that the numbers in the Senate are such that, if it came to a vote, the orders would be disallowed. So they should be because these orders have revealed what the Australian Labor Party is about. Labor, with these orders, has revealed clearly where it stands and where it has stood in relation to its support for the corporate state, for the monopoly power of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which was heavily involved in the Mudginberri dispute, and for unions, right or wrong-and they were wrong in the Mudginberri dispute. These orders have revealed clearly that the Labor Party has very little interest in the rights of the individual, such as the individuals at Mudginberri, or the rights of individual unionists, such as the unionists at Mudginberri, who suffered from the events that occurred. The Labor Party has very little interest in anyone wanting to do better for himself, such as Mr Jay Pendarvis, and it had very little interest in any enterprise wanting to do better for Australia or for itself, as the Mudginberri abattoir wanted to do. These orders seek to allow the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to weasel out of doing his duty to provide meat inspectors on request. Really they seek to allow the Labor Government to avoid doing its duty. They seek to allow the Minister to choose, if he wishes, to avoid an obligation clearly put to him by the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia on 16 December last year. In this way the orders seek to enable the interests of organised labour to be put ahead of the interests of individual unionists and it all arises from the dispute at the Mudginberri abattoir last year, to which other senators have referred. This was a dispute about individual unionists who made an agreement that gave them more money, that gave them something they wanted, that increased the productivity and efficiency of the abattoir and that improved the viability of the business on which they were dependent. What was the response of organised labour to the agreement made by the unionists with their employer? Was it to welcome the better pay? Of course it was not. Was it to welcome the agreement reached between employee and employer? Of course it was not. Was it to welcome the improved viability of the business? Of course not. Was it to welcome the improved productivity and efficiency which would flow? Of course it was not. The response by organised labour to the agreement reached at Mudginberri was that organised labour did everything in its power to destroy the initiative and to force the employees and the employer alike to toe the standard union line even though it was inappropriate and even though it would mean worse conditions and possibly threaten the viability of the business. The fact that the standard line was not appropriate to Mudginberri and to the situation at Mudginberri mattered not at all to the union movement, which demanded a standard, uniform, national, expensive, feather-bedded, outmoded, inefficient and mindless approach and tried to impose that upon the Mudginberri abattoir operators. What it had not counted on was that neither the employer nor the employees were willing to be told what they were to do. They were determined to pursue what common sense dictated. They were determined to pursue the more productive, more efficient and better paid course in defiance of the union and for their own best interests and the best interests of Australia. What was the response of organised labour to this show of independent judgment? It certainly was not to examine the proposal on the merits or to find out why the Mudginberri abattoir had found a better and more efficient way of operating. It was not to go to Mudginberri and say: `What can you teach us about the operation of abattoirs in other parts of Australia?'. It was not to see how it could extend the Mudginberri model for the benefit of abattoir operations and for the benefit of Australia generally. The response was to declare war upon Mudginberri, to declare war upon the operator, to declare war upon the abattoir and to declare war upon the employees. The business was made the subject of a picket line, which the employees proceeded to cross because they knew they were right and they were determined to continue and they were determined to succeed. The employees, of course, were expelled from their union for daring to make local decisions about matters which affected them locally. The Labor Government, which is supposed to be the champion of organised labour, did its best to prevent the emergence and success of an arrangement which increased efficiency, production and wages, enhanced the business and promised increased and continuing employment. That is pretty typical of the approach of the Labor Government. The Government stood by and did as little as it could to help the employers and the employees. It did as little as it could to stop the harassment of people seeking to earn their livelihood. It did as little as it could to stop the bully-boy actions of those on the picket lines with their threats of physical violence. Further, the Labor Government did not supply, as it was required to do, the meat inspectors to examine the carcasses of slaughtered beasts. It is required to provide these inspectors on request, and indeed, as has been pointed out already in this debate, the producers have paid half the costs associated with the provision of this inspection service. The Labor Government contrived affairs in such a way that the meat inspectors would have to cross the picket line, whereas the previous arrangements would not have required them so to do. Part of the response of the Labor Government was to increase the confrontation and to do as little as it could to relieve or fix the situation. When the matter was finally taken to court, it determined that the Labor Government had failed to provide inspectors, which it was duly bound to do. The court found that it was required to carry out its side of the process by which one of our great export industries operates. The court decision meant that, at a time of economic hardship for Australia, the Labor Government had not done all it could to keep an export industry operating and export dollars rolling in, and that in future under the existing rules it would have to do so. By its inaction the Hawke Labor Government was promoting job loss, economic recession, the supremacy of union power and the feeling of hopelessness which many Australians have about winning against union diktat. Labor did not count on the determination of all the people involved. It did not count on the determination of Jay Pendarvis to carry through and to win. It did not count on the determination of friends who provided carry on cash to make sure that he could survive. Most of all, it did not count on the determination of the workers at the abattoir, now expelled from their union, who operated under threat to keep their abattoir working and to win. Of course win they did-they succeeded. The Labor Party now wants to change the rules so that when the next confrontation comes they will be able to weasel out of their duty again. The people at Mudginberri have provided an example of how to make arrangements that give Australia a chance to succeed and to make winners out of everyone connected with the process. We think that this is a sensible approach to industrial relations and a sensible example of what can be achieved. What has been Labor's next response? Has it been to seek to abide by the decision of the court? Not on your life. Has it been to accept that its duty is now to provide the meat inspectors, an essential part of the chain of meat export? Of course it has not. What Labor has done is to bring in new orders to provide the Government with a mechanism to allow it to slip out of its duty, if the Government so wishes. The Government brought in some new regulations to allow it to avoid the intent of the court and to allow socialist Ministers to do their part to ensure that, in circumstances such as those at Mudginberri, it is the union movement that will win and the business community and the employees who will go to the wall. The Government seeks to ensure that for individual employees the message is that obedience to the Australian Council of Trade Unions is what will count and that the most efficient, most productive and most lucrative way of earning a living has to be put to one side if that does not fit in with union demands. What Labor seeks to do through these orders is anti-Australian, anti-employment, anti-worker, anti-productivity and anti-common sense. It is pretty typical of what we see going on in Australia. It is typical Labor corporate strategy where the state counts for more than the individual. We do not believe in the corporatist state. We do not believe in the whole Labor approach. We do not believe in what these orders may achieve. The orders seek to preserve and to entrench the possibility of a less efficient and less productive system. It is an approach which the employees at Mudginberri have already rejected. It seeks to allow the Commonwealth to weasel out of a duty which it has under the law and which has been confirmed as recently as the last four months by the Full Bench of the Federal Court. If we do not determine this matter quickly, it could drag on for another two months. During that time these new orders would continue to apply. I accept Senator Macklin's bona fides. He said that if it comes to a vote we know how he will vote. Indeed, he was to move the same motion of disallowance. But I would remind him that, if the Government does not proceed down the path which Senator Macklin suggested to the Senate that the Government might follow, it may be May or June before we can determine this matter within the 13 sitting days that remain. We believe that these orders must be disallowed quickly and we will seek so to do. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.26) —I speak on these disallowance motions as Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and on behalf of the Committee. At a special meeting yesterday the Committee considered the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders as Amended (Amendment) along with an urgent legal report from its legal adviser, Professor Douglas Whalan, of the Australian National University. The Committee considers delegated legislation from the point of view of its principles. The Committee does not involve itself in considering the merits of the policy behind delegated instruments. That is not its role. After considering the Orders generally and its legal adviser's report in particular, the Committee concluded that it could not object to the Orders under its principles. The Committee did not consider that any of its principles were infringed. The policy behind the Orders is, of course, beyond the scope of the Committee's concerns. It was the wish of the Committee that I make this statement on its behalf. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.27) —The Senate is debating two motions of disallowance to the Prescribed Goods (General) Orders moved by Senator Collard on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. The motion concerning Order 111A seeks to disallow a regulation put forward by the Government which seeks to overcome a court decision forcing the Government to supply meat inspectors of export meat. Let us look at the history of the need for this regulation and at the Mudginberri dispute. Simply put, the owner of the Mudginberri abattoir, Mr Pendarvis, came to an agreement with his employees which not only increased the efficiency of the abattoir and the ability of the abattoir to gain overseas markets by being more competitive, but also gave the employees better pay and conditions. Therefore, both employees and employer were happy. What is wrong with that? One may well ask that question. Why on earth would the unions object to their employees being better off, having better conditions, with Australia generally having more money and being able to have overseas markets which are of such great benefit to Australia? The unions decided in their usual way that, unless they had reached the agreement and had fought for these conditions, it was just not on for those conditions to be taken. The unions did not want their members coming up with an agreement which the employees preferred on their own, without the involvement of the unions. The unions told the employees that they could not abide by that agreement made with Mr Pendarvis. The employees refused to take any notice of the union, so the union set up a picket line. The employees continued to work and Mr Pendarvis continued to employ them. But the picket line was there, and Mr Pendarvis, to fulfil his contract overseas, had to have his meat inspected. However, the meat inspectors refused to cross the picket line. They were the only ones; the employees kept on going through and they continued to be employed, but the meat inspectors refused to cross that picket line; so the abattoir lost its overseas markets. Who employs the inspectors? We know that the Government employs the inspectors. Why did not the Government insist that its inspectors cross that picket line and carry out the service that the Government must supply, which, indeed, is being paid for by every abattoir and by every taxpayer? Why did the Government refuse to instruct its employees to cross that picket line and get on with their job? The Government decided that it could not cross the Australian Council of Trade Unions or that union and, in its usual fashion, it bowed to the pressure of the ACTU. We had headlines such as `The ACTU says no to Willis' and `Willis pleads for peace on the abattoirs'. We had the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) pleading with the ACTU to allow the inspectors to cross the picket line and not to support the meat workers union. The ACTU said to Mr Willis `Get back into line. We will have nothing to do with that'-and, indeed, that is exactly what Mr Willis and the Labor Party did; they got back into line. They did not instruct the Government's employees to go ahead and carry out their job, for which they were being paid. The Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia brought down an order saying that the Government should have instructed its inspectors to do what they were paid to do and should not have allowed them to sit back and allow Mr Pendarvis and his men to lose markets overseas. Senator Robertson —But they did not lose markets. They made money on it. Get your facts straight. Senator WALTERS —We are told that they did not lose markets. That is an absolutely ludicrous suggestion. They lost $7m. The situation is such that the ACTU has supported a union that insists on bringing this country to its knees by destroying our overseas markets. So we have the situation now in which the Federal Court has instructed the Government to send its inspectors in to carry out their duties. What is the Government's reaction to the Federal Court's direction to it? The Government has succumbed. It has had another chat to the ACTU, which has said: `You can do that. Who do you think you are? You are the Government. You make sure you bring down a regulation that gives the Minister discretion on whether he instructs those meat inspectors, or gives the Secretary to the Department the discretion on whether he instructs the inspectors'. The ACTU has also said to the Government: `Don't you take any notice of the Full Bench. You do what we instruct you to do. You bring in this regulation and the Parliament must pass it'. We have had an indication in this place however that the Parliament, indeed, will not pass it; that it will move, as Senator Chaney has done, for a disallowance of that Order. That means that if that motion is passed today, the Government must abide by the decision of the Federal Court. But we have a tricky situation in that the disallowance must be passed within a certain period. The Government has seen that it is to be defeated on this issue and has talked the Australian Democrats into supporting the Government to put off debate for a while, until as it says, it has had further consultations. If any member of the Government can tell me why the Government did not have consultations prior to bringing in the Order, I would be very happy. The Government should have had all those consultations before it brought in the Order. It should not bring in the Order and then say to the Democrats: `We do not want to be defeated on that today; we want to consult. Will you give us time to consult? Will you put it off?' That is what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to hoodwink the Democrats-who are not even present in the chamber, which is a pity-into putting off the motion for disallowance until a later date. It must come up before the 13 days, and I just finish up by saying to the Democrats: Do not be hoodwinked; let us have a vote on it today. The Government certainly has no excuse for not having consulted with the various people concerned beforehand. It should have done it then. There is no excuse for the Government to put it off and pretend that it needs more time to consult. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.37) —If ever there was an indication that this Government is in the power of the unions, it is demonstrated today very clearly. I do not say that it is even a coalition, because the word `coalition' implies mutual respect. But that is not so in this case. It is quite clear to the whole of Australia that it is not a coalition of mutual respect; it is a domination by the Australian Council of Trade Unions of the Australian Labor Party. What do we have before us here in this motion for disallowance? The Government has put into a Hansard of 300 pages three lines and it hopes that it can move the Order through the Parliament so that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, will not have to obey the laws of this land. Already the matter has been before the Parliament and has been ruled on by the highest court of this land, but the Labor Party will not abide by the decision of the highest court of this land because it is not allowed to do so by its masters, the ACTU. Senator Button, with all the eloquence that he commands, gave a very poor performance, a half-hearted performance, because even he knows that one cannot defend the indefensible. He went over this matter and he gave an appalling defence. I would not want Senator Button defending me unless he could lift his game from this performance. Senator Cooney, the Labor Party's kamikaze pilot, went into bat for about three words, so even he could not defend this action. The point of the matter is that we have seen the disgraceful behaviour of the Minister for Primary Industry in this Mudginberri dispute. Last year in the Northern Territory the unionists, the management and the workers got together and hammered out an agreement that was beneficial to all concerned. The workers would lift their wages from say, $400 or $450-I think that that is about the figure-to around $1,000 a week. The management would reduce its costs on killing a beast, on slaughter charges, from around $140 to $40. That is the sort of productivity increase that this Government should be encouraging. It should be going out of its way to say: `Let us do it. Let us lift the export income of this nation. Let us lift the productivity of this nation'. But what do we see? We see a shocking display of cowardice when Mr Kerin would not order the meat inspectors across the picket line. He was ordered to do so by the Federal Court of Australia; so he did. But what happened only three weeks ago, which I believe is behind the motion for disallowance before the chamber? Three weeks ago in Biloela there was another strike, with $150,000 worth of meat locked up in an abattoir with no inspectors. Let us look at the reason why the strike occurred. A boning room designed for 24 people had 22 people working in it. The union said that there was enough room for only 21 people. It said: `All out'. The unionists, the workers, went out. The meat inspectors were called to inspect the $150,000 worth of meat, but they would not go through the picket line because television cameras were there. They were coy, or perhaps someone shouted something at them. They were sent by taxi from Biloela to the abattoir but they were not prepared to go through the picket line. Mr Kerin has put down the reasons why he is not prepared to send people across picket lines. The first reason is the availability of authorised officers for performing services at the place and time described in the application. Senate Estimates committees have found-it is quite well known-that there are more meat inspectors than there are jobs to go around. It is considered that there are 20 per cent more meat inspectors than there are jobs for them. We even found that now, to fill in time and keep them busy, they have to go to classes for 10 hours a week to help them read the meat inspection levies manual. They are underemployed. I put it to the Senate very clearly that this Government is not enforcing the law of this land. The Government goes through the charade of bringing down a Bill of Rights. What is the good of a Bill of Rights when the Government will not even stand up for the law as it has been determined by the High Court of Australia and court actions in Australia? It is an absolute facade to bring down that sort of Bill. If the Government is not going to enforce the law of the land, why does it want a Bill of Rights? All I can say about this motion for disallowance is that it should be carried today. Senator Button —That is a good point. Senator BOSWELL —I am glad that Senator Button acknowledges that it is a good point. What Senator Button and his Government should be doing-he is very much aware of it-but what the Government is not doing is trying to get this country to produce more, to raise its productivity, to raise wages so that everyone has more money to spend and to raise our level of exports so that we can meet our overseas financial commitments. But the Government is not prepared to do that. It is not prepared to stand up to the unions or to send in meat inspectors to inspect the export products of this nation, and it should be condemned for it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(11.43) —I support the motion for disallowance moved this morning by Senator Collard. If the Senate does not support this motion-we have it from the Australian Democrats that they will support it, which is good, although I would have liked it to be today-once again it will be a victory for the union movement. The Government will be seen as not caring for the meat industry and its employees-earners of export income-but rather, as giving support once again to the union movement of Australia, as it had done in the case of the superannuation 3 per cent productivity issue. I consider that the proposed Government amendment is harmful to the meat processing industry. It removes from the Minister for Primary Industry the obligation to provide Commonwealth export meat inspection services at abattoirs. It certainly is a bad industrial precedent for other areas of government to amend ministerial orders to give the Government and the Minister the discretion to refuse to provide meat inspectors when requested. We should remember that, without meat inspection by authorised meat inspectors, there can be no meat exports. It is the Government's duty to provide inspectors. Unfortunately, this Government does what the unions tell it to do. That is probably the root cause of the problem that exists today. I have received some information to the effect that the community and the hard pressed rural industries certainly cannot accept a government and a minister who are not prepared to stand up to union standover tactics that have been and are being waged by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. The Minister, in refusing to ensure that Commonwealth meat inspectors crossed the picket line at Mudginberri and, in the most recent case, at Biloela in Queensland, demonstrated that the Government was not prepared to stand up to the standover tactics of the union. The Government is concerned that under the existing provisions it would have to order the inspectors to cross the picket lines. I point out that trade union interference in Australian meat exports has cost more than $7m in the six-month period to September 1985, including lost export sales from Mudginberri, which amounted to about $3m. The workers at Mudginberri showed that employers and employees can achieve mutual benefit without union involvement. Basically, the Mudginberri dispute was a dispute between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and the workers whom it had kicked out of the union because they were not prepared to accept the tally system. The union, for its part, was not prepared to accept an agreement that was reached between the employers and employees and ratified by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I congratulate Jay Pendarvis on the job that he did. I had the opportunity to meet him on one occasion in Brisbane and heard from him the problems he had been experiencing at Mudginberri. What I fail to understand is why the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) did not take action under sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act against the meat inspectors who refused to cross the illegal picket line. The unions are fighting the right of employees to negotiate an agreement under which they can receive up to $1,000 a week, as against the $450 to $500 a week maximum they could have earned under the tally system-the very system that the union has been trying to force upon the 25 workers. I find it hard to believe that any union could be so silly. Under this Labor Government the cost of inspections to industry has more than doubled, from $23.9m in 1982-83 to $53m this year. This is a great burden on industries which are struggling to maintain their competitive basis on world markets. Cost pressures on the agricultural export industries are particularly severe. In recent years these industries have turned in an unusually sluggish export performance. Over the past five years to 1983-84, total Australian export income rose by 4.5 per cent. Over the same period rural exports, accounting for 40 per cent or more of the total income, fell into decline. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that rural export income will decline even further in real terms this financial year. That is a problem for a vast area of Australia. People who are involved in rural industries know just how hard they are being hit and have been hit in the past. At present much of Australia faces a drought, which will make things even harder. It is the rural industries which hold the key to winding back Australia's foreign debt, which has spiralled from about $40 billion to around $70 billion in less than two years. One would think that the Government would be doing everything it could to help rural industries, such as the one at Mudginberri, instead of causing losses of millions of dollars in this one industry alone. I certainly support the motion of disallowance which has been moved today by Senator Collard and on which I understand debate is going to be adjourned. I point out that there is a need for a decision and I would like to think that the question could have been put to a vote today. We hope that the Government will bring it on in time for a vote to be taken so that this motion of disallowance can be carried. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(11.51) —I rise to support most vigorously the motion moved by Senator Collard to disallow the export control orders. The actions of the Federal Government throughout the entire Mudginberri dispute, with which these export control orders are linked, are an absolute disgrace. I find it ironic that at the same time as this chamber is debating a Bill of Rights for Australia, which the Federal Government says we must have, we have a situation where the rights of employees and employers in an export industry have been threatened, and we have a government not only not prepared to do anything to protect the rights of those people in that industry, but also, in fact, prepared to allow those people to remain defenceless. It allows rights to be taken away which in another piece of legislation it is purporting to protect. What hypocrisy! Is this the same Federal Government which only a few short weeks ago professed such deep concern for the plight of the rural sector that it started to prepare an aid package? Does the Federal Government honestly believe that on the one hand it can claim genuine interest in the rural industry while on the other hand it washes its hands of any responsibility for that industry? This legislation simply proves what the Opposition has long suspected; it proves that the trade union movement runs this Government and this country. What an appalling state of affairs that is. We now have a Federal Government and a Federal Minister for Primary Industry passing control of a vital export industry to unions such as the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. What type of upstanding citizens are the members of this union? Let me quote from the Australian Law Reports summary of the AMIEU v. Mudginberri: The President of the Union made remarks in the presence of Mr Pendarvis to the effect that he and others would be out of business by the following year. When asked what he meant by that, [the President] said: `You bastards have had it your own way in the past but we are going to close you down'. I believe that they are common thugs. Never mind the legality of the situation and never mind the rights or otherwise of the meatworks owners or their employees. The summary goes on to report that the AMIEU organiser threatened the use of physical violence. This is how justice and democracy in this country work. These are the types of people to whom the Federal Government has handed over the reins of this country. This is not the first industry that has been threatened by union bullying and thuggery, but it is about time the Federal Government took a stand. It is not the unions of this country that have been elected to govern, for better or for worse-we are certainly getting more of the latter than the former-it is the Federal Labor Party. So when, may I ask, will the Federal Government start governing? How can this Government possibly argue about the rights of individuals and how can it claim sympathy for the rural sector when it allows control of this country to fall into the hands of irresponsible bullies? The trade union movement in this country appears hellbent on crippling every export industry we have. What is the strength of this Australian Council of Trade Unions tail that it can so effectively and vigorously wag the Government dog, that it can make the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) so impotent and so unwilling to carry out his duties and make it so powerful and arrogant that it considers itself above and beyond the powers and decisions of the High Court of Australia? The Federal Government, and in particular the Minister for Primary Industry, have a very clear role to play in providing an essential export inspection service. Export inspection services in this country are available only from a Government monopoly. They are essential in the daily operations of businesses engaged in the production or processing of foodstuffs for export. Why have this service, and indeed why have a Federal Government, if it is the unions that determine whether these services are provided or not? Australia at present is running itself into bankruptcy. We have an appalling imbalance in trade. Our exports in the past month have fallen by some 19 per cent. Our trade performance must improve and it is the rural export industries that can lead the recovery. But are those rural industries to survive only at the whim of the trade union movement and can they survive with a weak Primary Industry Minister who abdicates his responsibilities so easily? What will become of our reputation as a reliable supplier? Is it to be tarnished still further? Industries involved in export have a right to expect support from the Federal Government, but has that support been forthcoming? I would say no. What is the Federal Government doing to secure and protect our overseas markets, to strengthen our reliability? Basically the Federal Government is saying that it will do as much or as little as the trade union movement allows it to do. It is not just the Federal Opposition that is so critical of the Government's actions. The Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales represents over 25,000 export oriented rural producers involved in producing meat grains, eggs, fruit and vegetables, much of which is exported. The LGPA considers the regulations an improper response to judgments of the Federal Court and regards them as invalid. It considers them as establishing political bias in government decisions. The Federal Constitution is quite clear on export powers, yet we have the Federal Primary Industry Minister ignoring that and choosing instead to give himself a discretion, rather than an obligation, to uphold his constitutional and legislative responsibilities. If the Federal Government buckles under to this pressure, when and where will it end? The Government's role in this is very clear. It has a moral and legal responsibility to provide essential services. Further, it must be able to do this totally independent of the control of the ACTU. Additionally, workers must have the right and the freedom to negotiate conditions of employment without the control of unions. Industry also must be allowed to operate free of government and union intervention and domination. The trade union movement in this country must be stopped from crippling the nation. The Federal Government has the legal power to do that. It also has a moral responsibility to act. It is about time it accepted that responsibility and got on with the job. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.58) —I rise to speak briefly in support of the motion of disallowance moved by Senator Collard for Senator Chaney and supported by other Opposition senators. The motion seeks to disallow an order made under the Export Control Act 1982. At present the export control orders which provide for the prohibition of the export of meat unless certain steps are taken, including inspections by meat inspectors, have been held by the Federal Court of Australia to imply that the Commonwealth is bound to provide meat inspectors. This was determined in the recent ruling of the Federal Court in the Mudginberri case. This ruling means that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Department of Primary Industry have been held to have been bound to provide meat inspectors to Mudginberri during the period of last year's pickets. The amended orders which we are now debating and which the Opposition seeks to disallow provide that the Secretary may, in determining whether to direct the services of the authorised officers available have regard to, firstly, the availability of authorised officers and, secondly, such other considerations consistent with good management practices as he thinks fit, including the welfare and safety of authorised officers and the general interest of agricultural and fisheries export industries. This amendment would lead to the situation where if a Mudginberri picket occurs again the Federal Minister and his Department would be able to refuse the supply of meat inspectors with impunity. It has been suggested and mooted that there are going to be pickets again this year to kill off Jay and Joy Pendarvis. The motives of the Federal Labor Government in proceeding with these amendments are crystal clear. The Minister, Mr Kerin, failed to send in meat inspectors during the dispute last year when those inspectors should have been provided. The Federal Minister for Primary Industry, like so many of his colleagues-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Trade, John Dawkins-was not prepared to stand up to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. The Federal Government could not afford to put a union off side. Even though it was clear that the Minister has a legal and moral duty to provide the inspectors, he failed to do so. The result was the loss of buffalo meat sales worth millions of dollars and severe damage to the reputation of the Mudginberri abattoir through which Jay and Joy Pendarvis had developed very lucrative markets overseas over a number of years. The Mudginberri operation was a major employer in the area and involved considerable participation from Aboriginal people. It provided its employees with a better return for their work than did other abattoirs in the area. Indeed, a number of the other abattoirs have closed down. They simply were not economic. Jay Pendarvis, on the other hand, had managed to build up a very viable business. This was all jeopardised by the Minister-the business, the employment of the workers, the standing of Australia in overseas markets and the money which would have come into Australia with the sale of the buffalo meat. The Minister, presumably, has been embarrassed by the result of his inaction-if that is possible. I certainly hope that he has been embarrassed. Any Minister in a government who ignores his obligations, and as a consequence diminishes the standing of Australia in overseas markets for our primary produce and allows contracts worth millions of dollars to be cancelled, should be embarrassed. In fact, he should be sacked. He should be ashamed and he should, if he has any sense of obligation, make sure as far as possible that any such situation does not arise again. As I have said before, I think that there should be another Minister for Primary Industry. Unfortunately, this Minister has refused to acknowledge his obligations as set out by the Federal Court of Australia. He wishes to avoid his responsibilities and therefore seeks to enact amendments to legitimise the spinelessness of the Federal Labor Government's effort. The Federal Government which goes on at length about the accord and consensus and how they have contributed to industrial harmony, simply lacks the backbone to stand up to the unions, particularly in the Mudginberri case with Joy and Jay Pendarvis. The accord and consensus are all very well as long as the unions can get what they want, but it is quite clear that when the umpire decides against them, as the court did in the Mudginberri case, the unions are prepared to pull strings in Canberra to get their way. We see the Federal Minister for Primary Industry dancing to their tune. As I said before, it is quite likely that the AMIEU intends to impose a picket at Mudginberri this killing season. With the benefit of these amendments, the Minister would be free of any legal obligation to send in meat inspectors. As the Minister would be free of any legal obligation he would allow the unions to come in once again and kill off Jay and Joy Pendarvis at Mudginberri. If ever there was a Pontius Pilate act, here it is. It is quite clear that the Mudginberri dispute last year was well organised, so well organised that the meat inspectors who had been living on the lease at Mudginberri for months before the dispute moved off the lease well before the AMIEU picket was set up so that they would have to cross a picket line to do their job. We saw what happened then. Clearly, there was a long term plan which not only involved the AMIEU but also had the collaboration of meat inspectors, who did not want to break the picket line-if we can call the motley camp a picket line. Now the Minister is seeking to make it easier for the meat inspectors and himself to avoid their duties if the situation arises again. I believe that it is likely that it will-given the determination of the AMIEU in bringing this industry to a close and, at the same time, bringing unemployment to all those meat workers who very earnestly wish to continue with their jobs at Mudginberri. That a Minister in a government which is supposed to be working to get the Australian economy moving and improving would take this step which will leave the union free to destroy financially the Mudginberri abattoir is an indication of lack of true commitment to small business enterprises. When it comes to the crunch, the Labor Government is not prepared to buck the unions, no matter how unreasonable are their claims or how damaging their actions. If the Federal Government wishes to retain any semblance of responsibility it would be well advised to withdraw these amendments. Apparently the Minister is not interested in responsibility so it is left to the Opposition to disallow these amendments. I wholeheartedly support the disallowance motions and urge honourable senators to support them. Once again, we have a situation in which everyone expected that these motions would be finalised today, that a vote would be taken. I understood that the Democrats supported the Opposition in bringing this about. We will now see a postponement of this debate, which means that the decision to assist Mudginberri will be evaded. Frankly, I cannot see why these motions should not be put to the Senate today. I see no reason why any credence should be given to the excuse that there should be a postponement so that the matter can be referred to industry. Senator Sheil —The Minister should supply inspectors under the present law. Senator KILGARIFF —I notice what Senator Sheil says. What a ridiculous situation: The industry wants a result, yet the Minister says that he must refer the matter to the industry. This is a sham and a shame. Once again, I ask-I ask the Democrats too-that, rather than carrying on with this farce of an adjournment of this debate, we put the question to the Senate now and get this matter over once and for all. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.07) —I too speak today in the strongest possible support of Senator Collard's motions to disallow the Government's proposed amendments to the export control orders and regulations. Those amendments would allow the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) totally to abrogate his ministerial responsibilities, to lie down to the whims of the trade union movement. In the Minister's speech in the other place on 13 March defending the proposed amendments under discussion today, he stressed that they were his Government's response to what he described as industrial reality. At the end of the day, industrial reality had to be accepted, according to the Minister. In so highlighting the Government's reason for introducing these amendments, the Minister has indicated his Government's major concern, that is, keeping the unions at bay so they will not cause problems for the Hawke Government. In deciding whether essential meat inspection services or, for that matter, any inspection services relating to the agricultural and fisheries industries embraced by the Export Control Act will be provided, the Minister is abrogating his responsibilities. These amendments are a flagrant and discriminatory use of Executive power. The unions are to be left to decide the fate of our export industries. That fate is to be decided at the Government's behest. These amendments provide the Minister with a way of ignoring his duties and obligations and providing what is essential to the shipment of our rural produce, namely an inspection service. They provide him with a way out of providing the essential service of inspection which is vital to export trade. Industrial reality can always dictate, above all other considerations, whether goods can leave our ports for their final destination. At least that is the attitude of this Hawke Government. The Minister pays scant attention to whether the abattoir or the plant goes bankrupt, or whether employees lose jobs or the costs of our exports go on rising. If these amendments are not disallowed, the Minister can, with impunity, sweep under the carpet his responsibility for perishables rotting for want of certificates. Industrial reality, in the Hawke Government's eyes, demands that unions control our exports. They shall decide the fate of the millions of Australians who rely on our export industries. At a time when this country is facing the worst balance of trade figures on record, when our rural producers are facing decline and ruin in some cases, one would have thought that the Government would be doing all in its power to facilitate the movement of goods from abattoirs, farms, mines and factories at a most expeditious rate. The impact of these amendments, if allowed to proceed, will be yet another nail in the coffin of Australia's rural industries. The rural sector earns vital export income for this nation-almost 40 per cent of total export earnings. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast the real net value of rural production to fall by 24 per cent in 1985-86 to the second lowest level recorded in the last 30 years. In framing these amendments it seems that the Minister has paid scant attention to the falling export prices producers are receiving for their products on export markets. Indeed, the amendments reflect a cynical lack of concern by the Government and the net result will be a falling confidence in our ability to get goods to customers. That is hardly the action of a government seriously committed to the plight of the rural industry. The revenue side of the equation for the rural producer is not the only factor neglected by the Minister's one-eyed concern for so-called industrial reality. Rural Australia is facing increasing costs at levels unprecedented in its history. Over the period 1980 to 1984 interest rates have increased by 45 per cent, government taxes and charges by 38 per cent, electricity by 29 per cent, farm machinery and equipment and shipping by 11 per cent and hired labour by a significant amount also. From these figures it is clear that the Government has played a large part in the increasing costs faced by rural Australia. These realities will not go away. Indeed, they are exacerbated by the Government's record in its interest rate policy, massive spending and an inability to curb the detrimental impact of the unions on costs faced by rural producers. It should be remembered that the meat industry meets 50 per cent of the inspection service charges. For the 12 months ending in March it cost the Federal Department of Primary Industry $13.7m to inspect 8.6 million units slaughtered in Victoria Over the same period it cost the Victorian Department of Agriculture $8.4m to process 16.4 million units. The cost to the State Department was 50c per unit; the cost to the Federal Department was $1.60 per unit. Given the gutlessness that this Government has shown during the Mudginberri dispute it is not surprising that such a discrepancy should appear. The Government had clearly been giving in to union demands even before that dispute, and it proposes to continue with its gutlessness in siding with the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in abrogating its responsibilities for the provision of the essential inspection service. The problem facing rural industry is essentially a result of changing the cost-price ratios. There has been a runaway cost spiral for services provided between farm and gate. For example, since 1980 freight charges have almost doubled and the major causes of this dramatic increase have been industrial. In my own State of Victoria absenteeism is running between 20 to 45 per cent and industrial disputes cost the farmer in excess of $10m in 1984-85. Union muscle is again exercised at the expense of the national interest and of all Australians whose living standards fall as a result of the higher prices paid for rural produce. In proposing these amendments under discussion today, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Government are in effect imposing yet another cost on Australian meat producers and rural exporters at a time when their attention should be focused on getting farm costs down. For the sake of industrial reality, the Government is failing to put the national interest first. The farming industry and all Australians will be the losers if these amendments are passed. In allowing its decisions to be dictated by the union movement, the Government is shirking its responsibilities. These amendments make the Minister's responsibilities Clayton's responsibilities-responsibilities he exercises when he is not exercising responsibilities. Apparently the first question the Minister must ask always is: `How will the unions respond; will they let me proceed?' The Government and the Minister stand condemned by these proposed amendments. In the national interest they must be disallowed. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(12.15) —The main thrust of the arguments today have related to the Mudginberri dispute so I feel I must rise because Mudginberri is in the Northern Territory. The whole incident brings very little credit to the Pendarvis family or to the Northern Territory Government. If I have time, I will develop that point a little later. It is fair to say that seldom has there been a debate in this place-let us face it; the standard of debate is not generally high when we get on to emotive issues such as this-that so indicates the complete lack of knowledge on the part of the Opposition. There has been an effort on the part of the Opposition to misrepresent most of the facts relating to the case and to take out of that some political gain in one of its organised activities. To members of the National Party of Australia, representing the rural community-I use the word `representing' very much in parenthesis since they no longer represent the rural community, which the community has made patently clear to them-I have to say that it is not my usual practice to criticise speakers from the Opposition; but they were pathetic in their attempt to discuss the real background to the disallowance motion before us. The whole exercise this morning was nothing more nor less than a union bashing exercise in which Opposition senators trotted out their set pieces that they keep ready for an occasion when they can use them. It was noted, although I did not take a point of order on it, that most of the speeches were read. Perhaps they were just pulled out of the bottom drawer and trotted out with the title changed. Of course, to be fair I must say that not all honourable senators read their speeches. Senator Walters did not read hers, but Senator Walters does not need to read her speech on union bashing because she has all her information well and truly in the front of her mind. It seems to me that the sorts of speeches that we heard this morning were more appropriate to policy speeches or to speeches that one might present in rural electorates at election time, or ones that might be used in debates on matters of public importance when honourable senators need something to send out to their electorates to tell them that they are doing wonderful things on their behalf, rather than a serious attempt to debate the issue in front of us. In the time allowed-there are only a few minutes left-it is impossible for me to meet all of the issues raised and to point out not only their inadequacies but also their total irrelevance to this debate. The broad issues were canvassed quite clearly by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) who tried in an unemotional way to balance views from the other side and to point out the facts in the debate-the real reasons why the Government, which has a responsibility to resolve problems in the community and which is elected to do this, got together with the Department of Primary Industry and prepared regulations which would meet a situation which had arisen. What we ought to have been debating is whether or not the regulations brought forward-I will say more about this later-are appropriate to meet the needs of the situation. It is not a matter of whether those regulations would upset the American Mr Pendarvis and his wife or whether they would affect some other group, but whether they would meet the inadequacy that the court had pointed out. The court quite clearly made its point that something needed to be done. For those who perhaps were not listening to Senator Button when he spoke, let me make the facts of the situation clear. The Government of the day, the Federal Government, instructed its staff on four occasions to cross the picket line. This is recorded as fact. Those on the other side, of course, tried to say that this was not done. But on four occasions staff were instructed to cross the picket line. The decision not to cross the picket line was made not by the Federal Government but by the union involved, the Meat Inspectors Association. It is perfectly proper for members of a union to take a decision in an industrial situation which they believe they ought to take. That will not receive a great deal of support from the other side of this chamber. Honourable senators opposite do not believe that the unions, having fought for and won certain conditions, ought to apply them. I will come back to that matter a little later. The three officers who were involved first had their pay and allowances stopped. That is what the Federal Government did and that is the limit of what it could do. What else could have been done within the agreements that had been reached? Inspectors from the Northern Territory Department of Primary Production were not available. These inspectors are members of an organisation-the Australian Public Service Association-which supported the picket; therefore, they were not prepared to enter the dispute. The Opposition has the audacity to expect the Labor Party-the Party that represents the people, the unions and more of the middle income group and more of the farmers-to say to a union: `You have won these conditions. We will overthrow them and you will do as you are told'. I am pleased to say that that jackboot approach belongs on the other side of the chamber, not this side. I hope that that approach will never be imported from the Opposition or Queensland since we are hearing from members of the National Party. The matter of the losses that occurred at Mudginberri is currently before the Federal Court of Australia which is being asked to determine whether Mudginberri suffered damages and, if so, to determine their extent. That is the normal procedure for the court to go through. The results will be fairly interesting when the court comes down with its decision. Information has come to us from some court proceedings about the activities of the Northern Territory Government and its relationship with Mudginberri and Mr Pendarvis. When the Federal Court was discussing this matter it raised the issue of policy. The court said to the Federal Government: `This matter of discretion is one of policy'. The Federal Court said, without expressing a view one way or the other: . . . that for practical reasons (it may) be desirable that the duty be . . . qualified; if so it would seem to be a simple matter for the Minister to make an appropriate order. The Minister, taking his lead from the court, said: `The law is not adequate in this situation. We will do something about changing it'. These amended orders were prepared by the Department of Primary Industry in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. I hate to disappoint honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who see the heavy hand of the ACTU hanging over everything that happens. There was no consultation whatsoever with the ACTU in the preparation of these orders. That must be an awful blow to honourable senators on the other side who would like to think that the ACTU controlled the organisation and made all the decisions. It has about the same relevance and credibility as the rest of the rubbish they have been pumping out this morning in this debate. The court proceedings brought to light some very interesting information and some more interesting information will be brought out in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in the debate this week when the Northern Territory Government will be solidly under attack for its part in the proceedings. Action was taken through a statutory body of the Northern Territory, but not by the statutory body, for certain moneys to be made available to Mr Pendarvis. This is an example of the free market, the free enterprise, that we hear about from honourable senators opposite. What did the Northern Territory Government do? It sent the manager of a statutory body outside and the Chief Minister and his Minister for Primary Production to make arrangements to guarantee a $2m loan to Mr Pendarvis to tide him over his little difficulties; in other words, to allow him to continue the very fight against the unions that honourable senators opposite, in their ignorance, are perpetuating here at present. Not only did the Northern Territory Government guarantee $2m with money it did not have-the Northern Territory Government is far from fluid at present-but also it bought the meat which was being held in the Pendarvis abattoir coolrooms so that Mr Pendarvis would not be embarrassed. The Northern Territory Government gave him a good price for it but instead of selling it and making a profit, which is what it was supposed to do, it sold it back to him some months later at the same price as it paid, at no additional cost for storing it in the cool stores in Darwin. As I have said, the Northern Territory Government will be attacked in the Assembly and it will not be able to meet these arguments. We on this side of the chamber do not prepare employer-bashing speeches-obviously honourable senators opposite have their set pieces on union bashing. So there is not a great deal of information that I can give at five minutes notice. However, it seems to me a very reasonable proposition to adjourn this matter in order to get more information. Honourable senators opposite seem to object to this. Is this because they do not want the matter investigated? If they do not want the matter investigated, I wonder why. I am sure that Mr Tuxworth, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, is not too happy about having the matter investigated but he will not be given that luxury. The matter will be investigated and it will be thrown back at him. Clearly we on this side use a different technique to what honourable senators opposite use. They like to make their decisions on philosophy which they decide in back rooms. Of course I would not suggest that they have consultations with anyone before they make their decisions. We like to speak to the people involved, get the facts and, on the basis of those facts, do something about the matter. The Opposition has criticised us for not having enough facts. Two or three speakers have said that we should have got the information earlier. If this is a fact-I am not accepting it-we intend to do something about it. Senator MacGibbon —Madam Acting Deputy President, since the time for debate has expired I seek an extension of time to allow Senator Robertson and other speakers to continue their speeches. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —I believe there is no need for that. There is an agreement and there is no need for recognition by the Chair. Senator ROBERTSON —I appreciate that gesture on the part of the Opposition. The understanding and agreement are that the debate will last for two hours. There is no standing order to cover it but I believe I will be the last speaker. I have only two or three minutes left but I thank the honourable senator for that gesture. The Opposition says that we did not have enough discussion. We will get the information. There has been pressure on the Minister to come forward with a resolution to the problem. That is what governments are elected for. Unlike the National Party-judging from the contributions of its members-the Minister is interested in rural development; he is interested in trying to make sure that we develop our rural industries. As I indicated earlier, the National Party knows that it does not have the support of the rural industry; that support is swinging strongly to the ALP which, quite clearly, is concerned to settle the matter in front of us in an unemotional way, in a way in which we have been briefed with the facts and in a way which will satisfy all parties and be within the regulations and agreements which have been reached. I trust that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will now adjourn the debate to allow us to get the information about which I have been talking. Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —I seek leave to table a paper regarding the text of a statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Philippines made in the House of Representatives on 14 March. Leave granted. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.29) —The Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986 is a relatively non-controversial Bill. The Opposition does not oppose it although it will move a couple of amendments at the Committee stage. I will be seeking clarification from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on one or two points of essentially a technical nature. The Bill amends a number of laws administered by the Australian Customs Service to transfer a range of ministerial powers to the Comptroller-General of Customs. The Senate will remember that last year the Parliament approved the establishment of the Australian Customs Service despite several reservations on the part of the Opposition. In particular, we were critical at the time of the lack of explanation given by the Government for the proposal. We also criticised the Government for its failure to undertake a comprehensive review of the Customs Act at the same time. The Customs Act is a very involved, complicated piece of legislation which has been in existence since Federation. It is one of the oldest Acts of the Parliament and it has never been effectively reviewed in a comprehensive manner. We took the view last year that, when the major administrative change of establishing the Australian Customs Service was undertaken, it should also have provided an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the whole Act at the same time. I think those criticisms were fully justified then and they still are. I am a little surprised that the Minister has not informed the Senate in his second reading speech on the Bill we are now debating as to how the new arrangements are working on the basis of the eight or nine months experience we have now had of the operation of a separate Customs Service. I trust that the Minister will do so when he comes to reply at the end of the second reading debate because he must be well aware of the concern in the community about the operation of the Australian Customs Service. That concern has been heightened by certain statements made by the Customs Officers Association of Australia and by some individual Customs officers indicating that all is far from well in important areas in our Customs Service; for example, on the waterfront both in Melbourne and in Sydney, and other examples have been cited as well. The Minister may also recall that I raised other concerns with him in a question without notice several months ago. Despite an undertaking from the Minister to investigate the concerns I had raised he has yet to inform me of the results of his investigations. Whether this demonstrates a laxity in administration in the Minister's office or in the Customs Service-or more likely both-I do not know but I await the explanation with some interest. The effect of the Bill now before the Senate is to complete the transfer to the Comptroller-General of the ministerial powers involved in the day to day administration of the Australian Customs Service which the earlier Customs Administration (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985 commenced. That Act, though, left some 25 per cent of the total ministerial powers still to be exercised personally by the Minister as distinct from the Comptroller-General. The present Bill, when executed, will transfer more of those powers to the Comptroller-General, leaving only about 10 per cent of the powers in Customs laws with the Minister. The Government has described the remaining 10 per cent of these powers that will stay with the Minister as having major policy implications. They include such matters as the extension or variation of bounty assistance arrangements and powers relating to the imposition of dumping and countervailing duties. The Opposition agrees that these powers should be retained by the Minister. Several other powers are being transferred to the Comptroller-General which I thought might also better remain with the Minister and I would welcome comment on these from the Minister later in the debate. One or two of them will be matters on which we will be moving amendments but I just flag them now. Firstly, under sub-sections 119 (2) and (3) of the Customs Act 1901 the power to grant a certificate of clearance for a ship or aircraft to depart from Australia is to be transferred to the Comptroller-General. I am not too sure on the policy implications of that. It seems to me that that is a matter which may have policy implications and the Minister would wish to retain a decision-making interest but, as I have said, that is something that I would welcome clarification on. Secondly, section 183 of the Customs Act relating to the power to disallow renewal of Customs agents' licences is another matter on which we have some doubts as to the transfer of power from the Minister to the Comptroller-General. Disallowance of renewal is presumably a serious matter and would occur only in serious circumstances. If so I think it would raise the right of a public servant, no matter how distinguished he may be, in the form of the Comptroller-General, to have this disallowance power as distinct from it remaining a ministerial power. There are some aspects on which I will seek some clarification from the Minister in the Committee stage. Thirdly, I question the transfer to the Comptroller-General of the Minister's power or obligation to publish, by Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice, indexation of rates of duty under sub-section 26a (5) of the Customs Tariff Act 1982, and paragraph 6A (6) (a) and sub-section 6a (8) of the Excise Tariff Act 1921. This Government introduced the indexation of these duties. By this measure the Hawke Government hoisted another series of automatic, insidious, and largely hidden to the public, taxes on an already tax wearied Australian public. The additional taxes that have been paid as a result of this indexation measure have already run into hundreds of millions of dollars. If the Government is going to engage in this type of snide tax rip-off of virtually every Australian the Minister at the very least should have the intestinal fortitude to make the announcements himself. They are announcements in respect of major policy decisions by the Government and, as such, I think they should be announced by the elected government. In my view, the Government should not hide behind the back of an unelected bureaucrat when announcing such decisions. The Opposition will not necessarily be pressing that point to an amendment but I think it is worth noting that that is being proposed in this Bill. Again I would welcome the Minister's comments. The Minister said in his second reading speech that one of the prime reasons for this Bill is to relieve him and the Secretary of his Department from the routine of Customs administration and, in consequence therefore, to give him and his departmental head greater opportunity to concentrate on the major and complex issues facing industry in this country. I fully subscribe to that as it is an admirable objective. I would now like to turn to the fundamental issue of the future development of Australian industry which this Bill ostensibly gives the Minister more time to pursue. It is to be hoped that the Minister will be able to devote more time to the policy aspects of his portfolio because industry in this nation is in need of a greatly improved environment if it is to provide the growth in investment, income and employment that we so urgently need and which the Government professes to be concerned about. Before I proceed any further down that track I wish to congratulate the Minister on the extraordinarily successful public relations exercise that he has conducted to persuade Australian industrialists and business people that he is an able and efficient Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology. He has been very successful in his public relations. I spend much of my time in contact with the business sector and the Minister is not only widely liked but also widely acknowledged as an able Minister. I have no objection at all to the fact that Senator Button is widely liked. We on this side of the Senate like him too-more so perhaps than do some of his own colleagues. What I find much more difficult to accept, indeed quite unacceptable, is his stewardship of the industry, commerce and technology portfolio and his role as the third most senior person in the Hawke Government. I find his role in overall economic policy formulation unacceptable in terms of its having been beneficial to Australian industry. It is about time that this myth was dispelled because, by and large, it is a myth. The simple fact is that the performance of the Minister and of the Government of which he is such a senior member is quite at odds with the rhetoric. Let us look at some of the facts. It is widely accepted within the private sector and within the walls of this chamber and the Parliament generally that Australian industry needs a macroeconomic environment conducive to growth, investment and employment. That environment embraces at least three points: Firstly, it needs policies as a whole which are stable and predictable; secondly, it needs a government that exercises restraint and discipline, for example in its spending, borrowing and taxation; and, thirdly, it needs a government which is the architect and performer of balanced policies-a balance is required, it is essential, between fiscal policy, monetary policy, wages policy and balance of payments policy. These are the three essential macroeconomic prerequisites for a successful, thriving, vital private sector. I submit that the Government has failed all three of these tests. Let us look at some of the evidence for that. I mentioned that policies should be stable and predictable. That aim has not been pursued by this Government, despite the rhetoric, over the three years of its term of office. It has produced policies which, for example in the area of government spending in its first two Budgets, have involved a rate of increase in real terms not far short of that for the disastrous years of the previous Labor Administration, the Whitlam Government, in the first half of the 1970s. Many people well remember the disaster of the blow- out in government spending which occurred at that time and which has done much to cause the problems which are now confronting the economy in the 1980s. Yet last year, in a sudden attempted sharp turnaround, the Government greatly reined in the level of increase in government spending. One still finishes up with a government which in its three years of office has increased government spending at a rate twice the average of the seven years of the Fraser Government. The present Government has been a reckless spender and indeed has been unpredictably reckless in chopping and changing the rates of its spending policies. Senator Walsh —Do you support the Northern Territory railway line like your leader? Senator SHORT —I find that fairly irrelevant to my speech. Senator Walsh —If you are talking about reckless spending, talk about that and the other $1.5 billion worth of spending promises he has given. Senator SHORT —I mentioned that the Government had restrained, at least in terms of its Budget figures, expenditure in 1985-86 to a figure of some 1.5 per cent. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) is now talking about the need for a major rein-in of expenditure in the year ahead. He has talked to the Cabinet about the need for expenditure reductions of $1.4 billion. It seems not to be generally known, but it should be, that in 1985-86 there is every indication, on the basis of figures to date during this year, that expenditure will blow out by $1.3 billion over and above the Budget estimates. So if the Treasurer is talking about a cut of $1.4 billion being required, all he is talking about is trying to bring the figure back to the amount it should have been had the original Budget estimates been adhered to. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —I have received through His Excellency the Governor-General from the Governor of the State of Tasmania a certificate of the choice of Jocelyn Margaret Newman as a senator to fill the vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator Peter Elliot Rae. The certificate was laid on the table and read by the Clerk. Senator Jocelyn Margaret Newman made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister aware that today's housing finance figures show that in January new loans for the purchase of newly erected houses were the lowest on record; total lending for housing fell by 14.4 per cent over the month; since September building society lending is down by 45 per cent and savings bank lending has dropped by 33 per cent; and the total number of dwelling units for which loans have been provided has dropped by more than 30 per cent in the last six months? Does the Minister accept that this serious decline is a direct result of the Government's high interest rate policy? What action will it take to reduce interest rates generally and restore the flow of funds to the housing industry? Senator BUTTON —The question of the reduction in interest rates generally has been the subject matter of a series of questions in the Senate, from Senator Chaney and others, and I have given the same answer on each occasion as I give now: The Government recognises that there is a fine tuning to be done in respect of the reduction in interest rates and will take appropriate action as it sees fit at appropriate times. With regard to the question of the housing industry, the whole question of the housing industry will be considered by the Cabinet next week, and I am not in a position to make any advance preview of what will be determined. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. On earlier occasions in the Senate, this Minister, the Leader of the Government, has recognised the danger to the economy of high interest rates. In light of the figures that I have cited, does he still claim that all that is required is some small adjustment? Do the figures not show that there is a serious problem now for the Australian economy which needs the urgent attention of this Government? Senator BUTTON —The Government has never tried to run away from the serious effects of high interest rates. That fact does not alter the answer which I gave previously. In Senator Chaney's question there are some figures which I would regard as serious in respect of the housing industry. But there are really two parts to the question. One is in respect of interest rates generally and their effects on the economy, and I repeat the answer that I have previously given. In respect of the housing industry question, I say that the Government will be examining that problem next week and then we shall make a response. Senator COATES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to a constituent of mine who is a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner with a stepson who was born to his present wife at a time when she was not formally married to anyone. The veteran has been advised by the Minister's Department that even though his stepson is recognised by the Department of Social Security for family allowance purposes and by the Department of Veterans' Affairs from which he receives a dependant's allowance, the child is not eligible for benefits under the soldiers children education scheme since he is not the product of a marriage or a dissolved marriage. Does the Minister agree that this provision is anomalous and reflects an outdated morality? If so, will he consider amending the legislation accordingly? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that under the law as it stands, the veteran's stepson is not eligible for benefits under the soldiers children education scheme since he is not the product, as Senator Coates has said, of a dissolved marriage. I agree that this provision, which dates from the period between World Wars I and II, is quite inappropriate for this day and age. There are other instances to which I could refer the Senate of similar discriminations which have been brought to my attention-for example, the case of another veteran, in this case a TPI veteran who has custody of his orphaned grandchild. Because that child, too, is not the product of a dissolved marriage, he is ineligible under the existing legislation for the soldiers children education scheme. However, the Government is aware of these anomalies, and that is why in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill this anomaly will be addressed and, I hope, resolved by including, within the definition of `child of a veteran', `any child who is, or was immediately before the death of the veteran, wholly or substantially dependent on the veteran'. This means, under the new provision, that the first veteran's stepson as well as the second veteran's grandchild, in the two cases to which I have referred, will both be eligible for benefits under the SCE scheme, which will be renamed the veterans' children education scheme. However, these veterans will have to wait until such time as the Opposition decides to allow the Bill to pass the Senate without further irresponsible and unsupported amendments upon which the Opposition is currently insisting. Until such time as the Senate deals with that legislation, these anomalies will remain incapable of being remedied. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to reports that the Government is giving consideration to a new determination of the import parity price for oil based on the present level of oil prices which remains significantly lower than the price on which the 1 March determination was made. I ask: Is it a fact that a price based on the current IPP formula would result in a drop of around 4c a litre in petrol prices? Does the Government intend to pass on that benefit in full to Australian motorists, or is it going to cheat them yet again by imposing a further increase in the tax on petrol to compensate itself for its loss of revenue? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has given preliminary consideration to this matter, but we will not be giving final consideration to it or making a final decision until next week, when the outcome of this week's Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and post-OPEC meetings will be better known. As I have said on previous occasions, it is perfectly possible that, should the OPEC members be able to get their act together, as many of the individual member countries now clearly want to do, and particularly if some appropriate response can also come forward from some of the non-OPEC producing countries, we could see a very rapid escalation of the price of oil back to around $US20, as compared with the present level of around $US12.50 or $US12.60, which, as compared with $US16.77, on which we made our present determination, represents a very significant drop of the order of magnitude which Senator Durack has outlined. It is premature to make any final decision on this matter until we know what is happening this week. I trust that Senator Durack will appreciate the good sense of taking it that way. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I know that the Minister cannot make a decision now because of the volatility of the situation; if prices remain at around the present level, so that there would be a drop of 4c a litre, does the Government regard that as a significant enough figure to impose an increase in petrol tax? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is premature to speculate on any of these matters. We will leave it until next week, and Senator Durack can respond appropriately then. Senator DEVLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation to the arrangements for the funding of the upgrading of the Wynyard Airport in Tasmania to full jet standard. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Tasmanian Government is claiming to have contributed $3m towards the cost of upgrading the airport. I ask the Minister whether the Tasmanian Government's claims are true. If not, could the Minister advise how the upgrading of this airport is being funded? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware that the Tasmanian Government is claiming that it is contributing $3m towards the upgrading of Wynyard Airport. In fact, there is a large sign at the entrance to the airport making such a claim. However, I can say that this claim is completely untrue. Arrangements for the funding of the upgrading of Wynyard Airport to jet standard are as follows: The Commonwealth has contributed $1.2m, which represents the costs which would have been incurred in partly upgrading the airport. The Commonwealth has also contributed a further $3m from the Gordon below Franklin Dam compensation fund. The Minister advises me that the Tasmanian Government has not contributed any of its own funds at all, despite a shortfall of $2.5m which still has to be found. Therefore, the likelihood is that the local ratepayers will be called upon to meet that shortfall. I understand that the Burnie Port Authority, which took control under the airports local ownership plan, has made statements in the local Press to the effect that the Federal Government should take responsibility for providing the funds still being sought. First, the Federal Government offered to fund fully the partial upgrading of the airport, after which further upgrading to jet standard would have been funded if a demand existed to warrant it. Secondly, the Burnie Port Authority, in deciding to go ahead and undertake full upgrading with the full concurrence of the Tasmanian Government, did so with the full knowledge that by its taking this route the Federal Government would not be responsible for the full cost of upgrading. There is now no justification for the Tasmanian Government, therefore, to insist on Federal funds. It may well be the case if it were ill-advised to take the course it did; but having done so, it cannot expect the Federal Government to bail it out. Senator CHIPP —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of statements by the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Butler, reported in the Age on 13 March, encouraging the Government officially to disclose information on United States bases in Australia which is now on the United States public record? Does the Government accept that Mr Butler's statement effectively admits that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has more knowledge of the functions of the basis than the Australian people? Does this not indicate that the Government's secrecy is directed at its own citizens, effectively placing a matter of national security beyond democratic debate and control? Given that the Pine Gap and North West Cape agreements will be open for notice of termination in 1986 and 1987 respectively and that the Nurrungar agreement is already open for termination, will the Government release to the Australian public at least as much information on the functions of the bases as is now on the United States public record, to allow informed debate on their continued operation on Australian soil? Senator GARETH EVANS —In the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament on 6 June 1984, he made public, with the concurrence of the United States Government, the following information in respect of the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. I put this statement on the record again because it seems necessary from time to time to do so. First, the joint facilities contribute to the objectives of timely knowledge of developments that have military significance, effective deterrence and the verification of arms limitation agreements. Secondly, they provide early warning by receiving from space satellites information about missile launches and the provision of information about the occurrence of nuclear explosions. Senator Chipp —Do you really believe that this is an answer to my question? Senator GARETH EVANS —The honourable senator should wait. I will get to his question. In fact, I am in the middle of answering his question, but apparently a little background information is needed to put it into context. The Prime Minister said at the time that the information he had made public on the facilities would correct serious misunderstandings and should provide the Australian people with the reassurance they properly seek. Further disclosure would damage Australian and United States interests. The Government does not intend to comment further than that statement upon speculation or assertions about the joint facilities. It has already been made clear on numerous occasions that the joint facilities operate with the full knowledge and concurrence of the Australian Government. It is the case that Ambassador Butler was reported by the Age to have referred to disquiet in some quarters about information on the joint facilities being available under United States information laws but not releasable in Australia. Leaving aside just for a moment whether Ambassador Butler was or was not correctly reported, the Australian and United States governments have identical policies on the release of information about the joint facilities. It is therefore not true that United States citizens have access to more information about the facilities than do Australian citizens. As to the question of the reporting of Ambassador Butler's remarks, it appears that he was misrepresented. The Age reported him as saying that there were differences between what the United States public was told and what the Australian public was told-a theme that Senator Chipp has picked up in his question today. I am informed that Mr Butler actually said that there is a perception of such a difference, not that the difference actually exists. I repeat my answer: There is no difference between Australian and United States Government policies on releasing information about the joint defence facilities. Senator COLEMAN —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs seen the advertisement inserted by the Returned Services League on page 5 of the latest edition of the House Magazine and headed `Pass the VEB', which says that the RSL, Legacy, the War Widows Guild and the Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Federation `are strongly united in calling on the Opposition to not press its remaining amendment' to the repatriation Bill? In this light, can the Minister inform the Senate of just who is out of step with the clearly expressed wishes of the ex-service community? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that the latest edition, dated 19 March, of the House Magazine contains an advertisement submitted by the Returned Services League and headed `Pass the VEB'. It correctly says: The Government has conceded all Senate amendments except one that would require undetermined claims lodged before 15 May, 1985, to be dealt with under S.47 of the Repatriation Act as it applied then. Claims could then be approved without there being any link between the disability and previous war service. This is clearly contrary to the spirit of repatriation legislation. It is true that the Senate, in its wisdom, has still taken the view that all of the amendments that have been recommended by the Senate or requested by the House of Representatives should be accepted by the Government. The Government has been very generous, I believe, in accepting 40 of the 41 amendments. It is not prepared to accept the final amendment which removes the whole basic thrust of the repatriation legislation-that is, that pensions should be given on the basis of evidence of some relationship to war service. That view has the unanimous support, as the advertisement said, of the veteran community. The Returned Services League of Australia, the War Widows Guild, the TPI Association, Legacy and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council, at a summit meeting here in Canberra, requested the Senate to exercise its right and take on board the views of the veteran community. What was said last year substantially was that the Government had not consulted sufficiently with the veterans movement in Australia in respect to the 14 May statement and the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The Government has now consulted and got a unified position out of the veteran movement in Australia-that is, the peak organisations. Nevertheless, the view is still being expressed to me that the Senate is not prepared to pass the legislation. I ask, therefore, that the Opposition, in particular, and the Australian Democrats take into account the views of the veterans organisations, particularly the premier organisation, the Returned Services League, which has taken the step of inserting an advertisement in the House Magazine asking the Parliament to pass the legislation. Senator WATSON —Would the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations not agree that an employer who insists on employing untrained and inexperienced women on heavy labouring work-work which is normally carried out by men-is committing an act of unjustified sex discrimination which could lead to injury because women are not adequately trained or physically built to perform such work. If this is the case, why do community employment program grants require the employment of 50 per cent women, even on labouring-type jobs? Senator WALSH —Implicit in the question is a belief that all women are lacking in physical strength. While I think it is true on average, without doubt, that men are physically stronger than women, it is certainly not true that all women are lacking in physical strength. Indeed, I have struck one or two who have intimidated me, I can tell you. Senator McIntosh —Senator Walters. Senator WALSH —Yes, Senator Walters for starters. Senator Gareth Evans —Senator Knowles. Senator WALSH —Senator Knowles, too, as my colleague Senator Gareth Evans has helpfully reminded me. As for the rest of the question, I will seek a more detailed response from Mr Willis. Senator TATE —I ask the Minister representing the Special Minister of State whether the Government has noted comments by Major-General Grey of the Australian Federal Police reported in the Weekend Herald, and I quote: Concerned citizens could wonder at the massive allocation to the `non-war'-which is defence in the 1980s. They could compare it with the allocation to the real war of the 1980s-the war against crime. Major-General Grey went on to comment: I can identify no external threat to Australia-nor can anybody else, to my satisfaction . . . we have a war, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in our cities, towns and countryside . . . carried out by criminals who deliberately erode our rights. Has the Government noted those comments by a distinguished Army Major-General before he took up his present position and will it take those comments into account when allocating funds in its Budget deliberations? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted the report referred to in which Major-General Grey indicated his view that there is a more real threat to Australia from crime than from defence contingencies. I suppose it is the case that Major-General Grey is better equipped than most to make comparisons between defence and crime fighting priorities, but the point I make on behalf of the Special Minister of State is that in our Budgets to date the Government has been able to achieve real increases both for defence and for law enforcement. In particular, the number of police in the Australian Federal Police has been increased each year and the Government is committed to further increases over the next two years. In addition to manpower increases, the Government has agreed to a major upgrading of the AFP's computer capacity and is examining proposals for major improvements in AFP accommodation in Sydney and Melbourne. In an atmosphere of overall expenditure restraint, the Government will need to examine all expenditure programs carefully, including both defence and law enforcement programs. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. I refer the Minister to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures recently released which show falling manufacturing production, falling motor vehicle registrations, falling private sector building approvals and falling savings bank deposits. I ask the Minister: What are the implications of these figures for the stated budgetary strategy of `setting sail for growth' and, in particular, for the level of unemployment? Senator BUTTON —The main implication of those questions is that Senator Parer asked me a question about them. He has not been able to ask that sort of question in the last two years. I certainly agree that those matters are of concern but they are matters which might well have been expected by the Government as a result of the interest rates policy which it has adopted for reasons which are quite clear, I suspect. Each of those things can be dealt with in isolation. I do not think there is any point in doing that. I have already answered a question from Senator Chaney regarding the implications for the housing industry. The implications for the motor vehicle industry were quite expected last year and on a number of occasions I have answered questions here about other implications for the motor vehicle industry arising from the fringe benefits tax, for example. I have said on numerous occasions in this chamber that the Government is committed to strong growth in the Australian economy, but as has been said by the Treasurer, at this time we need to cut back on the growth rate we have experienced in the last two years. Those figures are the consequence of that. A little later on I hope Senator Parer will ask me another question of the same kind and I will see what answer I am able to produce on that occasion. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I remind the Minister of his comments in the Senate on 14 February 1986 about farm incomes and the quarantining of farm losses. The Minister indicated in those comments that he had received correspondence from the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales on the issue. I ask: Can the Minister now advise the Senate whether he has had any further correspondence from the LGPA and whether this correspondence has provided any additional insights into the issues upon which he previously commented? Senator WALSH —On 14 February I mentioned that I had written to Mr Tooth, the President of the LGPA, asking him to explain the conflict between his claim that most farmers had off-farm incomes in excess of $20,000 and were therefore affected by the quarantining provisions of the tax package and claims by the LGPA and others that farmers are the new poor. I have a reply. I do not know whether it provides any insight into the issues but it does provide some insights into the ethos of the LGPA. In this reply, dated 27 February, Mr Tooth mentions that Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures of off-farm earnings refer only to investments held by farm family members and not to those held by farm businesses. Implicitly the figure of $20,000, or the number of people with that sort of income, should have been higher. More interestingly, the letter goes on to state: The BAE's estimates . . . are based on a sub-sample of the total farm population . . . and includes only those farmers which can readily be identified as being family owned and operated. In other words, company owned and other enterprise-based farms are excluded-- this is the important part- and these are precisely the operations which will be most affected by the proposed quarantining arrangements. Some of us have long suspected that the LGPA represents Pitt Street farmers rather than bona fide farmers. It is nice to have that suspicion confirmed in writing by the President of the LGPA; that is, that the LGPA is concerned about `company owned and other enterprise-based farms'. The letter goes on to say that Mr Tooth was not implying that assistance to agriculture was justified on the basis of low farm income or farm poverty but that farm sector profitability had fallen because of the policies of successive governments. However, the issues to which the LGPA gives the highest profile are those of capital gains tax and the quarantining of farm losses, neither of which will have any impact on farm sector profitability, which has declined for a variety of reasons, but both of which will maximise the chances of the present financial problems recurring at some time in the future. Mr Tooth goes on to cite a hypothetical example of a farmer who buys a harvesting machine for contracting purposes on a loan of $100,000, paying interest of $20,000 and so on. He says that such a farmer would be unfairly discriminated against by the taxation provisions. In that comment he completely overlooks the fact that, to the extent that a machine is used for contracting off the farm, the interest costs and, I believe, the depreciation costs may be offset against the income earned from contracting. That is a very important oversight indeed. Finally, it is asserted in the letter that if the quarantining provisions had applied 15 to 20 years ago the cotton industry would not have been established. I want to make two comments on that: Firstly, it has yet to be demonstrated that if the cotton growers in New South Wales were paying the full cost of the irrigation water that they use, which they do not, that industry would be viable; and, secondly, and more importantly, the major contributors to the establishment of the cotton industry were Americans who had no income in Australia on which losses could have been offset. Therefore, the point that Mr Tooth makes is quite irrelevant. In closing, since the major points of contention are the question of capital gains tax and the quarantining of farm losses, I say again that reversal of government decisions on either or both of those issues would make absolutely no contribution to easing the present fiscal problems in the agricultural sector but they would, to the extent that they would encourage speculation in the future in the purchase of land at unsustainably high prices, maximise the chance of a recurrence of the problem. Senator SHEIL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it not true that the New South Wales State Government agreed last year to abide by the decision of Mr Justice Macken on pay levels of visiting medical officers in New South Wales public hospitals? If so, what has been done in accordance with Mr Justice Macken's decision last December that visiting medical officers should receive substantial increases in pay? Senator RYAN —I will have to seek advice on the matter raised in Senator Sheil's question. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education, a question relating to an answer which I received to a question on notice about the adequacy of allowances under the isolated children's education assistance scheme. I was informed that these allowances are reviewed in the Budget context. Nevertheless, I wish to ask the Minister whether any work has been or will be undertaken to assess the adequacy of these allowances, taking into account the costs borne by parents of isolated children who are obliged to live away from home to attend school. Senator RYAN —The answer to Senator Colston's question is yes. My Department regularly reviews the effectiveness of all our programs, including those under which children living in isolated areas get assistance for travelling and school fees. That advice is available to me at the time of the Budget consideration. There have been some improvements in the levels of allowances available. I would say, in very general terms, that for some families it is an adequate level and that other families with a lower income still have difficulties. The matter is very much under active consideration. We are assisted in reviewing the effectiveness of this program by the efforts of the Isolated Children's Parents Association, which is very active and which represents the interests of parents of isolated children throughout Australia. The Association regularly meets with officers of my Department, with the Commonwealth Schools Commission and, from time to time, with me. It is a very useful source of advice on how effective the program is in assisting isolated children. As well, I expect that the Schools Commission will address shortly in some detail issues related to education in rural areas, which, of course, will incorporate a further examination of the needs of isolated children. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government continue to oppose lifting the 13.5 per cent ceiling on home loan interest rates? If so, will the Minister give an unequivocal commitment to that effect? If not, does this not conflict with the statements by both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister during recent State election campaigns and the continued denials of the Minister for Housing and Construction that lifting the ceiling was an option for the Government? Senator WALSH —An almost identical question was asked of Senator Button-I think it was the first question of the day-and I have nothing to add to what Senator Button said. Senator MAGUIRE —Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate of recent initiatives taken by the Australian Government to assist in securing world peace? What progress has been made in obtaining support for a nuclear-free South Pacific? Is the Government united in the view that the removal of threats to world peace is a subject of overwhelming concern? Senator GARETH EVANS —Since taking office in March 1983, the Government has taken a great many initiatives to promote peace, disarmament and arms control. I could occupy a large portion of the Senate's time in detailing those initiatives but I will simply summarise them by saying this: The Government has actively encouraged an end to the nuclear arms race by the two super-powers, promoted a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing in all environments for all times, made a special effort to develop effective international control of chemical weapons, made it clear that it does not wish to see the arms race extended to outer space, ratified a number of international arms control agreements and strengthened Australia's institutional capacity to make a contribution to peace and disarmament, not least through the appointment of a permanent and very effective Ambassador for Disarmament. The Government took a leading role in negotiation of the South Pacific nuclear-free zone which was adopted by heads of government at the South Pacific Forum in 1985. The treaty is in the process of ratification by the states or parties concerned. The Government's commitment to peace, disarmament and arms control is clearly reflected in the Australian Labor Party platform and also in the $3m program of activities which is planned to mark the International Year of Peace 1986. I want to make it clear that the Government is completely united on these questions. That places us in marked contrast with the situation which exists within the Liberal Party. Those members of the Liberal Party who show any kind of sensitive and informed interest in peace and disarmament issues are immediately ostracised and condemned by their parliamentary colleagues. I refer in particular to a report in the Adelaide News of 4 March, just a few weeks ago, which reports the fact-it was widely reported-that Senator Hill and a front bencher in the State Parliament, Mr Lucas, called on all members of the Party in South Australia to join mass peace demonstrations, starting with a Palm Sunday march on 23 March. I understand that Senator Teague was also a party to that exercise, although he is not mentioned in this report. According to the newspaper report, which I believe is accurate, a letter was sent to Liberal Party State councillors by the Opposition finance and taxation spokesman in this House, Senator Messner, expressing surprise and concern at this call by senior Liberals to join the Palm Sunday peace march. It is hardly surprising I suppose that Senator Messner, who is always quick to see the way that the wind is blowing in his public responses, should respond as he did. He gets his lead in this respect from the leadership of his Party. I refer in particular to a statement which summarises the attitude of the Liberal Party towards peace and disarmament-a statement made by the former Leader of the parliamentary party and now its foreign affairs spokesman, Andrew Peacock, on 7 August last year in which he opposed the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty and made clear the Opposition's commitment to a policy of accepting the installation and storage of nuclear weapons on Australian soil. That is very clear in the terms of Mr Peacock's Press release of 7 August. Senator Crichton-Browne —He did not say that, Gareth. You are telling fibs. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not a statement which has subsequently been repudiated or qualified in any way. I am not surprised that this is embarrassing even Senator Crichton-Browne, who is normally unembarrassable about any subject. But it is a demonstration of just how comprehensively insensitive the forces opposite are to these questions of peace and disarmament which are absolutely fundamental to the future not only of Australia but of the world and which it is entirely appropriate should be addressed in the way that we in the Labor Party have addressed them during our period in office. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Did Mr Robert Holmes a Court give the Government information on how he will finance the interest payments on his $2 billion overseas borrowing and the further $500m he will need to buy the shares of the Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd for which he currently has options? Does the Government know against which company's profits the interest charges will be offset? Is the Government aware that Mr Holmes a Court's three-tiered company structure is designed to avoid the loss of the dividend rebate on the shares of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and that this structure will put $69m in his pocket at the expense of the pay as you earn taxpayer? Is the Government concerned about these matters? I should add that the three-tiered structure is essentially designed to circumvent the application of section 50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Senator BUTTON —As to parts of the question let me say that the Government sought assurances from Mr Holmes a Court about a number of matters. At Question Time in the Senate I have indicated the essential nature of those matters but have declined to go into details-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Why? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether Senator Crichton-Browne has been here this month or this year but I have said why on at least two occasions. He was probably reading a comic at the time. I have indicated on a number of occasions the nature of the commitments the Government sought from Mr Holmes a Court and, indeed, from Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd about some of these matters. I indicated that, while we will inform the Senate and the House of Representatives broadly of the nature of the undertakings sought and the answers given, we are not in a position at this stage to publish any of those undertakings while the Supreme Court action in Victoria is proceeding. I will certainly seek further information from the Treasury about the particular point which Senator Siddons has raised regarding the alleged three-tiered structure of the Holmes a Court company. I am advised on a tentative basis that dividend rebates under section 46 of the Income Tax Assessment Act allow dividends to be passed from one company to another without incurring multiple taxation of the one income. Where a dividend is passed perhaps through several companies it would be incorrect to tax it as income in the hands of each receiving company. This principle has also been recognised by the Government in its introduction of the imputation system to avoid the double taxation of dividends. Of course, that is scheduled for introduction later this year. I have said that I am not personally aware of the answer to the problem posed by Senator Siddons in relation to the company structure but I add that there are a number of assumptions in the honourable senator's question, to all of which I offer the observation that they may or may not be incorrect. Some very nice theories have been developed about where Mr Holmes a Court would make his borrowings, what the source of those borrowings would be and in particular how the interest payments would be handled. Some of those theories have developed into an art form and I must say that many aspects of those theories have been shown already to be wrong. Senator SIDDONS —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his undertaking to seek further advice from the Treasury on this matter. I will just word my question slightly differently so that it is abundantly clear what information we are seeking. Section 50, as no doubt the Minister knows, states that a company that borrows to buy shares must write off interest against those shares. That is specific in section 50. It is a matter of well-known fact in business circles in this country that the three-tiered structure of Bell Resources Pty Ltd does manage to circumvent that clear meaning of section 50. It is that-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his supplementary question. He has been making a statement. Senator SIDDONS —My supplementary question is this: Will the Minister, in giving his answer, also make clear that it is section 50 about which we are particularly concerned? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, it is not my function to usurp your function in any respect but that is not a supplementary question; it is just a further speech by Senator Siddons on this issue, one of a series. There have been some glaring inaccuracies, if I might say so, in several of the earlier versions. I am now asked whether I will draw attention to the fact that it is section 50 about which the honourable senator is talking. That was put as his supplementary question but it is not a supplementary question. Let me repeat what I said earlier. The answer to his question is in two parts. The Government received assurances on a wide range of matters, including some of the matters referred to in his first question. As I have said, we are not in a position at this stage to publish those assurances. The issue of publication of those assurances will be dealt with and considered by the Government finally after the current Supreme Court action is resolved. It is the present intention of the Government, with the agreement of the parties, to publish the assurances that we were given. Quite apart from that, I undertook to ask the Treasury to examine what appeared to be another technical question which Senator Siddons raised in the first part of his question. I will do that. Senator GILES —My question is to the Minister for Education in that capacity and also in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister noted that the Director of the Catholic Education Commission of Western Australia is reported as regretting that there are too few women in senior teaching and executive positions in the Western Australian Catholic education system? Has the Minister any advice for the Director? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to Dr Tannock's comments about his concern that there are few women in senior positions in the Catholic education system in Western Australia, and a declining number. The first thing I wish to say to Dr Tannock is to congratulate him for recognising this as a problem. It is a problem not only in terms of the employment prospects for women but also in terms of the education process. Although the debate about the merits of single sex versus co-educational schools for girls continues, and is not finally resolved, one thing is clear and is agreed by most students of this issue; that is that many of the successes of single sex girls schools, be they Catholic girls schools or other sorts of girls schools, in the past have been due to the very strong role modelling that the girls experienced at school from very competent female principals. It is a matter of concern not only for the Catholic system in Western Australia but for other parts of the non-government system, and regrettably for State systems also, that the number of women in senior positions, particularly as principals of girls schools or principals of co-educational schools, is declining, not increasing as we would expect it to increase given the equal employment policies and legislation which are in effect in many parts of Australia and federally. Senator Peter Baume —Due in part to the continuing retirement of religious-- Senator RYAN —Senator Baume interjects that one of the reasons why Catholic women are seen less in senior positions is that there has been a decline in the number of religious positions. That is certainly a contributing factor. Nonetheless many women-Catholic and others-are still teaching in the Catholic system; so the pool of available women for teaching positions is not smaller although the particularly suitable religious women for these jobs are not available in the numbers that they were. I think Dr Tannock is right to pinpoint this as a problem and to set up a working party to address it. I hope that his initiative in this regard will be followed by the Catholic system throughout Australia and by other education systems. In conclusion, in answer to Senator Giles's question about the advice I would have to give Dr Tannock, although his system is not covered by Federal legislation I would be very happy to make available to him all of the information we now have in the Office of the Status of Women on the development and implementation of our affirmative action employment policy. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Resources and Energy and it relates to the subject that was raised earlier by Senator Durack in his question about fluctuations in the price of oil. Is the Minister able to confirm that at the present Australian dollar exchange rate and the international price, the fall in the price of oil will result in something like $500m to $600m in loss of revenue to the Government if no recoupment action is taken? Could he confirm the magnitude of that figure? What is the present position of the oil companies regarding stock losses resulting from price fluctuations? Is any action contemplated by the Government to compensate these companies? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that if the import parity price were to come down now to reflect the prevailing world price, which as I said before is something under $US13 per barrel, the reduction in crude oil excise revenue to the Commonwealth would be of the order of $500m to $600m; I think it may even be a little higher at the moment. Obviously that is something that is being taken into account in the Government's current review that I referred to in answer to Senator Durack. As to the refiners' stock loss problem, it is true that since the world oil price plateaued to a further low level after the last decision and that lower price of around $US13 or less has been applicable for the whole of March so far, it is the case that refiners, to the extent that they have been taking higher price domestic liftings as compared with the cheaper crude they could have purchased on the world oil market, are storing up for themselves a further stock loss problem in the event that the import parity price is reduced. Senator Durack —It is your policy. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government indicated an appreciation of that problem. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not mind a classy interjection, Mr President. If Senator Durack lifts his game I do not mind spending some time on him in Question Time. I have just indicated that the Government expressed some sympathy for the refiners' plight and the implications of that in its decision for 1 March. No doubt it will again take that into account in its decision-if it makes any decisions-over the next few days to lower the import parity price earlier than would otherwise be the case. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and refer to my question to him of 14 March concerning the RIMPAC exercises. In light of his answer to this question, I again ask: Is it not appropriate, given that Australia has decided not to take part in the bombing of the island of Kahloolawe during the RIMPAC exercise and even though such a decision has to be made by the individual participating nations, that the Australian Government still make representations to these countries to follow suit? As this year's scenario for the RIMPAC exercise consists of the Hawaiian islands having been occupied by an invading orange force, with a blue naval task force liberating it and with Australia acting as a baddie, along with Canada and the United States air force, will the Minister explain what relevance this scenario has to the self-reliance defence strategy for Australia outlined by the Minister for Defence? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised that the island of Kahloolawe is United States territory. Therefore it is a matter for the United States Government to decide whether it should be used as a bombing range by its forces and those of other countries. Once the United States Government has decided on the matter it is up to individual countries to decide for themselves whether they should use the range. In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Australian Government to make representations to the United States Government or other governments on the matter. As I said on 14 March, the Australian forces will not participate in the bombardment. As to the remainder of the question, exercises such as RIMPAC are designed to maintain and enhance important operational capabilities which make a strategy of self-reliance credible. They provide opportunities for the Australian Defence Force to operate its sophisticated defence equipments in demanding tactical environments at the limits of their operational capabilities. Being a combined exercise involving several nations, the RIMPAC exercise does not, of itself, reflect specifically Australian circumstances. The scenario simply provides general conditions within which co-ordinated operational techniques can be practised. Exercise scenarios really have nothing to do with strategic planning. I think Senator Vallentine's question needs to take that consideration very much into account. Combined exercises with our traditional friends and allies allow the Australian Defence Force to maintain high capability standards in a resourceful and time efficient manner. These operational capabilities are completely relevant to a strategy of self-reliance since, in the unlikely event that they would be needed, the Australian defence forces would be able to employ them successfully. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance in his own capacity and also that of Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the extensive media coverage of leaked Treasury Budget documents on alleged squirrelled funds by the States. Is it not true that this attack on the States, which are required to provide basic services to the Australian people, is nothing more than an attempt to restrict the States in their activities, rather than a realistic effort by the Federal Government to grasp the nettle and apply real limitations on the growth of Federal Government expenditure? Senator WALSH —May I suggest that if Senator Vanstone is seriously interested in containing the growth of Federal Government expenditure she give her leader a stern lecture on the subject because in the last 12 months he and his associates have given firm commitments to increase outlays by $1.5 billion-$1.5 billion over and above existing levels of expenditure, plus $3,600m worth of tax expenditure, that is, revenue losses because of tax concessions, thereby increasing the deficit by a total of $5 billion. If Senator Vanstone is seriously interested in reigning in profligate government expenditure or potential profligate government expenditure, I suggest that she lecture people on her own side, particularly her Leader, rather than members of this Government. I said the other day that I will not comment on allegedly leaked documents. Independently of any allegedly leaked documents, it is known that some State governments have been squirrelling money away for purposes which the Commonwealth regards as improper. For example, for many years the Commonwealth has advanced moneys to Queensland for rural adjustment purposes, both under the present rural adjustment scheme and the scheme that preceded it, whatever it was called. Loans-partially a grant component and partially a loan component-are repayable over a 20-year period with a repayment holiday at the front end of the loan. The Queensland Government has on-lent this money to farmers, recovered it very quickly from them and stuck it away in a slush fund. The Queensland Government has lent the money given to it by the Commonwealth for on-lending to farmers, to the farmers, taken it back from them after a couple of years and stuck it away in a slush fund to use for any purpose whatsoever. The Government is currently making an attempt, firstly, to quantify the extent to which the amount of money is being, in our view, improperly used-or misused, if honourable senators prefer-and, secondly, to do something about it. Senator FOREMAN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs state what progress has been made toward achieving the release of Nelson Mandela? Senator GARETH EVANS —There has been renewed media speculation recently about Mandela's possible release but so far there is no evidence of any actual progress towards this goal. The Government has noted President Botha's suggestion in January that Nelson Mandela could be released in return for the release of a South African prisoner of war in Angola, Captain du Toix, and two Soviet dissidents. While the Government notes President Botha's willingness to consider releasing Mandela on humanitarian grounds, it considers these conditions unrealistic and reaffirms its previously stated position that he should be released unconditionally. On 2 September last year the Australian Government called for the release of political prisoners, including the immediate release of Mandela, as an essential step toward dialogue and negotiation leading to the end of apartheid and a transition to a united, free and democratic South Africa. There has been growing international pressure by countries, including those of the European Economic Community, the United States of America and the United Kingdom on the South African Government to release Nelson Mandela unconditionally. I remind the Senate that the unconditional release of Mandela, as well as other political prisoners, is also a central element in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting accord agreed to in Nassau in October last year. Today, in the face of continuing violence in South Africa, it is even more urgent that a process of negotiation begin. It is essential to that process that leaders such as Nelson Mandela be released from prison immediately and unconditionally so that they can participate in negotiations. I just mention for the record some of the things about which honourable senators opposite might need reminding. Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment with other African National Congress leaders in April 1964-22 years ago-after he was charged with sabotage. Although imprisoned, Mandela is still regarded as the symbolic leader of the black community and his release would be seen as a signal of the South African Government's genuine commitment to peaceful negotiations with genuinely representative black leaders. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it true that certain Papua New Guinea members of parliament used the national development fund and the minor projects development fund as personal slush funds, as reported in the Canberra Times of 14 March? The article states: Others used the fund for themselves, friends and family-in particular to buy motor vehicles. In many cases, part of the money was used blatantly to buy food and beer for electioneering. Was the Government aware of such abuses at the time of the signing of Australia's new long term aid arrangements with Papua New Guinea giving some $1,400m over five years commencing this year? How will the Government ensure that Australian taxpayers' contributions are not dissipated in this way? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure whether I am appropriately briefed on this matter. I will see what I can find out-not before the end of Question Time but tomorrow-and I will let Senator Hill know. Senator CROWLEY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether she has seen the report in the Advertiser today headed `Aboriginal imprisonment numbers staggering', in which Professor Richard Harding, Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, is quoted as saying: Aboriginal people are the most imprisoned indigenous people in the world. Is the Minister aware that, in one State, 10 per cent of Aboriginal males between the ages of 20 and 24 were in gaol at any one time? Is the Minister aware that these figures are 10 times greater than for Australia's population as a whole? Will the Minister say what steps the Government could take to address these appalling statistics and the appalling problem? Senator RYAN —I am aware of the situation described in the article from which Senator Crowley quoted. I am sure that the Minister whom I represent, Mr Holding, is also aware of the situation. Although it is very useful for the Institute of Criminology to bring these statistics to public notice on frequent occasions, it is not the first time that these statistics have been made public. In fact, I think they have been in the public domain for some years. It is a very distressing fact that Aboriginals appear to be the most imprisoned people in the world, as claimed in the article. I think the solutions to it have to be very long term and very careful. The kinds of policies which our Government has been implementing now for three years ought, in the longer term, to make some erosion into those dreadfully high statistics of Aboriginal imprisonment. The reasons for Aboriginal imprisonment are associated with the extreme poverty in which most Aboriginal Australians live and the depression that accompanies that poverty when there seems to be no way out of it. It is certainly true that neglect in areas such as housing, income security, education, health and so forth has contributed over the years to the situation where Aboriginals are frequently law breakers although usually, I would say-Senator Crowley's question did not cover this-in fairly minor areas such as drunkenness, vagrancy where that offence still exists and crimes against property, such as young Aboriginals stealing cars and things of that kind. When it comes to serious crimes in our society I do not think that Aboriginals have a worse record than white Australia or any other part of Australia. But certainly in these crimes that seem to arise from a feeling of hopelessness and dispossession Aboriginals have extremely high imprisonment rates. From that it can be inferred that they have higher conviction rates than the rest of Australian society, although I think there has been some improvement since the development of Aboriginal legal services, which are able to give more careful and more committed assistance to Aboriginals who are arrested on these sorts of charges than the legal profession generally was able or prepared to give. So the solutions to this terrible situation are not short term and they are complex. They involve an improvement in the basic living conditions of Aboriginal people, addressing problems such as inadequate shelter, inadequate income support and so on. They involve greatly improved health services, improved education and, in particular, the kind of self-respect that can come from the inclusion in the general curriculum of a positive approach to Aboriginal studies and Aboriginal culture and history. All these policies are being pursued and have been pursued by our Government for the last three years. There is also the fundamental question of secure possession of land. It is certainly the view of Aboriginal people that the question of self-respect, positive identity and aspirations for a better life are very much linked to secure possession of land. It is for that reason that our Government has pursued the achievement of secure possession of land by Aboriginals throughout Australia and has made some substantial progress in that respect. In conclusion, I do not think we will see any dramatic improvement in these statistics until we are able to assist Aboriginal people to solve the basic problems of poverty and powerlessness. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —In accordance with my notice of intention given earlier today I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name, for disallowance of the First Home Owners Regulations (Amendment). Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-During Question Time today Senator Gareth Evans answered a question about an alleged letter of mine that appeared in the Adelaide Press of 4 March. I will seek leave in a few moments to incorporate a copy of that letter in Hansard but I wanted to make four or five points in respect of it in summary. First of all, we were led to understand that that letter indicated my lack of concern about peace issues. I pointed out that I was sending the letter to State councillors to inform them that, because I would not be in Adelaide that day and taking part in the march, I would like to set down my own views on the matter. Secondly, there had never been any question in my mind that I would want to meet as many sincere people engaged in the peace movement as possible, and I made that quite clear. Thirdly, I expressed support for the Liberal Party's `Peace through Security' campaign, and in particular that part of the campaign run in South Australia by my colleague Senator Teague. The only problem raised in the letter was the question of the knowledge of those who were organising the campaign in South Australia, on which I have not yet received all information. Lastly, I wanted to express my view to State councillors in the Liberal Party that I believe the best way in which peace can be organised throughout this world and ensured for all Australians is through security, and in particular through our alliance with the United States. I seek leave to incorporate a copy of the letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA THE SENATE SENATOR THE HON. A. J. MESSNER SHADOW MINISTER FOR FINANCE AND TAXATION SENATOR FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIA Commonwealth Parliament Offices 100 King William Street Adelaide, S.A. 5000 Tel: (08) 213 2240 Facs: (08) 212 7777 26 February 1986 Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Tel: (062) 72 7111 Dear State Councillor, No doubt you would be aware of the call by Rob Hill and Rob Lucas for Liberals to join the Palm Sunday Peace March. Since I will not be in Adelaide that day due to commitments interstate, I would like to express my views on this. I am only too pleased, at any time, to meet with sincere people interested in furthering world peace. It is an issue of vast consequence to us all. I fully support the Liberal Party's ``Peace through Security'' campaign, of which my colleague, Senator Baden Teague, is the South Australian coordinator. However, I am concerned that I am called upon to involve myself in a March for Peace where the Liberal Party is not informed of the names and affiliations of its organisers. I am not averse to identifying with people who are genuinely interested in promoting peace. Nevertheless, as a participant in any such activity, I reserve my right to put my view that the best vehicle in the search for world peace is the alliance with the United States. I was surprised that a proposal such as that put forward by Rob Hill and Rob Lucas was not raised at the State Council meeting held only last Friday. Obviously, such a novel suggestion requires a considered Party decision. To advance in public the argument that ``we must identify with the youth vote'' as a reason to take part appears to me to be entirely counterproductive. Our legitimate objective to promote ``Peace through Security'' may well be frustrated. I hope these comments make my position clear. With kind regards, Yours sincerely, TONY MESSNER The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Lewis proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The crippling effect of the Federal Government's policies on the rural industries of Australia. 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 LEWIS(Victoria)(3.14) —The subject of this matter of public importance is: The crippling effect of the Federal Government's policies on the rural industries of Australia. Let me see whether I can encapsulate the argument in a nutshell. It comprises three fairly simple propositions that even Senator Button and Senator Walsh might be able to understand. The first is that this Government's industrial relations policy, the accord, has forced up wages, costs and inflation. The second is that this Government's taxation policies have lowered land values and thereby borrowing ability. The third is that this Government's economic policies have so forced up interest rates that those who still have a reasonable equity in their farm property cannot afford to borrow because they cannot afford to pay the interest. Many thousands of primary producers throughout Australia cannot get the money to put in the crops to produce the income. That is it in a nutshell. Primary producers are being forced off the land while the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Ministers walk around like a bunch of fingerboard signposts, all pointing away from themselves saying that it is somebody else's responsibility and not theirs. That is the way they are operating. At present they are pointing towards the European Economic Community and saying that it is the EEC's fault and not the fault of the Government. The simple truth of the matter is that the farmers cannot get the finance to put in their crops to produce something they can sell. Senator Boswell —They can get it at 21 per cent. Senator LEWIS —My colleague Senator Boswell says they can get it at 21 per cent, but they cannot afford to pay that much. I remind Senator Boswell that they can get it at 21 per cent only if they still have sufficient equity in their property. That is not the EEC's fault. It is this Government's fault. It is Senator Walsh's fault. I see that his Leader, Senator Button, has just left, but it is his fault too. Senator Walsh is in the Cabinet and it is his fault. He is one of the people who make these decisions and who have decided the Government's economic policy. Indeed, today Senator Button in answer to a question admitted that the Government had a tight monetary policy. That tight monetary policy is keeping up interest rates and creating this great problem for the farmers. The Government is not prepared to give them the full value of the fall in fuel prices. The Government will not even allow them to take advantage of the falling value of the dollar. So not even that has been of any real value to the primary producers. All this has come from a Prime Minister who, in 1984 in his rural speech said: The special needs of rural people will have a high priority . . . They will have a high priority all right! What has this Government done for the people of Australia? What the Government did was to acknowledge in that speech that a one per cent drop in interest rates meant a cut of $35m in farmers' interest rate bills. One can see what the Prime Minister was doing. He was going around the countryside saying to primary producers: `Your needs will have a high priority with us and we recognise that a one per cent drop in interest rates will mean a $35m cut in farmers' bills'. That was implying that somehow or other there would be a cut in interest rates. What happened? Under this Government's policy, implemented I have no doubt by Senator Walsh as strictly as he possible can, interest rates have increased by a massive 7.5 percentage points to an almost out of the world interest rate of 21 per cent. Senator Boswell —It is 21.5 per cent. Senator LEWIS —It is 21.5 per cent, as my colleague Senator Boswell reminds me. It is out of this world and by Mr Hawke's own calculations that increase in interest rates added an interest bill of $262.5m for primary producers. I give the Senate a practical example. The people of Woomelang, a little town in north-west Victoria with a population of about 300 people, recently got together to prepare a submission to the Victorian rural economic study currently being conducted by a Dr Lloyd. Their submission was a community effort. In common with most country towns around Australia, when the farmers are in trouble everyone wants to help. In that community effort the farmers were joined by councillors, bankers and small businessmen of the town and they put a submission to Dr Lloyd's study. What did they say? Let me quote: We have an economic crisis on our hands . . . We have a social disaster on our hands . . . We have no future farmers. These people are not whingers. They are desperate. This Government fails to understand this point. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics recently in its quarterly review made it perfectly clear why farmers are in trouble when it said that the high interest rates are due to the Government's tight monetary policy. I said earlier that Senator Button implied in an answer to a question today that the Government will continue with its tight monetary policy. It is trying to hold up the value of the dollar with high interest rates. How is that helping the farmers of this nation-holding up the value of the dollar? Apart from keeping up the high interest rates, how is that helping the farmers? That in itself proves my point: The crippling effect of the Government's policies on the rural industries of Australia. There was then the 1986 Outlook Conference of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I digress to draw Senator Walsh's attention-and I hope that he passes this on to his Minister-that at that Conference not one representative of the Coles or Woolworths organisations was invited to come along to listen to or talk with farmers. Those organisations through their supermarkets are the largest retailers of meat in Australia, but not one was invited to come to the Conference. The 1986 Conference warned of a tough couple of years ahead. Key points were that there would be a 66 per cent fall in average farm income to $6,700 a year. There would be 35 per cent of all farms and more than 50 per cent of grain farms with negative incomes for this year. There would be an annual average income per farm person of $3,800, a return to capital of minus 6 per cent and a rise in overall rural debt to $8,000m by June this year. In other words, $8 billion would be the rural debt by June of this year. `A couple of tough years', the Conference was told. A couple more years like that and farmers will be dropping like flies. Senator Peter Baume —Do you think the Government cares? Senator LEWIS —Of course it does not care. Just look around the Senate now. Where are all the Labor senators? There is not one of them here, except Senator Walsh who will be the next speaker. There is not one Labor member in the chamber prepared to listen to this debate. They knew they would get a thumping on the subject. They got up and ran out of the chamber because they did not want to hear what I had to say about primary producers. They could not get out of the chamber quickly enough. Not one of them has the guts to come back and sit and listen to this debate. Senator Boswell —They do not care about farmers. Senator LEWIS —Of course they do not care about farmers. I understand that in the Bulletin today it is said that the farmers are not relevant to the Labor Party Government. Apparently that is in an article in the Bulletin today. That is the Labor Party's attitude right around Australia and, in particular, in this chamber. It is not interested in primary producers. At that Outlook conference, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicted an increase in the rate at which farmers will be forced to quit farming. It had a survey which showed that about 7 per cent of Australian farms-that is, 12,000 enterprises-are now `at risk owing to the heavy debt burden'. Senator Crichton-Browne —Family farms. Senator LEWIS —Family farms; some 12,000 enterprises estimated by the BAE as being at risk. How many people does that involve, in these 12,000 enterprises? These people will walk off their farms, or they will need some sort of debt rescheduling, or they will need some other source of income. Under this Government's stupid quarantining proposals-to which I shall come shortly, and no doubt Senator Walsh will respond to me-these people will have difficulty in seeking adequate off-farm income to support themselves and to keep themselves on their properties. These people are not seeking the dole. Farmers around Australia have always been prepared to go out and work hard for their living. They are being faced with a terrible situation. This Government is not prepared to do anything for them. Let me mention Professor Lloyd, who is conducting an inquiry in Victoria. Senator Walsh —He is a friend of mine. Senator LEWIS —He is apparently a friend of Senator Walsh. Senator Boswell —I did not think that Senator Walsh had any friends. Senator LEWIS —It will be interesting to see what Professor Lloyd has to say. I agree with Senator Boswell; I did not think that Senator Walsh had any friends. However, apparently Professor Lloyd has warned that up to 10 per cent of farmers-and their families, of course-might have to leave the land because of the crisis. He said: I don't mind using the word `crisis'. It is a common thing in Australian agriculture. Farmers have to get used to crisis as a way of life. What a terrible thing it is, in a country such as Australia, that farmers have to get used to crisis as a way of life. Glory be! Is that what has happened to this country, this land of plenty, this land with all the capacity and ability to grow all the crops, grass and vegetables and produce all the meat? Are we really serious when we say that farmers will have to get used to crisis as a way of life? Senator Boswell will talk about the budgetary attacks on the rural sector. However, let me just say that since the ALP came to government, over 40 benefits have been removed from, or adverse budgetary decisions have been made to the detriment of, the rural sector. This Government, in the three years in which it has been in office, has made over 40 decisions against the farmers. But Senator Boswell will cover that matter; let me return to the economy. One of the things I find very worrying is that there appears to be a conflict of economic statistics. When I talk to people about our worries and the massive debt burden that this Government is forcing upon this country, they say: `Oh yes, but there are statistics which show that this is happening and that is happening, and is that not good?' The example which came to my mind when I was thinking of trying to explain this was to say that if a family were to borrow, say, $100,000, that family could substantially improve the appearance of their life-style. With $100,000 a family might be able to extend their house, to install a swimming pool, to buy a new car, and do all those sorts of things. Looking at them on the surface, one would think that that family was doing very well. But of course, they still must find the interest to meet the debt. If they have a falling income, although things might look prosperous that family could be in dire trouble. Is that not the state of Australia at present? We have falling income on the world market; yet this Government continues with its deficit budgeting long past the hour of need. There was a need in 1982 for deficit budgeting. There might even have been a need for that in 1983, for some lower deficit budgeting. That is not so any longer. But this Government continues to budget for a massive deficit with a massive increase in debt burden to be paid all the time, while our overseas income is falling desperately. That is one of the problems that this country is looking at now: Where will we go? In the meantime, this Government continues with its industrial relations policy, its accord, to increase people's wages. When the country is facing this terrible problem, this Government goes on increasing people's wages. The result is that some people who happen to be on two incomes-probably two government-paid incomes-are in very strong financial positions, in which they can afford to buy expensive imports, such as motor cars and other expensive imported goods, and that is the main reason why the J curve will not bottom out. It is because the Government keeps maintaining the income of the wage earners of Australia. They can keep buying expensive imports, and the J curve will not reach its bottom; it will keep diving down until disaster comes to this community. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is an I curve. Senator LEWIS —Yes, it is not a J curve but an I curve. Who carries the can for this? It is the exporters, of course, I include among them the miners, but, in particular, exporters include our primary producers. Wages, costs and inflation continue to rise under the accord, to the detriment of those people on the land and in our rural towns. Let us look at some of this Government's taxation policies. It has removed the investment allowance on plant. It has increased the taxes of those people who had some income. It has introduced a capital gains tax. Glory be! What has that done to the equity of people on the land? A capital gains tax has brought about a fall in the value of rural properties and it is that fall that squeezes the equity that farmers have which might enable them to borrow extra funds from bankers and other financiers. Senator Walsh, in particular, certainly does not seem to grasp that point, because we got to the question of quarantining farm losses. The ALP and, in particular, Senator Walsh seem to have a philosophical obsession about Collins Street and Pitt Street farmers. Senator Walsh has been talking for years about their rorts. The result of the legislation that he is proposing to introduce with regard to quarantining farm losses has ignored the consequences for those working on the land, those who seek off-farm income to counter their losses, and the Government has now had to modify its proposal because of those people. But it also ignores the fact that those Collins Street and Pitt Street farmers are innovative and productive, because they go into this business to make a profit. They have introduced new ideas, new capital and new income for the whole of the districts into which they have gone. They have been of enormous value in bringing our farms and farming operations in Australia into this century. Many of them have done wonders in the areas in which they have invested. This Government is forcing them to withdraw from investing in rural properties. The result of that has been falling land prices where such people are no longer coming into the investment areas, reduced revenue for those farmers who can obtain off-farm income by working these properties, and the falling land prices, which are, as I say, reducing the equity in farm properties. When the equity is reduced, so is the borrowing potential. I seek leave, Madam Acting Deputy President, to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of a letter from the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of NSW to Senator Walsh dated 27 February 1986 and one to me dated 4 March 1986. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- THE LIVESTOCK AND GRAIN PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES Telex: AA26638 Telephone: (02) 27 9031 Telegrams: RURAL Sydney 27 February 1986 56 Young Street, Sydney 2000 Box 1068 G.P.O. Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 Senator The Hon. P. A. Walsh, Minister for Finance, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Walsh PROPOSED QUARANTINING OF FARM LOSSES Thank you very much for your letter of 13 February seeking clarification of the apparent anomaly between the BAE's low farm income estimates and likely high incidence of damage from proposed tax quarantining measures. There are some very good reasons for believing that a large number of farmers will be hurt by the tax quarantining proposals put forward by your government. As we have pointed out to Mr Kerin on previous occasions, the BAE's survey figures do not provide an adequate base for assessing the impact of tax quarantining. The reasons for this are as follows: The BAE estimate of off-farm earnings is known to exclude earnings on investments held by farm family members in their own name and not in the farm business name. The BAE's estimates of family farm income are based on a sub sample of the total farm population in Australia, and includes only those farmers which can readily be identified as being family owned and operated. In other words, company owned and other enterprise-based farms are excluded and these are precisely the operations which will be most affected by the proposed quarantining arrangements. The BAE's survey eligibility criteria also require a $10,000 level of agricultural activity. It is likely therefore that properties which are currently going through the development phase and which may be affected by the quarantining proposal would not show up in the Bureau's survey results. In brief, the BAE measures of farm income are designed as indicators of farm business performance and are inadequate for assessment of off-farm earnings. We do not, as you allege, see the BAE figures as `decisive evidence' of the need for general assistance to agriculture. Rather, we use these figures to demonstrate the damaging effect that the policies of successive Governments have had on farm sector profitability. What we seek is to have a range of unnecessary cost imposts removed to allow agriculture to compete on world markets. Where welfare-related problems do exist in agriculture, we have sought to have these addressed through the appropriate mechanisms of the Rural Adjustment Scheme or alternative assistance arrangements. You should be aware that applications for assistance under these schemes are dealt with on a case by case basis and appropriations made accordingly. However, while it is acknowledged that the BAE survey figures probably underestimate the level of total income available to farm households, one cannot ignore the dramatic change in incomes they indicate for the current year. In my public comments on this matter, I have repeatedly referred to the deterioration in farm returns that has taken place over the past two seasons and I believe that no-one could challenge the validity of this statement. I remain concerned that neither you nor Mr Kerin appear at all interested in the genuine expressions of worry that are coming from all sections of the community your Government's tax proposals. The Government has also produced certain figures, presumably obtained from the tax office, that indicate that very few farmers would be affected. It seems that the only information that could be available to the Government would be from farmers' income tax returns lodged in recent years where a split between non farm income and farm income was necessary under the existing laws to determine the amount of average rebate that the taxpayer might receive. Such information from the tax office could be very misleading. Many farming businesses have been trading at a loss for some time. Many of those businesses have off farm income but because the total business trades at a loss it is not necessary to split the income of that taxpayer between off farm income and farm income. This is because there is no net income or no taxable income. Discussions with numerous accountants indicate that there are many taxpayers in this position. The downturn in rural income has made more and more genuine primary producers even more dependent on off farm income for survival. With interest rates presently at record levels causing severe hardship to farmers, many are forced to supplement their income with off farm activities. Under the tax quarantining proposals, once the off farm income rises above $20,000 per annum, no further amount can be used as an offset against farm losses without being fully taxable. At present $20,000 would barely meet the interest payment on a $100,000 loan (necessary for the purchase of, say, a grain harvester costing approximately $150,000). An Allis Chalmers N7 or Claas 116 or John Deere 8820 grain harvester has a charge out rate of approximately $160 per hour. A John Deere 7720 has a chargeout rate of about $120 per hour. Hence, the $20,000 threshold can be attained in a matter of ten (10) to fourteen (14) days. A genuine farmer who spends $20,000 to have a contractor to shear his sheep, then uses his own harvesting equipment to earn, say $40,000 (in keeping with normal farm operation) cannot offset the income from one operation against the cost of the other. BHP, on the other hand, can offset their steel losses against their oil income. Genuine farmers who have sought to diversify their investments, or alternatively sought to utilise their equipment in an economic manner will thus be severely penalised. Moreover, the greater the need for off-farm income, the harder the primary producer will be hit. The farm loss quarantining proposal will allow an amount equal to previous five (5) years net farm income to be the amount against which off-farm income can be offset. It should be noted that young farmers with high borrowings to equity ratios, and who would have little or no previous income history to offset against, will be among that group who will be hardest hit. The quarantining proposal is the only tax proposal which will have an effect on business arrangements already entered into. Such retrospectivity does not apply to the negative gearing legislation on housing investment where interest costs for arrangements entered into before 19th September 1985 will still be allowed to be offset against income generated by other than residence investment in later years. I must convey to you that the farm loss tax quarantining proposal is seen by the membership of this Association as selective and discriminatory. The implementation of the proposal will have (and to a degree already has had) the effect of removing from the farming industry the urban-based farmer. It appears that the Government sees this as desirable. Mr Kerin's view is that future `rationalisation' of the farm sector will be predicated on lower farmland prices and it is evident that your Government is doing everything in its power to push farm prices down. If you took the time to check the facts, you would find that the efficiency gains which have been achieved in Australian farming in recent decades have been the result of capital-labour-land substitution process. Through high interest rates and anti-investment taxation proposals, your Government will choke off capital formation in agriculture and commit it to a future of inefficiency. Your government's drive to push down farm land prices will do little more than strip the asset value of agriculture's balance sheet and make lenders even less interested in agriculture as a venue for investment. Many urban-based farmers inject large amounts of money into improving their farms. Most of these funds go to rural towns, many of which have high and potentially higher unemployment levels relative to other sectors in the nation. I have no hesitation in saying that the proposed tax package proposals of Capital Gains Tax, employee housing tax and the farm loss quarantining proposals are offensive against rural Australia. I also refer your attention to the experience in New Zealand where similar legislation, having been introduced in 1982, was repealed in December 1985. It was repealed because it was preventing any development of new agricultural industries so essential to gain extra export earnings for New Zealand (e.g. Kiwi Fruit, and venison exports). The same would have applied in Australia if these laws had been in place 15-20 years ago. There would now be no cotton industry presently earning Australia $300 million in production. I suggest that with the reduction of agricultural returns to farmers occurring worldwide, productivity will depend critically on outsiders being prepared to invest in Australian agriculture. If your Government is to see any reduction in the current account deficit now running at over $1,000 million monthly, farm sector investment and productivity must be encouraged. I have taken the opportunity of forwarding a copy of this letter to all Senators and other decision-makers in the expectation that the critical issues will be addressed. There will need to be a continuing restructuring in agriculture, due to the low level of net returns. Impediments or uncertainties in the market place will slow down and make more difficult and more costly the smooth progress towards the improved productivity of the agricultural sector that is so vital to the export earnings of this nation. Yours sincerely, MICHAEL TOOTH President THE LIVESTOCK AND GRAIN PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES Telex: AA26638 Telephone: (02) 27-9031 Telegrams: `RURAL' Sydney 4 March 1986 56 Young Street, Sydney 2000 Box 1068 G.P.O Sydney, N.S.W. 2001 Senator A. W. R. Lewis, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T., 2600 Dear Senator Lewis, RE: QUARANTINING OF FARM LOSSES Please find enclosed a response to Senator Walsh's comments of the 13th February, 1986, contained in the Hansard reports, Parliament, for this date. The Association considers this issue of primary importance considering the current massive downturn in farm incomes which has been forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The Association welcomes the opportunity to respond to any Senator who may have some difficulty in understanding the ramifications of the Government's proposed action. Naturally the Association would welcome any opportunity to clarify with you any questions you may have with respect to these taxation measures. Following Senator Walsh's public comments on the contents of our previous letter on this issue, and the obvious publicity that his response has been given, we have taken the opportunity to publicly respond to the good Senator's obvious misunderstanding of the ramifications of these proposals. Our Association is deeply concerned that rural debt is in excess of $7 billion and that agriculture is facing its most difficult period. Accordingly we believe that now is not the time to place unreasonable burdens on the rural sector's productive capacity. Yours sincerely, MICHAEL TOOTH President Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. Senator Walsh castigated the writer of these letters, the President of the Association, Mr Michael Tooth, at Question Time today because the Association is saying that the Collins Street farmers and the Pitt Street farmers are important to Australia's rural industry. Of course they are important to it. But in fact, this quarantining proposal is the only tax proposal that I know which will have an effect on business arrangements already entered into. In that regard I refer Senator Walsh to the quarantining proposals which will cripple the private forestry industry. At a time when we are in need of timber and forestry, this Government is introducing legislation which will, in effect, cripple that industry. This Government's industrial relations and taxation policies have had, and continue to have, an absolutely crippling effect on the rural industries of Australia. This means that many thousands of people out there in the community, on farms and in rural towns and cities, are being hurt, and hurt badly. This Government, and this Prime Minister in particular, should be ashamed of the fact that their policies have put primary producers in Australia into this dire position. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.31) —Senator Lewis is the shadow spokesman on the Australian Capital Territory. When I received his letter I wondered why he was leading the debate for the Opposition on an agricultural matter. Having listened to him, I now realise why. He represents the Murrumbateman hobby farmers. He represents the senior public servants and academics who have hobby farms at Murrumbateman and in parts of the Australian Capital Territory and who have been major beneficiaries of the pre-existing taxation arrangements which enabled people to offset so-called farm losses against income earned from other sources. Those provisions, which this Government has now ended, enabled the Murrumbateman hobby farmers, whom Senator Lewis represents, to indulge themselves in a lifestyle which suited them, very substantially at public expense through taxation concessions. Senator Crichton-Browne —Whom do you represent? Senator WALSH —We know whom Senator Crichton-Browne represents. He represents the insider traders on the stock exchange, people such as his wife who worked in the office of the consulting geologists, Burrell and Jones, who were working for Poseidon. Senator Crichton-Browne —Whom do you represent? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order, Senator Crichton-Browne! Senator WALSH —In that capacity she had access to the assay-- Senator Reynolds —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Could you ask Senator Crichton-Browne to lower his voice a little? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have already called him to order. Senator WALSH —As I was saying, we all know whom Senator Crichton-Browne represents. He represents those who were insider traders in Poseidon shares back in 1969 and 1970, principally his wife-- Senator Crichton-Browne —No; whom do you represent? Senator WALSH —Principally his wife-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Madam Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I remind you of the terms of the matter of public importance that is being debated today. What Senator Walsh has said so far, notwithstanding the fact that it is totally dishonest and totally irrelevant, is unrelated in any way, shape or form to the set of words which he intends, purportedly, to debate. I ask you to draw his attention to the fact that he ought to be directing his remarks to the debate and not making spurious allegations which are quite untrue and unfounded. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to keep to the subject of the matter of public importance. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. I can understand why Senator Crichton-Browne does not want me to divulge the rest of the sordid details of his and his wife's activities. Senator Lewis —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. We will have to ask Senator Walsh to stick to the point of the debate. He is simply maligning an honourable senator unfairly and untruthfully. He is doing it over the top of the interjections which are going on, into the microphone and into Hansard. I think he ought to be required to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to keep to the subject of the matter of public importance and not to make imputations against honourable senators. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. I was, however, asked a question by way of interjection: Whom do you represent? I represent, among other people, farmers. I was a practising wheat farmer for 25 years. I was actually a manual worker. The thing that sets me apart from members of the Liberal Party of Australia-I would suggest, from almost everybody in the Liberal Party now that John Hyde has lost his seat in the Parliament-is that I actually know something about farming and I also know something about economics. Senator Lewis said that there were three points in this debate. The first point was that the Labor Government's prices and incomes accord had caused a wages explosion, a costs explosion and an inflation explosion and that that was the cause of the present farm income problems. There are recurring cycles of farm income problems. Let us compare this Government's wages, costs and inflation record with that of its predecessor, particularly as Senator Lewis chose to blame the accord for what he asserts is a blowout in all of these areas. Because of the accord the rate of inflation has been halved from that which we inherited. The rate of wages growth has been halved from that which we inherited. The rate of farm costs also has been approximately halved. It is currently lower than it was for almost every year the Fraser Government was in office. Senator Lewis said that the tax policies of this Government have lowered land prices, thereby lowering equities and the ability to borrow. Given Senator Lewis's ignorance of actual agricultural practice, it is not surprising that he should reach that conclusion. What determines whether lending institutions will lend money to farmers is not so much their equity as their capacity, through their income flow, to service the loan commitments which they may or may not be able to undertake. Senator Lewis referred to interest rates. Certainly, interest rates are higher than this Government would like to see them. They are higher than any sensible person would like to see them. They are not, however, as high as they were in April 1982, when Mr Howard was Treasurer, and they are falling. Presumably, one wants to have a rational discussion about this matter. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures Senator Lewis cited were, so far as I could tell, accurate. However, one should be very careful in using BAE figures and qualify them very carefully because the particular definitions and qualifications attached to them are laid down by the BAE and are not commonly understood. For example, Senator Lewis referred to the alleged negative income of wheat farmers. As I recall, the forecast income for 1986-87 of the BAE Outlook Conference is that `wheat growers' incomes would be negative to the extent of about $5,000'. That does not represent cash flow, because an imputed allowance is made in determining that final figure, for the depreciation of farm plant and equipment. For wheat farmers that is $27,000. So, what the BAE defines as farm income is not cash flow and does not give a picture that is at all reliable of the amount of money which farmers have available. Apart from an imputed figure being written in for plant depreciation, which I have mentioned, BAE estimates do not measure off-farm income. According to a letter from the New South Wales Livestock and Grain Producers Association, which apparently has the endorsement of Senator Lewis, most farmers have off-farm incomes in excess of $20,000. That is not a figure that I believe, but it is a figure which has been asserted and which, apparently, Senator Lewis believes. Senator Lewis referred to 40 alleged `benefits' which have been withdrawn by this Government and said that Senator Boswell would enumerate them. He specifically mentioned investment allowance, capital gains tax and so on. One of the reasons why farmers have got themselves into financial trouble-not just now, but periodically, cyclically, over time-is that they have been seduced by politicians, such as Senator Lewis and more particularly those of the National Party of Australia, who have sold them a string of what they call `benefits' which do long term damage not only to agriculture but also to the people who are involved in it. I quote from a speech delivered in Perth in 1979 by the present Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry when he was Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. On this very subject of tax concessions he said: Tax concessions result in excessive entry into agriculture for the specific purpose of receiving the economic reward associated with the concession. Rural land values and the costs of other limited resources such as livestock and credit, are inflated by this process. Inflated asset values slow down the rate of adjustment and productivity growth in agriculture and distort the relationship between capital values and current income. Although individuals may benefit, the benefits of tax concessions to rural industries as a whole are likely to be negative. Senator Crichton-Browne —Who said that? Senator WALSH —Geoff Miller, at the time Director of the BAE and now Secretary to the Department of Primary Industry. I suggest that honourable senators read that speech and the views of other rational agricultural economists, who all come to the same sort of conclusion-a conclusion that I have no doubt Professor Lloyd will come to in the inquiry to which Senator Lewis has referred. On the question of credit, Mr Miller said at that time: . . . the Bureau is of the firm view that the widespread availability of concessional credit to farmers is not in the long-term interests of agriculture or of the economy as a whole. Senator Lewis deplores the fact that land prices are falling. What really ought to be deplored is the fact that land prices in recent years, particularly the late 1970s and the early 1980s, rose to unsustainably high levels because it is to that fact that the present financial problems of a great number of farmers can be directly traced-that is, the existence of tax shelters of the type that Senator Lewis wants to perpetuate or resurrect. The absence of a capital gains tax encouraged outside capital into agriculture, not for the purposes of the profits that could be earned in agriculture but, as Mr Miller said at the time, for the specific purpose of receiving the economic reward associated with the concession. Land prices were grossly inflated, principally by the tax shelter and the absence of a capital gains tax, to unsustainably high levels. Farmers who purchased land in the late 1970s and the early 1980s form an extremely high proportion of those who are currently in financial difficulties. Their problems can be directly traced to the taxation induced distortion of land prices which this Government ended and which Senator Lewis wants to resurrect. The simple fact, as an increasing number of farmers are beginning to realise, is that because the cost-price squeeze in agriculture has existed for almost all of the last 100 years in the long term only the more economically literate farmers will survive as farmers. Because of that process of natural selection, an increasing number of farmers are beginning to realise that, if they are going to remain in farming, they have to acquire more land because changing technology and technological progress extend the point at which economies of scale either flatten out or become negative. In other words, there are powerful economic and technological forces-forces which have this tendency to increase farm sizes. It follows inescapably from that that those people by and large who want to remain farmers will have to acquire more land. It ought to be obvious, even to a National Party member for Maranoa or even a Queensland senator, that cheaper land is a good thing for those people who have to acquire it. Dearer land may be a good thing for the sellers and the speculators but for those farmers who actually want to remain farmers their best interests are served if land prices are lower rather than higher. Let me move away from the question of the effect of taxation distortions on land prices but remain in the area of taxation and tax concessions, particularly since Senator Lewis specifically mentioned the abolition of investment allowances. Anybody who has any knowledge in depth at all of Australian agriculture, particularly of the Australian wheat industry, which along with sugar and dairying is probably the most severely affected by the present income problem, knows that there is chronic gross overinvestment in plant and equipment. That overinvestment was encouraged by mountebanks and mountebank politicians who tell farmers that they are helping them by providing taxation concessions for them-taxation concessions which induce them, in an attempt to minimise taxation, rather than more rationally attempting to maximise income, to grossly overinvest in plant and equipment. I note again that there is evidence that the farmers who have some comprehension of economics and some ability to think rationally-that is, those who are surviving and growing-not only realise it, but are increasingly talking about it. I refer honourable senators to an article which appeared on page 3 of the West Australian on 15 March 1986 which quotes a very successful farmer from Goomalling, which is near Northam in Western Australia-a very successful wheat and sheep farmer, Mr Roy Clarke. It states: Many problems being experienced by WA farmers are due to mismanagement, according to prominent Goomalling producer Roy Clarke The article goes on to say: Mr Clarke estimates that he and his four farming sons have saved $1m in the past 10 years by buying secondhand machinery then modifying and repairing it in their farm workshop. I seek leave to incorporate that article in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- Many problems being experienced by WA farmers are due to mismanagement, according to prominent Goomalling producer Roy Clarke. He said that they had not done their homework and had sought to `keep up with the Joneses'. Mr Clarke said that the purchase of new costly equipment was often beyond their resources. Producers had been attracted by benefits such as taxation advantages without calculating the ultimate interest costs involved. `I would love to own a new tractor, but it is not on in the present climate, nor has it been for some years,' he said. Mr Clarke estimates that he and his four farming sons have saved $1 million in the past 10 years by buying second-hand machinery then modifying and repairing it in their farm workshop. They have used machinery with an average age of 20 years, backed by a rigid maintenance programme. The savings were put into land expansions. `I know my comments will not make me popular with many of my farmer mates or machinery dealers,' he said. `But I believe they must be said in this time of rural crisis'. `Making money is what it is all about.' Mr Clarke (56), brother of legendary East Fremantle and WA ruckman Jack, has been a farmer all his life and is also a director of Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd. He said that older plant and equipment was simply built and so relatively easy to maintain. `Sure, the finger-tip control with everything that opens and shuts on modern tractors and headers is magnificent,' he said. `But who can afford them?' `We took a rubbishing for years in using old gear. Now people are coming to have a hard look at what we are doing to try and stay in business.' Senator WALSH —I suggest that anybody in the Liberal Party who is seriously interested in the agricultural problem as distinct from attempting to score a few cheap political points and ingratiating themselves with what they see as their constituency through flogging off bottles of snake oil to them make a serious study of that article and the implications behind it. Agriculture is presently going through a cyclical slump which albeit has been seriously exacerbated for a number of producers by purchases of land at excessive prices and by gross overinvestment in plant and equipment. On the latter point, I refer to a paper which was given at a seminar held in Perth on 28 August last year sponsored by an organisation called the Kondinin and Districts Farm Improvement Group and the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia (Inc.). The theme was `Farm Costs-The Facts'. A Mr Peter Falconer of Planfarm Rural Consultants-a farm management consultant with a long-standing clientele in the Wongan Hills area-made the point, and this is derived from actual average figures from the Planfarm firm's clients in that Wongan Hills district: The tractor investment on our own client's farms range from $10 per ha of crop to $135 per ha of crop and an examination of all the figures shows no relationship between tractor investment and yield. To convert that into something more meaningful-they are not hypothetical farms; it is an actual arithmetic mean of real farms-the average area in crop was of the order of 1,200 hectares. In other words, on the arithmetic mean farm the investment in tractors alone varied from $12,000 to $162,000, a difference of $150,000, and bear in mind, as Mr Falconer said, there was no relationship between tractor investment and yield. From the highest to the lowest, with no correlation with any index of efficiency or performance, there was a difference in investment of $150,000 in tractors alone. At interest rates of 17 per cent, that gives an interest cost, without allowing for depreciation, of $25,000. In other words, if the farmers in that particular group had all made the sorts of adjustments that Mr Clarke made-that is, minimised their plant capitalisation-they would have saved, at 17 per cent interest rates, in interest costs alone, some $25,500, which just happens to equal the total fuel bill on average for that same group of farms in 1985 and which would be well above the fuel bill that they will be paying at the lower prices in 1986. Politicians who get involved in debates on agricultural issues have basically two choices-or at least this has been true in the past. They can say what is true, which is something I have always tried to do, or they can say what is popular, which is something that most members of the Liberal Party-I exclude people such as Mr Hyde, who unfortunately, of all the Liberals who have been removed from this Parliament, was about the last one who should have been-and virtually all members of the National Party do. That is the sort of choice that we face. The people who are actually friends of the farmers in the long term are those who tell them the truth. Senator Crichton-Browne —They love you. Senator WALSH —I have already conceded that it does not bring popularity in the short term. I warn all those mountebanks and snake oil salesmen opposite that the level of awareness among farmers, particularly in the southern States of Australia, is increasing. They are beginning to recognise the snake oil when it is presented to them. By no means are they a majority, but an increasing minority, and they are the minority who will survive because they have a capacity to think rationally and have some understanding of the underlying economic questions. Senator Crichton-Browne —But how does that help the farmers who cannot afford even to put in a crop this year? Senator WALSH —For many of the people who are already in deep trouble, partly because of cyclical factors and more often because of investment decisions which were unwise, both in plant and equipment, nothing really can be done, but by continuing to follow rational policies instead of buying the snake oil remedies being offered across the corridor we can at least reduce the chances that the same number of people will be caught in the same sorts of circumstances next time the cyclical downturn hits. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.51) —We are discussing a matter of public importance: The crippling effect of the Federal Government's policies on the rural industries of Australia. There can be absolutely no doubt that the difficulties confronting farmers in Australia at present have given rise to a rural crisis of major significance. Farmers are battling against high interest rates, harsh market conditions and poor performance from both the current Government and the previous Liberal-National Party governments in relation to enactments affecting the well-being of the rural sector. The strength of the current protest from farmers is indicative of the enormity of the problem that they are facing. The Australian Democrats recognise that the strength and dynamism of our agricultural products have provided the foundation stone for Australia's economic base over a long time. Notwithstanding, we have seen people on the land assume more and more the brunt of the problem, under successive Liberal-National Party governments and the Labor Government. The Democrats believe that the downturn in the rural economy can and must be reversed. It can be reversed by the adoption of clear-sighted and clear-headed policies. I will go through some of the policies that the Government has been involved in. It makes a rather interesting and telling list. For example, the Government has imposed a 10 per cent wine tax with the support of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and against the vote of the Australian Democrats. It has failed to honour fully its wool promotion pledges. It has effectively destroyed the tax averaging provisions and the income equalisation deposit scheme, again with the support of the Liberal and National parties. The Government has failed to do anything about the add-on cost, that is the freight cost, on sales tax. We had discussions with the Liberal-National Party Government. It too refused to do anything about that iniquitous freight add-on cost. The Government failed to maintain drought relief levels, or even to look at the introduction of its promised special drought scheme for country towns and rural people. We have seen neither hide nor hair of that since it was discussed in 1983. The Government has failed often to consult rural people and various industry groups regarding legislation that comes into this place. It has substantially increased the burden on the meat export industry, again with the support of the Liberal and National parties. It has failed to maintain support for the citrus industry and to carry out the promise made in 1983 and again in the 1984 election regarding the fishing industry. As I have said before, it has failed to reform the various agricultural training and farm-based programs that were discussed during both those election campaigns. It has failed to act on a situation that the industries were moving towards-developing a national horticultural insurance scheme. It did not carry through its promise to set up an Australian fruits corporation. Of course, funds in the Budget last year to the rural adjustment scheme were cut by $10m for this year. As I have already outlined, the Government has been able to achieve most of these results with the support of the Liberal and National parties. Senator Lewis —Rubbish! You mean that we did not reject its Budget Bills. Senator MACKLIN —They were not Budget Bills. It is interesting to see a change of tune since the last time those opposite knocked back a money Bill. I will look at some of the issues raised by us. They include: The Democrats' successful moves regarding a delay for the dairy industry; preventing the introduction of export inspection charges on honey, canned and frozen fruit and vegetables; the successful delay to the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill; persuading the Government not to take away the grower majority on the Australian Wheat Board, despite the fact that the Liberal Party spokesperson in the House of Representatives had conceded that issue when discussing the Bill to adjust the Australian wheat industry. Each of those items gives a fairly clear indication that there is often a lot of rhetoric but, unfortunately, not much follow through on such items. One of the major problems that we are facing is not so much the efficiency of our industry. Indeed, in the major commodity areas our industries are amongst the most efficient, if not the most efficient, in the world. That is not a problem. One of the major problems that for some reason many people in the rural sector have said that they do not want to hear about but that they really have to come to grips with is that, no matter how efficiently we manage to produce our rural exports, if we do not have markets there is absolutely no way in the world that we will be able to sustain the farming sector. Those markets are absolutely vital. Australia has not had a domestic market large enough to consume what it has produced since about the first 40 or 50 years of white colonisation. We need markets around the world to sustain the levels of agricultural activity that we have known in the past 20 or 30 years. I suggest that it is absolutely pointless for people to write letters, as they do to me, saying: `Don't tell me about the problems with those markets'. I reiterate the point that I made last year when I spoke at the Council of Europe on this matter. Let us look at the European Community alone-that is, not at the problems currently facing us with regard to the United States farm Bill-and look at our major commodity areas. If the common agricultural policy's open-ended support did not exist, we would be able to and would be selling $200m worth more meat, $100m worth more in coarse grains, $220m worth more in beef and veal, $40m worth more in sheepmeat, $115m worth more in dairy produce and $80m worth more in sugar. In all, the increased competition from subsidised European commodity exports on third markets, the reduction of world market prices and lost markets in Europe have cost the Australian economy, in 1984-85 terms, an estimated $1,000m a year. We have to face that. We have to face the fact that the European Economic Community has gone from a net importer in most of those major areas to a net exporter. For example, between 1972 and 1982 Australian beef and veal exports to the European Economic Community fell by 80 per cent. Butter exports fell by 97.3 per cent and apple and pear exports fell by 88 per cent. The list goes on. It is no good turning our back on that situation. The corruption of world agricultural markets by the European Community, and subsequently now by the United States, means that no matter how efficient Australian producers are we will not be able to sell our produce. Therefore it is vitally important that the Prime Minister's impending visit to the United States and to the European Economic Community provide him with another opportunity to lobby on behalf of Australian farmers threatened by those protectionist measures in Europe and the United States. On almost every occasion that I have spoken to Australian farmers about these issues they have said to me: `We are quite happy to compete on equal terms. We are not asking for any handouts or any special deals. All we are asking for in terms of that world trade situation is to be able to compete on equal terms'. Of course, that is absolutely impossible at the moment with the enormous green support being provided in the European Community. The amount is half what we faced a couple of months ago but still billions of dollars are sitting in the Treasury coffers in the United States ready to be spent in our markets, undercutting our produce. Quite frankly, it is impossible to sell any of our produce if it has to be sold for the price that it is produced in competition with goods that are sold for less than the cost of production. The rural sector must realise that fact regardless of which government is in power. Whether under a Liberal-National Party Government-we saw it struggle with this issue year in and year out-or the current Labor Government, those international policies will be a major determinant of what happens in this country, whether we like it or not. Of course, we do not like it, but that will be the situation. It therefore follows that there is a responsibility on government to look at every area of cost imposed on the rural sector in Australia to see whether that cost imposition is justified. Fairly obviously, in many circumstances, that cost imposition is not justified. I will mention a cost which was introduced by the previous Liberal-National Party Government, and increased by the current Government. I refer to the subject that we were discussing this morning, the export inspection charges, for which we seek 50 per cent recovery. In most comparable countries that is paid for from consolidated revenue. But here in Australia a National Party Minister introduced that and that, of course, gave a lead to the Labor Party to follow through with that charge. In most comparable countries that charge is picked up as a health cost that is required within the general community and in support of their export drive. I find it very odd that on many occasions here in the Senate we have discussed Bills to provide incentives for the export of manufactured products. The only time we ever get to discuss rural exports is when a new charge is to be imposed. It seems to me to be an absurd situation. Over one-third of Australia's exports are in the agricultural area and yet I cannot remember one Bill that has come into this place that will provide support for rural exports. I remember plenty of them that add another cost or another charge. It seems to me that we need to look at the rural sector. One hopes that the package that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is presenting to the Government will quickly be considered by the Government and operationalised. When we are looking at the current situation, we must all realise that we are looking at a tragedy fast developing and at a crisis that will destroy not only the rural economy but also, effectively, Australia's economy. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.06) —We have just heard a dissertation from Senator Macklin which was quite good but I do not believe that it did cover-- Senator Crichton-Browne —How many marks would you give him? Senator BOSWELL —I would give him about six out of 10. But he certainly did not cover the matter of public importance that we are discussing in the Senate today. He mentioned some very serious problems and I acknowledge those problems. I refer to the corruption of the international markets and the effect that that corruption is having-- Senator Chipp —Why did you vote for the export charges? Senator BOSWELL —I did not vote for the export charges. The corruption is having an effect on our overseas exports. But that is not what we are debating today. Of course, if we listen to the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, we would think that the farmers of Australia should be utterly grateful for the capital gains tax that has been inflicted upon them; that they welcome the fringe benefits tax and are overjoyed at the reduced water conservation expenditure tax write-offs that the Labor Party has graciously given them. Unfortunately, Senator Walsh did not sell his story very well during the last State election in Western Australia. The voters deserted the Australian Labor Party in droves. It is absolutely ridiculous for him to come in here with his sorts of arguments. Senator Crichton-Browne —The reason is that they understand him and they empathise with him. Senator BOSWELL —That is an academic argument and I am sure that the people of Doodlakine would never understand it. Since this Government came into office on 5 March 1983, only three years ago, we have seen a concerted attack on the great primary industries of this nation. We have seen deceit and deception practised by this Government, promises made and broken, interest rates going through the roof, rallies, demonstrations and phone-ins all over this country as the rural producers of this nation try to get a message across to this Government that they are in desperate need of help. I think it was only three weeks ago that there was a photo of a farmer kneeling outside Parliament House trying, in a symbolic gesture, to get this Government to understand the plight of the rural producers. I never again want to see a farmer on his knees. I never want to see that happen. I never want to see the great wealth producers of this nation, even in a symbolic gesture, on their knees outside Parliament House. This country has ridden to prosperity on the rural producers over the years. The standard of living that we all now enjoy has been provided by the rural producers of this country. They earn 40 per cent of our export income and produce over $15 billion of wealth every year. It was our primary industries of wheat, beef and wool which were largely responsible for boosting our export income by 24 per cent last year and which allow us to meet much of our overseas commitments. Yet what have we seen this Labor Government do? It has extracted $442m from the farming industry and $648m from the rural communities of Australia. That is the gratification that it has given the farmers for producing most of our export income: It is a concerted attack on the rural producers of Australia. One would think that a government would acknowledge, thank and try to work in with one of our only industries that help us to meet our overseas commitments. It is one of our only outlets that produce export income. I have four pages which list 41 ways in which there has been a direct attack on the rural producers and farming industries of Australia. In the May mini-Budget we saw a reduction in the general depreciation allowance, the removal of tax incentives from the income equalisation deposit scheme and a 2c a litre increase in the excise on aviation fuel. I could go on and on and spend my whole speech just reading the measures that have been removed by the Labor Government in the May mini-Budget and the August 1984 Budget. I have three or four pages containing a list of benefits which have been cut from the rural industries of Australia. We have seen the imposition of an assets test that discriminates against farmers. A person could live in a home worth $500,000 or $1m on the shores of Sydney Harbour but a farmer could not live on a $50,000 or $100,000 farm and spend his twilight years on a farm which he has worked and lived on for all his life. He has been forced off it. That is what we have seen happen under this Government. One of the worst deceptions we have seen-even for the Labor Party it reached the bottom of the barrel-is the Labor Government's promise to accept an Australian dairy industry proposal to restructure the dairy industry on the eve of the Victorian election. Three days after the election the Federal Labor Party Government reneged on that package which would have bankrupted 3,000 farmers. The Senate rejected the Labor Party's proposal. That is the sort of deception that we have seen practised against rural producers of Australia. The Government brought in the May mini-Budget in which rural Australia wore 75 per cent of the cuts. People in farming and small business areas are prepared to carry their weight; they are prepared to shoulder their burden. However, 75 per cent of Budget cuts were directed at one sector of the community. Senator Walsh has the audacity to say that he is the farmers' friend. No one will fall for that; I do not think that Senator Walsh is even convincing himself. Rural Australia has been targeted by policies of this Federal Government and in a desperate bid to get the Government to heed the call 50,000 farmers gathered on the grass outside this Parliament House. They came from all over Australia. I was fortunate to be able to accompany a busload of farmers from the Darling Downs and I listened to their concerns. We spent two days in the bus and they expressed to me their concerns, worries and fears about properties that have been in their families for two and three generations. They expressed to me the doubts that their sons would be able to take over the properties. They told me that there was no future in farming, that it was only a way of life and that the average farmer is around 50 years of age. When this generation is through very few people will be on our farms. Let us see what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said to the farmers. The meeting was addressed by farmers, truckies, small business people and farmers' wives who all had a common thread. They needed help and were desperate. They were forced into this situation by high interest rates, high fuel prices and many other costs that this Government had inflicted upon them. Senator Gareth Evans —Nothing to do with the world oil price situation, of course. Senator BOSWELL —Of course the world price situation comes into it. Senator Crichton-Browne —What did the Government do about it? Senator BOSWELL —What will the Government do about it? Let us see what the Prime Minister said. At the meeting he stated: What I say to you is this. I give you this undertaking that we will prepare a package which will significantly reduce the cost impact upon farmers. That statement was made in June 1985. Let us look at this for a snake oil cure. This is what came up. Three months later the Government announced its tax changes. It introduced a capital gains tax; it introduced the quarantining of farm losses so that they could not be offset against income earned elsewhere; it introduced a fringe benefits tax; it reduced water conservation expenditure 100 per cent tax write-offs over one year. That is what the Prime Minister of Australia gave the 50,000 people who rallied outside this Parliament House. That proves once and for all, if we ever needed any further proof, that the Prime Minister could not care less about rural Australia. Three months after he promised rural Australia a package, what did the rural producers get? They got the greatest hiding-that is all it was-that rural producers of Australia ever got. This showed just how genuine Mr Hawke was. Three months after he spoke to the 50,000 farmers he inflicted these taxes upon them. I want to tell the Senate that not only farmers and the rural producers are being hurt and are bleeding but small business people, restaurateurs, the garages and retail stores are all suffering from the insensitive Labor Government's policies that have been inflicted on them. Not one person in the country could say: `We have had our way of life and our standard of living lifted by this Labor Government'. In the last three years not one person in rural Australia could honestly say that his lifestyle has been improved. I defy anyone to say that in the three years of Labor Government he has had his lifestyle improved. The capital gains tax, which everyone has feared, has run a streak of terror through everyone. That is what we saw introduced three months after the rally. I always like to make this point because I think it is a very effective one. Mr Hawke made this promise on a capital gains tax: Let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion-There will be no new capital gains tax. That is what the Prime Minister of Australia said. We have a capital gains tax; we have all other sundry taxes that have been inflicted upon us. Yet today the farmers of Australia are ringing in and recording their protest against high interest rates. All I would like to tell those people is this. `Save your 30c; save the money you would spend on making phone calls, because the only way you will ever get anywhere in Australia is to change the Government of Australia. You will then positively be able to get some sympathy on interest rates, some sympathy on fuel prices and some sympathy on water conservation'. The coalition will guarantee that everything that they have lost will be returned to them. We have put out a 14-point proposal enunciating the benefits that will be returned under a coalition government. In the few minutes that I have left to me I want to deal with the sugar industry in my home State. For three years since this Government came to power we have been told that we will get a floor price plan and a price support scheme for the sugar industry. It has gone on and on for three years and the sugar cane farmers have felt that economic squeeze. They, of course, are hanging in and hoping that something will happen. Every time that the Queensland Government has put up a proposal the Federal Government has moved away. The Queensland Government has made its position clear. It has allocated $194m, which includes a $50m grant over three years, to assist the millers and the growers. The Australian Canegrowers Council passed a resolution this month clearly stating that price support is a Commonwealth responsibility. It has said that the State Government has met its commitments and it is now expecting the Commonwealth Government to meet its commitments and not continue to move away for another three years. It is now clearly in the court of the Commonwealth Government to introduce a price support scheme. Never in the history of Australia has any State government had to pick up the burden of a price support scheme. We have seen time and again this Government give $180m to the car industry and the steel industry. Only a couple of days ago, we saw $24m going to the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd despite the fact that Ford has made a profit of $150m. Yet when the sugar cane industry, which is on its knees, wants some price support scheme that was promised to it, it cannot even get it. This Government came into office with a promise- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(4.21) —I am interested that Senator Boswell spent just three of his 15 minutes discussing issues relating to Queensland and, in particular, the crisis in the sugar industry. If he is genuinely concerned about the issue we are debating this afternoon-the crippling effect of the Federal Government's policies on the rural industries of Australia-I would have thought that he would have been prepared to give more than three minutes of his time to the crisis in Queensland's sugar industry. I find, as usual, that Senator Boswell is not particularly well informed. We have offered assistance to the sugar industry in Queensland since last September. Since last September we have been waiting for a response from the State Government. The Federal Government had a Cabinet meeting in Townsville last September and Mr Kerin and Mr Hawke made those announcements in September. We have waited all that time. I would just like to quote from a report entitled `Sugar People Take a Caning', which is the most authoritative statement that is available on what people in the sugar industry of north Queensland are thinking about Senator Boswell and his State Government. I quote from the first page of the report, which is headed `Summary of Findings and Recommendations': Joh should try to get along better with the federal government. Unless extra money comes from somewhere we won't survive. Senator Boswell —That was last September. What about today? What about the sugar cane growers passing a resolution saying it is your responsibility? Senator REYNOLDS —I would be very happy to give Senator Boswell a copy of this report dated February 1986 which sets out the view of the people of the Babinda-Innisfail region. When the Queensland Premier was in that region he was run out of town. He was hissed and booed because the cane growers and the people of that region are fed up with his meddling. He will not allow Mr Turner and Mr Kerin to finalise the package. If Senator Boswell is prepared to listen for a short time he will find out what the people in the north Queensland sugar growing areas are saying. The report continues: Some of the Babinda respondents are prepared to change the voting habits of a lifetime because of the politicians' response, or lack of response, to the sugar crisis. The respondents most likely to change their votes at the next election are those who divided their voting at the last election (supporting one party at the state level and another at the federal) One respondent stated: `My husband says we won't vote for National next time, especially in the state because Joh B. Petersen is not helping us; in fact he is doing some weird things'. I think that is probably one of the most succinct comments I have heard about the policies of the Bjelke-Petersen Government in relation to the sugar industry in Queensland. It seems a pity that Senator Boswell is so uninterested in the sugar industry in north Queensland that he has left the chamber. I would like to finalise the point that I was making. Recommendations arising out of this report were made specifically to the Queensland Government. We always hear from the Premier about all that the Federal Government should do but I would like to put on record what the people in the area believe the Queensland Government should do. The report states that the Queensland Government should: 12. Use the powers of the Sugar Board and the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board, to control the production of sugar in accord with advice from the ``Sugar Industry Social and Economic Research and Information Service'', Co-ordinate reductions in sugar production with the Commonwealth scheme to subsidise canegrowers for land removed from their Assignments. 13. Subsidise interest payments on loans to canegrowers experiencing financial difficulties attributable to the recent decline in sugar industry profitability. 14. Subsidise interest payments on loans to sugar milling enterprises which are experiencing financial difficulties attributable to the recent decline in sugar industry profitability. 15. Subsidise interest payments on loans to small businesses which are experiencing financial difficulties attributable to the recent decline in sugar industry profitability. 16. Grant concessional railway freight rates on the transport of raw sugar. 17. Grant concessional railway freight rates for canegrowers on cargo related to sugar production. 18. Extend increased service to canegrowers through the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, to communicate up-to-date information and advice concerning the production and marketing prospects of farm products alternative to sugarcane. It is quite clear further in the recommendations that it is the view of the respondents in this analysis that both the Federal and the Queensland governments, acting jointly, should finance a joint price support scheme. As usual, this afternoon we have had a number of comments about what a Federal government could or may do in regard to the rural sector. Before I go on to detail precisely what the Federal Government has done and will be doing in the near future I would just like to quote from a poll that was undertaken by the National Farmer between March 1978 and November 1981 because I think sometimes the Opposition just needs to be brought down to earth as it is not as perfect as it would like to suggest it is in opposition. It seems to imagine that there was a wonderful utopia when it was in government. I would just like to put on record what the National Farmer saw in this poll. The article I have states: Farmers' perceptions of the performance of the Coalition government's handling of agricultural policy in March 1978 and November 1981 was recorded thus: Poor, 1978-30.8%; 1981-45.1%. The article continues: The rural scandals involving Asia Dairy Industries, Meat Inspection . . . the Rae Committee's criticism of the Wheat Board's accounting problems and staff loans within the Wool Corporation no doubt contributed to concern about the coalition's performance. Growing anger at the lack of fulfilment of political promises also features strongly within the pages of the National Farmer as a source of declining confidence of farmers in the Coalition. In January 1984 an article on that subject claimed that the Coalition had failed to fulfil `between 60 and 80' policy promises between 1974 and 1983, but warned that the Hawke Labor Government was building an `impressive' record. Senator Archer —In breaking promises? Senator REYNOLDS —Yes certainly, but I want to put on record that whenever these matters of public importance come before the Senate Opposition members behave as if the present Government is the only government ever to experience difficulties in dealing with a particular situation. I turn specifically to the issue we are debating this afternoon: The Government is actively considering rural Australia as an entity, and not just as an offshoot of primary industry and commodity production. There are a number of constructive measures relevant to rural Australians which this Government continues to actively support, whether directly or in co-operation with the State Governments. These measures range across health, education, transport, telecommunications, postal services roads and the many other requirements and facilities which need additional attention and offer funding if there is to be equity with urban Australia. Those were the words of the Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin. I do not remember a statement anything like that emanating during the coalition's time in office. I go on to deal with a positive step that has been taken in considering the needs of rural and provincial Australia, and that is the establishment of the Rural and Provincial Affairs Unit. In October 1984 the Prime Minister foreshadowed the formation of a Rural and Provincial Affairs Unit, and in March 1985 the Minister for Primary Industry announced the establishment of the Unit. The broad aim of the Unit is to provide government with a specific perspective on rural Australia, where needs and problems often differ from those of metropolitan areas. The Unit is concerned with all rural Australians, including those living in provincial towns, and its objectives are in line with the Government's policy of providing services on an equitable basis for all Australians. The Unit will not do any special pleading for rural Australia but will assist government to understand how its policies affect non-metropolitan people and where policies may require change to achieve equity. In summary, the objectives of the Unit are: To identify and assess policies and activities that have an important effect on rural Australia; with the co-operation of relevant government departments, to seek to improve where necessary the delivery of the policies and programs; to identify areas where there are gaps in or lack of co-ordination of policies and programs; to encourage action departments always to consider rural issues when developing or implementing policy; to disseminate information or government programs relevant to rural and provincial Australia. I go on to deal with the issue that is constantly confronting us in the media and elsewhere. I refer to the phrase `crisis in the rural sector'. It is being taken to suggest that an irretrievable situation faces all Australian farmers, in all sectors and all over Australia. However, there is a significant group of people in some industries and in some areas who are facing very real difficulties. We are very concerned about those and the Minister is developing a major policy statement in this regard. But it is simply not accurate to talk as if all farmers in all sectors all over Australia are in crisis. In broad macroeconomic terms the Government has achieved considerable success. Inflation is now running at about 8 per cent per annum-a significant fall from the double digit rates of recent years-and the growth in farm costs has also fallen considerably. The floating of the dollar and devaluation have helped maintain export returns for commodities. At the same time the Government has also provided specific assistance to the farm sector. For example, in the last Budget the Government replaced the tariff on grain harvesters with a bounty, which will save the industry some $11m per annum. As well, the Government introduced a full rebate of the wholesale excise on diesel used in primary production. This means the effective price of diesel for on-farm use will fall by about 10.6c per litre. That is more than 20 per cent, under the new petroleum products pricing arrangements. These arrangements announced on 24 February 1986, to take effect from the middle of March, will also provide a reduction in petrol prices of more than 5c per litre. Senator Crichton-Browne —They never had an excise on diesel. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Crichton-Browne does not appear to be interested in cuts in fuel prices. I ask him not to interrupt. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has done his best to persuade the United States Administration to change some of its provisions in its latest farm Bill to soften the blow to Australia. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, himself will be making representations to Washington next month. Mr Kerin is currently preparing a comprehensive economic and agricultural policy statement which will be presented to Federal Parliament on 15 April. I hope Opposition members will be around to make some constructive comments about that policy statement when it is brought down. The farm sector cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the economy. The economic performance of rural producers is affected by macroeconomic and industry policies generally, as well as by agriculture-specific measures. Consequently, that policy statement will follow a review of the implications of policies across the whole economy for the rural sector. In particular, the Government will be seeking to find lasting solutions to the serious difficulties faced by many farm enterprises and families. At the same time, the statement will take into account the effects of the downturn on families, services and businesses in country towns. Pork barrel approaches by the Opposition are not the solution. Senator Boswell referred to the coalition's policies, which I think he said were contained in a 14-point plan, yet I note that in the poll conducted by the National Farmer there was talk of up to 80 broken promises. It seems to suggest that 14 points are scarcely adequate to cover the many complex issues facing rural Australia and that the coalition's policy needs considerable expansion. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.36) —One wonders whether the Australian Labor Party is steeped in prejudice or ignorance as to the plight of the rural economy. However, whatever view one takes and whatever judgment one makes, the results and effects are identical. The farmers of Australia are being ignored, neglected and allowed to slide inexorably into bankruptcy and financial collapse as a result of the policies of the Labor Government, or indeed the lack of policy initiatives by that Government. For many farmers the struggle is for survival. It is not a claim for a nice 3 per cent productivity bonus or for improved living standards. It is, as I have said, a struggle for survival. It is a question of farmers losing their farms or maintaining them. It is a question of protecting their own future and that of further generations. Many areas of the rural economy, many of the rural community, are in a state of crisis. Many are verging on bankruptcy. In my own State alone foreclosures and forced sales are becoming a daily way of rural life. Abject poverty in parts of Western Australia is becoming endemic. When we talk of the rural community, we are talking not only of farmers but also of people involved in the infrastructure-the service industries and those who live in country towns. We are dealing not just with a social problem but with a major economic problem for all Australians. The Australian agricultural sector is one of the most vital economic sectors of our entire nation. Currently it is going through one of its greatest periods of crisis this century. The blame for the current problems which our farmers are facing can be laid very firmly and fairly on the shoulders of the present Hawke Labor Government. Whatever excuses and reasons the Government may offer, the current rural malaise is in fact the Government's fault and should be sheeted home accordingly. It is an inevitable consequence of Labor's domestic policies. Let me examine the kinds of problems which Australian farmers are facing and then the reasons why the Labor Government should be taking the responsibility. At the outset, the very crux of the rural problem is falling farm incomes. This year farm incomes will fall by 24 to 25 per cent. The Government is expecting farmers to live on incomes in the wheat and crop sector of minus $7,500, in mixed livestock $4,500, sheep $12,200, beef $16,000, and horticulture $6,200. The average farmer in Australia is expected to live on 18 per cent of the average weekly earnings of the average Australian. No farmer can be expected to live on that sort of income. Nevertheless, that is the current state of the economy. I seek leave, Madam Acting Deputy President, to have incorporated in Hansard details of the costs, outlays and receipts for the average farmer in Western Australia who has a base yield of 1.7 tonnes per hectare of wheat per year, based on the 1986-87 year. Leave granted. The document read as follows- WHEAT GROSS MARGINS 86-87 Tony McPickett, McGowin International Gross advance 238.00 Less Rail freight 39.75 Handling 24.56 Research .85 65.16 172.84 Less expenses Seed 15.60 Fertiliser 18.00 Sprays 14.25 Plant repair 15.60 Fuel 18.00 Insurance 2.25 Handling to the silo 10.50 Sundries 1.08 Pro rata overhead 18.66 Machine expenses 52.50 Labour 15.50 Interest (80% equity) 39.00 Total costs 220.94 Profit (loss) (48.00) Based on yield of 1.7 tonnes to the hectare. 1986-87 estimated guaranteed minimum price $140/tonne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. Those figures will show that the average wheat farmer in Western Australia is expected to lose $48 per hectare in wheat. It is little wonder that in Western Australia alone this year it is expected that there will be a reduction in plantings of wheat of 25 per cent, on the best scenario, and, at worst, of 45 per cent. That is primarily due to the fact that many of those farmers will make a loss if they plant, and the balance of the farmers cannot get an advance from their banks. So, already there is a crisis. For Senator Walsh to talk about macroeconomic circumstances of the future is absolutely absurd. There are countless farmers this very year who will become bankrupt as a result of this Government's policies. Then we have the problem of inflation. In Australia we have inflation rates that are more than double those of our trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Almost 80 per cent of our wheat is exported and 50 per cent of our beef is exported-and our farmers must sell on an open market. With a rate of inflation of about 8.2 per cent, of course they cannot compete. In my own State of Western Australia the effect of inflation on costs has been quite dramatic. In the 12 months from September 1984 to September 1985, the price of fertilisers has increased by 15 per cent, the price of chemicals by 8.5 per cent, fuel by 13.5 per cent, and interest rate payments by 22.8 per cent. Labour costs have risen by 5 per cent, and they are expected to rise by 7 per cent this year. Also, of course, inevitably, when our farmers' costs are rising at such rates and while their overseas competitors enjoy inflation rates of half ours and interest rates of a quarter of ours, there is no prospect of our being able properly to compete. Of course, two other problems are helping to destroy the rural industries of this nation. One is the effect of the rising levels of debt at a time of rising interest rates. Between June 1984 and June 1985, the total debt of farmers increased by 21 per cent to a staggering $7,220m. That, surely, is the highest increase in the level of debt of any part of the Australian economy. In June last year, according to figures provided by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, average debt figures for various sectors of rural industry were as follows: Wheat, $123,570; mixed livestock, $76,160; sheep, $55,000; sheep and beef, $52,810-just to cite a few. Of course, this is happening at a time when we have declining rural values which, of course, mean that a farmer's equity in his farm is declining, and so his asset is declining dramatically. In my own State of Western Australia perhaps the debt problem is best shown by the statistics that I have before me. I seek leave, Madam Acting Deputy President, to have these statistics incorporated in Hansard. They show that 45.1 per cent of wheat farmers have a level of debt in excess of $100,000. These increasing debts are due to increases in interest rates and to the rescheduling of debts and, of course, it is just impossible for these farmers to go on. Leave granted. The document read as follows- B.A.E. Medium Term Outlook For the Rural Economy December 1985 Industry and debt level N.S.W. Vic. Qld S.A. W.A. Tas. N.T. % % % % % % % Sheep only $0... 49.2 27.2 36.1 26.8 15.5 37.6 - $0 to $60 000... 37.3 51.4 26.0 42.3 50.9 36.2 - $60 000 to $100 000... 6.3 4.8 15.4 17.9 9.7 10.7 - Over $100 000... 7.2 15.4 13.9 12.0 15.5 37.6 - Beef only $0... 45.4 47.4 36.2 47.6 35.6 32.8 8.7 $0 to $60 000... 46.9 30.0 41.7 37.2 52.6 55.2 23.6 $60 000 to $100 000... 1.8 4.7 8.5 14.2 8.6 3.4 7.2 Over $100 000... 4.2 17.9 10.2 1.0 2.5 8.5 47.3 Sheep-Beef $0... 23.8 26.7 21.2 30.4 21.3 13.3 - $0 to $60 000... 44.9 38.8 34.8 39.8 52.2 30.0 - $60 000 to $100 000... 13.1 7.0 3.1 0.5 2.6 17.9 - Over $100 000... 14.7 27.4 33.8 24.5 18.1 30.0 - Wheat $0... 20.2 31.6 19.9 18.0 14.2 - - $0 to $60 000... 31.3 27.3 44.0 40.5 19.4 - - $60 000 to $100 000... 18.5 6.8 8.6 21.4 11.2 - - Over $100 000... 27.0 32.7 22.9 20.0 45.1 - - Dairy $0... 31.9 21.5 17.4 16.0 16.6 35.4 - $0 to $60 000... 44.0 44.3 62.8 44.5 42.1 44.0 - $60 000 to $100 000... 9.8 11.3 7.0 18.7 3.7 7.7 - Over $100 000... 13.3 22.9 12.8 20.7 37.6 12.9 - Horticulture $0... 26.9 24.8 - 8.7 - - - $0 to $60 000... 53.0 60.3 n.a. 73.9 - - - $60 000 to $100 000... 10.9 10.9 n.a. 15.6 - - - Over $100 000... 9.2 3.9 - 1.8 - - - Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. Of course, the burden of carrying these levels of debt is worsening, when interest rates are rising. In September 1985 the Primary Industry Bank was charging 16.25 per cent for loans under $100,000 and 19 per cent for overdraft levels of over $100,000. Current figures for overdraft debts at commercial rates are 18.25 per cent for loans under $100,000 and about 19.95 per cent for amounts over $100,000, and in many cases they are in the range of 23 per cent. It is hardly any wonder that the BAE, in its recent quarterly review, suggests that up to 50 per cent of the increase in farm costs is caused by a rise in interest rates. The figures which I shall cite show the effect of rising debts and rising interest rates, and this is best seen by examining the levels for those farms which the BAE considers to be `at risk'. It is interesting to note that in the last 12 months the number of farms considered to be at risk in Western Australia has increased by 400 per cent. In Australia generally the figure is 80 per cent. In the dairy industry it is 500 per cent. In horticulture, the figure has gone from 8 per cent to 13 per cent. So there has been a dramatic increase in the last 12 months of those farms which fall into the category, by definition, of being at risk-`at risk' being those farms that have 70 per cent or less equity, less the living expenses, less capital repayments, and that is not including interest rates, of course. Our farmers are being expected to sell their products on a world market and required to buy inputs at artificially high levels from protected industries. There has been much debate about the level of protection and the effect that it is having on the rural sector, but it is fair to say that the average, intelligent judgment is that it costs the average farm about $9,000 in protection. If one takes off about $2,000, in round figures, for the subsidies that farmers receive, one sees that it is costing the average farmer about $7,000 in protection. In light of all these problems, let us ask ourselves what the Labor Government has done for the rural sector in the last period. It has supported the Australian Council of Trade Unions' productivity claim. It has raised interest rates. It makes almost no inroads into protection. It has failed fully and honestly to pass on the fuel price falls to the whole community. It has destroyed the effectiveness of income equalisation deposits. It has put a sales tax on wine. It has refused a request to pass the money received from the indexing of excise into the bicentennial road development program. It has cancelled the previous Government's supplementary water resources program. It has tried to introduce a fertiliser bounty. It intends to introduce a capital gains tax and a fringe benefits tax. It has quarantined farm losses. It has removed the special deductibility provisions for water conservation. They are the benefits that have been passed on by this compassionate, understanding, pragmatic, realistic Government to that part of the economy which provides 40 per cent of our export earnings. Let us look at these matters in detail. The Government has backed the ACTU in its 3 per cent productivity claim. What does the average farmer do when he is lumbered with a 3 per cent increase, when his income itself has fallen by 143 per cent in the past year and he is now receiving a bill for another 3 per cent? What consideration is there for his capacity, his competence, his ability to absorb that extra cost? What consideration is there for the productivity and capacity to pay? The answer is: None. The Government has made no attempt to examine those matters. It has simply unilaterally decided that the trade union movement will receive that benefit. Where was the Government last year when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was asked by the ACTU to pass on a 2.6 per cent wage decision? It was deafening in its silence. The Government's attitude, simply, is: `Well, if it keeps the ACTU happy, if it keeps the trade union movement happy, if it keeps our base support happy, let the farmers go broke. They are not an attractive part of our constituency. We can win without their seats anyway, so to hell with them. Let us distort and debase the economy, but let us keep our supporters on side'. Of course, the Government has pursued a policy of increasing interest rates purposely, deliberately and wilfully, partly due to incompetence and partly due to pragmatic decisions. It has lifted interest rates in the last 12 months from around 14 per cent to 19 per cent. There are all sorts of other things that the Government could have done in regard to propping up the dollar. The problem is that the Government is perceived by the world economy to be incompetent and it has had to prop up the dollar by driving up interest rates to extortionate levels. And then the Government is still struggling. Of course, the Government could have done it quite differently. It could have had a complete discounting of wages, and it could have had no ridiculous productivity rise, and then Australian goods would have been much more competitive and the dollar would have been supported by an improvement in our trading position. Instead, the Government has taken the weak option. It has raised interest rates to protect the weak dollar as a result of its incompetence, and, of course, the effect has been passed on to the rural sector. We have sitting opposite Senator Gareth Evans, who tells us what a wonderful thing he has done for the rural economy in allowing it to be excluded from the excise on off-road farm diesel. Senator Gareth Evans —Eleven cents a litre. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —When was the rural economy paying it? The Minister has done nothing for it. He has maintained the status quo, and he knows it. Senator Evans, of all people, should feel guilty about the con he is trying to put over the rural community. The Government achieved nothing. Senator Gareth Evans —No gratitude; 11c a litre for off-road use. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —How can Senator Evans expect gratitude for doing nothing? He stands still and he wants people to love him. For goodness sake! It is the greatest con trick since the Bill of Rights. The Government decreased by 5.3c a litre, as I recall-- Senator Gareth Evans —A decrease of 5.77c and 11c for farmers. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It decreased the price of petrol by 5.77c. It did not even have the courage to give a proper discounting. If it had given a proper discounting, it would have reduced the consumer price index by 2 per cent. The original assessment was 0.5 per cent, ultimately one per cent. The Government could have reduced the CPI by 2 per cent. Inflation would come down by 2 per cent and the Government would make our rural producers more competitive than they are. But the Government has done none of those things. It has not had the courage, the conviction or the commitment. That is the attitude the Government has towards the rural sector. It has done away with income equalisation deposits, which allowed farmers in the past to smooth out their incomes. It has introduced an impost on the sale of wine and a whole range of policies which, regrettably, time does not allow me to go on with. The Government sought to introduce a duty on fertilisers, but because Brian Burke was having an election it lost its nerve. It was not concerned about the farmers. It was concerned about Brian Burke losing his damned election! He would have lost it, too. Pragmatically, Mr Hawke, lying in the sun and tanning himself at Kirribilli said: `We will do away with the fertiliser proposal, to help Brian Burke'. The Government could not have cared less about the farmers. It introduced a capital gains tax, the quarantining of off-farm income and a fringe benefits tax. It deserves no credit from anybody, least of all the farmers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BLACK(Queensland)(4.53) —On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) I apologise for the Government having provided assistance to Western Australian farmers recently! I am sorry that it displeased Senator Crichton-Browne to learn that we won the Western Australian election. I am sure he realises that we will win the next election as well. I am pleased to be given the opportunity today to argue the merits of the Federal Labor Government's economic policies as they affect the rural sector. I state from the outset that I do not take the view held by some cynical political observers that the Federal Government can afford to ignore the current complaints of the rural sector simply because the Government holds few rural seats with any substantial concentrations of rural voters. We believe that all Australians, irrespective of where they live and how they vote, deserve to be treated equally. In the current situation of depressed world commodity prices confronting rural producers, they deserve a measure of favourable consideration from this Government, and that is exactly what they are getting. I also state, for the benefit of those rural producers who are listening to the broadcast of this debate and who are intending to ring the honourable member for McMillan, Mr Cunningham, to complain about high interest rates, that his telephone number is 72 7541. I am pleased to put that on the record. It seems that a well know Queensland rural newspaper placed my office telephone number under his name and I have received more than my fair share of telephone calls on this issue. I am also pleased to advise rural producers on the southern Darling Downs that I will be visiting their region next week with the Prime Minister's rural task force, to examine the situation in the area at first hand as the guest of the honourable member for Rankin, Mr David Beddall. During the visit we will enter into discussions with a wide range of rural producers, the local Chamber of Commerce and representatives of local government. We are seeking to learn at first hand the nature of the rural problem rather than to score cheap political points, which unfortunately has been the trend in the debate this afternoon. It is crucial, when discussing the current difficulties facing Australian producers, to place them in their current international context and to compare the sort of responses made by this Government with the solutions put forward by the former conservative Federal Government. The obvious starting point is the current weakness in our international commodity markets. This weakness can be attributed to major structural changes which have occurred in these markets in recent years and which are entirely unrelated to elections in Australia. The rapid expansion of European Economic Community production in imports, the extensive use of export subsidies by the United States of America, a drop in the rate of increase in import demand by developing countries and a reduction in imports by China have all led to the accumulation of high levels of stocks and resulting price falls. Unless there are adverse weather conditions in major producing countries, these accumulated stocks will not be diminished, unfortunately, over the coming years. This sort of situation is likely to be aggravated further by increased competition in our traditional markets from further subsidised exports from the EEC, and from the United States following the introduction of its farm Bill. Domestically, the most important thing the Government can do to improve the rural sector's competitive position is to continue to manage the economy well. In broad macro-economic terms, this Government has achieved considerable successes in this area. Inflation is now running at about 8 per cent per annum. That is a significant fall from the double digit rates of recent years. The growth in farm costs has also fallen considerably. The floating of the dollar and the devaluation have helped to maintain export returns for commodities. At the same time the Government has also provided specific assistance to the farm sector. For example, in the last Budget-this point was noted earlier by Senator Reynolds-the Government replaced the tariffs on grain harvesters with a bounty which will save the industry well in excess of $10m per annum. Also, as has already been raised in this debate, the Government has introduced a full rebate of the wholesale excise on diesel used in primary production. This means that the effective price of diesel for on-farm use will fall by about 10.6 cents a litre, that is, more than 20 per cent, under the new petroleum products pricing arrangements. These arrangements, announced in February, will also provide for a reduction in petrol prices of more than 5c a litre-5.77 cents, as I am indebted to Senator Gareth Evans for pointing out to us. It is useful to compare our actions with those taken by the current Opposition Leader when he became Treasurer in 1977. At that time crude oil receipts were 1.4 per cent of all Commonwealth receipts-some $346m. When he left the Treasurer's office, oil receipts totalled 9 per cent of total receipts, that is, an increase of some 700 per cent. The total collected then was a massive $3,400m. That is not a record, I submit, which the Opposition can afford to boast about. The Government is also very much aware of the current problems associated with the present level of interest rates. Again, they have to be seen in their correct context. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that some 7 per cent of farmers will be at risk in financial terms in 1985-86 and that the risk is greatest for those farmers who have less than 70 per cent equity in their property and who are also faced with negative farm income. This figure is up from 5 per cent about a year earlier. Whilst this represents a large number of individuals-some 12,000 farms-it by no means indicates a massive crisis across the entire sector. The reason for that is that conditions across this sector and within industries are diverse. Farm cash operating surpluses in beef are forecast to increase to 10 per cent in 1985-86, in contrast to the overall fall. There is also a wide distribution of debt. Twenty-eight per cent of farmers have no debt. A further 18 per cent have less than $20,000 debt. These people are net lenders to the rest of the community. If they have their funds free, they will benefit, for example, from higher interest rates. On the other hand, 12 per cent of farmers have debt levels which exceed $150,000. There is a crisis in that respect for those farmers. We concede that it is a crisis, but it is a crisis for only a number of people and not for the sector as a whole. Government policies in relation to farm debts have also produced results which compare favourably with those obtained by the Opposition. Far from discriminating against farmers, the Government has adopted positive policies. It reduced the inflation rate of farm costs from 11 per cent in 1982-83 to a forecast 7 per cent this year. If the previous Government's 11 per cent inflation rate had continued for the past three years, farm income this year would be $1.1 billion, or about 33 per cent, lower than is currently forecast. We also floated the currency, resulting in a depreciation of the trade-weighted exchange rate by some 25 per cent when compared with the previous year. If the previous Government's overvalued exchange rate-the previous Government, as we all know, deliberately followed a policy of overvaluation of the exchange rate-had been continued, farmers would be some $2 billion, or well over 50 per cent, worse off than they are now. We heard some discussions earlier about the Queensland sugar industry. I would simply like to point out for the record that in August last year the Savage committee, more formally known as the Sugar Industry Working Party, recommended measures to help the Australian sugar industry, which was then and is now suffering the effects of a collapse of world sugar prices, and in the case of the Queensland industry, massive overregulation and overexpansion under the mantle of the current Queensland Government. The two cornerstones of the Commonwealth's recommendations were price support and deregulation. The Federal Government was quick to respond with a $150m package of direct price support which was made conditional on the State Government matching Federal funding on a $1 for $2 basis. In a series of talks between Mr Kerin and the Queensland Primary Industries Minister which followed, the Queensland Government repeatedly refused to recognise its financial responsibilities to the sugar industry. While the New South Wales Government agreed to price support for its industry in September and while industry leaders negotiated on deregulation, the Queensland Government has consistently kept trying to back out of the deal. The best the Queensland Government could offer was a package of loans and guarantees on loans to an industry which was already heavily in debt. The National Party in Queensland has decided not to provide the $70m of direct assistance to meet the Federal Government's offer, although negotiations are now continuing. It should be pointed out that some eight months after the Savage committee's report, through the meanness and the unwillingness to co-operate shown by the Queensland Government, the State's sugar industry has still not received the financial assistance it so badly needs. As a former union official employed to represent the interests of workers in the sugar industry, I am well aware of the extent to which the economy in major provincial cities on the Queensland coast is dependent on the sugar industry and the extent to which employees directly have links with the political and the economic fortunes of their employers. I think it is fair to say that the Government has endeavoured to do the best for both groups. I would also like to point out that during my research for this speech this afternoon I looked through a number of documents produced by the National Farmers Federation and the Livestock and Grain Producers Association to try to understand the extent and nature of the criticism they have been making about the Federal Government. While doing that I came across a document which listed some major LGPA-NFF achievements. I think it is fair to point out that, of these 40 or so achievements, a large number are directly related to actions taken by the Federal Government which may or may not have been the subject of lobbying by the NFF. For the benefit of the record, I will list a few of those achievements that the NFF is claiming responsibility for. It says that it achieved the float of the Australian dollar, resulting in over 25 per cent devaluation since March 1983. It is also claiming to have achieved reductions in tariffs on large grain harvesters from 15 to 2 per cent. It is boasting that it achieved indexation of rebate on diesel fuel. It also, apparently, achieved changes to the assets test for farm pensioners. I am pleased to be made aware of its extensive role in that regard. It claims that it achieved a comprehensive $270m drought relief package which preserved the national sheep and cattle population during the 1980s drought; rejection of proposals to impose tariff duties on imported tractors, resulting in savings of $35m per annum; rejection of a proposed $40m per annum tariff imposition on imported four-wheel drive vehicles; achieved rejection of higher protection for the steel industry, saving farmers around $53m per annum; 100 per cent taxation deductibility for water storage and reticulation improvements; tax averaging provisions ensuring equity to primary producers with fluctuating incomes; and increased allowances for isolated children. Apparently, it also achieved single-handedly Federal biological control legislation and State government commitments for complementary legislation; farm gate pricing systems for the live sheep trade; $25m per annum government contribution for wool promotion; assistance to increase the wool base reserve price for 1985-86; and further redevelopment of market support funds. It also encouraged the Australian Wheat Board to greater flexibility in direct grower to user sales. The NFF has been caught betwixt and between with the document listing these achievements in that, whilst it is extremely critical of the Federal Government in a number of areas, it cannot resist the temptation to boast about the achievements of the Federal Government whilst at the same time claiming credit for them. Nevertheless, those achievements should be put on record as achievements directly made by this Government for rural producers. In summary, I believe the Commonwealth Government is putting into place the right sort of macroeconomic climate for an efficient rural sector. In particular, we have been using what influence we can to enhance our international trade situation. We are also developing and extending services and assistance at the level of the individual. At the same time, we are taking a constructive look at rural society beyond the farm gate. In conclusion, if there is such a thing as a rural crisis in Australia at the moment, the blows have been softened considerably by the actions of this Federal Government. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.06) —Australia is teetering on the brink of economic disaster. Our current account deficit for this year to date is an all time record-up 25 per cent on the corresponding period last year. Devaluation of the dollar was expected to achieve a strong rate of growth of exports and a fall in imports. However, it has failed to do so. There is also a world glut of primary commodities. Our closest allies-the United States of America and the European Economic Community-are flagrantly breaching the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on trade practices and protectionism, subsidising more and more of their commodity exports and dumping them in Australia's traditional markets for primary produce. Japan and the United States are engaged in an economic war which crushes Australian manufacturing in the middle and the tariffs supplied by the Government to protect our own manufacturing remnants place a heavy cost burden on our rural industries. Interest rates are crippling private consumption and private investment and reducing our level of economic growth so that we face another spate of job losses and higher unemployment, with rural sector borrowings at an all time high, in excess of $7 billion, and with a current massive downturn in farm incomes forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. This is the worst crisis for the rural industry we have yet faced. It is comparable to the 1930s. Now is not the time to place unreasonable burdens on the rural sector's productive capacity. Our balance of payments problem can be solved only by a massive growth of exports and a massive reduction of our foreign borrowings. We have borrowed heavily in recent years, primarily for the private sector, to cover the increasing debt of our productive industries, including farm borrowings. What our rural producers and our manufacturers need is to increase exports. The way to increase exports is to lower costs, improve productivity, put innovative products and technology on to the market and to be insulated from the volatile world market crises which are spreading this whole burden over the whole community. We need a stable, local business environment and the Government is not offering this. What our rural producers do not need are fringe benefit taxes on essential services not publicly provided in rural areas such as transport and housing. We do not need quarantining of farm incomes so that rural producers are all unable to diversify their operations, as happens in other industries, to cover production of commodities currently facing depressed world prices. Everybody else can move out of his sector, but the farmers are tied there by the Government's quarantining arrangements. This is a quite unacceptable situation. When we compare Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the effect of its offsetting its steel operations on its other operations, when we compare what happens between companies, the Government is just simply picking on the rural sector and stopping farmers from moving out of an area which is depressed because of factors outside of the farmers control. It is really disgusting that this should happen. One should compare also the retrospective nature of this quarantining tax with the provisions for negative geared investments in rental housing. Many rural enterprises have been operating in this fashion for years, and that is accepted. A productive industry like farming has not been given that opportunity. Because of the shortness of time, I seek leave to incorporate three letters which point out the problems of the forestry and fruit growing industries in this area. These industries are also quarantined. I have permission from both sides of the House to do so. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Box 707 P.O. Renmark. S.A. 5341 5th February, 1986 Senator D. Vigor, 10 Pitt Street, Adelaide. 5000 Dear Senator, In my position as Chairman of the Almond Co-operative Ltd., which handles over 80% of the Australian production, I offer the following submission concerning the Almond Industry. Figures show that between 1970 and 1985, the total local production increased from approximately 800 tonnes of kernel per annum to the latest figure of over 2,000 tonnes per annum. Imports, almost exclusively from the U.S.A., have increased from around 700 tonnes to 3,000 tonnes in the corresponding period-this is equal to $12m loss in foreign exchange. In other words, although local production has more than doubled over recent years, the percentage share of the Australian market has in fact declined. At current production levels, the imported product would translate at around 5,000 acres of almonds. Combined with this, there is decreasing production in the traditional areas of Willunga and the Adelaide Plains, due to a number of factors, including the urban spread, severely limited quality and quantity of underground water supplies, high land values, combined with generally older trees and smaller and less viable holdings, many of these by `hobby farmers'. There is little doubt that expansion must continue to keep pace with demand. Latest management and technological expertise must be used to match U.S. production figures and costs. This expansion will be largely in the Murray River area, where the climate, soil, and water availability are most suitable for this to occur. The Almond Industry is seen by such recognised bodies as State Departments of Agriculture, Commonwealth D.P.I., A.D.F.A. etc., as a very viable alternative to wines and other depressed horticultural industries, and a likely replacement for some of the `vine pull' areas. With the large cost and relatively long lead time of around 5 years, there has been, and will continue to be, a very great need for investor dollars. In the case of most developments in the area where we are involved there has been a remarkedly successful marriage of investors and practical farm managers who have a significant financial interest in these developments. This has led to the maximising of productivity and the large syndication of plant and equipment, out of reach of any single operator. The community huller-cracker, worth $500,000, is an example of such syndication. Other growers within a radius of 200 km have been able to have their product processed at reasonable charge through an infra-structure which would have been completely beyond their reach. As production moved from the traditional areas to the Riverland and Sunraysia, the Almond Co-operative Ltd., recognised the situation, sold their property in Adelaide, and secured, in an arrangement with Berrivale Orchards (formerly B.F.J.), a part of the R.F.P. cannery site, and moved their plant into this area. A joint venture on the packaging and marketing of almond products was entered into with Berrivale Orchards. New products were released, and employment for around 15 people was found in a district with serious unemployment problems. This surely is an example of an Industry which is very much self motivated and progressive. I am convinced that for the Industry to expand there needs to be support for the investor dollar, and an encouragement for investors into this field. However, if the Government is to discourage this, then surely whatever projects were started prior to the Treasurer's announcement should be able to bring their undertaking to fruition. Yours sincerely, ADRIAN H. LACEY COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANIES 241 Flinders Street, Adelaide, South Australia Address Mail to Box 2238, G.P.O., Adelaide 5001 7th February, 1986 Senator D. Vigor, 10 Pitt Street, Adelaide, S.A. 5000 Dear Senator Vigor, I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you recently and to indicate our concern, shared, of course, by a great number of other people, at the changes proposed by the Federal Treasury as it affects taxation write-offs for rural development. Whilst I appreciate the Government's desire to stamp out tax evasion, it is our view that there has been a gross Government over-reaction to the so called `Pitt Street' or `Collins Street' farmers, ripping off the system. Quite obviously no tax system is perfect as has been demonstrated repeatedly over the last few years, and there well may be some persons taking advantage of current taxation laws as it relates to agriculture. However, the Government's contemplated action will, in our opinion, be counterproductive in that legitimate rural development of the type not requiring Government support or subsidy and which contributes positively to the economy, but which in the development stage result in losses being written-off, should be considered in the light of the long term advantage to the community. Some five years ago our Company decided, in conjunction with Mr Adrian Lacey, to participate in the development of a 500 acre almond orchard at Lindsay Point, adjacent to previously planted almond orchards totalling some 750 acres, and about 20 kms east of Renmark. We entered into this $2 million project which involves very considerable funds for development, and significant initial losses until such time as the trees become productive, in the expectation that we could afford to stand the development costs and losses by absorbing such losses against profits made elsewhere in our Company. It is now proposed by the Treasurer that commencing in the financial year 1986-1987 these losses can no longer be claimed if above $20,000 per annum. The change in the rules announced by the Treasurer simply means that in our case, we have not even reached the productive stage generating any surplus cash flow, and therefore we will have to delay the balance of our planned development for 3 or 4 years or until such time as sufficient income is available from existing trees to enable us to continue our planting programme. This is a costly and unnecessary delay. We believe that in agricultural projects such as this where development costs are high, where there is a significant lead time before the trees become productive, it is quite unfair to change the tax rules halfway through such a major commitment. Our Company is solely involved also in the development of a 300 acre pistachio plantation at Robinvale in north west Victoria. This is the largest single pistachio-growing project so far undertaken in Australia. Pistachios do not come into production until the 6th year and based on the limited number of pistachios currently growing in Australia, there is no guarantee that American production experiences will necessarily be those which we will enjoy here. Some 18 months ago we planted our first 40 acres of pistachios and had planned to plant approximately a further 50 acres a year over the next five years. Based on the current tax proposals by the Treasurer, we will be in a position to plant 52 acres this year, but we will then have to delay further plantings for some years ahead. It is our view that the Democrats should strive to obtain agreement from the Government that negative gearing should be allowed long term development projects, such as which we are involved in, which were commenced prior to the date of the Treasurer's announcement. In the case of both almonds and pistachios, Australia is by no means self-sufficient. Although the Australian production of almonds has increased from 700 to 2,000 tonnes over the last decade, we are still only producing 40% of the current market requirement. A further 5000 acres of almonds could be planted in Australia before the total current local demand was satisfied. The ability therefore to continue with these projects, to improve rural farm income, to help even in some small way to redress the current balance of payments problem, would seem to us in themselves sufficient reasons to allow the writing-off of development costs to continue. In the case of pistachios, there is virtually no local production and at the present time, imports are running at approximately $1.5 million a year. Furthermore, the technology is not presently available in Australia for pistachios, as is the case with almonds, which have been grown here for over 100 years. At considerable expense to our Company, our Manager has visited on two occasions the Californian Industry, as well as this Company hiring an Advisor to visit from the U.S.A. and report on our operations. The Industry in Australia has gained a great deal from these visits. We have been responsible for the importation of the very latest rootstock resistant to the killer root disease Verticillium wilt (present also in Australia) which had devastated large areas in California before the release of this rootstock, and make these available at minimal cost to other local producers. In the U.S.A. the pistachio nut has been the `glamour' nut during this decade in particular. Through advertising and promotion the domestic market has seen huge expansion, which we confidently expect could happen in Australia. This would result in considerably more areas planted here to meet local demand, and, in addition, a lucrative export potential which is so far untapped could be developed. It seems incongruous under Mr. Keating's Tax Proposals that businesses can write-off research and development costs provided they are not associated with agriculture. At the same time, profitable agricultural enterprises could write-off development costs in either another agricultural enterprise or an industry, but when it comes to an industry trying to develop a self supporting agricultural development, then it is not provided the same benefits. It seems to us at the very least the Government should be prepared to honour policies which were in existence before the Federal Treasurer's announcement on the tax reform package, if justice is to be done in this country. This is the aspect on which we would certainly seek the support of your Party and you in the debate when the matter comes before the Senate. Yours faithfully, COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES LIMITED J. A. CRAWFORD, A. O. MANAGING DIRECTOR PRIVATE FORESTRY COUNCIL Tasmania P. O. Box 180, South Launceston 7249 7th February, 1986 Senator David Vigor, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator, During this coming session of Parliament you will be called upon to consider the Treasurer's Tax Reform Package. The Private Forestry Council of Tasmania supports the principle of Mr. Keating's motives but cannot agree with its implementation in the present proposed legislation. The Private Forestry Council with the Australian Forest Development Institute has been working for the past seven years endeavouring to influence Governments to seriously look at the taxing of forestry activities. Numerous inquiries have also urged Government to review the matter. Even your own Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce reporting on ``All aspects of Australian's Forestry and Forests Products Industries'' called for action within six months of tabling its report; that was in December, 1981. Recently the AFDI prepared and widely distributed in Parliamentary circles, a most capable expose on the Treasurer's proposed amendments in quarantining primary industry losses as it effects forestry. The submission points out the inequities and discrimination against private forestry investors. It does not clearly say that hitherto there were upfront tax benefits for the investor. The removal of the present benefits to the likes of the Pitt Street farmer will be detrimental to private forestry development in Australia and set back any hope of achieving early import replacement. (Wood products are the second major imported commodity after oil.) It is the contention of this Council that the forestry issues involved require detailed analysis before being generalised into an ill-conceived category. The appended graph illustrates how an investor under the present law, even at 60% tax rate, can earn 4.6% Internal Rate of Return on his investment in 25 years (Curve D) compared with the quarantining proposal (Curve C) where the best he can achieve is 3% over 40 years. The investor will be 35% worse off in approximately double the time if the amendment is passed. It is the objective of this Council to see trees planted for the benefit of Australia. The motives for the action whether it be commercial, farm shade and shelter, visual landscape, erosion control or control of rural tree decline is unimportant to the establishment of the trees. The present Government's policy implemented through several Departmental programmes, Greening Australia, National Soil Conservation and various CEP projects, confirms the importance of massive tree planting schemes. To achieve the generally excepted principle of a Greener Australia the investment money that that sound, controlled, taxation investment and development allowances would attract could be immense and thereby save public funds in the creation of a National asset. The concept of investment allowances is not new within tax legislation. Since the 1960's such measures have been used to achieve National aims, land clearing, petroleum and mineral exploration, manufacturing equipment and just recently, research. The argument is in favour of the investor because the bona fide farmer is provided for in both current and proposed legislation. If investment money is rejected what is the alternative to create the needed asset. My Council commends to you the AFDI submission to the Hon. John Kerin and seeks your support to examine the issues involved and if you agree with the merits of the case to refer the matter into Committee. I thank you for bearing with me on this protracted matter of the taxing of forestry activities. Your sincerely, J. G. ALLWRIGHT, Chairman, Private Forestry Council Senator VIGOR —The letters show distinctly that these areas have terrible problems and the Government has not properly thought out its policy. The Government is applying a capital gains tax to depress further rural land prices and depress further investment in rural industries. There is no way that rural people can get out of trouble that way. There are high transport costs in rural areas with purchases even bearing sales taxes on the prices which are already inflated by the transport costs. Outdated procedures for controlling dumping of rural produce from overseas on our local markets are contributing to this sorry picture. Outdated tariff protection for our local manufacturers is forcing our rural producers to pay well above world prices for their machinery, while being forced to export without support on those same world markets. Unilateral compulsory acquisition of land which has been developed to high levels of productivity over generations is also having a bad effect. The Government has supported union sabotage of our export abattoirs-the Government failed to uphold the right of producers to sell their stock. The inflated export inspection charges on rural exports, against which the Democrats have stood, is another problem area. Meat inspections cost more than three times what is does when done by a State department. It is clear that the J curve effect that we were expecting to be associated with the devaluation will not appear. Waiting for the J curve is like waiting for Godot. The Government is just waiting while the whole economy is going to pieces, particularly the rural economy. I deplore this fact. We need to explore alternative trading mechanisms such as barter and the development of local regional economic communities to give strength to our exporters and producers. We need to have imaginative ways of handling the export problem and we need to help our farmers. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —The time for consideration of the matter of public importance having expired, I now call on consideration of Government papers tabled earlier this day, pursuant to sessional order. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This Government of disposable promises has disposed yet again of another promise. In five minutes we are expected to deal with a matter which in the other place was a ministerial statement. It is utterly and totally deplorable, but presumably that is all the time that we will have. In looking at this Government's statement I looked at a number of items. For example, on page 8 the Government says: . . . Aboriginal people in all mainland States will have secure title to their reserves. Later on that page, the Government says: . . . Aboriginal needs are complex and far-reaching, and secure tenure to land, important though it undoubtedly is, meets only one facet of these needs. It is fascinating to go back to the 8 December 1983 statement, in which the Government said: We in this Government came to office with a concern that our predecessors had allowed conservative State Governments to slow the momentum of that earlier progress and to that extent the Constitutional prerogatives of this parliament were eroded. Now this Government proposes to abandon this issue entirely to those conservative State governments. The Government also said in the 1983 statement: We will have consultation with the Aboriginal people. We have enlarged the resources available to the National Aboriginal Conference and have given it means to speak to the Government as the national voice of Aboriginal interests. This Government has destroyed, completely shut down, the only national voice of Aboriginal people. The Government also said in 1983: To restore to Aboriginal people a proper form of land rights throughout Australia is not only possible but a necessity. In fact, it is the solemn duty of this Parliament. Today we have the statement that I have just read. It says: `Yes, it is an important issue but there are other, also important, issues'. That is the normal cop out that we have seen from this Government and from so many people in the community. As for talking about secure land rights, I mention one group of people. It may be only a small group but what has happened there is symptomatic of what this Government is doing. Yallambee is a small reserve outside Mount Isa in a creekbed. It has about 60 permanent residents and 40 itinerants living in 11 absolutely deplorable broken-down homes. What has the Government done here in terms of its solemn promise? It has done absolutely nothing. Where the community wrote to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and said `What will you do about this housing?' the Minister wrote back and said: `We are concerned about it. We will do something about it but first you must have title to that land'. As we know, the Queensland Government will not give title to fringe groups. I read from a report tabled in the Queensland Parliament: Queensland has established a successful Aboriginal welfare housing programme which has almost eliminated `fringe dwellers'. This group of fringe-dwellers do not want to be eliminated. They want to live at Yallambee. What is this Government doing? It will not provide a miserly $3,000 to purchase the land on which those people are now living. So much for the promises of this Government. It has no intention of fulfilling any of the high rhetoric promises that the Minister gave in his ministerial statement in 1983. The statement before us today ought to be debated at length because it is a major statement. The Government is only intent on walking away from promises. Mr Holding's rhetoric, left unabashed by this Government and this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), has shattered the hopes of Aboriginal people. It has heightened the animosity of miners and contributed to community ignorance and racial disharmony. The cruelty is that it would have been better for all parties if those now disposed of promises had never been made. There are still dispossessed and alienated Aboriginals who have reason to believe that the white people and their Government are, as one Aboriginal put it, `very clever people, very hard people, plenty humbug'. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.17) —In the time available to me I wish to speak briefly on the paper before the Senate-the text of a statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Firstly, I wish to make clear my dissatisfaction with the fact that this statement has been tabled as a paper, which results in the Senate having only a limited time to discuss it. I believe that a matter of such importance and complexity should have been tabled in this place as a ministerial statement. That would have given more scope for senators to speak more comprehensively on the paper. The paper amounts to an attempt at an explanation of the Government's toing and froing over the land rights debate. After three years of preferred models, promises and prevarication the Federal Government last week unveiled a land rights scheme which satisfied virtually no one, except Mr Brian Burke, the Western Australian Premier. I venture to suggest that the Government's decisions on land rights had very little to do with the consultations Mr Holding had with Aboriginals and everything to do with the electoral backlash which it expected from the rest of the Australian community if any attempt was made to impose national land rights legislation, not to mention the unpalatable prospect of one of the Australian Labor Party's own, Mr Burke, taking the Government to the High Court of Australia if the Federal Labor Government attempted to impose land rights legislation. This paper tabled by the Minister gives an account of how each State has dealt with land rights or is dealing with land rights. Not surprisingly, the Labor States-Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia-all come out with very good score cards and there is no threat of the Federal Government getting heavy and imposing legislation on them. Queensland does not come out too badly, but perhaps that is because the Federal Government does not feel up to becoming embroiled in a land rights debate with such a strong opponent as the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The other two non-Labor States or Territories are Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Tasmania gets a rap over the knuckles for being stubborn and refusing to enact land rights legislation and the Federal Government undertakes to negotiate with Tasmania. What will be done if the Tasmanian Liberal Government remains stubborn is left to the imagination. The Northern Territory, as honourable senators know by now, is to remain fettered by the difficulties imposed by the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. That legislation has been in place since 1976 and it has become increasingly apparent over the years of its operation and the extension of its original intentions by the High Court that the legislation requires some amendment. The Federal Labor Government has been promising reform since it came to power in 1983 and now, three years down the track, what has it to offer? The absolute right of veto over mining on Aboriginal land is to stay. That is one of the principal problems with the legislation yet the Federal Government is choosing to ignore it. What of a time limit on land claims, so that we can restore a bit of certainty to the Territory-so that pastoralists will know, if their stock routes and reserves are traditional Aboriginal land, not to mention the ordinary citizen with public land. Well, the Federal Government does make a suggestion about a time limit. It suggests 10 years from now-another 10 years during which confusion can reign supreme in the Territory, during which traditional land claims will crop up at the most opportune times, that is, whenever a piece of unalienated Crown land is discovered to be of some value to someone-miners, pastoralists or community organisations. To give credit where it is due the Federal Government has said that it will introduce amendments to facilitate access across Aboriginal land for the provision of services such as electricity, water and sewerage. This is reasonable. On that point, I feel that I should mention that the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, recently suggested in this place that in my private member's Bill, which was debated to some extent last Thursday, the elements of my Bill which go to make the same provisions were lifted from the proposed legislation of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding. Of course, they were not. My Bill has been on the drawing board, for over three years, and these provisions relating to access for the provision of essential services were largely based on those proposed by the Honourable Ian Wilson when he was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government. So if I lifted them from anyone it was from Ian Wilson who was working on them years ago-long before they ever occurred to Mr Holding. On the matter of Aboriginal land rights the Federal Government often seeks to back up its actions with the authority of various experts in the field. For example, Senator Ryan recently referred to the need for Aboriginal control over their land which the Senator said was regarded as vital by Justice Edward Woodward. For the benefit of Senator Ryan I would like to bring her right up to date on what Mr Justice Woodward is saying about Aboriginal land rights. At the twenty-third Australian Legal Convention Mr Justice Woodward said: I can only reiterate this warning-- he was referring to the warning to Aboriginal people to lay claims only to areas which are genuinely of value to them- and suggest that Aboriginal councils and their advisers give careful thought to the extent of future claims-and even consider the advisability of forgoing or surrendering some land already claimed or granted. Even Justice Woodward, who is quoted with such authority by Senator Ryan in this place, has acknowledged that there are problems with land rights. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.23) —On page 2 of the statement the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) states: Aborigines are citizens of the States like everybody else. They are entitled to look to the States to provide them with those basic services that State governments normally provide to their citizens. It also states: While their motives may have varied considerably, the underlying premise is clear; Tasmania aside, the States accept that they have a responsibility. I am afraid that Tasmania's situation is deplorable. In Tasmania we have an Aboriginal community whose fight is not only for land rights but also to gain recognition that it exists. The myth persists that all the Aborigines in Tasmania were killed. That is not true, but the myth does persist. It is used against the Aborigines. These people are fighting for recognition. They have petitioned the Gray Government for a small parcel of land at Oyster Cove. The Gray Government has not responded in any way to this, except to say no. The Aboriginal community in Tasmania looks with great envy at the mainland, at some of the more enlightened States where Aborigines are at least being given some land rights. In Tasmania the Aboriginal population is not only discriminated against; it is ignored. We saw in Tasmania the deplorable situation of a drive being held across the State with the goal of killing off all the Tasmanian Aboriginals. Fortunately, many escaped. Later they were rounded up under the guise of religion and herded into camps where many of them died. Some did survive. They merely want recognition. They would also like the use of the title to their mutton-birding islands in Bass Strait. Very little is said about this. Perhaps very few people on the mainland know about this. It is very important to the Aboriginal community that does exist. It is one of the few ways that Aborigines can still maintain themselves on their land and maintain their dignity. The Bass Strait islands are important to this. Of course, once again, the Gray Government refuses to negotiate. I feel that the situation in Tasmania should be rectified. As a Tasmanian, I feel that I have a responsibility towards these people, many of whom are my friends, to try to bring their case to the nation. I hope that the rest of the nation recognises the fact that the Tasmanian Aboriginal people deserve better than they are getting from the State Government, and I hope that the Aboriginal people around the country get better than they will apparently get from the Federal Government. After all, these people used that land. They used it wisely for 42,000 years or so and they left it in much the condition that they found it; it was still usable. They had a philosophy which allowed them and us to survive. If we now look to their culture and take some guidance from it we can all live together in harmony on this continent. If not, Aboriginal and white people alike will no longer be able to survive in Australia with any great degree of plentitude because we are running down the environment very rapidly. With these remarks I will terminate my contribution. I hope that the people of the mainland of Australia recognise the problems of the Tasmanian Aboriginals. Debate (on motion by Senator Archer) adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The 1984-85 annual report of the Canberra Theatre Trust highlights some of the basic problems in the Government's administration of the Australian Capital Territory. At one level there is the exquisite slowness with which the Department of Territories operates. At another, there is the Government's policy of running down equipment and buildings as much as possible before handing over a giant headache to the local community and to the proposed self-governing council. The statement of the Chairman of the Canberra Theatre Trust, Mr Kerry Stokes, at the front of the report summarises very well some of the difficulties. All performing arts centres in Australia are going through a difficult period because of high interest rates. These are eating into the disposable income of families and entertainment is one of the first things to go; people just do not go to the theatre. Canberra is further disadvantaged because of the very high transport and travel costs associated with bringing productions into the Australian Capital Territory. The population is quite small and unable fully to defray the extra costs that arise because of this. The Australian Opera, the Australian Ballet, the Sydney Dance Co. and a number of productions of the Elizabethan Theatre Trust were unable to visit Canberra last year simply for this reason. At the moment we have only a tentative booking for the Australian Ballet this year; we are not certain that it will actually come to fruition. However, the same problems arise for commercial managements of theatre. They find it much more lucrative to bring productions to the main State capital cities than to Canberra. Fortunately, money is made available through the Canberra development fund. This does attract some commercial productions. This is one of the few things in which the House of Assembly has had a say to date and I think it is very laudable. The money that goes into the entrepreneurial activity fund can be used to offset the rentals charged for the use of the theatre and thereby makes Canberra a much better place to visit for a commercial promoter. It is also available so that the rentals charged when amateur societies use the theatre can be kept at a very reasonable level. In the report the Canberra Theatre Trust draws attention to its request of 23 March 1984 that it be allowed to participate in activities outside the centre. This would enable the Trust to use another venue if the Theatre Centre were booked out. It would also enable successful productions to tour in rural areas of New South Wales and thus extend the services which are offered. While the Trust is now allowed to sell tickets for outside venues its other pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps the Department is working on the matter but its track record does not leave much hope for an early and sensible solution. There is also mention of the rather run-down nature of the building. The floor and seating need quite a deal of work. The foyer needs complete refurbishing and the furnishings and appointments have been battered by 20 years of constant use. Apparently there is an asbestos problem which will have to be attended to. I understand that money from the Department of Territories and the Department of Housing and Construction will enable this work to be done. However, it is disturbing that the Government has knocked back two proposals for imaginative reconsideration of the facilities and the development of this area into a more useful community resource. If attitudes do not change, the people of Canberra will be handed a crumbling problem of major magnitude. It seems that the Government's intention is to do this in every area associated with self-government. I hope that this fact will be noted and that we can introduce various changes into the self-government program to help such organisations as the Canberra Theatre Trust. I commend its annual report to the Senate. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.32) —I wish to make just one or two quick remarks particularly in relation to the comments made by Senator Vigor who, I think, told half the story in relation to the Canberra Theatre Trust. If one reads a little more detail into the letter, written by Kerry Stokes, the Chairman of the Canberra Theatre Trust and addressed to the Honourable Gordon Scholes, one has a clearer understanding of what is happening in relation to the Theatre and its maintenance. Kerry Stokes, the Chairman of the Centre, stated: Dear Minister, On behalf of the Canberra Theatre Trust I present the Twentieth Annual Report of the operations of the Canberra Theatre Centre for the year ending 30 June, 1985. I think it is worth mentioning at this stage that the Theatre Trust and the Theatre Centre have been operating for 20 years and have done a remarkably good job. Mr Kerry Stokes continued: The report details the Trust's achievements during the past year and also those factors inhibiting the satisfactory realisation of the objectives specified by the Ordinance. A comparison with other Centres shows that our operation is efficient, especially in terms of subsidy per unit of attendance. Careful management and stringent economics in a time of rising costs and reduced touring activity have resulted in costs being contained. But the decline in usage and attendance, which have been evident for some time, are still causes for concern. These problems are common to performing arts centres throughout Australia but are accentuated in our case by the relatively small population and the age of the Centre. If Senator Vigor had pointed out those matters it would have been fairly clear that the Centre has done a very good job and that the Government has not completely neglected it. From the time the Centre has been operating, the work done and productions put on by it have resulted in wear and tear. I think that point has been recognised by the centre and the Government. Mr Kerry Stokes continues: The Trust has accorded high priority to the development of local arts activities. The encouragement of professional and semi-professional local companies, through joint ventures, and the class programs, are obvious examples. We especially indicate our concern for the physical state of the Centre. Twenty years of energetic use have taken their toll and decisions concerning the future of the Centre cannot be postponed without serious detriment to the cultural life of the Canberra community. I think everyone agrees with that. The letter has been written to the Minister for Territories. If we were to ask him I think he too would agree. Mr Stokes continues: The Trust has submitted proposals and we are disappointed that they have not been accepted. Nonetheless-- this is the point that was not raised- further proposals are in preparation and will be submitted after consultation with officers of your department. I repeat that this letter was addressed to the Minister and signed by Kerry Stokes, Chairman of the Canberra Theatre Trust. The other point raised by Senator Vigor was that there is no opera in Canberra. The letter continues: The obvious omission was opera. As mentioned earlier, the Australian Opera does not visit and Canberra Opera disbanded. I do not think that point was made by Senator Vigor. The letter continues: Dance was well represented with programs from Australian Dance Theatre, Qld Ballet, Canberra Dance Ensemble and others including folk ensembles from Spain and Bulgaria. Musicals included Graeme Bond's Captain Bloody, touring productions of Beach Blanket Tempest, Footrot Flats, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs . . . So the Theatre has performed very well and has had a large number of productions in the 20 years in which it has been operating. I think the point has been made to the Minister that some repairs and work need to be done to bring the centre to the level it was when it was first opened. I think that Kerry Stokes, the Chairman, and the Minister realise that further work needs to be carried out. Some work needs to be carried out to save the Centre so that we can have productions of this sort of art and musical productions at it. I hope that in future Senator Vigor, in his endeavours and enthusiasm, will tell the full story, not half the story, in relation to the Centre. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak on behalf of the productive sector of the economy even if it is on only a very small report for what is one of the smaller primary industries. The Fishing Development Trust Account has been going for some years. It handles only a fairly small amount. In the year under review it was $350,000. It has a very wide effect on the fishing industry and fits in very well with other research moneys from other sources. It does not have the same constraints that some other funding has but it gets right to the point and it does things when necessary. The Fishing Industry Act annual report shows that only five new projects were added to the list this year but it continued with some of the existing projects. I think that we have now all come to realise that Australian waters are not very plentiful with fish and that we need to guard very carefully what we have. We need to handle in the best possible manner what fish we have; we have to try to look for the species of high value; we have to conserve them adequately and we have to increase as much as possible the value of the work we do to the catch. This body does nearly all of those things. A major project has been in operation for the last three of four years which makes an adequate survey and assessment of deep water fish from southern New South Wales to south-eastern and south-western Tasmania. The results have been very patchy. I believe that we have now reached the stage when we have to accept that this area will never be a major fishery. We will find that there will be patches of fish. It will be expensive fishing but I believe that the amount of research that has been done will probably prevent some disasters in the area of over-fishing when the resource is really quite limited. Over the last few years I have had a lot of interest in the endeavours to establish an octopus fishery in Bass Strait. While the trust account has done quite a lot of work and provided funds for this project over a period, the research has been held up for a remarkably small item. So far it has not been possible to produce a clip that will stand the corrosion on the bottom of Bass Strait to hold the octopus pots to the line. After some years of research we still do not have a material that can withstand this and it is holding up research. I am very sorry about it because a young fisherman called Michael Hardy, whom I have mentioned in this place before, has done a lot of work on this. At times he has given up other forms of fishing to concentrate on this matter and it is a pity that all the technicalities of the situation have not enabled him to maximise his effort. I appreciate the part played by the Fisheries Development Trust Account over the years and the way in which it operates in conjunction with the other financing bodies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I warn the honourable senator that he has only a little over a minute to speak. Senator MASON —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. I will go directly to page 4 of the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The Minister states that the Philippines will need all the help and encouragement it can get from its friends. I wanted to speak particularly to that point. For my sins 30 years ago I happened to be in the Philippines as a journalist just after the death of Ramon Magsaysay, who, as honourable senators will remember, was pledged to land reform in the Philippines and the other things that the Minister talked about in the statement which he has made today. Not much changed in the Philippines after that. I want to remind the Government of the intractable nature of the problems in the Philippines and the fact that the accession of the Aquino Government has not necessarily solved those problems but that they must be solved. I implore the Minister to go further than he has in this statement and to try to use whatever influence he has with the Aquino Government to see that there is a genuine program of land reform in the Philippines. Such a program is urgently needed and will be resisted by those regional power groups, especially of the army, which, I assure the Senate, will still be in place. The Minister said that the expectation of reform is acute and widespread. He has really said something there. The barrios in the Philippines have suffered for decades. It is not good enough for us now to sit down and consider that all has been solved and that because of the people power in the Philippines this matter need not concern us any more. With those words I can only reiterate the need for us to take as positive an attitude as we can towards the Philippines without committing that final sin of intruding unduly in the internal affairs of that country. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff)-by leave-agreed to: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for General Business, Thursday. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Senator Georges: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.43) —I started my presentation on the report of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare on 12 March and I wish now to continue. At that time I was pointing out that Senator Brownhill, who is also a member of the Committee, made a dissenting report. Senator Brownhill, speaking on his decision to issue a dissenting report, stated: Having taken that decision, I believe I have been proven right by the only people qualified to comment-those scientists, marine park operators, zoologists, marine biologists who work in the field of cetacea. These are not the people who really should be listened to. Listening to these kinds of people would be akin to listening to the woodchippers on an evaluation of whether or not to make an area into a national park because all these people have a vested interest. Senator Brownhill said that he had been proven right by the only people qualified to comment-the marine park operators. They want to make money out of dolphins. That is what they are interested in. It is a commercial operation. So their comments would have commercial merit but in terms of animal welfare they have no right at all to comment. What about the scientists, the marine biologists and the zoologists? I was an academic for 18 years and I know how it works. These people are trying to save their academic rice bowls. They are on a good wicket. They have got something to study. They have made their whole academic career out of studying dolphins in captivity or dolphins in general. It is quite good for them to have these dolphins kicking around so that they do not have to go out and get seasick on a boat. They can study them in place. Certainly they are trying to protect their vested academic interests. These people are not dispassionate observers of the scene; they have a vested interest-and so it goes. I think the people we want to listen to are those who have the welfare of dolphins at heart-the people who are truly interested in the welfare of the dolphins, not people with some commercial or academic interest. Senator Brownhill —People who don't mind them dying in the wild while the other ones are in captivity. Senator SANDERS —The honourable senator says that these people do not mind the dolphins dying in the wild while others are in captivity. What an obnoxious thing for him to say. I hope that he will retract that statement because it is a slur on the very people who were so concerned about these animals that they got the Committee on Animal Welfare going in the first place and then testified before it. Senator Brownhill is using that old chestnut that constantly comes up. He is saying that since something terrible is happening some place else we all ought to rush off and do something about it and leave his pet project alone. That is not so. We ought to work on them all. Certainly we are concerned about the gill netting of dolphins. This is something at which this Senate and this Government should have a look because dolphins are dying in gill nets. Probably while we are speaking dolphins are dying in gill nets in Australian waters and this should be handled. But what about the oceanariums? Do they have any impact on this? Not likely. In fact, during the Senate hearings, Mr Gordon Anderson from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service stated that the presence of Atlantis-a dolphinarium-was not critical to the research program, which could have proceeded without captive dolphins if none had been available. This research program refers to the gill netting of dolphins. Here we have a testimony that the dolphinaria are not essential to the stopping of gill netting. Senator Brownhill, in referring to the effects of captivity on cetacean sonar, stated: In Australia, work has been conducted at Atlantis, Western Australia, over five years on this subject, with no recorded loss being established. Project Jonah and all the animal welfare people contend that there is good reason to believe that a concrete tank acts as a reverberation chamber. It is only common sense. Dolphins are used to living in an open sea environment. If they got reflections off anything it would be off the bottom of the sea. If we put them in a tank they will get reflections off the side of the tank. It is impossible to prevent this even with a catenary curve in a tank as some of the dolphinariums are proposing. Doctor Peter Fullagar, a highly qualified geophysicist, who deals with seismology, noted in his submission to the Senate Committee the way in which waves are refracted around the earth's surface. He has said: . . . there are reasons to conclude that acoustic conditions inside a tank would be both unpleasant and disorienting for cetacea. I think common sense could also add that of course they would be. The dolphin is a free swimming animal. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.50) —I take this opportunity to add a few remarks on the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare as it relates to dolphins and whales in captivity, particularly as it relates to dolphins or cetacea, as they are referred to in the report. I wonder whether many people in Australia would know what cetacea are, but everybody knows about dolphins of course. They have been in captivity in oceanaria in various parts of the world for many years and have given pleasure and enjoyment to very many people, both young and old, as they have watched displays. Senator Georges —Yes, but what about the dolphins? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Well, I have not been able to talk to the dolphins, so I am not too sure about that, but children particularly enjoy these displays, and I would say that adults in the main are only grown children. Figures available tell us that five million people each year go to oceanaria in various parts of Australia, including Seaworld on the Gold Coast. I can speak about the high standards of care at Seaworld because I have had the opportunity of going there and seeing it for myself, just as I have seen the vast numbers of people who enjoy going there and taking the opportunity to take their children. I have taken my grandchildren there and I know just how much they enjoy it. Throughout the world 110 million people each year go to see dolphins in oceanaria. I believe that these dolphins should be given adequate room to live, and paragraph 8.15 of the report recommends strict guidelines for the future care of cetacea. If there are strict guidelines and they are adhered to, it would seem to me not to be quite so wrong to keep them in captivity. Paragraph 2.25 says: Recently there has been increased interest in observing . . . cetacea in their natural environment. Numbers of visitors to Monkey Mia, in WA, to see the dolphins, have grown considerably. Dolphins are common along the east Victorian coastline and are regularly observed in Port Phillip Bay. I was up in Torres Strait towards the end of last year and saw quite a number of them around there, but in most cases it is very difficult to see the dolphins. They are lovely animals to watch. I suppose it is nice for them to be free in their natural state, but it does not give people as a whole the opportunity of seeing them. I understand recently one of the dolphins at Monkey Mia was speared by a tourist, so it does not seem to me that dolphins in their natural environment are any safer than they are in captivity. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, made a statement about dolphins being caught in nets of foreign fishing boats operating in north Australian waters. He expressed concern about the catching of dolphins-he did not call them cetacea by the way; he called them dolphins-in the gill nets of foreign fishing boats operating in northern Australian waters under agreement with the Commonwealth. I understand, too, that hundreds of dolphins die in shark nets off the Australian coast. Does that mean that if all the oceanaria are to be closed, as is suggested in New South Wales, all the shark nets around Australia should be removed, if one takes the argument to the ultimate. I am sure that many people who swim in our oceans would be very upset if that were to happen. It is important that animals be well cared for and those of us who live in the country appreciate this. At home we, as do other people who live in the country, have horses for riding and dogs for cattle work, all of which are well cared for. At our place even the possums are well cared for because every night when we are home they get fed. The birds at Bethany do not have to go looking for food as seed is given to them every day. I believe we want to look after animals and birds. I think it is important to remind Australians of the need to care for their animals, but I do not think we want to get carried away by information from the animal liberation people who tell us that dolphins in captivity are not being looked after, because I believe that they are. I believe that the owners of oceanaria would want to look after dolphins in their care to the best of their ability, so that they will live in captivity and will be able to multiply. This is happening in all the oceanaria throughout Australia. If they were not being well looked after, I am quite sure that this would not be happening. In addition, it gives pleasure to millions of visitors to oceanaria in Australia and also helps to maintain successful business enterprises, so that oceanaria will continue to give pleasure to people throughout Australia, adults and children as well. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.55) —I note that the Select Committee on Animal Welfare was unanimous in all but three recommendations, and it was certainly agreed on the general thrust of the recommendations, acknowledging the welfare aspects of the inquiry and the deficiencies in the present treatment and conditions of captivity of cetaceans. I make no apology for using the word `cetaceans'. I think that it is increasingly a word known to the Australian public and covers a number of species. Senator Brownhill, who dissented from those three recommendations, seems to have had second thoughts about the rest of the report, but I shall return to some of his comments later. In discussing the report I draw particular attention to the evidence of a high rate of disease, of mortality, and particularly of infant mortality. In other words, they may breed, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen said, but that does not mean that the offspring survive. There was also evidence relating to stress, particularly due to the acoustic properties of concrete tanks and changes in behaviour and social relationships brought about by the conditions of captivity. I think Senator Sanders has adequately answered Senator Brownhill's complaints about the acoustic evidence. Senator Brownhill —It was not very good evidence that he gave. Senator ZAKHAROV —I could go into the matter in more detail, but I do not think there is any point in going over it again. It is expert evidence by Dr Fullagar, who is an expert in this area. Senator Brownhill referred last week to the letters he has received disagreeing with the recommendations of the Committee. I emphasise that there is a large body of scientific data which shows the opposite. We have referred to sound stress and I cite one further authority, Geraci, who identified the following problems of captive cetaceans: (a) Hierarchal aggressive behaviour by dominant animals on subordinates, from which no escape is possible in captive conditions, leading to injuries and death. Restricted space in dolphinaria appears to increase this aggressive behaviour. (b) Nutritional disorders associated with a restrictive captive diet. (c) Susceptibility to disease of recently caught cetaceans leading to high mortality rates, notably during the first few days and weeks of captivity. Exotic diseases that have not previously been described in wild specimens are not uncommon in captive cetaceans. The argument has been advanced that dolphinaria and similar establishments are educationally valuable. This argument may have had some merit in the past, but it has little in these days of widely available video, television and film material which can show these mammals in their natural state behaving normally rather than as circus performers. In many parts of Australia it is possible for children to observe cetaceans in the wild. I think, for example, of the southern reaches of Port Phillip Bay in my own State. But certainly care is needed-this was referred to in the report-both in observation at sea and in filming because of the possibility of interfering with the lifestyle of the animal. Senator Brownhill referred to gill netting which, if honourable senators will excuse the metaphor, is a red herring. I might agree that gill netting is harmful, but it is not part of the terms of reference of the inquiry, which deals with cetaceans in captivity. Of course, those who object to the capture and keeping of cetaceans also object to gill nets-not just for cetaceans but also for other sea life-but that is not relevant here. Nor do I agree with Senator Brownhill's inference that it is a good thing to exhibit these creatures because people flock to see them. That was some of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's argument as well. People used to go to stare at mental hospital patients, and they still stare at cock fights and other blood sports; but that does not justify them. Those who are complaining about the Committee's recommendations are, I believe, motivated far less by the desire to advance education and research than they are by commercial considerations. Most dolphinaria, or oceanaria, or whatever one likes to call them, do little research or genuine educational work. Nor have they been, with a few individual exceptions, prominent in the rescue efforts which have been mounted to save stranded whales, quite successfully in recent years, by various groups around Australia. Incidentally, the man who proposed showing captive cetacea in Melbourne, who complained widely and not always with complete honesty about the findings of the Senate Committee, failed to respond to my answer to his letter, in which I answered a number of the points that he made. I can only assume that he found that he could not satisfactorily answer those points. I am very pleased that the Cain Labor Government in my State of Victoria has taken a decision to prohibit the keeping of cetacea and their capture in Victorian waters. The New South Wales Government has this week taken similar action, and I congratulate it. I am not a person who is prone to anthropomorphic tendencies-that is, imputing human characteristics to animals. But there is a strong case, based on a large body of research, to show that cetacea are high in the order of species, on the grounds of intelligence and of demonstrated complex social behaviour. I think that there were flaws in Senator Brownhill's argument last week, when he said that there was no correlation between those two so, therefore, neither was valid. As a psychologist, I have read a lot of that research and seen a lot of visual material on the subject. I should like also to quote the words of Jacques Cousteau, whose name is familiar to everyone here, as it is to most people in Australia. He has said: Marine mammals, and toothed whales in particular, stand above and apart from all other creatures except man. They deserve protection and respect. I am sincerely against using them as circus animals and therefore I am against the creation of commercial exhibits of live marine mammals. I commend the Committee for its report and recommendations. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.02) —I, too, would like to speak about the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare in regard to dolphins and whales in captivity. I commence by commending the Committee on the work that it has put into the consideration of this important matter. I am very pleased that the report recommends the establishment of high standards for dolphinariums in Australia. However, I should like to address my comments on the report to two particular recommendations about which I have some concern. The first is that no further facilities for keeping captive cetacea be permitted to be established in Australia. The second recommendation is that existing oceanaria be allowed to continue keeping cetacea for the time being but that the keeping of cetacea be eventually phased out unless further research justifies its continuance. The Committee has based its recommendations on the following conclusion: . . . benefits of oceanaria in Australia for humans and cetacea are not longer sufficient to justify the adverse effects of capture for captivity. That conclusion must be questionable in light of available scientific and highly regarded evidence. On page 73 of the report the Committee states: Analyses of mortality rates and longevity can be used for the objective measure of the welfare of animals in captivity. But independent scientific research, both in Australia and overseas, has shown that there is no conclusive evidence to support this view. Indeed, as Michael Bryden, Reader in Anatomy at the University of Queensland, has indicated, the Atlantis Marine Park in Western Australia has not had a single mortality. Improved husbandry methods have improved the welfare of captive animals significantly, and further application of stringent husbandry methods, as recommended in the report-with which methods I fully agree-will result in greater welfare for dolphins in the future. Senator Georges —It has done so for pigs and fowls, too, in intensive husbandry. Senator SHORT —Yes. Another view accepted by the Committee was: . . . evidence points to the probability that cetacea have complex social behaviours and are highly intelligent. That appears on page 3 of the report, and that view is also based on questionable reasoning and, it would appear, a lack of objective, scientific support. This identification of complex social behaviours and intelligence implies that ants and bees-- Senator Georges —We did not say that at all. Senator SHORT —Just hang on; let me finish, Senator; you will have your turn next. This identification of complex social behaviours and intelligence implies that ants and bees, which also have complex patterns of behaviour in a highly complex social structure-I am sure that Senator Georges would not deny that-are therefore-- Senator Georges —We did not say what you are suggesting in the first place. Senator SHORT —I am not saying that you did, Senator; I am just simply making the point that because ants and bees have those structures, it could follow logically that they, therefore, also are highly intelligent. Acceptance of this argument-- Senator Georges —But we did not say that. Senator SHORT —I am not saying that you did, Senator. Senator Georges —Yes, you are; you are inferring that we did. Senator SHORT —I understand that the honourable senator may be able to respond in a few moments. Acceptance of this argument warrants the cessation of keeping ants and bees in captivity, which, of course, would be an absurd result. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the view accepted in the report that dolphins have a particularly high intelligence compared with non-human animals, such as dogs and sheep. Indeed, the only evidence that supports the view that dolphins have a particularly high intelligence relative to other non-human mammals, is that dolphins have a large brain. Sir Francis Crick, who is a Nobel Laureate, believes that the large brain of dolphins is related to their sleep patterns and metabolism and may have nothing to do with intelligence. The evidence cited in the report for the `intelligent' dolphin is-- Senator Georges —Did he say `may'? Senator SHORT —Yes, I think so-`may'. Senator Georges —He did not say `has'. Senator SHORT —No, that is right; and I shall come to that shortly. The evidence cited in the report, though, for the `intelligent' dolphin is dismissed by other independent scientists because of its lack of objectivity, as they see it. The view that `dolphins are intelligent' does not stand up to objective and rigorous testing and cannot be employed to support the case against the captivity of cetacea. The report also fails to pay due heed to the benefits in terms of scientific research for all Australians and the international community. Much of our understanding of the needs and behaviour of captive aquatic animals, including cetacea, has proved invaluable in the protection and management of their wild counterparts. Without oceanaria, we will be unable to learn how to treat dolphins in the wild with the care and attention that is necessary in the interests of animal welfare. Unless some of these animals were kept in captivity, it would be very difficult and expensive to conduct the necessary research. After all, in the wild, cetacea are extremely mobile. The report also fails to acknowledge the negative economic impact of the possible shut-down of those parks already in existence and of forbidding any new marine parks. I understand that in New South Wales, for example, two parks have already been threatened with closure. I have no objection to the Government having a say in terms of the operation of parks and the standards to be set, but I would think that there would be advantage in giving existing parks an opportunity to upgrade their standards rather than to threaten them with closure prematurely. Uncertainty and risk for future developments in the industry will occur as a result of the recommendations. Existing owners will be reluctant to upgrade their facilities, because they may keep cetacea, according to the report, only for `the time being'. Our tourist industry could well be affected. First hand contact with cetacea plays a vital role in raising public awareness of this important group of animals. Thousands of people visit marine parks each year. Closure of marine parks would force tourists to turn to other countries where they could view dolphins. We would completely lose control of the environment and practices of marine parks if they were banned. I repeat what I said at the outset: The Opposition welcomes the recommendations of the report concerning the upgrading of facilities and improved husbandry methods. But, if the recommendations regarding the possible closure and prohibition of establishing new parks are adopted, it will be a very severe blow to our international standing in the scientific community. Senator Missen —You are not speaking on behalf of the Opposition, are you? Senator SHORT —No, I am speaking privately. I would not do otherwise. The adoption of those recommendations would curtail our efforts in the protection and management of captive animals and their wild counterparts. It would have an unwarranted negative impact on the economy and, to a degree, on the social fabric of Australia. I believe that emotions, rather than dispassionate discourse and objective evidence, will be the modus vivendi guiding policy decisions in this area unless we are very careful. That is not a good basis for making sound and responsible policy decisions. I hope that the Government will give these issues full consideration before taking final decisions. I hope that State governments also will be influenced in that way. Senator Georges —I think you ought to read the report again. Senator SHORT —I have done so. In conclusion, the point I am making is that the evidence on this issue is very balanced on both sides. I believe that the report and its recommendations need much more careful consideration before firm decisions are taken. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.12) —I commend the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare on its report entitled `Dolphins and whales in captivity'. I believe that it is a further step in what one might call the civilisation of mankind. One should thank organisations such as Project Jonah which, in the last 10 or 15 years, have brought new thinking into the area of the treatment of animals. I believe that, just as Australia stood foremost in the world in regard to the stopping of the trade in whales, it is important that in this area a recommendation of the Senate Committee makes it clear that we do not want to see an extension of the holding of cetacea in captivity. The report is the result of careful consideration and analysis by the members of the Committee. I believe that the first three recommendations are outstanding and important. The first recommendation, in paragraph 8.9, states: . . . the Committee recommends that no further facilities for keeping captive cetacea be permitted to be established in Australia and that no further permits be issued for the capture of cetacea in Australian Commonwealth or State waters. It further recommends that importation of cetacea from overseas be banned. One might say that the actions which the Victorian Government and, apparently, the New South Wales Government are taking indicate that this recommendation will be accepted. The second recommendation, in paragraph 8.10, states: The Committee also recommends that existing oceanaria be allowed to continue keeping cetacea for the time being but that the keeping of cetacea should eventually be phased out unless further research justifies their continuance. The third recommendation, in paragraph 8.12, states: The Committee recommends that existing oceanaria be required to submit to more stringent assessments of educational and research functions by supplying detailed information similar to that required for applicants for scientific and educational permits in current Commonwealth guidelines and to be able to show that education and research constitute a significant component of the oceanarium's activities. Senator Brownhill —Hear, hear! Senator MISSEN —I am glad to hear Senator Brownhill's interjection. The report is not unanimous; but it seems that Senator Brownhill has rather firmed up his attitudes since the time he put in his dissenting report. However, before I come to that matter, I say that some conclusions which the Committee makes in the report are very important, such as that contained in paragraph 6.26, namely: There is general acknowledgment, even among those who support oceanaria, that cetacean behaviour is changed by captivity and that adverse effects may result. There is sufficient evidence in the report to suggest that this is so. Paragraph 6.35 states: Available information does confirm that all cetacea suffer some stress during capture and transportation. It is clear that most environments in which cetacea are kept are not similar to their native environments and, undoubtedly, cause a great deal of distress to fairly sensitive animals such as cetacea. The keeping of cetacea in concrete cages without a semblance of natural life is not approved of by the Australian people generally. I think the Australian people generally will approve of this report. As I have said, New South Wales, and particularly Victoria where there is a current application for the establishment of an oceanarium, have made it clear that such practices will not be tolerated. It has been said that the Committee was not unanimous in its recommendations. Senator Brownhill has put in a short dissenting report. I point out how very limited are the matters from which he dissents. He recommends in his dissenting report that paragraph 8.8, which states that the benefits of oceanaria are no longer sufficient to justify the adverse effects of capture on cetacea, be deleted. He states: I do not believe the evidence is sufficient for that conclusion to be reached. In other words, he is not persuaded by the whole of the evidence. Paragraph 8.9 of the report recommends that no further facilities for the keeping of captive cetacea be permitted and that no further permits be granted. Senator Brownhill's recommendation is very limited. His recommendation is as follows: The Committee recommends that no further permits be issued for the capture of cetacea in Commonwealth or State waters, unless there are adequate scientific or educational reasons for so doing. It further recommends that importation of cetacea from overseas be banned. I do not think he is suggesting in that recommendation that the evidence does not exist. It is clear from my reading of the report that the evidence is very substantial to show that no further permits should be granted. The third paragraph from which he dissents is paragraph 8.10, which recommends that the existing oceanaria be allowed to continue but that they be phased out unless there is scientific justification for their continuance. Senator Brownhill's recommendation is as follows: The Committee recommends that existing oceanaria be allowed to continue keeping cetacea, provided they meet the strict guidelines and national standards proposed in this Report. I do not think Senator Brownhill is suggesting that the keeping of cetacea should now be phased out. Certain arguments which have been raised in the debate, particularly by Senator Brownhill, have been replied to in a letter, which I think we all received, from Dr Stephen Whiteside, the Co-Director of Project Jonah, dated 14 March 1986. For the sake of convenience, I seek leave for the letter to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Senator, Project Jonah believes that a number of statements and assertions made in the House by Senator D. Brownhill on 12th March, 1986 are either incorrect or misleading, and thus, must not be allowed to pass unchallenged. These statements (in parentheses) together with our response, are as follows. (i) Referring to his decision to issue a Dissenting Report, Senator Brownhill states: ``Having taken that decision, I believe I have been proven right by the only people qualified to comment-those scientists, marine park operators, zoologists, marine biologists who work in the field of cetacea.'' Scientists and marine park operators are most certainly NOT the only people qualified to comment. The issue is in large part a moral one and should therefore be judged by as broad a cross-section as possible of the general community. Community-based groups such as Project Jonah therefore are extremely well qualified to comment on moral issues such as this, as was well recognised by the Senate Committee. Indeed, if the discussion were left to scientists and marine park operators alone we would have no Report to discuss, as it was the work of groups such as Project Jonah, Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation that originally provided the stimulus for the Report to be commissioned. (ii) Referring to the question of the effects of captivity on cetacean sonar, Senator Brownhill states: ``In Australia, work has been conducted at Atlantis, Western Australia over five years on this subject, with no recorded loss being established.'' Project Jonah contends that there is good reason to believe that a concrete tank acts as a reverberation chamber, which is likely to be highly unpleasant to captive cetacea. In his submission to the Senate Committee, Dr Peter Fullagar, a highly qualified geophysicist, states: ``. . . there are reasons to conclude that acoustic conditions inside a tank would be both unpleasant and disorienting for cetacea.'' The fact of the matter however is that no formal study of this nature has ever been undertaken. We seriously doubt whether the Atlantis study included comprehensive recording of wild dolphins for comparison with captive specimens. Indeed, even Dr M. Bryden, from the University of Queensland, a staunch supporter of the captivity of dolphins, knows of no such study having been performed. In a letter of his to Senator Brownhill (29th January, 1986) he states, in reference to the effect of concrete tanks on dolphins' sonar: ``. . . it could easily be tested, and should be tested.'' While we do not share Dr Bryden's optimistic assessment that it would be easy to test, we certainly agree that it should be tested. Certainly, Dr Bryden's implication is quite clear that, to date, it has not been tested. (iii) Senator Brownhill states: ``. . . successful breeding in captivity is increasing, with calves born at Marineland, South Australia, the Porpoise Pool at Coffs Harbour and at Warragamba, New South Wales.'' The fact of the matter is that there is a gulf between ``successful breeding'' and the sporadic births referred to by Senator Brownhill. Moreover, these births relate to dolphins only. False killer whales (pseudorca crassidens) are also held captive in Australia. There are no reported births of false killer whales in captivity anywhere in the world. Sea World (Queensland) has put forward a proposal to exhibit killer whales (orcinus orca) in captivity. Only one of the small handful of killer whales to be born in captivity has survived for more than a few months. It was born at Sea World (Orlando, Florida) in September, 1985 and hence is now only six months old. (iv) Senator Brownhill states: ``Recently the Committee Chairman, Senator Georges, was quoted on television as saying very little work had been done on the accidental trapping of dolphins in gill nets. The truth is that substantial work has been done on this subject and is continuing. This work would have been impossible without the availability of captive dolphins.'' During the Senate hearings, Mr Gordon Anderson, from the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, stated that the presence of Atlantis was not critical to the research programme, which could have proceeded without captive dolphins if none had been available. (Senate hearings 24th April 1985, Hansard pp. 3, 773-4). The problems of gill nets is far greater than just the numbers of small cetacea they entangle. Many other forms of marine life are also trapped and drowned. Indeed, gill nets are an unsound method of fishing, as they are totally non-selective, and generally deplete all fish from a given area in an uncontrolled fashion over a period of years. Groups such as Project Jonah are calling for a total cessation of gill netting operations in northern Australian waters. Senator Brownhill continues: `Over 3,000 dolphins are trapped each year in gill nets. Only fifty dolphins are kept in oceanaria, and yet it is these captive dolphins that have attracted the attention of the animal liberationists while thousands of others die accidentally each year through fishing operations. The argument is not in perspective.' The fact of the matter is that Project Jonah first submitted evidence to the Senate Committee on Animal Welfare in relation to both the Taiwanese gill net industry and cetaceans in captivity on 14th March 1984 (two years ago today). Since that time, we have continued to lobby Federal politicians and public servants in an attempt to achieve our aim of the total cessation of all northern Australian gill net fishing operations. The Minister for Primary Industry, the Hon. John Kerin, issued a public telex on 17th February 1986 in which he stated: `A review of policy on pelagic gill netting is underway to develop a alternative approaches which could be adopted should research fail to demonstrate a satisfactory method of reducing the dolphin catch.' Project Jonah commends the Committee for its Report, and urges that the Government accept its Recommendations. Unfortunately, however, it seems to us that Senator Brownhill is motivated more by a desire to defend the short-sighted interests of dolphinarium owners than a desire to properly address the complex issues involved. Yours sincerely, Dr Stephen Whiteside, Co-Director, Project Jonah (Victoria). Senator MISSEN —Dr Stephen Whiteside expresses in the letter certain views as to the questions that have been raised in the debate so far. The answers to the questions raised are, to my mind anyway, pretty conclusive. I believe that this report stands as a landmark in a story in which Australia has taken the lead, so far as animals are concerned. I believe that the Committee is to be warmly commended for the work it has done. Its job is arduous and it still has things to do. Already the State governments have indicated their support for the Committee's recommendations. That in itself is evidence of the success of the Committee. I commend the report warmly. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.19) —In speaking to the report by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare entitled `Dolphins and whales in captivity' I commend my colleague Senator David Brownhill for his work on the Committee and not only for his dissenting report, which I agree with-- Senator Georges —He was not part of the inquiry. Senator COLLARD —I am getting to that. Senator Brownhill was thrown in at the deep end to a Committee which had a lot of work to do. He has been able to read up on a lot of the evidence that was given and has come to the decisions he has. All of us, when we are first elected to this place, know how hard it is, when we get put on these standing or select committees, to get the feel of the committee, how it operates and all the rest of it. Senator Button and I were on the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. We both hit this place at the same time and both went through the learning curve but in this instance Senator Brownhill, as Senator Georges rightly says, was not there and had to read a lot of the evidence afterwards and still come to his conclusions. I must confess, with my limited experience on Senate committees and their reports, that I am disappointed with the standard of this report. The Senate standing committee and select committee system is second to none in this nation and the reports are held up by everybody around Australia as reports of stature and their recommendations are looked at by all those who are involved and, indeed, are acted upon by many tiers of government. Yet this report really is not up to the reputation and standard which I have come to expect of our Senate standing committee system. It is one of the first reports I have seen which is based more on emotion than on the evidence as presented. I think it is a deplorable state of affairs when our Senate select or standing committees get to that stage. The high reputation of the Senate and its standing committees is at stake. It is rather unfortunate that this has happened. There is not much time and I will just touch on two factors. Senator Georges —No. You have nothing to say. You have not got much time. You denigrate the Committee. Senator COLLARD —Just relax, Senator Georges. Senator Georges —How can I relax in the face of that? Senator COLLARD —Senator Georges will get his turn. In chapter 7 under the heading `Ethics', paragraph 7.2 states: Many people concerned with animal welfare now question whether humans are entitled to exploit animals and to act in a manner which will cause animals to suffer. I have no quarrel with the concern about causing animals to suffer. Nobody would agree with animals being made to suffer, whether in captivity, in the wild or wherever. The report states in paragraph 7.3: Critics argue that oceanaria exploit cetacea primarily for profit and that this is morally indefensible because it causes suffering to cetacea, who, as intelligent and complex beings, are entitled to greater consideration by humans. Who are the critics? They are not the great mass of people out there, of course, but a few select people whose evidence this Committee has seen fit to pick up-the Project Jonahs and all the rest of them. What is wrong with exploiting animals? The economy of this nation depends on the exploitation of animals-by dairy farmers, beef farmers and sheep farmers. We would not be in the situation we are in today and indeed this nation would not have been founded if it had not been for the exploitation of animals. Yet here we have this emotional statement-critics saying that it is morally indefensible to exploit animals. That is one of the things I mean when I talk about the Committee's emotional reaction to this. Senator Georges —You are being as emotive as any of us. Senator COLLARD —I am not being emotive; I am being quite practical. I am a dairy farmer. Other people here are sheep farmers and beef producers, and we all exploit animals for this nation. Indeed, those who have worked with animals know quite well that they have to look after them because, if they do not, they will not get the best out of milking cows in the bails, mustering beef cattle for market or shearing sheep in the sheds. Of course we exploit animals. This nation runs on the exploitation of animals, but in a good, proper and well ordered manner. But the critics argue that oceanaria exploit cetacea primarily for profit. Well, I never! This is seen as one of the major planks of the Committee's report. Senator Sanders said that this was such a terrible thing. Of course, if we have listened to the union movement over many years we will have heard that employers have exploited employees, but we will not go down that track at this time of the afternoon. Senator Georges had a debate with Senator Short on whether dolphins are intelligent and complex beings. What does that mean? Senator Zakharov talked about them being of a higher order. There is no scientific evidence to categorically assert the level of intelligence. Neither complex behaviour patterns nor size of the brain are indicative of intelligence, and indeed Senator Short picked up that point. Many of our animals and insects have very complex behaviour patterns but it is certainly no indication of intelligence. Page 32, chapter 4, in relation to Project Jonah, states: . . . the tacit assumption implicit in dolphinarium displays that the capture and exploitation of a weaker animal (e.g. dolphins) by a stronger animal (e.g. man) is perfectly legitimate. It is rather emotive language, to say the least. Anybody would think that dolphins or any animals which lived in the wild were living in the Garden of Eden. It is a jungle out there. They fight for their very existence. When they come into captivity it is usually found that they have plenty of parasites, worms and all the rest of it in their digestive tract, and it is generally accepted that they do not have very long life spans. It is a jungle out there, not a Garden of Eden. I have no argument with Senator Georges on how they are treated in captivity. On that we are one. I fall out with Senator Georges on the idea that somehow or other having animals in captivity can be deleterious to them. As a matter of fact, I think the dolphins are far cleverer than we give them credit for. Most of the dolphins that I see are doing what they like doing in the environment they like doing it in and they have men trained to stand on the beach and throw them food. I have to give them credit for that. Let us forget this idea that somehow or other we have taken them out of a Garden of Eden and put them into a hostile environment. I have never heard anything so silly in all my life. It appears that the Committee's report unfortunately dwelt on the fact that there was an application for an oceanarium and evidence was given about that. In reality that was not the Committee's brief. Its brief was to look in totality at the merits and the way that dolphins can be kept-- Senator Georges —What happened was that we were forced into that situation. We admit that in the report. Senator COLLARD —Okay; that is admitted. It is unfortunate that it happened that way, but I still stand by what I said originally. Senator Georges will get no argument from me on the fact that their welfare is all important. It is up to governments to set standards by which they are kept. I welcome those recommendations that set those standards and I look forward to their upgrading, but I cannot accept the allegation that I laid down. I stand by what I said. It is unfortunate that members of the Committee got off on an emotional tack and let their good judgment on the evidence presented be swayed by the emotion of the arguments put up by the minority groups who make a very comfortable living out of the exploitation of all these issues that arise. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.29) —I welcome the report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare entitled `Dolphins and Whales in Captivity'. I commend the Committee for having brought to the attention of the Senate and to the attention of the Parliament a series of issues which need to be addressed. The report, in essence, has three primary recommendations. The first recommendation is that there should not be the establishment of new facilities for dolphinaria or for the public display of cetacea in captivity. Secondly, there need to be clearly defined standards for those facilities which will continue to exist. Where necessary, those facilities should be up-graded to appropriate standards. Thirdly, there should be no capture of animals from the wild for further display in dolphinaria. I agree with the first proposition, that there should be no new facilities established. I agree with the establishment of standards and the recommendation for the upgrading of existing facilities to appropriate standards. The only criticism and caveat that I express about the taking of cetacea from the wild is that from time to time there will be dolphins, in particular, which have been stranded, injured, or may be sick and which should be taken into facilities to save their lives. To that extent I depart, perhaps only marginally, from the recommendation. Scientific evidence I suppose is like political opinions; it is possible to line up any number of scientists on both sides of just about any argument. In the long run, a lot of these decisions will have to be made by the political system, by people like us who are not scientific experts but who will have to make up their minds on the basis of the weight they accord, from their experience and intelligence, to differing scientific opinions. That is fair and proper. After all, it is very much what we are elected to do. There are differing scientific opinions on at least three critical factors in the cetacea issue. There are differing opinions on the intelligence of cetacea. For a start, we are never altogether sure what we are measuring. To all intents and purposes, intelligence can be defined only as that which happens to be measured by intelligence tests. To that extent, it is therefore open to a considerable amount of discussion and debate as to whether dolphins and cetacea in general are more or less intelligent than, or as intelligent as, any other animal for which we have some sort of measurement. Secondly, there is dispute about the actual facilities and the effect of keeping animals in these facilities. There are questions about acoustics and the dolphins continued capacity to communicate with each other, and considerable questions about the health of animals in captivity. The third matter touches on mortality rates. The difficulty is that it is extremely difficult to measure what are natural mortality rates in dolphin populations. Evidence is simply not available to establish the average life span of a dolphin. We certainly do not know very much about the natural mortality patterns. What we do know is very much confined to a small part of the dolphin population-the bottle-nosed dolphin. We know nothing about the Irrawaddy River dolphins, white dolphins or Hecton's dolphin-mainly in Tasman waters. To that extent, scientific evidence is not necessarily as clear as one would like. I will say something briefly about three other issues. The first is that in response to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare I made it my responsibility in the last two months to visit the three dolphinaria in New South Wales. I spent some time specifically at Warragamba, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour to look at the facilities. In at least two of those facilities there is a very substantial need for significant upgrading, even of the existing facilities-let alone speculating about the future. The Coffs Harbour facility and the way that Mr Hec Goodall runs it, are excellent. The Senate Committee conceded in its report that it is excellent and that it make a contribution to research and, in fact, to improving animal welfare in general and the welfare of cetacea in particular. I am a little concerned about some of the responses by the State Government in New South Wales. Mr Carr, the Minister for Environment, put out a Press release on 14 March. He announced that there would be a New South Wales Marine Mammals Protection Act, which I welcome. It is long overdue. He said basically that two of the three New South Wales facilities would be closed down. His Press statement said: In addition, all dolphinariums in New South Wales except one are to be phased out and all remaining captive marine mammals are to be made the property of the Crown. I am distressed that once again the New South Wales Government has taken the opportunity to move into the seizure of property. Whether it should be in the hands of the people who currently own it is a matter for debate. I do not believe that the New South Wales Government should unilaterally intervene to make into the property of the Crown that which is currently the property of somebody else. That is a different debate. I do not want to get into that other than to express my concern. I will mention two other matters. The first is that I was delighted to see the Press release from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on 17 February indicating that there would be a review of pelagic gill netting and the very serious matter of the incidental catch of dolphins as part of the commercial fishing operation. That is very serious for wildlife policy and needs to be addressed. I am glad that the Government is doing something about it. Senator Brownhill —What about the shark nets to protect the swimmers on the east coast? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Brownhill is absolutely correct. There is a whole series of arrangements-whether for shark netting, the fishing industry or long-line operations-which clearly have to be addressed if we are to have a sensible approach to the whole problem, rather than focusing on one aspect. The final point-perhaps it is here that I part company somewhat with my friend Senator Collard and some of my other friends on this side of the chamber-is that I think it is correct to say that there is a moral dimension to the whole way in which human beings treat animals. It is not just a matter of whether we believe that they should be exploited or not, but it does touch very fundamentally on the sorts of standards of behaviour we, as a society, believe are acceptable in dealing with other living creatures which, to that extent, are totally within our power-over which we in fact have power of life and death. For a large number of them the inevitable fate is that they will die to serve the needs of the human species, whether for food, clothing, transport-whatever it happens to be. Nevertheless, the way in which we treat those animals is a matter of concern not just for animal liberationists and welfare people but for people who believe that human beings are tested in terms of their standards of behaviour by the way in which they personally, and as a community, react in situations in which they have total power, and other living creatures are powerless. That is an important moral question. It is an emotional question. It is not possible to take the emotional and moral dimensions out of the debate about animal welfare issues. It is important to address them sensibly, rationally and on the basis of information. To the extent that the Senate Committee report raises those issues and compels us to confront them, I welcome it. I congratulate those involved in its preparation, in the final report and the dissenting report, and in its presentation and exposure so far in the debate. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.39) —I support Senator Puplick's statement that the issue of keeping animals in captivity is a moral one. It is also a welfare issue and, for many, an economic issue. The keeping of dolphins and whales in captivity is simpler than the overall general problem because there are relatively few people who will be economically affected by the decision to ban the practice. Those most affected are scientists, marine park operators and zoos. Even so, for the few affected, this is an important issue. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter outlining the problems of one such venture so that I can answer some of the problems. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MARINE WORLD VICTORIA LTD. Area Office: 79 Nepean Highway, Aspendale, Victoria 3195 Tel: 03-5800841 17 February 1986 Senator D. Vigor Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator, Thank you for your concern and interest in the issue of the problems facing dolphins and whales. As has been shown by the continuing controversy, the termination of our project, `Sequana Marine Garden', was to be the `cutting edge' of the worldwide campaign to close all Marine Parks. Contrary to the beliefs of animal rights activists, dolphins and whales are not essential to `Sequana'; our concept embraces the whole marine zoological world. However, the recommendations within the Senate Report and the subsequent decision by the Victorian Government to act upon those recommendations, will have devastating and far-reaching effects on the long-term conservation of dolphins generally, and small inshore dolphins particularly. Who will now continue our work on the environmental effects on dolphins and whales? This may be an unpopular issue, but I assure you, is essential to the wellbeing of animals in the wild. It has been accepted that `Sequana Marine Garden' has strong educational and scientific purposes, and that the facilities will be available to Universities and serious researchers. The only marine species that we now cannot offer our services for, are dolphins and whales. The only work on the problem of gillnet fishing, is being carried out on captive dolphins. Remove dolphins from Marine Parks, and the very core of this important research is automatically eliminated. Measure if you will, the eleven dolphins and two false killer whales we proposed to keep, against the thousands killed each year. You will also know that if the opportunity is taken away for the public to be aware of these wonderful animals, you also have a continuing decline in public empathy for them which, in this technological age, will be to their long-term detriment. In short, the Report does three things: Denies dolphins the benefit of research into the effects on them caused by human encroachment into their environment; Denies them the benefit of research into netting problems, which would prevent thousands being killed each year; Risks loss of public empathy for them, to their long-term detriment. `Sequana' is going ahead without dolphins. However, if there is genuine concern within the Senate for cetacean welfare, then there is no alternative but to reject the recommendations of the Senate Report which affects the continuance of oceanaria, and recommend to the Victorian Government to review their decision. The future of the species may well depend on this decision. Yours respectfully, RODNEY ABEL Managing Director Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The letter mentions a number of issues and I wish to point out that there is some doubt as to the educational value of seeing dolphins in confined spaces. I shall come back to this later. I also seek to incorporate in Hansard a letter from Mr Fensham which handles this point effectively. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MONASH UNIVERSITY Clayton Victoria Australia 3168 Telephone: 03 541 0811 Telegrams: Monashuni Melbourne Telex: Monash AA32691 2 April 1985 Mr Paul Barsdell, Secretary, Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Barsdell, My attention had been drawn to the fact that there is an application in Victoria from some commercial interest to establish a ``dolphin-arium''. Furthermore, I understand that this application is supported by a claim about the education value of such a venture. It is about that claim that I am writing to your committee since I do have some expertise in relation to environmental education within which broad umbrella other ecological education fills. Your committee, I assume, will be influential in how decisions about such applications are made. Whatever other educational purposes the managers of such a dolphin-arium set out to achieve, it is hard to escape the fact that the concrete reality will be that the viewing public will learn that it is legal, proper and appropriate to keep dolphins in such a confined unnatural space and to use them for public entertainment. A paramount goal of environmental education is to establish in its target audiences of learners an appreciation of the ecological subtleties and balances of whatever biophysical system is being taught. There is no way that the dolphin-aria that I have seen elsewhere could be argued to be a reasonable approximation of the natural eco-system of dolphins. We may have to compromise and approximate the natural system in order to make it assessable and this is done with other animal species in zoo education and in in-school studies. However, at least recently, the approximations of the natural eco-systems in zoos have been improved considerably and strenuous efforts are made to separate educational programmes in such places from the exploitation of the animals for entertainment. Fortunately, modern technology is enabling us in education to ``bring'' much more spectacular accounts of animals in their natural eco-systems into the classrooms of formal education and into the lives of the general public. The steadily increasing availability of high quality TV programmes including ones about dolphins offers educators very good alternatives. Accordingly, I would argue that you should not take too seriously the educational aspects of this proposal. I would be happy to enlarge on these points and support them with more detailed educational evidence, if your committee so wishes. Yours sincerely, PETER J. FENSHAM Professor and Dean, Faculty of Education PJF:VN cc: Project Jonah, Vice-Chancellor Dr. M. Brumby Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I would like to see alternative ways explored for continuing the acquaintance which man has been developing with dolphins and I am very excited by the initiatives taken by dolphins themselves. At Monkey Mia, a fishing resort in Western Australia, dolphins come in every day to swim in the shallows and play with the local swimmers. Senator Brownhill —One got killed the other day there too. Senator VIGOR —It is a dangerous business for the dolphins. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a report of the activities at Monkey Mia. It is a single page report. Leave granted. The report read as follows- GREENPEACE AND THE MONKEY MIA PROJECT It is noon in the arid coastal fishing resort of Monkey Mia, Western Australia. Desert-red sand dunes shimmer under the merciless midday sun, the silence broken only by the gentle lapping of water on the bay shores. Campers lie in the shade of their tents and caravans, or sit chatting in the shallows, seeking relief from the oppressive heat. And yet, in a matter of minutes, the scene of languid tranquillity is transformed. Cries of `Here they come' echo around the campsite, and children and adults alike hasten towards the beachfront. What is occurring is a daily ritual which has taken place for the past sixteen or so years, for at this remote part of Western Australia, wild dolphins come into the shallows daily to make contact with people. Nowhere else in the world has this kind of interaction occurred on a regular and long-standing basis. Adults, children, the aged and the disabled are all given the opportunity to observe, touch, feed and make friends with free dolphins. It is unique because it is on the dolphins' own terms; they are not constrained in any way, nor `trained' to amuse us like their unfortunate captive counterparts. one dolphin, identified as `Holey-Fin' has been known to virtually beach herself by wriggling up onto the sand in order to reach a young baby who could not yet walk, allowing the baby the opportunity to play with her. The dolphins will politely take fish from tourists, and they have occasionally brought in fish from their hunting expeditions to give to people in a delightful exchange of social pleasantries. Monkey Mia has become famous internationally, and is one of Western Australia's major tourist resorts. Greenpeace, along with many other groups and individuals, has been involved in trying to ensure Government protection for the area, and the preservation of this human/dolphin experience. Increasing numbers of tourists have placed the dolphins under enormous pressure. During the peak tourist season, there can be anything up to 300 people lining the beachfront all vying for the attention of a few dolphins. Developers have applied for permits to build a luxury motel complex on the beachfront where the dolphins can swim inshore in order to accommodate yet more people, and attempts made to be granted permission to carry out sand mining operations in the nearby Shark Bay area. Fortunately, intense lobbying and a sensible government attitude ensured that these proposals were refused, since any sudden changes to the dolphins' habitat or social experiences could potentially frighten them away from continuing their daily visits. Greenpeace has also joined with others in requesting that the Western Australian Government provide funds for employing a warden whose job it would be to control the crowds and inform the public about dolphins behaviour. Last year, the government announced that funds would be made available, and that it also intended to partially finance the construction of an information building on the beachfront at Monkey Mia. Greenpeace will be contributing financially to this particular project. The centre is now being built, and will contain educational material, books, videos, leaflets and photographs so that the public can gain maximum educational benefit from their experience with the dolphins. Hence, Monkey Mia is for the moment, and hopefully in the long-term safe from exploitation. Its protection is a tribute to the prevailing common sense and sensitivity of individuals, groups and governments alike, and the patient perseverence of those dolphins who continue to allow us the opportunity to get to know them. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I note that the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare has decided not to seek closure of existing marine parks and zoo enclosures but to impose minimum standards for care and environment for cetacea. I endorse these findings of the Committee. I would like to canvass another area where cetacea are affected by man's economic activities; I refer to the fishing industry. Problems arise for cetacea both from direct fishing for whales and dolphins and from incidental damage caused to the species while trawling or netting fish. This has been covered by Senator Puplick to some extent. Whaling has now been banned in almost all countries, which is indeed not before time. In fact some species of whale are still threatened with extinction. There is already some evidence of recovery for some species but the blue, fin, sei, humpback, right and sperm whales are still in very low numbers. Another mammal which is still economically exploited is the seal and I believe that we need to expand our look at these areas. The recent ban on imports of seal skins by the European Economic Community has been welcomed by all who are concerned with this animal's welfare. The last economic exploitation of a cetacean seems to be the killing of dolphins, or porpoises as they are also known, both directly for food and because they are actually competing with man in fishing villages. This is happening in Taiwan. In Australian waters gill-netting, which is carried out for salmon in Japan and shark, mackerel and tuna in Australian waters, is actually drowning dolphins which are mammals like us and have to breathe air. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from Mr Ashley Wilmott from Greenpeace Australia Inc. on this matter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- GREENPEACE AUSTRALIA, INC. First Floor, 155 Pirie Street, Adelaide, S.A. 5000 Dear Friend, We humans have had a special relationship with dolphins throughout history. The Ancient Greeks revered them for their wisdom, and the penalty for killing a dolphin was the same as that for killing a person. There are many accounts of dolphins rescuing drowning sailors, and co-operating with fishermen by herding fish into their nets. For all the harm we have done to them, dolphins maintain their trusting, friendly attitude to people, and indeed appear to seek out human friendship. A notable example is the situation at Monkey Mia, a remote stretch of the Western Australian coastline where dolphins regularly interact with humans for no reward other than friendship itself. Dolphins deserve our reciprocal respect and we should do no less than ensure their complete protection. ``Dolphins are completely protected in Australian waters'', I hear you say; and most would probably believe this statement to be true. Yet the real truth is that thousands of dolphins die at the hands of fishermen around our coastline every year. Lovable, sensitive and highly intelligent dolphins that many of us admire for their free spirit and gentle nature drown slowly after becoming entangled in fishing nets. The nets that are responsible for the vast majority of dolphin drownings are called gillnets, designed to trap fish by their gills, and are very efficient but highly indiscriminate in what they catch. Gillnets are invisible to dolphins, turtles, dugongs and seabirds as well as the fish they are supposed to catch, and form veritable `curtains of death' for any marine animal unlucky enough to swim into them. By far the largest number of dolphins are taken by the Taiwanese gillnetters operating under licence in the Australian Fishing Zone (off our northern coast) in the Timor and Arafura Seas. About three thousand dolphins drown in nets set by this fishery each year. The Taiwanese are actually fishing for shark, mackerel and tuna, currently using 270 kms of nets (with an average length of 9 kms and a depth of 15 metres each) out of 30 vessels. They set the nets at dusk and allow them to drift in the currents until they are retrieved the next day. Five species of small marine mammals are caught in these fishing operations, with the Bottlenose Dolphins constituting 80% of the total numbers. The other species caught are the Spinner Dolphin, Spotted Dolphin, Indo-pacific Dolphin and the False Killer Whale. Three species of turtles and dugongs are also caught. Dugong populations are especially under threat, being already listed as an endangered species. Gillnets are equally devastating to fish populations. Their very effectiveness leads to over-fishing and ultimately a decline of fish stocks. The percentage of non-target fish caught (known as trash species) is particularly high resulting in even further ecological disasters, akin to clearfelling of forests! These facts are well known by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fisheries. Australian Fisheries observers spotcheck Taiwanese ships to monitor the catch and determine the numbers of marine mammals caught. What has now come to light is that the Taiwanese grossly under-report the numbers of mammals caught. Meanwhile the Australian Government not only allows the renewal of the licences for the Taiwanese to continue, but is encouraging Thailand to operate in a joint venture with Australia by waiving licence fees! This will dramatically increase the number of dolphins caught each year. It appears that the dolphins must suffer in the interests of promoting a fishing industry in our northern waters, whereby Australia receives only marginal benefits in the form of licence fees. Gillnetting in Australian waters is just a part of the increasing use of this method of fishing worldwide. It is an issue that is being taken up by Greenpeace internationally. The Japanese high seas driftnet fishery has been a focus of attention in the North Pacific. Each year about 5,000 Dalls Porpoises and between 250,000 and 750,000 seabirds become entangled in their nets. Thousands of these gillnets are lost and continue to ``ghost fish'' and entangle marine birds and mammals while they drift without hope of being recovered. In October 1983 Greenpeace Australia was present at the first meeting between government and non-government organisations to discuss the problem of entangled marine mammals in Australian waters. As a result of this, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS) has been conducting a research program into net modifications to reduce dolphin mortality. However, the trials to date have shown inconclusive evidence that the use of acoustic reflectors, such as the metallic bead chain will warn dolphins of the presence of nets. Greenpeace sent a researcher to Darwin for six months to verify the extent of the problem and to work with the ANPWS research program to help determine a solution. It became evident that the research will take years, and many thousands of dolphin deaths, to come up with net modifications that will at best only reduce the dolphin mortality. Greenpeace will only be satisfied when no dolphins or other sea mammals are harmed. It is quite clear the gillnetting must stop. Viable alternatives to gillnetting exist. One of these is longlining . . . A fishing method that has been used successfully all over the world for many years, which does not pose a hazard to marine mammals. Greenpeace is campaigning for a complete changeover from gillnetting to longlining within three years. Greenpeace has been fighting for the rights of marine mammals for 14 years and has highlighted the atrocities man has inflicted on them, including the commercial seal hunt in Newfoundland, whaling the world over, and the dolphin slaughter at Iki Island in Japan. Now we are faced with having to save dolphins in our very own waters, where such animals are supposed to be fully protected. The capture of dolphins in gillnets can't be called incidental as it happens on a very large scale all the time. Therefore we ask you to help us fund our campaign to save the dolphins from drowning in gillnets. Please send us a generous donation TODAY, or purchase some of the merchandise we are offering in the enclosed brochure. We rely on your contributions for our effectiveness to work not only on the issues we are already confronting, but to take on issues that are equally as important. Let's show the dolphins our mutual respect, as well as maintaining the ecology of the sea, by eliminating the gillnet problem. Yours very truly, ASHLEY WILMOTT Australian Dolphin Campaign Coordinator The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The time for the consideration of reports from committees has expired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President, and in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated March 1986. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of my colleague Senator Tate, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills, Alert Digest No. 4, dated 19 March 1986. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —On behalf of the Public Works Committee, I present the forty-ninth general report of the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —by leave-The report which I have just tabled covers the activities of the twenty-eighth Public Works Committee during the period 28 February 1985, when it was formed, to 31 December 1985. During that period the Committee presented 16 reports encompassing a wide variety of public works ranging from a submarine escape training facility at Garden Island, Western Australia, for the Royal Australian Navy, to a new Commonwealth Law Courts building at Parramatta. The total estimated cost of work examined by the Committee during the report period was more than $255m. The report mentions at length the circumstances which required a relatively large number of proposed works being exempted from Committee scrutiny on the grounds of urgency. There were four exemption motions during the year. The estimated cost of work exempted was more than $214m. The Committee, and I am sure the Senate, would not wish to see a repeat of this in future. One very significant and disturbing development which has emerged in recent years is the preponderance of proposals referred to the Committee late in the Budget sittings. I suggest that, with proper planning, referrals could be spread more evenly throughout the year, thereby avoiding the possibility of the Committee being unable to report on proposals referred late in the Budget sittings. The Committee is conscious of the need to report as expeditiously as possible on all references. It must be emphasised, nevertheless, that the Committee has a responsibility to Parliament to carry out its functions in a thorough and expeditious manner. I believe the record shows that the Committee has played a significant role in being the `watchdog' of Parliament since its establishment in 1913. It represents the interests and aspirations of all Australians, on whose behalf, and for whom, Commonwealth public works are conceived and constructed. The Committee intends to maintain that role during the present Parliament and, indeed, in the longer term. I thank the Senate. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —On behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts I present the report of the Committee on the Munitions Production Trust Account. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —by leave-This brief inquiry by the Committee into the Munitions Production Trust Account was initiated following unfavourable comments made by the Auditor-General in his September 1984 report. The Committee examined the operation of the Munitions Production Trust Account and found that the Munitions Production Trust Account exists in addition to each of the trust accounts used to operate the Government owned munitions factories. This Trust Account was established on 17 February 1956 under section 62a of the Audit Act 1901 to replace the Manufacture of Munitions Trust Account which had operated since 1940. The purpose of the Munitions Production Trust Account as defined at the time of its creation was to finance firstly, the manufacture of munitions in Government factories, annexes and industry for departments of the Commonwealth and other governments and authorities; and, secondly, any other approved service of a munitions factory or annex. The Munitions Production Trust Account can be described as a holding account, financing the production of munitions. It enables factories to obtain reimbursement for production, undertaken in advance of payment, from the Department of Defence or overseas customers. Over recent years responsibility for the Trust Account has been variously with the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Productivity, the Department of Defence Support and most recently, from December 1984, the Department of Defence. The Auditor-General suggested that a separate trust account could be established if necessary to handle overseas transactions where munitions are sold to overseas countries. The Committee discovered that an existing trust account could quite adequately handle overseas munitions transactions, namely, the more general trust account called the Defence-Projects for Other Governments and International Bodies Trust Account. The Committee questions why this Trust Account and the Munitions Production Trust Account, with their overlapping functions, have not been rationalised. The Committee concluded that the Munitions Production Trust Account has not been managed well over recent years, with financial records being lost, important procedures not followed and a lack of appropriate control documents. The Committee believes that many of these problems may have arisen because of the form and nature of this Trust Account, and that such an arrangement may leave itself open to inefficient accounting and management, together with a lack of direct responsibility or an interest in the efficient operation of the Trust Account. Also, the Committee is concerned that the Department of Finance has not taken more interest in the operation of the Munitions Production Trust Account and has not become more involved in resolving important problems with the Trust Account. The Committee noted that the Munitions Production Trust Account causes the factories to carry out double accounting with increased administrative costs. It concluded that the munitions factories, financial statements would be more accurate, informative and be consistent with accepted accounting standards without this device. The Committee concluded that there were no cogent reasons for continuing to maintain the Munitions Production Trust Account. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.52) —by leave-The 244th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on the Munitions Production Trust Account, I believe, is a severe indictment of the Department of Finance for not taking greater interest in the trust account and for its lack of involvement in resolving issues relating to that account. It is also a criticism of a further four departments-the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Productivity, the Department of Defence Support and the Department of Defence-for various shortcomings which include such things as a loss of records, failure to produce debit notes, poor accounting controls and wrongful retention of funds for amounts of between $2m and $3m for periods between three and four years. There has also been a lack of adequate accounting instructions and accounting manuals. There is severe criticism of the failure of the Department of Defence to honour undertakings given to the Committee. There is an appalling lack of accountability when witnesses can claim that because they were not involved with the trust account at the time, they could not provide a suitable explanation to the Committee. The trust fund account is one of three accounts used by the Commonwealth; the others are the Commonwealth Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund. Section 60 of the Audit Act provides that a separate account, to be called the trust account, shall be kept for all moneys which shall be placed to the credit of that fund under such separate heads as maybe directed by the Minister for Finance. In accordance with section 61 of the Act, moneys standing to the credit of the trust account may be expended only for the purposes of such fund or under such authority of an Act. The trust account which is in the subject of this report relates to the manufacture of munitions in government factories, annexes and industry for departments of the Commonwealth and other governments and authorities and also other approved services of a munitions factory or annex. I wish to remind the Senate of the responsibilities of a trustee because the account is called a trust account and therefore certain obligations are placed on trustees. A trustee's duties generally are to take possession of and to preserve the trust property, to be diligent and prudent in administering it, to act personally and be impartial between beneficiaries, to keep accounts and to give information to the beneficiaries as required and to invest the trust funds in the manner permitted by statute. Some may say that the trust account is a misnomer because it is really a suspense account, but that does not absolve the trustees of their custodial responsibilities at all. Others say that is effectively a holding account financing the production of munitions. However, it is still called a trust account and therefore the trustees have all the responsibilities of the fiduciary relationships of a trustee. Furthermore, I believe that it does not excuse the appalling lack of controls and the degree of indifference between departments when functions change from one department to another. I believe that there is a requirement, when handing over records and when functions change, to make sure that the records are accurate and up-to-date so that the department taking over those responsibilities has up-to-date and correct records. Unfortunately, all too often there is the attitude: Let somebody else sort it out; it is not my responsibility. I believe that the Parliament and the people of Australia are becoming quite indifferent to a long procession of criticisms, poor record keeping, lack of accountability, loss of revenue and spiralling Budget costs. A whole litany of items is frequently presented by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I remind the Senate that it is not the Public Accounts Committee's responsibility to bring people to justice, its responsibility is merely to point out particular problems; it is the duty of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Public Service Board, the Department of Finance and various departmental heads. Of greater concern is the present disregard by the Australian Labor Party of the concept of ministerial responsibility when we have a whole litany of things going wrong and costs to the Government. While the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) daily harangues people from his coward's castle he overlooks his parliamentary responsibilities, in particular, his responsibilities to the Department of Finance, which has a lot of shortcomings. The public should be sick and tired of waste from reports surrounding the Defence Department's activities, such as the cancellation of a program to develop an Australian built basic trainer for the Royal Australian Air Force. After five years work which cost nearly $65m of taxpayers' money, this has been rejected in favour of an overseas aircraft. Another related PAC report, on project management, identified three levels of accountability-probity, efficiency and effectiveness. It found that alternative defence options were not always identified or adequately assessed and proposals were not supported by reliable data, especially cost estimates. That report pointed out particular problems in relation to the acquisition of major defence equipment. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table the following papers: Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1986 in relation to the Parliamentary departments, the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1986 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1986. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1986 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1986 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1986 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report; (2) That the Committees consider Proposed Additional Expenditure in the Estimates Committees groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate on 22 February 1985, and (3) That the committees report to the Senate on or before Friday, 2 May 1986. For the information of honourable senators it is proposed that Estimates Committees A, B and C sit on Tuesday, 8 April 1986 from 3.30 p.m., and Estimates Committees D, E and F sit on Thursday 10 April 1986 from 11.30 a.m. Should it prove necessary further sittings may be held on Tuesday, 15 April 1986 between 8 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(7.00) —Because of the imminence of Palm Sunday, I am using the adjournment debate to speak about the organisers of the peace march and how they have contrived to involve the churches and well meaning Christians in the so-called peace march. I understand that the organisation under whose umbrella the march is being organised is the People for Nuclear Disarmament. The Palm Sunday peace rallies will take place in capital cities around Australia next Sunday. I believe that the majority of people in Australia are very suspicious of the aims of some of the people who have played an active part in organising this event. I recognise that many of the people who will attend this march, as distinct from many of the organisers, are sincere in wanting the world rid of nuclear arms and, for this reason, they adopt the attitude that this should be done on a multilateral basis. However, I want to point out to some of the leading lights of the peace movement who have helped to organise this march and try to uncover their objectives by quoting them on various issues so that the people who do march will not do so ignorant of the aims and objectives of the organisers. The umbrella group organising the march is, I believe, the People for Nuclear Disarmament-sometimes known as the PND. The PND's first organisers, Andrew Hewett and Phillip Hind, were closely associated with the Communist Party of Australia. Others, such as Sam Goldbloom, are key figures in the pro-Soviet Socialist Party of Australia. The stated objectives of the PND are the mobilisation of public opinion in support of disarmament and peace, mobilisation for independent foreign policy for Australia, opposition to foreign military bases in Australia, opposition to the mining and export of uranium, and support for self-determination movements in other countries. A key personality in the PND is Dr Joseph Camilleri, who is also concerned with Pax Cristi and the Movement against Uranium Mining. In his book Civilisation in Crisis he asserted: The central question . . . to which revolutionary Praxis must address itself . . . is how to hasten the demise of the capitalist order . . . David Wurth, a committee member of PND, told a recent Marxist summer school organised by the Communist Party of Australia that the only reason Palm Sunday was chosen for the march was to rope in the churches. As a matter of fact, I believe that it really wanted to hold the march on May Day, which would have been more appropriate to its cause. Beverley Symons, writing in the Communist Party of Australia journal Praxis in 1982, said that the strategy of holding the march on Palm Sunday had worked beyond expectations and she expressed surprise at the way in which Christians had flocked to the 1982 rally. It is probably not so surprising when we recall that Lenin had this to say about religion: We (Communists) shall find our most fertile field of infiltration of Marxism within the field of religion, because religious people are the most gullible and will accept anything if it is couched in religious language. We do not have to look very far to find church organisations which have policies and objectives to which the Soviet Union would not object. For example, the World Council of Churches, in a resolution passed at its sixth assembly, called for an end to the supply of arms to the opposition groups in Afghanistan. The World Council of Churches encouraged and subsidised the setting up of the Pacific Conference of Churches, which incorporates Protestants and Catholics. This organisation depends upon large grants from the Australian Council of Churches and the Uniting Church in Australia. The peace aims of the Pacific Conference of Churches include, firstly, opposition to multinational corporations; secondly, support for independence movements; thirdly, opposition to the nuclear industry; and, fourthly, a declaration of the Pacific as a zone of peace which would include opposition to the deployment of nuclear powered and armed aircraft, opposition to the Rimpac military exercises, opposition to mutual defence treaties or alliances and opposition to United States of America bases. The proceedings of a conference hosted by PND in September 1985-in Melbourne, I understand-are also very enlightening. In order to achieve its goals, the conference stated that it must implement education campaigns with the goal of exposing the myths on which the ANZUS alliance and our national security are based. The myths it listed were that ANZUS increases our security and that Australia is under threat and needs a strong and powerful friend. The conference stated that we do not need a strong and powerful friend. Other myths listed were that we can rely on the United States to come to our defence; that world stability and peace rely on the maintenance of the Western alliance; that United States nuclear strategies are stabilising; and that the Soviet Union is expansionist. The conference also stressed that no country willingly moves into the Soviet camp-so far, so good-and that this is a product of unfair structures imposed by the West. When we are dealing with Soviet expansionism we have to ask: What about Afghanistan? What about Angola? What about Ethiopia, where the Russians are supporting Cuban mercenary troops? I am informed that a lot of the wheat that we provide to Ethiopia does not always find its way into the stomachs of the people who are starving in that country, but quite often finds its way into the stomachs of Cuban and other troops dedicated to keeping the Marxist regime in power. I could go on and talk about Mozambique, Hungary, Poland and other countries. Yet these people say that the Soviet Union is not expansionist. As usual, the west and, in particular, the United States are portrayed as being responsible for world instability, aggression against the peace loving Soviet Union and world poverty. In conclusion, I would just like to mention some interesting figures concerning aid to starving African countries. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Soviet Union has delivered a total of 7,500 tonnes of cereal to the 21 starving nations. This is only one-third of the contribution of Zimbabwe. The United States has delivered three million tonnes and the European community 1.71 million tonnes. Senator Watson —How much more is that than the Soviet Union? Senator JESSOP —It has produced 7,500 tonnes, the Americans three million tonnes, and Europe 1.71 million tonnes. Surely a progressive super-power with a superior economic and social order could at least manage to give those countries more than Zimbabwe, rather than one-third of the contribution of that small African state. Perhaps this is because the proletariat still has to endure food queues in the Soviet Union although members of the privileged class of the Party can still get the luxuries they want. In 1980 alone, Western aid exceeded all the economic assistance granted by the Soviets in the quarter century from 1955 to 1979. Such aid as Moscow gave-parsimonious as it was-went only to countries of which the Kremlin thought it could make political use. Needless to say, the results for Soviet arms sales to Third World countries are far more impressive. I hope that the people who intend to march on Palm Sunday are aware of the humanitarian acts the Soviet Union is famous for and will at least consider calling for multilateral disarmament rather than adopting the unilateral attitude which they almost inevitably take in relation to the Western democracies. I honestly believe that we should start giving the word `freedom' a little more priority than the ambiguous word `peace', although peace and freedom go well together. Peace and freedom, I feel certain, can come only through security. On Palm Sunday there will be church leaders and other well meaning Christians, including Archbishop Faulkner, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide, the Moderator of the Uniting Church, Mr Biggs, and the Church of England Bishop Rayner. Senator Georges —Why don't you join them and make it respectable? Senator JESSOP —I believe that these people will march under the slogan `Disarm and feed the world'. Apparently they have been able to wipe aside the more obnoxious left wing slogans such as `Ban the bomb' and all the other stuff they usually carry around. What does `disarm' mean? It means, to my mind, getting rid of the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, and all the bases we have here and getting rid of the ANZUS treaty. Senator Georges —I am leaving. Senator JESSOP —I should think that Senator Georges would leave when he has to listen to these things. If we were really serious about peace and about demonstrating a massive procession in favour of peace, it would have been appropriate for the churches, with the aid of a responsible community committee, to organise a candlelight procession during the season of peace and goodwill leading up to Christmas. I believe if that had been done it would have been a very fitting climax to the International year of Peace. One would not need slogans to march under. All that would be needed would be a wooden cross. At the end of that candlelight procession, there could be an ecumenical service which I believe would be supported by thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of people. We might even get Senator Button out there marching alongside me, holding our candles and demonstrating that we are fair dinkum about peace and good will among men. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(7.13) —We have heard a remarkable tirade from Senator Jessop condemning many Australians who, next Sunday, will take to the streets in order to demonstrate their concern for peace-and not necessarily in the naive way Senator Jessop suggests. Of course, those who march will be aware that many of those also on the streets, in the parks, at the rallies, or at the church-sponsored services are there because of the different values that motivate them. As long as there is a kaleidoscope and mosaic of banners and indications as to the motive force behind the various groups within the rallies and marchers, I would say that no particular person or group need feel inundated or submerged in some overall alien philosophy. We need a more constructive and creative involvement of ordinary Australians in the peace movement. I want to mention a particular initiative taken in Tasmania recently which I think indicates such a move. Before I leave Senator Jessop's speech may I say that, as I recall it, late last year in the Catholic Cathedral in Melbourne there was indeed an ecumenical service, the theme of which was the seamless garment; in other words, that people needed to have their concern for life expressed over a whole range of social issues, ranging from reverence for life within the womb right through to reverence for life within cities when it is threatened by destruction through nuclear or even a conventional holocaust of weapons. It is that consistent ethic of reverence for human life which I think Senator Jessop would want to see in place and which I certainly want to see in place, rather than some of the distorted political ideological posturing that segments one form of attack on human life and says that is the one we need be concerned about. There are many of them over a whole range of social issues and perpetrated by a whole range of different political systems and non-government agencies, corporations and other organisations. We have to tackle all attacks on life wherever they occur. The point I wish to raise is the creation within Tasmania, at a function which I had the privilege of attending at Hadleys Hotel in mid- November late last year, of the Tasmanian Peace Trust, which is entitled on the pamphlet which accompanied the opening and which has been distributed widely in Tasmania, `An invitation to invest in peace'. I bring it to the attention of the Senate because I believe that the Peace Trust can provide a model for other Australian groups in the mainland States to help fund the activity of peace groups by making them independent of government largesse and the fluctuations in funding that come and go with international years of peace and such like events. The fact is that the Tasmanian Peace Trust has been established under a very distinguished board of men and women who have already made claims for distinction in public life in Tasmania. I seek leave for the list of trustees, some 15 of them, to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows: 1. Michael Aird, MHA Franklin. 2. Lesley Alcorso, State President WILPF (Womens International League for Peace and Freedom). 3. Simon Allston, Solicitor. 4. Len Barry, Trade Unionist. 5. Neil Batt, Businessman, former President ALP. 6. Peter Brain, Treasurer, PND. (People for Nuclear Disarmament). 7. Dr Bob Brown, MHA Denison. 8. Jean Hearn, Former Senator. 9. Elspeth Hope-Johnstone, Artist. 10. Doug Lowe, MHA Franklin. 11. The Reverend Father Desmond McDonnell, Anglican Chaplain, to the University of Tasmania. 12. Dr Dougald McLean, Convenor MAPW (Medical Association for Prevention of War). 13. Dr Bill Oats, former Principal Friends School, Author, Historian. 14. Doug Parkinson, Solicitor, Secretary, Lawyers for Peace. 15. Dr Robert Tonge, NW Regional Paediatrician, member MAPW. Senator TATE —I thank the Senate. The idea is that the Trust has as its goal the vital human goal of peace and is designed in a way which enables funds to be deposited with this legally constituted Trust under the control of the trustees of eminence whom I have mentioned. The funds are then invested in safe securities and the income is to be used for the propagation of peace within Tasmania. In other words, the moneys which are deposited are absolutely safe, the capital will never be touched, and it is only the interest that will be able to be disposed of by the trustees to various groups, organisations or persons who call for some financial assistance-it will involve only small amounts, hundreds of dollars or so-to assist them in their method of promoting the cause of peace. If I mention two names, one would be Mr Claudio Alcorso, who together with his wife Lesley Alcorso, who is the State President of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, are most prominent Tasmanians concerned in a very practical, concrete yet compassionate way with the promotion of peace within our world. The initial inaugural chairperson of the Trust is our own former Senate colleague, Mrs Jean Hearn, who has taken the chair with the full support of a wide range of Tasmanians who form the board of trustees. The formation of that board, and the initial support already obtained, makes it clear that it will transcend all political divisions and overcome many of the barriers that sometimes get in the way of concerted group activity in relation to the promotion of this cause. I express the hope that that initiative taken by a group of Tasmanians will indeed be of value, not only within the Tasmanian community but also as a model which might be adopted and adapted as needs be by people on the mainland. One does not need to go into the Palm Sunday rallies or other activities in the service of peace other than with a prudent approach, an awareness of the desire of many to manipulate for their own political ends. But to leave the field to those whom one despises for their political views would be to betray many, particularly young Australians, who are looking for leadership and inspiration in relation to the promotion of peace. Such must not be left to the political manipulators, who so easily muscle in on the aspirations and the yearning for peace that so many Australians will want to express on Palm Sunday. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.19) —It was most interesting to hear Senator Tate's remarks. There is no doubt about his views, from what he has said tonight. I believe that he is a very sincere person, and one would certainly agree with the thoughts that he has put forward. They were most interesting. I do not think that there would be very many who would disagree with him. We will watch with interest the organisation that has now been formed in Tasmania. If this organisation goes along on the principles and guidelines that the honourable senator has just indicated, I believe that there is considerable scope for it. Tonight I wish to support the comments of my colleague Senator Jessop concerning the Palm Sunday march this weekend. In doing so, once again I refer to the closing remarks of Senator Tate, which were spot on. There is no doubt that we all want peace and must take constructive and positive steps to ensure that world peace can be achieved. I think that it is true to say that there has been a feeling in certain parts of the community that the major political parties in Australia have not been doing enough in relation to peace issues. The Liberal Party of Australia has, for some time now, been taking positive steps to rectify this situation. It has developed a policy which takes as its theme peace through security. This is the thought that Senator Jessop presented very ably this evening. This policy recognises the need to maintain the Western alliance and Australia's role in that alliance. It acknowledges the valuable role played by the joint United States-Australian facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar in maintaining a balance of deterrence. The Liberal policy supports continuing involvement with and commitment to ANZUS. It supports multilateral disarmament, so long as it is verifiable. These are responsible attitudes to a complex and critical issue for the people of Australia and the world. There are, of course, other views on how peace might be achieved, and the Palm Sunday peace marches of past years-I emphasise that I am talking of past years-have been dominated by left wing groups advocating unilateral disarmament by the West, while ignoring the immense military build-up of the Eastern bloc and, principally, the Soviet Union. Most of these groups are anti-ANZUS, anti-American, and anti-capitalism. Unfortunately, they have managed to monopolise the peace debate and to a large degree exclude or put off the vast majority of Australians who support peace but who support the peace through security approach. These so-called peace groups have, of course, been quite clever in organising the peace march for Palm Sunday. By doing this they bring in members of churches who, in addition to swelling the numbers, add an air of respectability to the marches. Of course, these people from the churches are people who have very genuine feelings, and once again I refer to the comments of Senator Tate and Senator Jessop. According to a media report this month, a committee member of the People for Nuclear Disarmament, a Mr David Wurth, said at a recent Marxist summer school organised by the Communist Party of Australia that the only reason Palm Sunday was chosen for the PND peace march was to rope in church contingents in order to give the movement respectability. We have to be very wary of this type of organisation. The churches have been taken for a ride to quite a degree. They are lending their support to extreme left wing groups with which many of their parishioners would wish to have no association. They are marching under banners such as `United States Bases Out' and `Reagan is a war-monger'-all anti-American slogans. There is no mention of the Soviets in Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam, or of the increase in the Soviet naval presence in the Pacific. The banners are a dead give-away-the peace groups are in favour of the unilateralist approach to disarmament. If people who do not agree with these sentiments wish to march this Sunday, I believe that they should ensure that they do not add legitimacy to the unilateralist view. To do this, they will need to differentiate their views and make it clear that they are marching for multilateral disarmament, not unilateral disarmament. They must make it clear that they support the maintenance of deterrence as a proper regulating principle for arms control, for surely the only real disarmament is mutual disarmament. People marching need to make it known that they support the Western alliance, in which Australia's own security is intimately bound up. They need to make it clear that they support the United States-Australian joint facilities which are essential to maintaining deterrence and which make nuclear war less likely. Our policies are aimed at contributing to the avoidance of nuclear war. The breaking of alliances, unilateral gestures and nuclear pacifism make war more likely, not less. These policies must be stressed in all forums-peace marches included, if that is necessary. I can fully understand how many Australians feel frustrated and unable to do anything about the threat of nuclear war. As we have heard this evening, the young people are feeling frustrated, and it is to them that we must give some assistance and guidance. I understand that they see the Palm Sunday peace march as an opportunity to express their views on this crucial issue. But people must be sure that they are not being used to swell the ranks of radical left wing groups which advocate unilateralist policies, the abandonment of ANZUS and the closure of the joint facilities. If people are marching this weekend, they should make it quite clear where they stand on these issues, and that the Left does not have a monopoly on the answers to the problems of avoiding nuclear conflict. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.27) —I wish to use the opportunity afforded by this adjournment debate to draw to the attention of the Senate the contribution of a great public servant who has recently retired. I refer to Mr John Quick, the former Chief Commissioner of the Forestry Commission in Tasmania. John Quick has made a tremendous contribution to the forestry industry, and I believe that it is mainly through his efforts that Tasmanian forest industries lead the rest of Australia in terms of good forest management patterns and practices. He has worked for at least 30 years for the Forestry Commission. Before becoming Chief Commissioner over five years ago, he served as Chief Forester in a number of regions in Tasmania, prior to becoming head of the Private Forest Division. As head of this Private Forest Division, John Quick was responsible for a significant reafforestation program in Tasmania. Forty per cent of the forests of our State are privately owned, and it was through the efforts of John Quick that farmers clearing their land were encouraged to replant. He was responsible for giving sound management advice, for arranging for grants and loans for the establishment of plantations and for assistance with reafforestation programs. John Quick's forestry training taught him to be a long term planner, and this has led to policies which will ensure the continuance of forest industries in Tasmania for generations. He always thought through the consequences of any proposed course of action, and he was a man who consulted as many people as possible on every new issue. He always made time to listen to the conservationists, and decisions were always made in the best interests of Tasmanians and Tasmania. He was an outstanding member of the Public Service. He was highly regarded by his staff and friends in the Forestry Commission and by his colleagues on the Standing Committee. John Quick has two outstanding achievements in the forestry industry which I would like to mention. Firstly, he was the father of the Forest Practices Act-the first of its kind in Australia. The Act established a code and, from 1986 on, all wood must be harvested according to the code. This ensures that proper forestry management practices are complied with and that the environment is protected at all times. Secondly, he was responsible for what is known as the visual management system. All State forests in Tasmania have been colour-coded into three categories: sensitive; not so sensitive; and, basically, all systems go. In the sensitive areas clear felling is disallowed and logging can be carried out only on a selective basis. Forestry operations can be carried out only in such a way that there is very little evidence of any activity at all. Roads, for example, must be concealed so as not to spoil the aesthetic appeal of the area. In the not so sensitive areas the rules do not apply quite so rigidly. With the publicity given to the conservation movement in Tasmania, it is important to recognise the huge steps forward that have been taken by the Forestry Commission in recent years and to give credit to the sound management practices and techniques that have been instilled into our forest industries and to their concern for the environment. I believe that John Quick's influence has spread much further than Tasmania because of the significant role he has played in the Australian Forestry Council over the last few years. He was chairman of the sub-group which was responsible for drafting forestry policy. I commend John Quick for his work and wish him well in his retirement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.31 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 91) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the defence communications satellite terminal at the Advanced Engineering Laboratory Satellite Communications Experimental Facility (Hansard, 20 October 1981, p. 2255 and 18 November 1981, p. 3153) still operational. (2) What are the formal designations and dates of launch of all United States satellites tracked or communicated with by the terminal referred to in (1) above since it was first used in 1974. (3) What is the international designation of the DSCS satellite 93-26 (Hansard, 20 October 1982, p. 2255) and its date of launch. (4) Is it expected that experiments with the terminal referred to in (1) above could lead to operational use of the US, DSCS system by the Australian Defence Force. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Advanced Engineering Laboratory Satellite Communications Experimental Facility is not a defence communications satellite terminal as such because it is not, and never has been, involved in transmitting or receiving military operational communications. It is a facility used for experiments to develop technical expertise with various techniques of satellite communications so that any potential operational usage by the Australian Defence Force may be assessed competently. This is the only purpose for which this facility has been and continues to be used. (2) The formal designations (international designations in brackets) and dates of launch of all United States satellites which have been used for communications experiments with this facility since 1974 are: DSCS I 93-23 (1967-0003C)-launched 18 Jan. 1967 DSCS I 93-26 (1967-0003F)-launched 18 Jan. 1967 DSCS II 94-37 (1977-0034A)-launched 12 May 1977 Gapfiller Pacific Ocean satellite SDS F3 (1976-101A)-launched 14 October 1976 FLTSATCOM 4 West Pacific Ocean satellite (1980-087A)-launched 28 October 1980 FLTSATCOM 2 Indian Ocean satellite (1979-038A)-launched 4 May 1979. In all cases, access to these satellites was arranged for periods when they were not required for operational usage. Of all these communications satellites only the DSCS I satellites were in sub-synchronous orbits and required to be tracked in order to use them; all other communications satellites have been in geo-stationary orbits and, therefore, have not required tracking. (3) See the answer to part (2) above. (4) The Australian Defence Force already makes operational use of DSCS via its own ground station at Watsonia Barracks and via jointly operated ground stations at North West Cape and Nurrungar. The Advanced Engineering Laboratory Satellite Communications Experimental Facility was not used to conduct experiments as a specific precursor to these operational uses. See also the answer to part (1) above. (Question No. 800) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: Can the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs advise the current number of Guatemalans in Australia and whether the Humanitarian Program could be applied to this country to allow more immigrants in view of the impoverished situation in which most of the people in Guatemala in Central America are forced to survive. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is a small Guatemalan community in Australia but their numbers are too few for them to have been separately identified as an individual grouping in any Australian census to date. Since 1 July 1975 Australia has resettled some 80 Guatemalans-the majority accepted from outside Guatemala under the Central American refugee program introduced by the Hawke Labor Government in 1983. The Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) is aimed at assisting people who do not qualify for refugee entry but who are nevertheless fleeing substantial discrimination or gross violations of human rights. The SHP is not intended to assist those whose claims rest purely on their impoverished situation. One example of SHP operations is where Australia considers individuals still within their country of nationality who are experiencing human rights difficulties. It is not, however, possible for Australia to do this everywhere. Issues which need to be taken into account before mounting such an operation include whether the target group is readily identifiable and available to undergo migration processing. Other factors include the question of whether local authorities countenance such activities by Australian migration officials and whether the safety of our officers can be guaranteed. The poor human rights situation in Guatemala is well-documented and remains a matter of concern. Many of the Guatemalans reportedly displaced by the indiscriminate sweeps of guerrilla areas are innocent peasants or ``campesinos'' who would not be interested in resettlement outside the region and, more importantly, whose best interests would not necessarily be served by such a response. The nature of most abuses is such that it is difficult to identify in advance those individuals who may be in danger. At this time, it is not considered appropriate to undertake humanitarian processing for Guatemalans still within Guatemala. Australia will continue to consider for humanitarian entry individual Guatemalans located elsewhere and deserving cases deemed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or comparable authority, to be of concern and in need of permanent resettlement. (Question No. 907) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) What forms of household assistance are available for primary producers in financial difficulties. (2) Are tin miners regarded as primary producers; if so, what forms of assistance are available to them. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Self-employed primary producers who elect to continue to run their businesses are not eligible for unemployment benefits or special benefits under the Social Security Act. Their spouses may qualify for benefits provided the spouse's main commitment is to finding off-farm employment and they meet other eligibility criteria. The primary producer may also qualify for unemployment benefits on this basis. Primary producers on low incomes may also qualify for the Family Income supplement which provides up to $16 per week for each dependent child. This benefit is separate from the child allowance payment. The Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS) is available to assist persons engaged in rural industries. Household Support is part of the RAS. This provides assistance up to the level of unemployment benefit to applicants who have low incomes and are assessed as having no long term prospects of viability. This assistance may be available for a total period of three years. During the first 12 months the applicant must be considering whether to leave farming. In order to continue to receive assistance during the remaining two years the applicant must actually be trying to sell the farm at market value. Applicants for Household Support cannot receive unemployment benefits. If the sale of the property leaves the farmer with further financial difficulties the RAS provides for Rehabilitation assistance in the form of a loan which may be converted to a grant of $8,000 indexed to movements in the CPI from 1 July 1985. (2) Tin miners are not covered by the RAS. However on 3 March the Ministers for Trade and Resources and Energy announced a program of assistance, modelled on the RAS, to small tin mining operators who are experiencing difficulty in rationalising their mining operations in the wake of the collapse in world tin prices. Senator Walsh —In response to the question put to me by Senator Vigor on 14 November 1985 (Hansard, page 2150) about aspects of operations of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Treasurer has provided the following information: The ABS requires its field interviewers to be licensed to drive, and to own or to have access to a motor vehicle because the completion of field interviewing assignments within the specified survey period requires speedy transport in all weather conditions between addresses which are often widely dispersed. Interviews must also carry stocks of survey forms and it is not feasible for this material to be transported other than by motor vehicle. The ABS's reliance on obsolete computing equipment is now limited to a single machine acquired in 1970 which handles a very small number of statistical applications. Since 1980 when it acquired its first FACOM computer the ABS has phased out 11 obsolete machines according to a preplanned schedule and the remaining machines will also be phased out according to these plans by the end of 1986. There have been no long delays as against planning intentions in getting the ABS central computing installation operational. The present major ABS computing installation is based on a FACOM M3 82 installed in April 1984 and is one of the most modern installations in the public service. ABS planning for more extensive application of small-scale technology is proceeding as rapidly as possible within existing financial constraints. The release of the results of statistical collections is dependent on various factors including the size of the collection, its complexity, and whether it is a new project or one of a regular series of periodic collections. Important economic indicators such as balance of payments estimates, unemployment estimates, and the Consumer Price Index are published very promptly. Results of the larger or more complex collections take longer but computer processing is not a major contributing factor, and in most cases preliminary results are made available ahead of completion of processing of all data. Not all ABS statistics are suitable for on-line access. However, the ABS is investigating the possibility of developing an on-line service through the CSIRO network to provide access to a large time series data base. Selected data will also be available shortly on the national VIDEOTEX service. Various commercial networks have offered on-line access to selected ABS statistics for some time. The Government is very conscious of the need to make the best use of available resources in all public undertakings. Well developed processes have been set up in the ABS to scrutinise priorities and procedures to ensure that the organisation is efficiently managed. It is expected that this process of scrutiny will continue. Senator Walsh —On 17 February 1986 (Hansard, page 418) Senator Vigor asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the following question: (1) Can the Minister indicate when we can expect the uniform inquiry regulations for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal? (2) Could further delays provide the opportunity for litigation in relation to the Tribunal's inquiries? (3) Does the delay since 1 January mean that applicants for new commercial radio licences in Newcastle and Mandurah can only be sent out interim application forms? The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Finalisation of the regulations dealing with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) inquiry procedures has taken longer than anticipated due to the need to conduct extensive consultations with the ABT, industry bodies and public interest groups. Subject to the availability of drafting resources it is hoped that the regulations will be in place within a month; (2) This is a matter of concern. However, I should point out to the honourable senator that a major consideration in finalising the regulations has been the importance of an extensive consultative process in minimising the likelihood of legal challenges to inquiries conducted under the new procedures. (3) I am advised that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has prepared interim application forms which it is providing to prospective applicants for the Newcastle and Mundurah commercial radio licences. It is the intention of the Tribunal to accept applications lodged in such a form in order to commence a licensing inquiry and it is not expected that such applications would need to be relodged after the regulations are in place, although additional information may be required from applicants. This course of action accords with procedures to be adopted in the regulations which will provide the Tribunal with a discretion to accept applications that are not in the approved form.