Wednesday, 22 October 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 21 October 1986 of the Hon. Mr Justice Murphy, QC, former senator for the State of New South Wales. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I move: That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 21 October 1986, of the Hon. Mr Justice Lionel Keith Murphy, QC, senator for the State of New South Wales from 1962 to 1975, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from 1967 to 1972, Leader of the Government in the Senate and a Minister of the Crown from 1972 to 1975, and a justice of the High Court of Australia from 1975, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and the members of his family in their bereavement. Lionel Keith Murphy's death has taken from us a distinguished Australian. There are many here in the Senate who knew him much better than I did, who had much closer associations with him, who worked with him and who, in a sense, would regard themselves as almost lifelong friends of Lionel Murphy. The things I want to say are, in a sense, on behalf of the Government, somewhat formal things which have and ought to be recorded. Others will make, I have no doubt, personal comments which relate to particular relationships which they had with Lionel Murphy during his long and very varied career. Lionel Murphy was born in 1922. He spent his youth in Sydney. He began his academic life at Sydney Boys High School, going on to Sydney University where his brilliance was rewarded with honours degrees in science and law. At university he began his lifelong association with the labour movement and the Australian Labor Party. He was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1947, and he was created a Queen's Counsel in 1960. In 1962 his deep political convictions and concern about social justice and reform led him into the Senate. He displayed here a tenacity, energy and decisiveness which led to rapid recognition and respect from both his colleagues and his opponents. In 1967 he became Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. As Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Lionel Murphy was pre-eminent in the renaissance of the Senate. It was his energy and determination that led to the reformation of the Senate committee system. Perhaps those of us who have followed him have not been sufficiently lateral in our thinking about how that system might be developed even further. Today the Senate committee system is regarded as an important arena of public debate and social change. Those who today praise and hold up the Senate as an important and valued institution should not forget the role of Lionel Murphy in the creation of that system. Lionel Murphy played a pivotal role in the 1972 election victory of the Australian Labor Party. He served in the Whitlam Government as Leader of the Government in the Senate, as Attorney-General and as the Minister for Customs and Excise. During that time he presided over a period of legal and social reform unparalleled in Australia's history. His reforms were both real and enduring. To achieve reform Lionel Murphy was prepared to shake tradition and to disturb slow and hide-bound legal systems. He established the Australian Legal Aid Office, enshrining the principle that all Australians should have equal access to the courts. The principle was the important thing. He established the Law Reform Commission as a permanent means of challenging the relevance of laws and pursuing equity within the law. He introduced the Family Law Act and the institution of the Family Court of Australia. Despite all of the difficulties and anguish which are associated with that institution, it was perhaps his greatest achievement. Lionel Murphy had the strength, I believe, to remove some of the odium of moral judgment from the law which so plagued the divorce courts prior to the establishment of the Family Court system. He overhauled and strengthened trade practices legislation, giving meaningful protection to consumers. In the non-legislative sphere his most dramatic achievement was to take to the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Australia's case against French nuclear tests in the Pacific. In 1975 Lionel Murphy was appointed to the High Court of Australia. He maintained on the Bench his compassion, his concern for the less privileged and his commitment to the principle of equality before the law. His judgments reflected unwavering concern for the individual and opposition to obstruction and entrenched self-interests and privilege. As I said, I did not know Lionel Murphy well personally, particularly compared with my other colleagues in the Senate. Whatever differences or criticisms may be made about Lionel Murphy, there are certain undeniable things about his character which greatly appealed to me. First of all, he was a lateral thinker of a very big kind. One of the most fascinating discussions I have ever had with anybody was with Lionel Murphy when he explained to me at great length the changes that he felt would be brought about in society by the invention of the photocopy machine. We have all suffered from those changes. I suppose, in a sense, we have all bene- fited from them and society has benefited from them. Senator Chaney —That includes freedom of information. Senator BUTTON —Yes, precisely. It was a fascinating discussion which I have never forgotten. All my friends and colleagues here often have unmemorable conversations, but that was a totally memorable conversation which took place many years ago. It reflected his great scientific interests which were sometimes forgotten because of his role as a lawyer. I believe he had a fascinating mind and, above all, that he was a man of great personal charm. He seemed to me to have worked wherever he went, including on the High Court. Lionel Murphy's life was remarkable for the enormous contributions he made in diverse aspects of Australian life as a barrister, parliamentarian, Minister and jurist. We have lost a man of vision, a man of compassion and, as the last months have so tragically underscored-something which I think was obvious to those who knew him before, but the last months have underscored it-a man of immeasureable courage. On behalf of the Government, I extend to his wife, Ingrid, his daughter, Lorel, and his sons, Blake and Cameron, our very deep sympathy and condolences. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —On behalf of the Opposition I indicate our support for the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. Senator Button has already outlined the record of party, parliamentary and judicial service of the late Lionel Murphy. That service included leading his Party in the Senate both in opposition and in government, and involved a two-year period as Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise. His career was wide ranging and, given the nature, great energies and wide interest of the man, inevitably controversial. I think it would be fair to say that was so when he served in opposition as well as in government, and indeed in his subsequent career on the Bench. He was a man who inspired, great admiration and affection as well as strong opposition. I and my Opposition colleagues certainly stood in strong opposition to many of his ideas, while finding common ground with him on issues such as the development of the Senate committee system. The recent Senate committee report on in vitro fertilisation is a reminder of the value of the committee work of this chamber which he helped to foster. I served in the Senate for only a brief period while he was here, from mid-1974 to February 1975. In that brief time I had enough contact with him to understand some of the qualities that his friends found so attractive. He was convivial and hospitable, and notwithstanding his controversial role in Australian politics at that time he was very easy in his social relationships across party lines. He will be remembered for his contribution to the development of the Senate committee system and for some of the legislative initiatives which were undertaken by him during his period as Attorney-General. It is worth noting that the legislation most likely to be associated with his name, the Family Law Act, remains controversial to this day. In speaking of the late Lionel Murphy I have used the word `controversial' a number of times and it does seem peculiarly apt when one remembers his life and career. Because of that he was often involved in strenuous differences with the Opposition and in some very strong personal clashes. Since coming to this place I have not been a keen reader of High Court judgments. On the basis of what I have read, however, it is clear that as a member of the High Court, Lionel Murphy brought an approach which was significantly different from that adopted by most judges in the past, not least because of his strong interest in United States precedents. I have no doubt that future legal scholars will study his influence on the Court and that by his judgments he will be seen to have made a contribution which is quite out of the ordinary. His death was untimely given his age and the youth of his family. It was untimely also in that it left unfinished some of the final controversial issues that were so much a part of the pattern of his life. His death is a great loss to his wife, his young family and his many friends. On behalf of the Opposition I extend my sympathy to his wife, Ingrid, and his family, and to his friends both here and elsewhere, on account of his death and on account of the suffering they shared with him during his illness. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —On behalf of the National Party of Australia I support the condolence motion moved by Senator Button. Senator Button has detailed Mr Justice Lionel Murphy's lengthy political and judicial service to the Australian nation. While I did not sit in the Senate during his time here I fully recognise and support his efforts to enhance the role of the Senate by expanding the work of the committee system. This will be a continuing monument to his drive and energy. Mr Justice Murphy was a man with a vision. He knew what type of society he wanted for Australia and he worked tirelessly all of his public life to bring about his vision of the just society. Although I did not share his vision for Australia and I did not condone his willingness to sweep aside any social or political institution that stood in the way of achieving that vision which he pursued so assiduously, I admired the man for attempting to fulfil his dreams. Mr Justice Murphy, like all of us on the public stage, can only be judged by history. He will be remembered as a man who made a great effort to achieve his objectives. He faced his final months with dignity and with courage. On behalf of my National Party colleagues I extend our sympathy to his wife, Ingrid, and the other members of his family. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats I support the condolence motion moved by Senator Button on the death of Lionel Murphy, a death which brings to an end, I think we would all agree, a remarkable, colourful and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has said, controversial career. Even the bare essentials of Lionel Murphy's career in politics and in law make an impressive list and an impressive impact on those who are aware of them, even if such people are not aware of the personality of the man. A science and law graduate, he became one of the busiest industrial barristers in New South Wales. Lionel Murphy entered the Parliament in 1962. Within five years he was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and then Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government. In 1975 he was appointed to the High Court of Australia, where he remained until his death. The details of his extraordinary and distinguished career are even more impressive. As has already been indicated, the Senate was a moribund place when he entered it and he did a great deal to revive it. He was a great believer in effective parliamentary supervision over the administration of government. That continued when he moved from the Opposition benches to the Government benches. He strongly supported the committee system which is so valuable a part of the Senate today. As Attorney-General he initiated significant reforms in family law, consumer protection, anti-trust laws, legal aid and civil liberties-reforms which were not always welcomed in quarters where people preferred things not to change. As a judge on the High Court, he showed a willingness to set aside precedent to achieve a just result, and a determination to use the sort of language in his judgments that made the Court's work more understandable and hence more accessible to the people. As a small part of making the courts more human, he went wigless for all but the most ceremonial occasions and, essentially, remained his own man even on the highest court in the land. As honourable senators have already said, there is no denying that controversy attended his long and distinguished career. Of course, that is often the case with those who question the status quo and who seek to effect change in one area or another. He has been variously described as brilliant, as accident-prone; and as a stormy petrel. But he was in fact a man of courage, determination and integrity. Despite the apparent contradictions that appeared, his central interest, for example, in reforms to protect minority groups who were harshly treated had to be set against his considerable respect for established values. A believer in simplifying and demystifying the law, he was a vigorous and effective speaker and passionate about the issues that concerned him. Because he wore his political and social heart on his sleeve, his appointment to the High Court was described as too political. Apart from the fact that he was eminently suited for the appointment, his openness about his convictions was in fact a great virtue and put paid to the ridiculous notion that other appointments to the High Court, or indeed to any other court in Australia, are politically neutral. Of course, with the passage of time, his more liberal values came to be shared by more of his fellow judges. Tragically, the latter years of his life were clouded by events which I do not believe bear reiteration today. Suffice it to say that his more lasting legacy will be his considerable achievements in law reform and human rights. That legacy includes the Trade Practices Act, the Family Law Act, the Law Reform Commission and the Australian Legal Aid Office, to name but a few, and his many judgments which emphasised the enhancement of personal freedom and the prevention of discrimination. This unashamed reformist will long be remembered as a man of the people and for the people. Through his death, Australia has lost one of its most distinguished reformers and jurists. We are much the poorer for that. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I extend our deepest sympathy to his wife and children, whose strength and support were an integral part of his strength and determination to do what he believed was right, proper and in the interests of justice for all. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services) —Those of us who knew Lionel Murphy as a colleague in the Senate and in the Australian Labor Party remember him as a man who approached his work with passion and compassion, with a reforming zeal, and who combined intellectual rigour with the capacity for lateral thought that my colleague Senator Button spoke about. He was gregarious; he was very human; he was never dull. He was at times unpredictable, always I suppose iconoclastic, but a person of great personal charm and a man I was very pleased to know. A passionate approach to life makes many people in our society uncomfortable. Compassion is often seen as weakness. Intellectual rigour in this community is always suspect, for some reason, particularly by those who do not like to see the status quo or existing values questioned. Reform, of course, is always opposed by those who would protect their vested interests and who would ossify the institutions of this country in doing so. Any person who combined those traits with the intelligence and the communicating ability of Lionel Murphy obviously was opposed, and opposed vigorously, and obviously made enemies. Those enemies in fact pursued him relentlessly. When the history of legal aid, law reform, family law, administrative law, the High Court of Australia, the Senate and its system, and the protection of civil liberties in this country is written-as it is being written-the name `Lionel Murphy' will be there prominently and will continue to be there as long as those history books exist. Ironically, there will be other names in those history books. There will be politicians, judges, lawyers and journalists whose names will be there only because they took part in the hounding of this good and decent man. I knew Lionel Murphy personally, but not as well as some people did. I knew him as a very decent human being who was not perfect and who, because he was not perfect, I suppose, had people who considered that they were his enemies. But he did not take that approach. I, like my colleague Senator John Button, had memorable and long conversations with Lionel Murphy on all sorts of subjects. I will always remember, when I was Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place, his coming over from the High Court, storming into this building and thumping the table at me and demanding that I do something about what he saw as the unfair treatment of an individual in this place. He demanded that I do something about what he saw as the infringement of someone's civil liberties and the infringement of someone's capacity to act in the position to which he had been elected. The irony of that is that that person believed, I know until recently and probably still now believes, that Lionel Murphy was his enemy and that Lionel Murphy not only did not like him but also vigorously opposed him because of his views. Murphy was passionate and he was vigorous in putting forward his ideas. But at the same time he was very fair and would defend principles. He was more concerned about principles than about pursuing personal vendettas. We all will leave this world saying that there were certain people we were pleased to have known. I am very pleased to have known Lionel Murphy. To Ingrid, Lorel, Cameron and Blake I give my deepest condolences now, and I will do so personally later. It is a sad day when we in this place have to say farewell to a colleague; but at least it is a colleague who will never be forgotten in the history books of this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —It cannot be said too often that Lionel Murphy was a great reforming Attorney-General, a great reforming judge and a great Australian, and that his death, particularly in the circumstances of the last 2 1/2 years of his life, is a great Australian tragedy. As passionately as I feel about the injustice, the outrageousness of the campaign that was waged so mercilessly against him, and inevitably his family, over the last 2 1/2 years, I do not think that this is the occasion to dwell on any of that, except to say again, as I have said so many times in this place, that I will never believe that the Age tapes material or any other material of which I was aware as Attorney-General, or am aware now, was such as to justify the criminal charges alleged against him or his removal from the High Court of Australia. History will judge Lionel Murphy much more kindly than it will his detractors and persecutors. This is a time, rather, to focus on those things by which I believe Lionel Murphy will be positively and affirmatively remembered, not only by his colleagues, friends and family, but by the whole Australian community. As Attorney- General in the Whitlam Labor Government, Lionel Murphy introduced some of the most far-reaching and enduring reforming legislation since Federation. The Trade Practices Act, the Family Law Act and Australian Legal Aid Office are all monuments to his energy and creativity. The Racial Discrimination Act, the system of administrative appeals, the Human Rights Commission and Australian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Institute of Criminology all owe their origins to him, although not all were fully in place by the time he left government. A common thread running through nearly all these reforms was Lionel's uncanny capacity to detect the important issues of his time and of the future. His energy and enthusiasm in his portfolio to righting extended not only domestic wrongs but also those on the international stage. His advocacy on Australia's behalf before the International Court of Justice against French atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific was perhaps the most graphic and effective demonstration of that commitment. I worked with him as a consultant on human rights legislation for most of his time as Attorney-General, and it was a pretty heady experience. Trying to describe both the atmosphere of the time and the achievement, I wrote somewhere once that the Murphy years had about them all the exhilaration, and most of the danger, of a careering downhill toboggan. It was not a time for legal wowsers. Public opinion in the Murphy philosophy was there to be led, not cautiously and nervously followed a step at a time. It could have all gone disastrously wrong and become a succession of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation raids, entirely defensible in principle but conceived in a hurry, embraced with excitement, executed with vigour and then repented thereafter at leisure. But somehow it did all come together. The Murphy years in government were years of marvellous, lasting, recognised achievement. It was a demonstration of the art of the possible in government, as I have said elsewhere, and provided a model, a touchstone for any Labor reformer of the future. It has been a hard act, as I well know, for any would-be Labor reformer to follow. On the High Court of Australia, Lionel Murphy did nothing but enhance his reputation. His judgments may not always have been meticulously crafted, in purely technical terms, as some traditionalists would like, but they were always full of intelligence, creativity, comparative learning and sound common sense. They have had the effect of convincing a great many people of his concern with the common sense and practical application of the law, and his conviction that the High Court can be and should be the place where ultimate justice can be sought and obtained. His first main achievement as a judge was simply to be taken very seriously very quickly by the legal profession and by his brethren. There were many, as we all know, who came originally to scoff and to criticise, but who stayed to admire his handling of his role on the Bench, his handling of some complex pieces of litigation andthe way in which he conducted in all sorts of ways his position on the Bench. Very early on I recall, in particular, standing at the Melbourne Bar, watching his handling of the Defence of Government Schools case-the DOGS case-the state aid case, and the way in which the deftness, intelligence, sense and experience with which he handled that enormously complex piece of litigation won him a whole host of admirers from those people at the Melbourne Bar who had been foremost in leading the pack against him at the time of his appointment, and indeed voting against him in that notorious resolution criticising his appointment. There is no doubt that through that formidable combination of charm, intelligence and breadth of learning, he influenced the attitudes and the approach of his fellow judges. He made a very important contribution to some of the big developments, the changes in direction and emphasis that have occurred in that Court in recent years-in taxation law, criminal law and procedure and, I suppose most memorably, constitutional law. He was not always in the majority and on occasion he was a solo voice, but his voice was never irrelevant on the Court. Of the many landmark judgments in His Honour's judicial career, as a lawyer I think particularly of Buck v. Bavone on section 92, Westraders on tax avoidance, McInnes on the rights of defendants, the Bistricic case on Australia's legal relationship with Britain, and his contributions beyond that to some of the mainstream developments in the constitutional law, in the Social Welfare Union case, the Koowarta case and the Tasmania dam case. I think,too,of his spectacular dissents in, among other cases, the sate aid case and the Northern Land Council case. All those things are achievements on the public record and they are on display for anyone to see. But finally, I wish to say something about those more personal qualities of the man, which, although they can be pretty readily guessed from the public man-there was always quite a bit of Lionel Murphy on view in more ways than one-were qualities which were perhaps only really visible to those privileged people who worked with him or knew him well personally. Perhaps I should make clear for the record at this point-I do hope that I will not be misunderstood in this respect-that although I worked for Lionel Murphy and I got to know him reasonably well personally over the years, it has never really been accurate to describe me, as the media continually do despite my pleas for them to get it right, as a `close personal friend'. I knew him as I know his widow, Ingrid, no more closely I guess than hundreds of people knew him. Lionel and I were never intimate friends, and if the friendship was sustained at all during the last traumatic two-and-a-half years, it was one that was conducted very much at arms length, as it had to be, given my ministerial role as Attorney-General and again as Acting Attorney-General at various crucial moments. I make this point for two reasons: First, because to describe our relationship otherwise is to misunderstand the degree of objectivity with which I can talk about him. If I defend and praise Lionel Murphy as warmly as I do, it is not out of emotion or personal loyalty; it is not because I loved him as a mate; it is because I genuinely believe that his life and career demand that measure of respect and that kind of objective assessment. The second point I make-in many ways it is more important-is that I am always a little embarrassed by references to our `close friendship' because it seems to me that that diminishes the quality of the relationship he undoubtedly had with those privileged few, some of them such as George Georges in this chamber, who really were his and Ingrid's intimate and close personal friends. Having said that, I must add that anyone who knew him at all personally can testify to his marvellous capacity for friendship, his marvellous warmth, his captivating charm, his intense and genuine interest in just about everyone he met, the sheer boisterousness and gregariousness of his personality-sometimes, undoubtedly, an insufficiently discriminating gregariousness-the energy he put, here and everywhere else, into his personal and social relationships. Lionel Murphy must have been a gruelling, but absolutely marvellous person to live with. Of all the losses that I imagine Ingrid, Blake and Cameron have suffered, it may be that the loss of that sheer vital life force in their midst was the greatest one of all. In my relationship with Lionel Murphy the side of him to which I was most exposed, especially during his political years, and which I now remember with the greatest clarity and most affection and respect, was his sheer dynamic, restless, creative intellectual energy and his fascination with and passion for ideas. It was a passion, it must be said-it has been hinted at already by what Senator John Button and Senator Don Grimes have said-that often proved pretty gruelling for those around him. When he got his teeth into an idea or argument he would worry at it, work at it and pursue it for hours on end, into the small hours of the morning. When the hospitality had been flowing, as it often did, I remember very well sitting around with others in what is now Senator Button's office looking with all of us for matchsticks to prop up our eyelids while Lionel Murphy would still be exuberantly, boisterously going strong, spinning off ideas like sparks from a catherine-wheel. The ideas and ideals that moved Lionel Murphy most were those of justice, equality and human rights. They were not just abstract concepts to Lionel Murphy; they were concrete, here and now, tangible realities that had to be reached out for and grasped and put into practice, and put into practice with zeal, energy and speed. Everything he did in his public life, and I believe in his private life as well, was directed towards achieving one or other of those ideals and objectives. That, combined with the appetite for life that I and others have tried to describe, made him a very unusual man. There are not many people, particularly in law or politics, who take ideas seriously. Those who do tend not, I guess, to be the gregarious and exuberant type. Lionel Murphy was all those things. He was a unique and splendid individual. I cannot imagine that there will ever be anyone quite like him again in Australian law and politics and we will all be the poorer for his passing. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —It is with genuine sadness that I rise to join this condolence motion with respect to an outstanding politician, a distinguished jurist and law reformer and a very great Australian. I do this not only personally, on behalf of my immediate family, my parents and brother and sister, but also on behalf of the many thousands of people outside who have the greatest respect for this great Australian. I do not have to go to the Who's Who or other informative books to remember all of my experiences, both in the personal and political areas, because as we journey through life we have many experiences which are good, bad and indifferent. The one good experience that many of us can refer to is the experience of having received pleasure from working with a person whose integrity, honesty and devotion to principles are foremost in those relationships. Lionel Keith Murphy was the most compassionate, generous, able and charming man I have ever met. My life has been enriched, as indeed I believe the Australian community has been enriched, by his contribution to the industrial, political, legal and social areas of our country. From time to time we eulogise about persons who have served in this place and in the other place and the fact that today we have a very substantial number of senators here somewhat tempers my concern over the recent period about the attitudes that have been adopted sometimes in respect of the more difficult experiences which Lionel Murphy had and which undoubtedly contributed to his state of health. Lionel Murphy was a lover of humanity, no matter where humanity was. He believed that most people were good. He had few personal enemies. However, because he stood for change and for reform, and because that involved him in controversy, he obviously incurred enmity and prejudice, which, to some extent, resulted in personal bitterness. He was, without doubt, a man of the people and for the people. His whole life, his philosophy and his actions were directed towards advantaging the disadvantaged and defending the powerless against the powerful. To that extent, he fell foul of those who believed that their privileged position in society should not be challenged by a person who, from the humblest origins, was able to reach the top and become Attorney-General, and, finally, a member of the High Court of Australia. I first met Lionel Murphy 34 years ago when he was a young man, in his thirties, beginning his public life in the industrial movement. He was concerned about the struggle for democracy that was going on in a right wing trade union. The management of that industrial organisation was vested in its annual meeting. One hundred members was the quorum required by that industrial organisation to determine its policy and its leadership. The members of the union, who were some of the most exploited members of our society, were endeavouring to change that in order to improve their living standards. He was responsible for giving advice to that rank and file movement, to counter the various pretexts used by the officials of that organisation. Finally, it was determined that the quorum of that organisation should be 1,000 before the effective management could pass to new leadership. I came to know of his concern for democracy and for the little people in that way. Shortly after that, he wanted to contest a pre-selection ballot for the seat of Phillip. At that stage his colleagues in the steering committee of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party prevailed upon him not to do so, because we had agreed in principle that Joe Fitzgerald, who later became a senator in this place, should have that endorsement. However, Mr President, in 1961 we were able to give him support, as we gave you support. I recall those rather difficult and torrid years when we had to take steps to challenge the authority of the leading group in my Party in that State. It was not long afterwards that Lionel Murphy made his impact in this place. He was responsible for improving the quality of the work of the Senate and the establishment of the committee system, and he gave the Senate a higher profile in its important review activities. Of course, he then became involved in other struggles, such as that against Australia's involvement in the war in Vietnam, and he became involved in the wider issues that faced our society. As has been pointed out by other speakers, as Attorney-General in the Whitlam Government in 1972, he left perhaps his greatest legacy through the law reform he initiated. I recall the affection and the esteem in which he was held by members of the Opposition in that period. I am sure that you, Mr President, will recall those years. Long after most senators who are now in this chamber have been forgotten the name of Lionel Keith Murphy will be remembered for his innovative contributions to law reform work in the areas of trade practices, because he was concerned about consumers and about proper practices in that area; corporate law; family law, for which he will be particularly remembered by many people in the Australian community; legal aid; administrative law; the Australian Law Reform Commission; the Federal judicial system; international law, including his attempts to have the French condemned for their testing of nuclear devices in the Pacific; environmental law, especially his great contribution to the Franklin Dam issue; criminal law and justice; international trade law, which is very important in world trade today; all those improper practices that take place in the corporate sector; copyright law; constitutional law; and, of course, human rights. As was pointed out last night at the meeting of Amnesty International, he was a founding member of its parliamentary group. This list can in no way capture the breadth of this man's vision for Australia, the compassion that he had for disadvantaged members of our society, the entirely original and remarkably creative nature of many of his law reform proposals, and particularly the can do mentality which he brought to parliamentary life. No problem, he said, should be put aside because of its difficulty. That was the means by which he was able to make his name in this Parliament. Lionel Murphy's elevation to the High Court of Australia enabled him to take law reform to another sphere. He was undoubtedly an outstanding jurist. He showed a preparedness to cast aside outmoded legal principles and forms. When he discarded the regalia, the outmoded, medieval and feudal means by which these people parade around in their gowns, his very gregarious personality and his desire to remain a man of the people led him into conflict with, and his unorthodoxy put him at a different level to, those with whom he was sharing a new working environment. In those areas of the judiciary there are men who are, by their very nature, conservative in attitude and practice. I have no doubt that for this reason some of his latter difficulties were perhaps emphasised more than they would have otherwise been. He constantly strove to overcome the undue legalism and slavish adherence to legal precedents, which had characterised the work of many of his judicial predecessors on the High Court, where they stood in the way of ensuring that a just result was reached in the issue before the court. Maybe history will take note of the fact that his judgment in the Chamberlain case was a dissenting one, on which I make no comment other than that the case is again being considered in another judicial setting. It is recognised that a number of his High Court judgments have substantially influenced the development of the law. I feel very privileged to have known and worked with such a very great Australian. He was, as others said, a warm and compassionate man, and he cared very much about the welfare of others. Not everything that this Senate has done, not everything that this Government has done and not everything that has happened in recent times can we look at now and say: `This was in the best interests of an individual and in the best interests of justice'. I will not go very much further down that track, but I do not think some of these decisions could ever be described as our finest hour. I believe that Lionel Murphy had the utmost integrity. He was concerned about corruption, not so much in the personal sense but in that of power. That led him down certain paths. This power does not reside solely in this place, in the Parliament; it resides in many other areas outside the Parliament. Lionel Murphy found himself from time to time in conflict with those powerful interests. I have no doubt that when the history of Lionel Keith Murphy is written he will be accorded his proper place in the development of our democratic society. Those who have traduced him, those who have castigated him and those detractors who have written about him should not forget that the difficulties that Lionel Murphy faced in recent years originated in the Queensland Parliament. By taking advantage of a coward's castle, a campaign was unleashed which seriously damaged his reputation and his health. I am not a medico and therefore I am not able to make an expert judgment, but I do believe that stress plays a very important part in our overall health. Politicians are told that when we go for our annual heart check-ups. I have no doubt, as a layman, that over the last two or three years stress played a significant part in Lionel Murphy's ill health and brought his very valuable life to a premature end. Journalists have a very important role to play in our society. Some journalists, particularly those associated with the Fairfax Press, even in today's editorial, talk about the flaws of this man. How many of us have not got flaws? Which of us believe that somehow or other we have not made mistakes along life's journey? I make no bones about my subjectivity and my concern because I have to live with my own conscience as, indeed, Lionel Murphy had to live with his. He would have been the very last person to be involved in corrupt practices. Yet the National Times and other scribes of the Fairfax organisation pursued this man and, undoubtedly, contributed towards his untimely death. They will be forgotten, whereas Lionel Murphy will be remembered. Some evil things have been done in high places and low places in the judiciary in respect of Lionel Murphy. This is not the time to be very specific about that. Other occasions will enable us to rectify some of those incidents and concerns. I recall the decision to establish the Senate committee inquiry and the decision to establish the judicial inquiry. I am not proud of the fact that I had to accept those decisions in silence as I had to submit to other disciplines. One does not have to go far back in history to recognise that history adjudicates on these matters, it rectifies things, and when that time comes I have absolutely no doubt that history will come to exactly the same conclusion as those who did know Lionel Keith Murphy intimately, who do know about his integrity, who do know about his compassion and who do know that he was a man who would never have transgressed the proper behaviour of those who hold public office. Politics becomes distasteful when we seek to score in a personal way-I suppose we are all guilty of that in one way or another, although sometimes I think those in the other place are more guilty of it than we are here-instead of scoring politically, properly, in relation to the role our representation takes. Political prejudice runs very deep. I can understand Mr Fred Daly saying that part of the problem was that Lionel Murphy was a Labor member appointed to the High Court. That is perhaps a little simplistic; I think the issue was fundamentally that he dared to crack that most august place of all in Australian contemporary life, the High Court. In my view he has paid the price for this with his life. I could talk at greater length but I do recall one experience which demonstrates the humanity of Lionel Murphy. He and I, together with others, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention, I think towards the end of 1973, when he was Attorney-General. We were in the New South Wales State Parliament and a group of militant blacks came to the Parliament to express their concerns about the way in which society was treating them and about their demands for land rights. Like the women out the front of this Parliament House, they did not always distinguish or differentiate between those who were with them and those who were against them. I remember that Lionel and I were regaled, I think by Gary Foley. We listened, we were harangued, and we promised that we would visit the Redfern area to see whether the experiences of the blacks in Redfern were as expressed by the black leadership speaking to us at that time. To my disgust I saw the way in which the New South Wales Police dealt with blacks in Redfern. What Gary Foley said was correct. Lionel and I visited there one late afternoon or early evening and stood unobtrusively across the road from an hotel to watch the behaviour of those in the area. Every black who came out of the hotel at 10 o'clock was picked up and arrested by the police and put into the paddy wagon whereas all the white Anglo-Saxon Australians, who were just as inebriated as the blacks, were allowed to go. In subsequent discussions with Lionel Murphy, he said: `You have to realise that the prejudice that exists against blacks is in the public sector. It is in the public officials who query the rights of blacks in the Northern Territory and central Australia to have their social security benefits. It is in the police force and in those sorts of people where the prejudice is most expressed'. Of course, Lionel Murphy was not only associated with those issues to which I have referred. He gave me some understanding of all of the other minority movements. He educated me about the problems of homosexuals as a minority group. He was a person who wanted to play a part in the reforms of our penal institutions, believing that they hardened prisoners rather than rehabilitating them. Of course, he pointed out that there were no votes in that and that probably no government would be prepared to spend sufficient money to overhaul the penal institutions. Nevertheless, he believed it was an issue with which compassionate people should concern themselves. I have gone over my time. I appreciate the fact that the Senate has given me an opportunity to say something about one of my closest friends and colleagues and a person with whom I have retained friendship over the years despite his august position, my more humble position, and, more recently perhaps, my slightly more exalted position. I enjoyed socialising with him and his family. To Ingrid, Cameron and Blake, and to Lorel, his daughter of a previous marriage, from my wife Dawn, my daughter Dale and my two sons, Lee and Adam, and on behalf of the countless thousands of people who would expect me to speak freely and frankly about Lionel Murphy, I express to the Murphy family, to his brother and to those immediate members to whom I have referred, our profound sympathy in their very untimely and sad loss. It should be known that out there in the Australian community thousands and thousands of people will be mourning the loss of a great Australian. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —In moments of sorrow, words of bitterness and anger should be put to one side. But words of bitterness and anger are hard to avoid today. I have said on a previous occasion, when appealing to the Senate on behalf of Lionel Murphy, that we were witnessing a tragedy of classic proportions. At that stage I said that there was one more chapter to unfold. That chapter unfolds today in this place. If I were to express words of bitterness, they would be to those who opposed him and who did not properly understand him. But my words of anger are against those who moved away from him, when he needed assistance, in order to achieve respectability, to protect their respectability, and perhaps to establish a new reputation. I wonder just what those people are thinking. I know what some of them are saying. What they say is hollow. I know what some of them are writing, and what they write is empty. Lionel Murphy was a man of great courage, but a courage that he did not express for himself; he expressed it for others. His concern, right up to the very end, was for others. When I spoke to him he was concerned about me and my health, not his own. He was concerned about the position of others. He spoke of things that needed to be done, things that needed to be achieved in the interests of people. He was a great humanist; he was a great human. He endeavoured-and he succeeded in this-to humanise society and to brush aside idle philosophies and superstitions. He did that in the early stages of my knowing him. I remember making a speech during the adjournment debate on the difficulty for those people who sought to be married in a secular way in Queensland. When I got into difficulties-the first of many times that I was in difficulties-he not only came to my assistance and supported me but also eventually made a decision which was to have considerable and far-reaching consequences in our society. One need only look at the number of secular marriages being performed in this country today compared with some 15 years ago to realise just how he was able, by an understanding decision, to ease and alter the lives of ordinary people. As I said, he was a person of great courage and determination. He wanted the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to come to an end. He did not care how it came to an end. It came to an end and he was grateful for that, irrespective of the conditions which qualified that decision. He went back to the High Court of Australia in spite of great difficulty and in spite of great opposition in the highest places. He sat in that Court and participated in two cases. He wrote his judgments on them when he had little strength to do so. Those judgments were handed down yesterday at 3.30 p.m. At the request of the High Court they were brought forward; they were supposed to come down today at 3.30 p.m. Those judgments were brought down, and Lionel Murphy died at 4.15 p.m. It was said somewhere that he was in a coma for 10 days. That is not true. He was merely briefly in that state of no recognition. It was just for a short time on the Monday. But one could see the determination and the spirit of the man that persisted right until the end. His end is a loss because he had much more to offer and much more to give. Although it is said that there is no person who cannot be replaced, one thing is certain: Lionel Murphy will not be replaced easily. I would like to express my condolences to Ingrid, to his brother Bill and Bill's wife, and to his children, Cameron, Blake and Lorel, whom I know well. I also express my condolences to his two staff members, Rhonda and Peter, who shared the agony until the end and who have a further agony to perform in bringing his affairs into order and in vacating the great office that Lionel Murphy held, the office of Justice of the High Court. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I wish to be associated with the condolence motion. I shall be brief because so many things have been said of Lionel Murphy, and all are very true. Mr President, you might recall, following what Senator Gietzelt said, that we met in my office in 1961 to discuss a matter that occasionally comes up in politics-who should be the Senate candidates from New South Wales. We fairly quickly agreed that you, Mr President, should be a candidate at that time, but I held out against the young barrister people were referring to, and that was Lionel Murphy. I held out because I was very suspicious of barristers who, through their training, were very inclined to speak eloquently but who, from my experience, were not inclined to follow the principles of the labour movement. Fortunately, my colleagues prevailed on me. I was very wrong and Lionel Murphy with you, Mr President, came into the Senate in 1962. Other people have clearly indicated the speed with which he rose to the highest office in the Senate and his excellent work in reforming the Senate. I feel that some aspects should be emphasised a little more. Lionel Murphy worked outside the Senate as well as in it. His tremendous energy meant that he was able to campaign in every possible way on so many different issues. I was involved in the anti-Vietnam War campaign and Lionel found the time, among all his other activities, to be a prominent personality in that campaign. His quality of lateral thinking has been mentioned. I have been in politics for over 30 years and have met many prominent people in State and Federal parliaments, but know of no person who had that quality to the same degree as did Lionel Murphy. He was able to look at a problem and see the way through it. He was able to think of a problem so comprehensively that throughout his life he was able to help people and make suggestions that were beyond the capacity of most human beings. As a Party officer in the early 1970s, I was able to work with him in that run-up to the election of the Whitlam Government. I do not think it has been emphasised enough that it was what he did not only in government but also in preparation for it that was outstanding. For example, in 1971 he was primarily responsible for many initiatives-such as in the arts area. The culture of Lionel Murphy has not been mentioned sufficiently. He influenced the opening up of the arts that was referred to in the program on which the Whitlam Government went to the people. The right of people to read things as adults, with a few qualifications, was a singularly outstanding achievement that Lionel Murphy creatively pushed forward. It became accepted in most parts of Australia, and inevitably in Queensland, too. The Whitlam Government Ministers were very grateful for the way in which Lionel Murphy was able to suggest solutions to problems-a quality we all wish we had when facing and stewing over difficult problems. Lionel Murphy in a singular way will be remembered by his colleagues and everybody who has known him as a person who solved problems, often not in his own direct area of influence and responsibility. I shall not add to what has been said so eloquently by other speakers about Lionel Murphy's contribution to the law. Just as this Senate reflects an American approach, throughout his career Lionel Murphy looked to countries other than mother England. When the history books are written finally, I think he might be judged responsible for making us look to sources of law and wisdom other than the traditional ones we have always accepted. It is typical of the man that he knew no constraints. I do not wish to raise at any length the matter of the persecution that Lionel Murphy had received from the house of Fairfax. Some small minded journalists sought to tug at him-a great man-in their efforts to gain some short term notoriety. As other senators have said, history will record the facts very clearly. All I know is that there is great anger in the labour movement throughout Australia about the way in which Lionel Murphy was persecuted. I conclude by passing on my condolences to Ingrid, her children and family and I am very sad that I have lost a friend. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —In the context of the many tributes which have been paid since Mr Justice Murphy's untimely passing and which will be made over the next few days, my remarks may appear to be insignificant. If that is so, I stress to the Senate that what I am about to say is said with an extreme depth of feeling. Like others who had any association with Lionel Murphy, I was dismayed when I heard earlier this year that he was terminally ill. I had been speaking to him only a week before and, although he did not look well, I was still shocked when the nature of his illness became evident. Many people throughout Australia who had not had the honour of meeting Lionel were equally shocked and saddened. Since then, and until yesterday, I had always harboured the hope that there would be some miraculous recovery or at least a significant remission. That was not to be and yesterday Lionel Murphy passed from this world-at last in peace following the tortuous events of the past two years. I did not know Lionel Murphy as well as many others in this chamber. I never had the opportunity to meet his family, who must, at this stage, be suffering from profound grief. To them I offer my deepest sympathy. I hope that it will be of some solace to Lionel's family that their sorrow is shared today by thousands upon thousands of people throughout this nation. Although, as I mentioned, I did not know him as well as some others, I had the opportunity to speak to him on many occasions and regarded him as a personal friend. We first met in 1969 after I had been selected by my Party as a Senate candidate. I shall never forget when we first met, under a high-set home in south Brisbane. The warmth of the man became instantly and clearly evident. After that we met regularly at political functions. Although at one stage it appeared that I might be elected to this chamber in 1974, that did not occur. Thus I did not have the opportunity to be one of his colleagues in the Senate. When I was subsequently elected in 1975 Lionel Murphy had moved to the High Court of Australia. I shall always remember Lionel Murphy as a compassionate man, an intellectual giant and one of my friends. I was pleased that my elder son was able to engage in thought provoking discussions with Lionel almost a year ago-in fact, it would have been a year ago this Saturday. I am sure that my son will not forget the experience of being able to speak with one of Australia's great men, a man who could converse with people from all walks of life. Some of us hope that when we pass from this world we will have made a scratch on the mirror of time. Lionel Murphy did far more than this. He was a man who will be long remembered, not only by those who knew him, but also by Australian historians. His contributions to Australian politics and to the judiciary will be acclaimed by those who, in the future, look at his life and the part he played in shaping the direction taken by our nation. While others of us will be forgotten, the name of Lionel Murphy will loom large in Australia's history. On a personal basis, I simply say: `Goodbye, my friend. I am proud to have known you. May you rest in peace'. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —To have known Lionel Murphy is a privilege I will always treasure. There are many anecdotes that many of us could relate and images which help us to remember important and minor events in our lives and the lives of others. I remember that in February 1972, when I was first endorsed as a candidate for Denison in the House of Representatives election, the first function of my campaign was a Young Labor dinner in Hobart in early March 1972; that was my first public speech. Lionel Murphy was the guest speaker at that function as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate at that time. He came to Hobart with a young George Negus as his Press secretary. Because of his character, which I came to know better after that time, he was not just accepting of me; he was enthusiastically supportive and encouraging during that campaign and during the next two years, 1973 and 1974, the years of the Whitlam Government, before he was appointed to the High Court of Australia. Before and since that time and at the time of his appointment he suffered the attacks, derision and abuse of the establishment. I recall the horror of our opponents and conservatives generally not only that a Labor person was being appointed to the High Court but somebody from the Labor Left. Since that time my contact with him has been less, but he was always a gregarious person, as he has been described. When we met at a function or a party he was always welcoming and accepting. There were many issues during 1973 and 1974 in which we were all involved, and the Family Law Bill was one of the major ones. People here may not remember that because of the free vote arrangement at the time the passage of that Bill through the House of Representatives was much more difficult than it was through this chamber. It was frustrating for Lionel Murphy that amendments had to be accepted that he would have preferred not to have made, but that was one piece of legislation, among others, that required a lot of attention. Because of the free vote arrangement there had to be negotiations, not just between parties but also among individuals, in order to get the reform through. I will not repeat all the reforms for which we will remember Lionel Murphy, but they include the relaxation of censorship laws, the introduction of the civil marriage celebrant arrangement which Senator George Georges mentioned and many other achievements. Lionel Murphy gave so much and he did it so generously. I certainly regret his passing but I also celebrate his life. I know that for the rest of my life, whenever I hear a recording of Lionel Murphy's unmistakable and endearing voice, not only will a lump come to my throat and tears to my eyes, but also I will recall all that I am grateful to him for and all that the Australian Labor Party and Australia as a whole should be grateful to him for. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —As a person who has felt Lionel Murphy's warmth, I would like to be associated with the condolences. I agree with the sentiments that my colleagues have expressed about him. One important point that has not been mentioned about Lionel Murphy is the marvellous attribute that he had-the common touch. I think few people could be compared with Horatius, but honourable senators might recall that when Macaulay wrote about Horatius, he said: And even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer. I believe that this applies equally to Lionel Murphy. I offer my condolences to his wife and children. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I wish to express my condolences to the family of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy in their bereavement and to record my regret at the passing of a great trailblazer, a compassionate and courageous Australian who contributed enormously to stimulating progressive reforms in legal and political life in this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I probably knew Lionel Murphy a lot earlier than many people in this chamber. In 1959, retail workers in Tasmania were unorganised, working in substandard conditions, under substandard awards, and some were completely unprotected by awards. As a young union official, from 1959 until the early 1960s I laboured long and hard to organise these retail workers and to obtain for them award coverage and union protection. Having achieved that objective, I was dismayed when a left wing union from Sydney attempted to take over the membership lock, stock and barrel. I was further amazed that this attempt was not done on the ground but was sought to be achieved in the courts. That was the time I first came into contact with Lionel Murphy, who was briefed as Queen's Counsel by that union. Unfortunately, my vision of him was coloured at that time. Again, in 1968 Lionel Murphy played a major role in the decision of the Federal Executive of the Labor Party, by the closest of margins, to refuse me a seat on that Federal Executive as the elected representative of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labor Party. I suppose that it can be said that I was a political enemy of Lionel Murphy. But in no way can it be said that I was a personal enemy of his. Perhaps that was due more to his magnanimous and gregarious character than to any characteristic of mine. As I recall, there was at no stage a personal animosity. In fact, we shared some policies in common-for example, a passionate concern that there should be an abolition of capital punishment. But I did not support many of his contributions to the legal framework of this nation, for which he is now being most remembered-the social ramifications of which are being felt and are beginning to be faced by our society. Nevertheless, I admired his mental agility, his intellectual capacity and his restless passion for good and justice as he saw it. In particular, during the last few months since I heard that he had contracted cancer I had a personal understanding and compassion for him and his family. He undoubtedly had a great mind which was oriented to the search for truth. Standing here, I cannot logically conceive, just because his body was riddled with cancer and he has died, that his mind is no longer active, that he is no longer in existence. After all, his mind gave searching consideration to such non-material and abstract concepts as justice. I simply say that I hope and pray that he has now found rest in the truth. I offer to his wife, his family and also his close personal friends my deepest sympathy. The PRESIDENT —Colleagues, I should like to add my support to the condolence motion that has been moved by Senator Button. As has already been said, for many years my political path and that of Mr Justice Murphy ran side by side. With the late Senator Fitzgerald, Lionel Murphy, as he was then, and I were elected as Labor senators for New South Wales on the same ticket at the 1961 election. Indeed, when the validity of my election was challenged by the then Australian Democratic Labor Party in the High Court of Australia it was Lionel Murphy, Queen's Counsel, who successfully appeared for me in that action. As a result of his persuasion to a Bench that he subsequently joined, I became a senator for New South Wales. Senator Murphy and I entered Parliament together on 1 July 1962. We served together in opposition for 10 very long years. We were elected to the Ministry together in 1972. We served as Cabinet Ministers together for three years, and for 18 months of that time I was the Manager of Government Business in the Senate while he was the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Therefore we had a very close association. I think everything has been said about him as a parliamentarian, his achievements as a parliamentarian and his distinguished career as a jurist. I want to take a few short minutes to speak about him and about my memories of him as a man. He was a warm, kind, gracious and most generous person-as Senator Button has said, a man of great charm. His little idiosyncrasies, his mannerisms, his words, his deeds and his actions all became part of the folklore of the labour movement. I remember how he used to push his hair back with his hands before he spoke. I remember him starting his remarks with the word `Well' before he made a pronouncement of his thoughts on any given subject. I remember his head leaning to one side when he was pensive in thought. I remember the long, strident, vital steps that he took as he strode from the Senate door to the parliamentary table-a man in a hurry, a man keen to get on with the job. I remember his hearty laughter or chuckle as someone took him off. I remember his being able to take a joke against himself. Indeed, talking about his generosity, I well remember the great party he threw shortly after we entered Parliament, in honour of former Senator O'Byrne and his wife, Anne, when they celebrated the birth of their first child. It was one of the great parties of all times. I remember his deep convictions, his respect for the rule of law, his belief in the parliamentary institution and, because the Australian Parliament was isolated, as it were, in Canberra, his concern to get it to the people and to get the people to it. Therefore I remember his activities in this place to develop a committee system which would take the Parliament to the people of Australia. I remember his great love of life. He came into Parliament with great men such as Reg Bishop, Jim Cavanagh and his own close personal friend, the late Sam Cohen, QC-all great men, great Labor people and great Australians. For Lionel Murphy to have been elected Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate when there were such men as those in the Labor Party marked him as a real man among real men. My sympathy and that of my wife, Lorna, and the sympathy of all those who elected Lionel and me to the Parliament go to that lovely lady, Ingrid, who has been such a tower of strength to him, a magnificently loyal wife and an outstanding mother to Cameron and Blake. Colleagues, I invite you all to stand as a mark of respect to the memory of Lionel Keith Murphy. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places. 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 is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should:- 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium 137 and caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of Australia shows that: the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap is a vital part of United States plans to fight a nuclear war, thus implicating Australia in these immoral plans; spy satellites such as those linked to Pine Gap are used to spy on both allied and non-allied countries, including Australia; these activities of Pine Gap are a destabilizing influence in a dangerously uneasy world, raising the level of fear and distrust between nations; the significance of Pine Gap to the U.S.A. is such that it is a prime nuclear target; Pine Gap desecrates an Aboriginal dreaming track. Your petitioners therefore strongly urge that the Australian Government give to the government of the U.S.A. the one year's notice required to terminate the lease on the Joint Space Defence Research Facility at Pine Gap. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Powell (from 200 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: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 73 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: The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal System in Australia, the State and Federal and criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education system, the independence of the Churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children and the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and the Australian Society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for at least twelve months and for the political parties to become involved in a public awareness program of the Australian Bill of Rights, so that the Australian people can debate, scrutinize and discuss the issue for themselves, prior to a referendum, as to whether or not they want a Bill of Rights introduced. by Senator Brownhill (from 1,587 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operation Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crichton-Browne (from 38 citizens) and Vigor (from 94 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The Petition of the undersigned Queensland citizens respectfully showeth: (i) For the 1986 Calendar year 34,000 students applied for only 14,500 first year places at Tertiary institutions in Queensland. (ii) Queensland has 16.07% of Australia's total population, but the participation rate of students attending Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education is only 13.7% and 14.9% respectively. (Which for example compares unfavourably with the New South Wales figures of 34.85% of population and participation rates of 37.9% and 25.8% respectively.) (iii) Queensland students because of lack of places are disadvantaged and deprived in that they suffer the lowest participation rates of any State or Territory in Australia. Your petitioners request that. The Federal Government immediately increase its Tertiary Funding so that Queensland students have at least the same opportunities as the average for Australia. by Senator Parer (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `Joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army barracks. by Senator Siddons (from 370 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits tax on the following grounds: its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. in that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 541 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions; that the Hawke Government's Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long-term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights is a harmful, dangerous, divisive and unnecessary proposal, the provisions of which are dictatorial, harmful and against the true interest of the people of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate reject the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 196 citizens) and Mason (from 14 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 support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for `drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called `soft drugs' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalise and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by `drug pushers' through the proposed one ounce legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and license import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society. 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problem of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legislation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mason (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that Parliament becomes aware that the Public has no legal right to influence the setting of Standards for Television Programming, that we deplore the new Standards which came into force on 1st February, and that we call on Parliament to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, section 16 (2), so that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when determining Television Standards, and screening hours, shall consult with the Australian people: because at present the Tribunal is compelled by law to consult only with television stations on these matters, because the new standards are a result of such consultation, and have already been implemented without public discussion, because the new Standards are ambiguous, and without definition, because the new Standards are composed of modifying terms which circumvent the proscriptions, because the media is only motivated by aspirations of pecuniary superiority, because, in contrast, the public is only motivated by their wish to exercise pastoral care over the nurturing home environment of their children, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe extreme importance to `the storyline' of a film screened, because we believe that the Standards wrongly ascribe total unimportance to the effects of viewing, especially violent films, on the young, the impressionable, the immature, the unstable, or the socially disadvantaged, because we refuse to accept the media-imposed assessment of community standards, and because we wish to impart our demand to be consulted, our demand to have legal status in decision-making, and the right to counsel those whose decisions so deeply affect our homes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest attention. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 44 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 is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, contrary to the well-being and wishes of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects this Bill and all cognate Bills. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 324 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We the undersigned, plead that Parliament will revoke and replace with family-oriented persons, all appointments to the Film Censorship Board prior to 1985, and thus improve the nurturing home environment of Australia's children, because we have read pages 149 to 152 of the Official Hansard Transcript of Evidence to the Select Committee on Video Material, and we ask you to read it. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 64 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the programme, the ``Country Hour'', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; that even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and in view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programmes such as the Country Hour. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 41 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 there is a need for an independent and Multi-Cultural Broadcasting Corporation to give a firm legislative and financial basis for the SBS Network. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should Pass Senator Vigor's Bill with all expediency And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Mason (from 24 citizens) and Vigor (from 21 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with alarm: (i) the report of the Steel Industry Authority that a 680 per cent increase in industrial unrest at the Port Kembla Steelworks in the last 6 months, along with falling productivity and entrenched work practices, could jeopardise the industry's future and result in further retrenchments, and (ii) the warning by General Motors-Holden that the future of the motor vehicle industry is being jeopardised by industrial action by unions over superannuation claims which has forced the company to stand down 2,500 employees; (b) notes that the Steel Industry Authority has sought the intervention of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and has drawn the attention of the unions concerned to their obligation to comply with established dispute settlement procedures in order to reduce industrial unrest at Port Kembla, where more than half Australia's steel is made; (c) expresses its concern at the Federal Government's inability to gain compliance from the union movement with agreements vital to the survival of these industries that require co-operation from unions for the benefit of all Australians; and (d) calls on the Government to take effective action to halt the damaging and irresponsible program of industrial disruption that is threatening the future of these 2 major Australian industries which operate under the protection of Government assistance plans. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the local management of Besco Batteries Pty Ltd of Villawood, Sydney, who on Friday, 17 October 1986, summarily closed that plant and sacked 500 workers with less than one hour's notice; (b) notes that Besco Batteries is a subsidiary company of Peko-Wallsend Ltd; (c) records the fact that another Peko-Wallsend subsidiary company, Robe River Iron Associates, engaged in similar anti-worker, anti-union and anti-Australian activity when in August 1986 it sacked 1,150 workers at short notice; (d) notes that the Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend Ltd is one Mr Charles Copeman, who is a leading member of the H. R. Nicholls Society, a vanguard movement for the New Right; (e) condemns the approach being taken by Mr Copeman, his advisers and Peko-Wallsend Ltd, to industrial relations, as being the worst possible option available, particularly at a time when this nation and its people should be working together to overcome the economic problems that impact on Australia at this present time; (f) congratulates the New South Wales Premier (Mr Unsworth) on his pledge to investigate the operation of Peko-Wallsend Ltd and its subsidiary companies within New South Wales; and (g) offers all possible assistance to the Government of New South Wales and other States if requested to ensure the damage caused by Peko-Wallsend's anti-worker, anti-union actions is minimised. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes that- (a) today, Thursday, 23 October 1986, is the 30th Anniversary of the spontaneous uprising of the Hungarian people, including students, farmers and workers, against the oppression of basic rights and freedoms by a pro-Soviet regime; (b) tens of thousands of refugees left Hungary and a significant number were accepted as settlers in Australia where they have contributed to the nation's progress and diversity; (c) many others were killed or transported to the Soviet Union when the uprising was brutally suppressed by Soviet troops; and (d) Hungary is still controlled by a pro-Soviet Communist regime which continues to deny basic rights and freedoms to its citizens. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that in return for the cost and confusion associated with the introduction of fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, the Hawke Labor Government promised genuine reductions in the level of income tax; and (b) condemns the Labor Government for breaking its promise to provide genuine reductions in income tax and that, as a consequence, Australians will be paying increasing amounts of income tax under this Government as well as fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the presence of Women for Survival outside Parliament House until 25 October 1986, calling for the Federal Government to give 12 months notice to the United States for termination of the Pine Gap Agreement; (b) notes, too, that the women are only there for 2 weeks, the same period as the Vietnamese demonstrators in 1985; (c) recalls that there are vast areas of Australia which have been barred to almost all Australians for many years because of the presence of foreign military bases; (d) reminds the Senate that the purpose of the protest outside Parliament House is to focus on Pine Gap; (e) reiterates the call for the Australian Government to use the 12 month-long opportunity it now has from 19 October 1986, to give notice of termination of the Pine Gap agreement; and (f) calls for the involvement of the Australian people in that decision-making process. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —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. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Report for 1985-87 Triennium, Volume 4, Recommendations for 1987-Pursuant to sub-section 9 (3) of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act 1977. 2. Commonwealth Schools Commission-Report for 1987-Response to Government Guidelines-Pursuant to sub-section 14 (2) of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973. 3. Economic Planning Advisory Council-Annual Report for 1985-86-Pursuant to sub-section 27 (3) of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983. 4. Water Pollution Ordinance-Annual Report for 1984-85-Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 46 of the Water Pollution Ordinance 1984. 5. Air Pollution Ordinance-Annual Report for 1984-85-Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 46 of the Water Pollution Ordinance 1984. 6. A.C.T. Bookmakers Licensing Committee-Annual Report for 1985-86-Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 54 of the Bookmakers Ordinance 1985. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt for Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of subsidy on the production, or in respect of the importation, of certain cultivation machines and related equipment, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Gietzelt, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.46) —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- This Bill seeks to implement the undertaking contained in the rural economic policy statement of 15 April 1986 to replace tariffs on certain cultivation machinery and parts with direct assistance to local producers with effect from that date. Stocks on hand as at that date, including imported stocks, are to be covered by the new arrangements. The prime objective of this policy change is to reduce prices on a range of cultivation equipment and parts used in the rural sector without disrupting the existing levels of assistance accorded local manufacturers. The Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) was asked to inquire into and report on the terms and conditions of such assistance and its report was released on 16 June 1986. The IAC concluded that assistance at a rate of 12.5 per cent of ex-factory selling price would provide a level of assistance equivalent to that accorded by tariff. In addition, it concluded that payments at this base rate should be discounted for subsidy already paid on locally produced parts and discounted by a notional tariff on imported parts which are incorporated in complete machines. In principle the Government accepts the findings of the IAC. Tight budgetary constraints however have severely limited the availability of funds to cover anticipated subsidy payments at rates proposed by the IAC. Accordingly the rates of subsidy for this scheme have been reduced by a factor of 20%. This reduction which was announced in the Budget is consistent with the treatment generally accorded other bounty schemes. Clause 12 of the Bill contains provisions specifying the rates of subsidy to be paid on eligible equipment. The base rate at which subsidy will be paid will be 10 per cent of the sales value of the equipment determined in accordance with clause 6. Payments at this base rate, generally the ex factory selling price, are to be discounted for any subsidy or bounty paid on locally produced components incorporated in eligible equipment and by an amount equal to 12 per cent of the value for duty of imported components incorporated in such machinery. The Bill contains special provisions at clause 10 whereby the subsidy will be paid in respect of domestic sales of imported cultivation equipment entered for home consumption before 15 April 1986 but not sold until after that date. This clause, together with clause 9, which enables manufacturers to claim subsidy on stocks accords with the government's commitment to extend the subsidy scheme to stocks on hand at 15 April 1986. Clause 17 provides that subsidy claims will only be processed when the amount of subsidy payable exceeds $200. This measure has been introduced in an endeavour to minimise the administrative costs associated with the scheme. In its report the IAC recommended that the new assistance arrangements cover all goods of a type falling to customs tariff item 84.24 and that margins of preference for imports of parts from preferential sources be retained. The government accepts the IAC proposal that all goods within Customs Tariff Item 84.24 be covered. It has been decided however not to accept the IAC's recommendations to accord preferential treatment to imports of parts from such sources as Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada and the Forum Islands. Discrimination between sources of imports for subsidy payments could be seen as being at variance with the most favoured nation clause of the GATT as well as having implications for our overall policy on bounty administration. The new arrangements allow for the duty free entry of all goods falling to Customs Tariff Item 84.24. Necessary action is being taken to alter the Customs Tariff to coincide with the assistance arrangements proposed by this Bill. Clause 23 of the Bill includes a provision designed to promote the orderly development of the cultivation machinery industry sector and to avoid fragmentation of production. Under that provision the Comptroller-General of Customs will not register the premises of any applicants for registration that were not in production of goods eligible for subsidy on 15 April 1986 (the operative date of proposed change in assistance arrangements) if, in the opinion of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, such registration would not permit the orderly development of the Industry in Australia. The other provisions of Parts 3 to 5 of the Bill are of an administrative nature modelled on similar provisions in recent bounty legislation. The arrangements I have outlined will remain in force until 31 December 1990, but will be reviewed by the IAC before the end of this period. Provision has been made to enable the scheme to be extended for up to 6 months to cater for any unforeseen delays in determining the assistance measures (if any) to apply beyond 31 December 1990. Financial Impact Statement It is expected that subsidy payments in 1986-87 under this bill will be approximately $16.8m. In that same period revenue foregone in permitting duty free entry under the proposed consequential amendments to the Customs Tariff Act will amount to approximately $2m. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 21 October. Bills-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. (Quorum formed) Motion (by Senator Walsh) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator Siddons-Mr Acting Deputy President, the Australian Democrats would like the three tax Bills to be voted on at the third reading stage separately from the Medicare Levy Bill because we oppose that legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Is that the wish of the Senate? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question is: That the Income Tax Rates Bill 1986, the Income Tax Bill 1986 and the Taxation Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1986 be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the Medicare Levy Bill 1986 be now read a third time. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(11.53) —The Australian Democrats oppose the Medicare Levy Bill because it represents a broken promise of the Government. Senator Sheil —What's new? Senator SIDDONS —It is a very significant broken promise by the Government. There was a clear undertaking by the Government that it would not increase the Medicare levy but it has done so, and because of that we cannot support this legislation. Question put: That the Medicare Levy Bill 1986 be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Alston, R. K. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. McKiernan, J. P. Brownhill, D. G. C. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Childs, B. K. Morris, J. Coates, J. Newman, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reid, M. E. Cooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Elstob, R. C. Short, J. R. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Georges, G. Townley, M. Gietzelt, A. T. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Sanders, N. K. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Siddons, J. R. Mason, C. V. J. Vigor, D. B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.01) —The Senate is debating the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986 and the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1986. I make it quite clear from the outset that the Opposition will not oppose these two pieces of the Government's Budget legislation, notwithstanding that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) is not strictly a Budget Bill in that some items of non-Budget matter are included therein. Nevertheless, the Bills do raise serious matters of concern to the Opposition and I will certainly draw attention to those during my speech. I suppose I should start at the beginning with the Budget itself and point out at the outset that by its Budget this Government stands proven again to be the highest taxing government since Federation. We now see the Hawke Labor Government taking in taxation 25.5. per cent of the gross domestic product for the purposes of governing. That is the highest proportion ever in the history of this nation. The point that needs to be made about that, which is of real political consequence, is that the Government went to the people before the election of 1984 and gave a solemn undertaking that it would not increase taxation above the taxation level of the previous year, that is of the 1984-85 financial year, as expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product. Yet in the first Budget following that undertaking being given, the Government raised taxation to a level which now is the highest it has ever been in the history of the nation. All of us have known that this is a high taxing Government. But quite clearly the Government has stretched itself to break its promises, as it has done on so many occasions. It is quite clear that the word of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, and of other Ministers simply cannot be believed on the issue of taxation, or for that matter on any other issue. Since 1983 when this Government came to power, we have seen successive promises broken in the taxation area. The first one that comes to mind was broken in May of 1983 with the imposition of the 30 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation. Yet, prior to the election of 1983, the Australian Labor Party gave a clear undertaking that it would not tax lump sum superannuation payments. Secondly, the Government introduced the assets test on pensions, again having given a solemn undertaking that it would not introduce an assets test on pensions. Since then we have seen the latest breaking of an undertaking given before the 1984 election that there would be no increase in the Medicare levy. Just a moment or two ago we saw the passage of the Medicare Levy Bill which increases the Medicare levy by some 25 per cent. That is what is happening. The Government constantly breaches its undertakings and has absolutely no credibility in the eyes of the public. Let us turn for a moment to the Budget. All of us know that the great trick of the Budget was to come out with a sensational new deficit figure that nobody in the financial community or the Government expected. In fact, the Government brought down a deficit of $3.5 billion compared with the previous year's figure of around $5.8 billion. That very significant reduction of the deficit was brought about not by reducing the activities of government, not by cutting the Government's expenditure, not by stimulating growth in the economy in some sudden and magical fashion, but by raising taxation. This has been the common feature of all the Hawke Labor Government's decisions: When in trouble it raises taxation. So it is that, of that $2 billion decrease in the deficit, at least $1.5 billion has come from new taxes raised in this Budget and the remaining amount from some deferrals-not cuts in expenditure but deferrals in some areas-and more particularly from some windfall profits from the Reserve Bank of Australia because of the currency devaluation. That is how the Government has achieved its objective of reducing the deficit by some $2 billion. But, frankly, it has all been done with mirrors. The people who are paying for it are the poor taxpayers of this country who are now paying the highest levels of taxation that the nation has ever suffered. It represents a direct breach of the Government's undertaking at the election in 1984. Perhaps I should cite just two statistics to show what effect this is having on the Australian people. The rate of inflation since this Government came to power in March of 1983 has increased by a total of 30.5 per cent. However, the increase in the tax take in those 3 3/4 years has been 60 per cent. What has happened is that the rate at which the Government is taking tax from the people has grown twice as fast as the rate of inflation. Consequently that is coming out of the real moneys available to the population and is restricting the ability of the population to look after itself. Of course the effect of that will be reflected in lower consumer demand. It will be reflected in the lower standard of living that people are able to enjoy and afford and, consequently, will have a major impact on the Australian economy. That is what has happened to the people in Australia since this Hawke Labor Government came to power. It is little wonder that people are literally being borne down with the weight of taxation on their shoulders. They feel that their standard of living is suffering as a result and, consequently, they feel that this Government is doing nothing for them. Of course, when they assume that, they are absolutely correct, because nothing is being done for them-only a continuation of broken promises while the economy slips into more and more trouble built up by greater and greater debt being owed by the nation to foreign countries. On the issue of debt, it has risen during the period of this Government from some $35 billion-a relatively small figure-to nearly $100 billion, which represents some 40 per cent of our gross domestic product. Of course, that debt will be around in this country for many years to come. The recent report of the Economic Planning Advisory Council highlighted that and pointed out that it will not be cured until at least well into the 1990s. That shows that the trend that has been developing as a direct result of Government policy in the last 3 1/2 years is most detrimental to the long term future of the Australian economy. Returning to taxation as it affects the individual, we should observe that in March of 1983 the marginal tax rate that applied to taxpayers on average weekly earnings was 30 per cent. That was the amount which was paid by an individual taxpayer for the next dollar that was earned over and above average weekly earnings. Yet, under this Government, after 3 3/4 years, that rate has risen to 40 per cent. So, there has been an increase of one-third in the rate at which tax will apply to people on average weekly earnings. That surely demonstrates clearly to us the problems that people are feeling in the community. It demonstrates why consumer confidence is so low and why people are finding their standards of living slipping and, consequently, finding it more and more difficult to look after themselves. I turn now to a few of the issues involved in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986. I mention firstly the very significant-in fact, it is more than very significant; it is gigantic-increase in the fee which will be charged by the Government when it increases the amount which people have to pay, by way of a deposit, when they lodge an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in objecting to their taxation assessment. Whilst this is not specifically a matter mentioned within this legislation-it comes in a later Bill-it is relevant to mention it in terms of the changes that are occurring within the total tax structure and since it was mentioned as part of the Budget. There will be an increase in the lodgment fee, which was originally $2. It will be raised to $200. Apart from the fact that this measure obviously represents a severe penalty and really amounts to a money raising measure, the point is that it will restrict perhaps quite a lot of very small taxpayers from lodging appeals with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, consequently leading to their suffering injustices in not being able to have their cases properly heard and perhaps overturned by the AAT. That means that taxpayers in that category may be paying more tax than they legally are bound to pay. Consequently, that is very much a penalty and against the interest of justice for these people. Another matter in respect of this legislation is that of the interest withholding tax. The Treasurer announced on 1 July this year a change to the way in which interest withholding tax would apply in respect of overseas transactions. As a result of that announcement we saw a collapse in the value of the Australian dollar developing, which eventually led to a total denouement on 28 July, when the Australian dollar crashed down to US57c. With that, the Treasurer finally panicked and removed, by announcement, I think the next day, the proposed interest withholding tax, and consequently the dollar started to stabilise at around the US60c level. Of course, this was achieved only with the major intervention of the Reserve Bank of Australia, which sought to put a floor under the dollar at that time. During that period the dollar, in trade weighted index terms, crashed down to below 50 and settled on that very day, 28 July, at 49. Is it any wonder that this Government, which seems to have lost all sense of economic and political direction, reacted in such a fashion and clearly without any perfect knowledge of what it was doing in the first place? Clearly, when this legislation was thought of no consideration was given to the broader effects in the economy. Consequently, the legislation had a dramatic impact upon the Australian dollar. Certainly, it was read overseas as a sign that the Government had lost control of its economic fortunes. The Treasurer, of course, reversed that decision, perhaps not so much with a clear view of what ought to be done in those circumstances, but rather because of the political pressure that was generated as a result of the terrible crash in the value of the dollar at that time. Since then, propping up operations have had to be undertaken by the Reserve Bank of Australia in the foreign exchange markets to keep the Australian dollar at anything like a reasonable level. Of course, interest rates have been maintained at a very high level as well. Nothing would give the people overseas looking at the Australian economy a greater impression of the banana republic status of this country than the observation of that particular set of gyrations on the part of the Treasurer. Clearly, those events of the month of July would have unsettled the confidence which overseas markets had in Australia. Clearly, they also would have unsettled the confidence of Australian businessmen in their ability to invest safely in this country. It is little wonder that Treasurer Keating is now rated as the second worst Treasurer in Australia. I suppose it is some kind of record to have gone from the top to the bottom in less than 12 months. Senator Walsh —Second worst? Who is the worst? Howard was the worst. Senator MESSNER —I understand that the Egyptian gentleman was mentioned as the worst in that list. Senator Walsh —You said `the second worst in Australia'. Senator MESSNER —I beg your pardon. I meant `in the world'. Thank you for correcting me. The other matter mentioned in this legislation is that of reservists' pay. This measure again demonstrates the problems of this Government in that it fails to understand the consequences of its actions when it makes decisions. We recall that back in, I think, May 1983 the Government sought to remove the exemption from taxation for pay of the Army Reserve personnel. This exemption, apparently, was viewed at the time by the Government as some kind of a tax rort, and the exemption was reduced from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. This was supposed to save the Government a great deal of money at that time. But when we look at what has happened with our reserve forces we get a clearer impression of the real result of this measure. In 1980, we might recall, the Fraser Government, which was in power at the time had 22,000 in the reserve forces of Australia. During 1981 a recruiting campaign sought to raise that number to 30,000. We have now seen, as at 30 June 1985, that the reserve forces have in fact dropped back to 23,673. That has been a very significant drop compared with that number of 30,000. Obviously, that drop is directly linked to the decision of the Hawke Labor Government to tax the pay of Army Reserve personnel. We must remind ourselves that the people who undertake these Reserve occupations with our armed forces do so in their free time when others are enjoying themselves in their leisure pursuits. We have dedicated people who are prepared to give their time, take the risks and give up their leisure activities and family life to go and learn about how they can defend Australia. This, of course, is a worthwhile activity, which the Liberal Party of Australia fully supports. Yet this Government through its action of taxing their pay, made sure that we reduced our capacity in that area by some 7,000 personnel during its period in office. What was the next thing the Government did in these circumstances? One clearly is not sure about the motives of those who advise the Government in this area, but the next thing we were assailed with was television advertisements in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) exhorted people to get involved in the reserve forces in order to try to build up the numbers from that depleted level of 23,000 back towards the Fraser Government's level of 30,000. Senator Watson —The numbers have conti-nued to fall. Senator MESSNER —The numbers have continued to fall even in the last year. I make the point that, despite all the advertising which is being undertaken and which has given the Prime Minister a great deal of publicity-we see his face more often on television, at a cost of $3m to the taxpayer-the number of soldiers who are giving up their spare time has fallen by 600 or 700 since that advertising campaign commenced. Clearly the Government's thinking has been erroneous. It has no thought for the broader consequences of its actions when it takes ill-considered decisions on taxation. Another clear example that is waiting in the wings for us is the lump sum superannuation tax. In the years to come we shall see a growing number of people moving on to the social security system. They will not be able to look after themselves because of the imposition of this new form of tax. Consequently, far from the Government saving money on social security, there will be an increase in the demand for social security pensions resulting from the introduction of that crazy tax. There are numerous examples of what has happened in this area in recent times. I formally move the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion for the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1986: At the end of the motion, add: `, but the Senate condemns the Government for- (a) its failure to control government spending to the point where it has broken its ``trilogy'' commitment to hold taxation to no more than 25 per cent of gross domestic product and proceeded to tax Australians to the highest point in our history; (b) its contempt for ordinary taxpayers, illustrated by its decision to charge a $200 fee for appeals against the Tax Commissioner's rulings regardless of the size or complexity of the claim; (c) its incompetent handling of the withholding tax issue, whereby the Government changed the tax rules, caused a run on the dollar, and retreated 27 days later; and (d) its disgraceful treatment of the Defence Forces Reserves, by withdrawing the tax free status of reservists' pay, thereby causing a grave rundown of reserve forces and damage to their morale and effectiveness, and belatedly restoring the concession. I notice that the Australian Democrats will be moving two amendments to the second reading motion on the Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill. The Liberal-National Party Opposition will be opposing those amendments and I shall give my reasons when we reach that debate. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(12.24) —Senator Messner has criticised the Government's Budget strategy as coming from the highest taxing government in Australia's history. Of course, we agree with that. It is a pity, however, that the Opposition's criticisms of the Government on so many points are not translated into some action. Taxes now are higher than they have ever been. Most of the tax cuts that the Government has said so much about have been eroded due to inflation, as necessarily they will be eroded under any government unless it is prepared to index income tax cuts for inflation. Only last evening we moved an amendment, not opposing any of the Government's legislation but merely in the form of an attachment to a taxing Bill, condemning the Government for not indexing personal rates of income tax. The Opposition was not prepared to support our amendment. Why do we have to listen to the Opposition criticising and castigating the Government for being the highest taxing government in Australia's history when that Opposition is not prepared to stand up and be counted on the only measures that can be adopted if erosions of income are not to take effect? I can only conclude that the Liberal Party of Australia has no concerted economic strategy. It criticises but does not say how it would manage the economy if it were in government. The Australian Democrats find many aspects of the Government's strategy to criticise. We have on many occasions made our criticisms clear, but for the record I will reiterate some of them. Certainly there is to be a low Budget deficit, which we applaud as necessary, but, as Senator Messner pointed out, it will be achieved by raising taxes of all sorts. We condemn that approach. We believe that revenue raising measures were open to the Government which would have attacked some of our economic problems directly. For instance, why was not the Government prepared to do something about our balance of payments problem on the current account? All it had to do was impose a tax on luxury imports. About a fifth of those imports could have been taxed as representing luxury imports which Australia could not afford and which are unnecessary to the Australian people in a period of austerity. Instead, the Government has done nothing to discourage imports, when that measure alone could have raised between $1 billion and $2 billion and would have had a very dramatic effect on the size of the deficit. The Government has steadfastly refused to do anything about takeover rorts. It is sad and depressing to see well established, efficient, internationally competitive Australian companies being taken over by overseas enterprises. I need mention only the Nicholas Kiwi company as a case in point. That company was taken over a few weeks ago by an American interest. That company has been highly respected in the ethical drug business around the world as a very formidable competitor with large American companies. That is the case no longer. It is now owned by an American company and its ability to sell its products around the world will be seriously curtailed from now on. I am glad to see that Senator Watson agrees with me on this issue. That is only one example. The Government has done nothing other than to say to overseas businesses: `Come in, take over our efficient Australian companies if you wish. We welcome the cash that that represents'. That is a short term approach because nobody would buy out an Australian business without wanting to get its money back in three or five years. The Government's approach in borrowing more money, encouraging the selling of the farm, selling our wealth-producing enterprises, is very shortsighted and has not attacked the fundamental problems. The tragedy of the Parliament today is that the Opposition has not come up with any strategy to attack the fundamental problem. Australia is living beyond its means. The Government is saying that we should remain in that position and that we should import any luxury item. It does not care but takes the attitude: We will borrow money and sell off assets to pay for those imports. Clearly the matter has got out of hand and there is no Budget strategy to address that fundamental problem. Turning to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Senate is debating a wide variety of changes to tax laws. In the time available to me I cannot possibly talk on all the changes but will comment on only a few mainly to illustrate how cynical are the processes of government. Promises made by the Australian Labor Party when in opposition have been broken. Yesterday in the social welfare legislation we saw a vicious attack on the poor and underprivileged simply so that the Government, by whatever means, could raise money from whatever source, with no concern or regard for where that money was coming from. I will comment on only a few of these areas to illustrate the absolute cynicism of government today. We hear comments to the effect that the only thing lower than a snake is a politician. There is great disregard for the political system in this country and when firm promises and undertakings are broken so indiscriminately without any regard, when we see the Opposition and the Government voting together time and again to support measures which obviously should not be supported, we wonder why we have a parliament at all and why we bother to debate legislation. I turn to the first cynical action of the Government as illustrated in this piece of legislation. I refer to the fact that the Government now proposes to allow tax deductions for payments made by oil companies to the Government for the award of offshore oil exploration leases and for the cash bidding system which was introduced last year. In its cynical way the Government says that this move will allow Australian companies to compete more effectively with foreign firms which are allowed tax deductions by their home governments. This may be true to a minor extent, but I suspect that many foreign companies conduct exploration in Australia through subsidiary companies, so in this case the argument does not have much force. The important point is that the Government is expressing concern about our oil resources falling into foreign hands. Indeed that is occurring in many cases; the majority of our oil resources right now are in foreign hands. The Government sheds these crocodile tears and expresses concern about our resources falling into foreign hands, yet in the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986 it is moving to reduce its control over foreign ownership of our resources. In effect the Government is saying: `We do not care who buys up our resources'. There was legislation in place which put some control on who should buy our resources but the Government is now moving to widen those controls so that virtually anybody can come here and buy up any part of our country, our resources, our land or our businesses without any government concern being expressed. Clearly we are saying to countries all around the world that with the Australian dollar now valued at US63c, the value of our industries has depreciated in terms of foreign currencies and that they are available at bargain basement prices. We are virtually asking foreigners to come and buy our industries at cheap prices because we do not care. I do not know why the Government bothers to make a tax concession for oil exploration in this legislation when, at the same time, it is widening the opportunity for foreign takeovers. This does not add up and it points to a cynical approach by the Government. Senator Messner drew attention to the position of the Army Reserve. The Australian Democrats agree that this is a critical problem. The number of Army reservists has fallen quite dramatically over the past few years. That has occurred simply because in 1983 the Government attempted to scrap the tax free status given to Army reservists. The Democrats, to their credit, drew attention to the likely outcome of that change of tax free status to reservists and we moved an amendment at that time. That amendment was passed and the tax liability of reservists was reduced by 50 per cent. The Government has now done a complete about face; it has restored the tax free status of reservists. We applaud the Government for that but the whole incident underwrites and illustrates the fact that there is no real strategy or direction behind the Government's actions. It is purely looking at ways of getting revenue from whatever source it can without trying to apply its tax raising policies in line with an overall economic strategy. Of course our reservists are vitally important to the defence of this country. The Democrats' policy of an independent, non-aligned, non-nuclear defence strategy can apply only if the Army Reserve plays a very important role. It is a tragedy that the Government, through needless penny pinching, has allowed the force to lose nearly one-third of its operational strength. I turn to another part of this legislation-the Government's hike in the tax on debits to cheque accounts. On average, this increase has been about 50 per cent. The lowest rate increase is from 10c to 15c and the highest is from $1.50 to $2. This is purely a revenue raising operation and has no regard for fairness and equity. The Australian Democrats will move an amendment to this part of the Bill. I wish to take a few moments to point out just how inequitable this revenue raising measure is. It means that there will be a 15c tax on all debit transactions between $1 and $100. The old rate was only 10c. On transactions between $100 and $500 the new rate will be 35c, compared with the old rate of 25c. On transactions between $500 and $5,000 the rate has been increased from 50c to 75c. On transactions between $5,000 and $10,000, the tax has been raised from $1 to $1.50 and on transactions over $10,000 the new rate is $2.00 compared with the old rate of $1.50. This scale represents a 15 per cent tax on transactions at the lowest end of the scale to a tax of 0.02 per cent on transactions of $10,000, or a 0.002 per cent tax on transactions of $100,000 and so on. The inequitable nature of the tax was recognised by the Government members when they were in opposition. For example, when we were debating the introduction of this tax in 1982, Senator Grimes said: It is a revenue raising measure which I must say is typical of the type introduced by this Government- that is, the Fraser Government- in that its impact will be inequitable as between both institutions and individuals and it bears no relation to ability to pay. The legislation will also, incidentally, add to the cost of business in the community and as a side effect it will encourage tax avoidance and evasion. Senator Grimes then went on to read excerpts from a letter from State Premiers expressing their concern about the tax. That was in 1982. Probably one needs to look no further than this piece of legislation to see the reason for Senator Grimes's decision to retire from politics. In 1982 he moved an amendment which said: But the Senate is of the opinion that the tax imposed by the Bank Account Debit Tax Act is inequitable, discriminatory, inflationary and counter productive. The Australian Democrats will move an amendment identical to the 1982 Grimes amendment. It will be interesting to see whether the Government has completely changed its mind or whether there are any members of the Government who are prepared to stand by the words that were used in 1982. To give Government members that opportunity to stand up and be counted and to comment on why there has been a 180 degree change of opinion, we will move this amendment. We will move a further amendment which will have the effect of eliminating the inequitable nature of this tax-a tax which has a very high percentage rate at low levels of transaction and a very low percentage rate at high levels of transaction. That is inequitable and unfair on those who use cheque accounts to a much lesser degree than larger businesses and corporations. We propose to move an amendment which would have the effect of introducing a flat tax on all debits-we call it a transfer tax. It would be levelled at 0.5 per cent on all cheque account debits, irrespective of their magnitude. This would have the effect of raising very large amounts of revenue and it would give the Government room to manoeuvre in its Budget strategy. For instance, it would raise sufficient revenue, if the Government so wished, to reimburse the States to eliminate payroll tax. That is an iniquitous tax on labour which should not have been allowed to continue for as long as it has. It would raise sufficient revenue to allow the inequitable nature of this tax to be done away with. The tax would also leave some money over which could be applied to very important areas of social concern. Rather than placing an additional burden on the poor and underprivileged as we have done in the social welfare legislation passed last week, a tax along these lines would raise sufficient revenue to apply additional help to the underprivileged in our society. I do not know what the Government will say about such a tax, but we will move this amendment to illustrate that there were very many options the Government could have adopted to keep the deficit down and raise additional revenue if it had chosen to do so. I suspect that the only reason the Government did not look at those sorts of measures is that they would have imposed a tax on big business. It is very obvious that the one sector of the community that has been let off in all the stringencies that this Budget represents is big business. There has been no attempt to do anything about the great flows of capital from overseas companies into and out of this country, all of which are taxed in many other countries and are a source of great revenue to governments. Instead, the Government has adopted a strategy, which this Budget is introducing, of the market forces being allowed free rein and of overseas money being allowed to slosh around the Australian economy in any way it likes. The Government sits back and says: `Goodo, go to it, we do not have any responsibility to manage the Australian economy. We will let the money go where it wants'. The facts of the matter are that overseas big business is getting off scot-free and the Australian underprivileged are having a much greater burden imposed on them. There is a lot in this Bill on which one could comment. It covers all kinds of different tax raising measures by the Government. I think I have illustrated sufficiently that there is no concerted policy by the Government. It has merely gone through various possible ways of raising money to get down the deficit, so that that in turn could be something that overseas banks and financial institutions could applaud. It is a cosmetic approach. There is no concern whatsoever as to the hardship that the Government has imposed on various sectors of the Australian community, no concern as to the fact that the economic strategy that has been applied over so many years has failed-I refer to borrowing money indiscriminately overseas and selling our assets-and no concern about developing Australian industries so that they can be internationally export competitive. All of those measures have been completely ignored by the Government in its strategy. It is an ad hoc approach to money raising and taxing which, as Senator Messner pointed out, adds up to the highest rates of taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product in Australia's history. The Australian Democrats advocated that one important thing the Government should have done when the Australian dollar fell so dramatically was to put a floor under the dollar. We advocated that for about six months and we were laughed at by the Government initially, but finally the Government was forced to act. By putting some control over the free-falling Australian dollar the Government managed to get a measure of responsibility back into international money speculation in the Australian economy. Why the Government did not do that earlier remains to be seen, but it indicates the ad hoc approach the Government is adopting. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will be leaving Question Time at 2.50 p.m. It may be of assistance to honourable senators who have questions to direct to him to know that. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the annual report of the Steel Industry Authority, which throws serious doubt on the future of the steel industry and long term employment in that industry. The Minister will be aware that the Authority, in its report, has highlighted a dramatic increase in industrial disputation-which at Port Kembla alone rose by 680 per cent in the second part of the financial year-a disturbing decline in productivity, and the continuation of entrenched management and work practices. In view of the Authority's prediction that the steel industry will suffer as a result of predicted declines in the building and construction industries and the motor vehicle industry, what action will the Government take to alleviate the disturbing findings of the Steel Industry Authority? Senator BUTTON —I think the best answer to that question-and I do not wish it to be misinterpreted-is none, if Senator Chaney was anticipating that I might say that the Government would offer some additional assistance to the steel industry, or anything like that. I am simply trying to make the point that the steel industry plan is structured in such a way that, if there is a decline in production, the bounty system becomes of more assistance to the industry. It is on a staggered scale, so it will have that effect. With the greatest respect to the question, which is clearly based on a careful gleaning of the Steel Industry Authority's report, I think the conclusion that the overall report casts serious doubts on the future of the steel industry has to be seen in the context of a number of very positive factors which are in the report. Insofar as there was an increase in industrial disputation in the steel industry, particularly, I think, starting in May this year, that is a source of concern and regret, but it is basically a matter for the companies and the work force to address, and the mechanisms have been put in place by the Government for that to happen. We will be trying, in every way we can, to encourage the enormously improved performance which has taken place in the steel industry over the last few years in respect of industrial unrest and the various disabling issues associated with that. Insofar as the Steel Industry Authority comments on a decline in activity in the building and construction industry, that will depend on a variety of macroeconomic variables. While that was seen as a possibility in certain sections of the industry when I met with industry representatives a couple of months ago, it is not by any means certain that that will happen. I also draw attention to the fact that the steel industry expansion has significantly been directed into export activity. In spite of anything the Steel Industry Authority says, production is currently, I think, at a record level-it has been for the last few months-since the steel industry plan was put in place. One can always anticipate and speculate about downturns. The industry will have to accommodate that if it occurs, but I do not necessarily believe that it will. Senator MAGUIRE —Can the Minister representing the Treasurer say what is the estimated revenue from the fringe benefits tax during the 1986-87 financial year? Can he also say what is the estimated cost to revenue of the 1 December personal income tax cuts during the current financial year? Does the Minister take the view that the revenue from the fringe benefits tax is vital to the financing of the personal income tax cuts on 1 December and that that is the essential reason why the Opposition and right wing groups in the community are campaigning against the fringe benefits tax? Senator WALSH —The estimated revenue yield for this financial year from the fringe benefits tax is $325m and next year it is expected to be of the order of $575m. If one were to believe the assertions made in that infamous advertisement sponsored by Mr Ansett, Mr McLachlan and Mr Hay, the revenue yield from small business alone would be $2 billion. Now that, of course, is patently ridiculous. Those three people are maliciously and knowingly spreading lies in the community and they should be identified for what they are and judged accordingly. It is just unfortunate that someone like McLachlan is carrying quite a few gullible farmers along with him in his bogus campaign. But it is absolutely correct that the fringe benefits tax is inseparable from the tax cuts that will be introduced-stage I on 1 December this year, and stage 2 on 1 July next year. The fringe benefits tax full-year revenue yield of the order of $600m is almost half the cost in this financial year of the first stage of the tax cuts and a smaller proportion of the cost of the tax cuts in future years. But the whole tax reform package, of which the fringe benefits tax is a major and essential component, is required to finance the tax cuts from which ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers and others, but principally PAYE taxpayers, will benefit on 1 December this year and 1 July next year. Those other people in the community, such as the gullible farmers who have been sucked in by McLachlan's disgusting campaign, who might be sucked in by the campaign that is being run by the bleaters, the whingers and the former tax evaders who want to go on evading tax as they have become accustomed to doing, ought to remember that the tax cuts which will benefit the ordinary taxpayers cannot be separated from the fringe benefits tax and all the other components of the tax reform package. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, concerns the price of fuel in this country, and the disparity between the revenues raised in excise and the expenditure on road maintenance and construction. I preface my question by stating that this Government, since coming to office in 1983, has increased the revenue raised from fuel excise by a massive 336 per cent. Is it a fact that the Government raises approximately $5.6 billion a year from fuel excise? Why is it that at a time of lower oil prices world-wide, this Government is further escalating fuel excise revenue? What is the Government's response to the fact that the net on-farm price of distillate has risen by 25 per cent in the past month alone? How can this Government justify the collection of these billions of dollars in fuel excise from motorists, transport operators and farmers for the specific purpose of providing finance for road construction and maintenance and yet not channel the funds back into much needed roadworks for the benefit of all Australians? Senator BUTTON —It was very kind of Senator Bjelke-Petersen to address that question to me. I cannot address an answer to her. I do not know whether she would like to put her question on notice. If so, I will obtain an answer. Alternatively, arrangements could be made for Senator Bjelke-Petersen to ask the question of Senator Gareth Evans or the Minister for Finance on another occasion. There is a lot of detail in the question. I am certainly not across that, and I do not think I ever will be. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact, as reported, that the Indonesian Army has already stationed 12 out of 30 battalions in Baucau prior to mounting an operation code named Kikis against the resistance fighters in East Timor? Is it a fact that this offensive is in response to the Fretilin occupation of Vikeke earlier this month? If these are facts, can the Minister indicate what action the Government proposes to take to endeavour to prevent bloodshed and the slaughtering of our former allies, the people of East Timor? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Robertson should appreciate that the Government simply does not wish to be drawn into detailed comment on the security situation in East Timor, including comment on the disposition and activities of Indonesian and pro-Fretilin military forces. All I can say on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs is that the Australian Government has consistently maintained the position that the military conflict in East Timor should be brought to an early, peaceful resolution. We are especially concerned that military activity often is accompanied by human rights violations. This view has been made known to the Indonesian Government at the highest levels. I would also hope that the leadership of Fretilin would take note of it. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Did the Expenditure Review Committee decide shortly before the Budget was brought down that Telecom Australia should be forced to repay $98m of its outstanding long term debt to the Government in the course of this financial year? How will Telecom finance this repayment? In particular, will Telecom borrow this money itself or will it have another organisation do so for it; if so, which other organisation? Finally, can the Minister give the Parliament the assurance that the Government will not force Telecom to make payments to the Government out of retained earnings, and so run down its assets for short term budgetary reasons? Senator WALSH —In relation to the last part of the question-I know it was also stated in the early part of the question-it is important for it to be very clearly understood that the payment that the Government required from Telecom was a repayment of a loan previously granted to Telecom and not a payment out of income. It was a capital repayment and not a dividend or a levy on Telecom revenue or anything of that nature. As Senator Siddons said, there is a figure of $98m somewhere in the Budget Papers, but I do not know on precisely which pages, which is a repayment of debts owed to the Government by Telecom. I do not want this figure to be taken precisely, but after that $98m repayment there is still a debt of the order of $500m which Telecom owes the Government and which will ultimately have to be repaid. In relation to the second part of the question regarding Telecom's capital expenditure program, I cannot remember the precise details of it, and I will see whether the Treasurer can supply anything more precise. The Government was, of course, concerned that Telecom's necessary capital expenditure program not be interfered with to any significant extent, and arrangements were to be made by Telecom to borrow something close to the $98m from outside the Budget. I will see whether the Treasurer can supply the precise details of that. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. An article on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald today reports that another mid-air collision nearly occurred when two aircraft-one a 747 belonging to Qantas Airways Ltd and the other a DC10 belonging to Continental Airlines-passed within 300 metres of each other at the same altitude last Sunday between New Zealand and Australia. Will the Minister indicate the Government's attitude to this latest incident? Senator GIETZELT —I confirm the information to which Senator Morris referred, that an air safety incident did occur at around 1645 hours on 19 October 1986 involving a Continental Airlines DC10 and a Qantas Boeing 747. The incident is being investigated by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigations with its New Zealand counterpart, as the incident appears to have happened in the New Zealand air space area. No definitive details are as yet available, and they will not be available until the investigations have been completed. So it would be improper for me or for the Minister for Aviation to comment any further until that report is handed down by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigations. I remind Senator Morris that I was asked a question about what appeared to be a somewhat similar incident in the Great Australian Bight about 10 days ago. Investigations have proved that some of the advice that I was given on that occasion was possibly not as correct as it might have been. It would be best at this stage for us to acknowledge that the incident did take place and to make no substantive response until such time as the investigation has been completed. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that where revenue raised by the Government is tied directly to specific government outlays only the net expenditure figures are recorded as outlays in the total Budget? Is it a fact that, when gross expenditure figures are considered, estimated government spending in 1986-87 is almost $3 billion higher than is shown in the Budget Papers, thereby recording a real increase in spending, not the nil increase claimed by the Government? Finally, is it also a fact that, when this factor is included, government spending as a proportion of gross domestic product this year will break that part of the Prime Minister's trilogy relating to expenditure, thereby joining the other broken leg of the trilogy, namely, that relating to taxation? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, and to set the record straight, let me say that it was asserted that the taxation leg of the trilogy has been broken; it has not, although it is a possible interpretation. At the time the Prime Minister gave that undertaking, during the 1984 election campaign, tax revenue as a proportion of the estimated GDP for that year was 25.5 per cent, which is exactly the same as it is estimated to be this year. The outcome in 1984-85 was that tax revenue was 24 per cent of actual GDP because the GDP was larger than the 1984 Budget had forecast and tax revenue also fell short of the 1984 Budget forecast. In relation to the other parts of the question, if the sort of adjustment that Senator Short is suggesting should be made were to be made, to get any meaningful comparison, of course, it would have to be made retrospectively; that is, applied back to the base years from which the trilogy or anything else is measured, as is the custom when changes of that type are made. Off the top of my head I cannot say whether the figure of $3 billion is correct, but the Department of Treasury and the Department of Finance follow and, as I understand it, have followed for many years the international accounting conventions which define what is treated as revenue, what is treated as outlays and what revenue can be treated as an offset to outlays. At the margin, whether particular items should be in or out is certainly arguable, there are clear cases where the Government is providing a service for which it is making a charge, such as aviation charges; the taxpayer is providing a service and most of the cost of that service is recovered from the industry. Under those circumstances I think it is conceptually quite clear that the revenue ought to be treated as an offset to outlays. I do not think I have much more to say. I have already dealt with the assertion that Senator Short made about taxation. As for outlays, if $3 billion were to be added to this year's outlays, outlays might be about the same proportion of gross domestic product as they were in 1984-85, but of course it would be a foolish thing to make an adjustment in any particular year and then compare that year as adjusted with the figure of some previous year non-adjusted. One would, of course, be treating as like things which are unlike. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister representing the Special Minister of State report on Australian Federal Police investigations into several violent incidents which occurred in proximity to the women's peace camp last night? In particular, will the Minister ensure that there is a thorough examination of a number of events which included a molotov cocktail being thrown at the car of an elderly woman as she left the peace camp last night, the physical assault of three women during the night and a series of explosions with resulting fires adjacent to the peace camp? Can the Minister also report on the level of intoxication that is acceptable before the police are required to take action to curb the activities of people behaving aggressively in a public place? Senator GARETH EVANS —The only information I have to hand on these matters at the moment is that supplied to me and indeed to Senator Gietzelt by way of follow-up to the question which was asked by Senator Knowles yesterday and which Senator Gietzelt was intending to read into the record after Question Time. But what I can say is that in regard to the specific questions that were answered yesterday about the particular matters in respect of which an investigation was urged and follow-up action of other kinds by police, the situation is as follows: There is no instruction to the Australian Federal Police not to intervene and no charges have been laid. By way of explanation of those two propositions, it is an accepted part of our society that members of it have a right to demonstrate peacefully. Whilst minor offences may occur from time to time, the AFP adopts a well established policy of not taking action on minor offences if that action is likely to aggra- vate the situation and may cause a significant breach of the peace. I am further advised that if any complaint is subsequently received, the AFP would, of course, investigate it. To date in this case no complaints have been received. There are some other matters which Senator Reynolds addressed in her question. I will simply have to seek a further specific answer from the Special Minister of State and advise her accordingly. Senator ALSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to the statement from various Queensland academic staff protesting about the establishment of a private university on the Gold Coast, in which they made the pious assertion that `equitable education and profit are a contradiction in terms'? In view of the fact that the background paper released by the Bond Advisory Council states that it will be a non-profit-making, break-even operation, does the Minister agree that these pathetically defensive bleatings about profit are a smoke-screen to divert attention from the real prospects of at last meeting the excess demand for tertiary education in Queensland? Does the Minister accept that there is no prospect of a government funded university being established in the Gold Coast region, which includes the seventh largest city population in Australia, and that, if successful, a new university would free up access to other tertiary institutions? If not, will the Minister prefer the initial outlay for stage 1 of $125m to be devoted to another commercial television station, a new brewery or a better yacht? Senator RYAN —Senator Alston has asked a number of questions, many of them hypothetical. I have seen the reported statement of some Queensland academics expressing concern about proposals for a university which is to operate on a profit-making basis. I have not seen the Bond proposal, so I do not know whether it intends to operate on a profit-making basis, which some of its spokespersons certainly said earlier on, or whether it has now decided sensibly that an education institution cannot be profit-making. I have some sympathy with the views expressed by academics that if an education institution is set up to be profit-making, it is almost inevitable that standards will be very low. I know of no university anywhere in the world which makes a profit out of its teaching programs. Certainly the kinds of universities that people like to throw into the debate at this stage, such as Harvard, do not operate on a profit-making basis. Harvard operates on a basis of the income it has from about $3 billion of its own money invested and it takes Federal and State grants. It is able to subsidise the fees charged to students who are able to get into Harvard. If there is still a proposal that this institution should run on a profit-making basis, I think there are very real grounds for concern. If, on the other hand, there has been some change in the plan and the institution is to run on a non-profit basis-- Senator Archer —You have never seen the plan. Senator RYAN —I have said many times in this place that I have never seen the plan. Senator Archer —What are you going on about? You do not know what you are talking about. Senator RYAN —I think Senator Archer should make his complaint to his own colleague. As I said, his own colleague has raised a series of hypothetical questions. I have made our Government's position on private institutions clear. I will repeat it now: There will be no public funding going towards private institutions of these kinds if they get going. Our concern will be to ensure that the reputation of Australian universities remains. Whether a proposal such as this will fill the unmet demand depends very much on what fees are charged, the entrance criteria and who will be prepared to go under those particular conditions. As yet, we do not know the answers to any of those questions. Senator ALSTON —I ask a supplementary question. Before the Minister's train of thought was derailed by an interjection, she was in the process of stating what the Government's position would be in the event that it was not to be a profit-making institution. I therefore ask: Does the Minister have any objection in principle to the establishment of a private, non-profit-making university? Senator RYAN —Our position is that we will not give financial support to a private institution of this kind. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Does the Government intend to renegotiate the 1977 Pine Gap agreement, as suggested by Senator Kilgariff on 16 October? Are there any discussions about altering or amending that agreement under way at present, or has any alteration already taken place? If there were any renegotiations of the agreement, who would be involved in the discussions? Could the Minister explain exactly who would negotiate any new agreement? What provisions are there for the people of Australia, or their elected representatives, to be involved? Will the Australian public be notified if or when the terms of the agreement are altered in any way? Senator GARETH EVANS —I should say at the outset, with particular reference to what Senator Kilgariff said on 16 October, that the 1977 agreement referred to by the honourable senator does not provide for the lease of the Joint Defence Space Research Facility. Rather, the 1977 agreement extended the 1966 agreement which established the facility and provides that the agreement be extended for a period of 10 years from 19 October 1977 and thereafter until terminated. As Senator Vallentine is no doubt aware, one year's written notice to terminate the agreement may be given as of 19 October this year. As such, the agreement continues and there is no requirement for it to be renegotiated or amended. The Government presently sees no need to amend it and has no current intention of amending it. If at some time in the future a government were to decide the agreement needed renegotiation, such action could be taken. In the event that this or some subsequent government should decide that the 1977 agreement needed to be renegotiated, decisions on that renegotiation would, of course, be taken by Ministers, not by officials, and would be made in the light of full consideration of all aspects of our policies on foreign affairs and defence. As Ministers will be taking these decisions, I certainly believe that this will represent involvement by elected representatives of the Australian people in Senator Vallentine's terms. Again, I make it clear that, as the 1977 agreement is a public document, any changes will also be public. Senator VALLENTINE —I ask a supplementary question. The only aspect of the question to which Senator Evans did not refer was the people of Australia having any involvement in that decision-making process. Since the original agreements, as all agreements and treaties which have been jointly signed by the Australian and the United States of America governments, have been conducted without the consultation of the Australian people and in secrecy, is there any provision or intention to allow the Australian people to have a say in this matter if it does come up for renegotiation? Senator GARETH EVANS —We are not, mercifully, in the habit of conducting referendums or plebiscites on matters of policy in this or any other area. I believe I have sufficiently answered Senator Vallentine's question. Senator PETER BAUME —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Health recall the recent claim by the Tobacco Institute of Australia that Dr Robert Masironi of the World Health Organisation and Professors Robin Weiss and Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research in London have claimed that passive smoking is safe? Is the Minister now aware that the doctor and the two professors have since written to newspapers across Australia refuting the claims made by the Tobacco Institute, which used their names in newspaper advertisements across Australia? Is it a fact that the World Health Organisation Executive in January this year reaffirmed and strengthened its public views on the health dangers of smoking to both smokers and non-smokers? Is it also a fact, as Dr Masironi has claimed, that views attributed by the Tobacco Institute to the World Health Organisation were put forward at a conference in which the WHO did not participate or cooperate in any way? Did the study to which the Tobacco Institute referred in its advertisements in fact relate to work funded by the United Kingdom Tobacco Advisory Council, a body representing the tobacco industry in Britain? Finally, since Professors Weiss and Peto had to write letters refuting conclusions attributed to them by the Tobacco Institute of Australia, what can be done to stop irresponsible and untruthful lobbying by the Tobacco Institute of Australia as it seeks to deny to Australians the truthful and balanced information on smoking needed by each of us to make our own responsible decisions about this personal habit? Senator GRIMES —Mr President-- Senator Elstob —You can bring damages for drugs. Senator GRIMES —Senator Elstob has a strange view of the term `drugs'. The most commonly abused drug in this country and the drug which causes the most illness, disease and distress is tobacco. Senator Walters —There are none so pure as those who have reformed. Senator GRIMES —Senator Baume has asked a serious question; I am sorry that Senator Walters does not think it is serious. All the statements Senator Baume made are correct. Senator Walters —That won't work. You are trying to pull swifties all the time. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, it is very surprising that Senator Walters, who used to take this matter very seriously, now considers that it is a matter for great levity. Senator Colston —She has gone to pot. Senator GRIMES —That is unkind, but I respond to Senator Colston to get his interjection in Hansard. All the statements made by Senator Baume are correct. The Tobacco Institute of Australia does frequently misuse information, even information which has been distributed at the behest of one of its brother or sister organisations such as the Tobacco Advisory Council in Britain. It is unfortunate that an organisation like this should, through the Press by way of paid advertisements et cetera, deliberately misrepresent the attitude not only of doctors such as those who have had to complain in these circumstances but also of the World Health Organisation. The simple fact of the matter is that if we are to make the choice on whether to smoke or not-and it is a choice-we should have the capacity to make that choice in the light of accurate information. The implication of Senator Baume's question is right. The Minister for Health and the Government will have to look at a means of combating this misinformation. We are a free country, a country where people have the capacity to air their views as they like-and I hope it will remain that way-but we need to be able to refute those views as quickly as possible. I will refer the matters that Senator Baume has raised to the Minister for Health for a further answer. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy able to say whether the recent decision of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to extend its current production agreement will have any effect on current oil prices in Australia? Can the Minister also advise whether the increased production forecast by OPEC will have any effect on on-shore and off-shore drilling for new oil deposits in Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is some news that has just come to hand that the OPEC countries meeting in Geneva, after what has been their longest meeting ever, have just reached some agreement which involves a slight increase in their production quota, but I do not have any further details to hand. I think we can probably assume, the way that the meeting was going, that it is only a slight increase in the production quota and it is probably only temporary at this stage, until the end of the year. Accordingly, it is difficult to judge at this stage precisely what the impact on Australian oil prices will be and what consequential problems there will be down the line. Nonetheless, I can make some points of general interest on the basis of the situation as I am aware of it. Any significant change in world oil prices either before Christmas as a result of this agreement or thereafter will be directly reflected in Australian crude oil prices via our import parity pricing policy. As to where prices are likely to go in the short to medium term, it emerged clearly from my discussions with some of the major OPEC Ministers at the end of last month, including in particular Sheikh Yamani from Saudi Arabia and Sheikh Al-Khalifa from Kuwait, that they will be attempting, as today's news seems to indicate they have succeeded in doing, to hold something like the status quo until the end of the year but it is also clear that subsequently they will be trying for 1987 to recognise some pressures from some of their members for higher production quotas in their agreed production levels. Whether such an increase, say to around 18 million barrels a day for OPEC countries compared with, until today, 16.8 million barrels, would be compatible with the achievement of a $US15 to $US17 or $US18 price level, which has already been stated as a desirable objective for OPEC, it is difficult to say. Whether prices can be maintained at that sort of level will depend upon a number of things: First, the level of stocks currently held by distributors and consumers, which are currently at a very high level; secondly, the extent to which non-OPEC producers, particularly Mexico and the United Kingdom and Norway in the North Sea, limit their output either officially or unofficially; thirdly, the extent to which OPEC members themselves can hold to the production and price agreements that they make without cheating on the part of the United Arab Emirates and others which are well known to do that sort of thing; fourthly, the circumstances of the Iran-Iraq war, which currently is clearly holding back significant production capacity; and, finally, the growth of consumer demand which itself relies on such imponderables as the severity of the impending northern hemisphere winter, the level of economic growth in major consumption centres around the world and possibly some further changes in consumer behaviour in the light of currently depressed oil prices. An OPEC agreement which one way or the other did keep market prices around the $US15 to $US17 level would be a pretty satisfactory outcome for Australia in all the circumstances. It would not add significantly to existing prices for petroleum products in Australia but if sustained for any reasonable period, or given the prospect of being sustained, would certainly keep some incentive alive for Australian oil explorers, who as we all know are presently experiencing very difficult times as a result of low world oil prices. Senator MESSNER —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce noted the warning from General Motors-Holden's Ltd that union claims for superannuation are jeopardising the future of the motor vehicle industry? Is the Government considering or about to consider making representations to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to establish an immediate moratorium on those union claims? Since the market for motor vehicles is already being severely affected as a result of Government action such as the fringe benefits tax, devaluation and interest rates, will it also take up General Motors' suggestion as a matter of urgency? Senator BUTTON —The nature of the question is best illustrated by the last part, in which I am asked whether I agree that there are Government-induced factors, including devaluation, that have affected the viability of the motor vehicle industry. If Senator Messner wants to have a debate at Question Time or after Question Time about the floating of the dollar and the devaluation that has taken place subsequently, I am happy to do it. The benefits of devaluation to industry generally in this country have been significant. They have been significant in terms of the motor vehicle industry, and particularly the local manufacturers. Other Government-induced things with which Senator Messner charges us are various taxation measures and so on. I just make the point that there was no sicker manufacturing industry in the world, probably, than the Australian motor vehicle industry under the previous Government. For the entire seven years of that Government the industry was in a mess. It had to be rescued from that mess, and it has been rescued by this Government. In spite of difficulties that the industry is currently encountering, it is a much stronger industry now than it ever was in any period of Liberal government. One of the reasons that it was in such a mess was that the previous Government, I think in 1981, put in a vehicle plan for the motor vehicle industry the terms of which were dictated by one manufacturer to a weak government. That is a matter of record in the industry. The Opposition can try to deny it, but all people in the industry know that that is what happened. And Senator Messner asks me a question about General Motors-Holden's Ltd! Of all General Motors-Holden's problems, the least of them would be, in general terms, the fact that there is a superannuation dispute there at the moment. General Motors-Holden's has been losing $4m a week. It has enormous debts. It has lost its market share. That is what the restructuring of the company is about. I welcome that restructuring because it gives the company the opportunity to strengthen its position in Australia and potentially to grow. All Australians should welcome that. I turn to the nit point-as in nitpicking-that Senator Messner sought to make about the news reports in today's newspapers. Yes, I very much regret the fact that General Motors has had to stand down workers as a result of a superannuation dispute by metal workers. It is the sort of thing, as I have said on previous occasions and say again, that this country cannot afford in the future. Senator Messner also asked what the Government is doing about it. The Government has been having a series of negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and with others to try to bring about a resolution of the superannuation issue. I am not in a position at the moment to say precisely what that will be. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister confirm reports that on Monday, 20 October four East Timorese students sought political asylum in the Netherlands Embassy in Jakarta? If so, does the Government have any further information on this event? Can the Minister also confirm that the Australian Council for Overseas Aid has asked the Australian Government to consider offering the four East Timorese asylum here? If so, has the Government made any decision on this request? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Government understands that there are four East Timorese students in the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta who have sought Dutch assistance to travel to Portugal. Of course, the Dutch represent Portuguese interests in Indonesia. I am also aware that the Australian Council for Overseas Aid put out a Press release on 20 October calling on the Australian Government to grant asylum to these students. No application has been received from the students. If any application were received, it would, of course, be evaluated against the established criteria for the granting of asylum. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is the Minister aware that many nutritional experts are alarmed at the decline in milk consumption among school children, leading to a calcium deficiency? Is the Minister aware of a pilot program being conducted in Queensland to place vending machines in primary schools to give access to flavoured milk, the trade name being `Cool Fuel'? I mention that this worthwhile program is in jeopardy because of this Government's 10 per cent sales tax on these items. In view of the importance of this program to the nutritional well-being of our primary school children, and the fact that these products will be available only to schools, will the Government undertake to waive the recently imposed sales tax on the products in this program? Senator WALSH —The answer to the last part of the question is no. With regard to the earlier part, I am not aware of the study to which Senator Collard referred. I will take his word for it that there is such a study that has come up with those sorts of conclusions, which might lead one to believe that it would be a good thing if children were to consume more milk. However, whether it would be a good thing for children to consume flavoured milk loaded with extra sugar is another issue. I am not sure how on balance that would work out healthwise. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. The significant devaluation of the Australian dollar seems to have provided a substantial boost to the international competitiveness of Australia's manufacturing industries. Will the Minister provide an indication of the extent to which the devaluation has affected the export performance of our industries? Senator BUTTON —Historically, Australia's export base has been a narrow one, relying mainly on agricultural and mineral commodities. Senator Crowley asks an important question. I recall that Senator Lewis asked me a more specific question on this issue three or four weeks ago. In the opinion of many people, our exchange rate under the coalition Government was greatly overvalued. The Fraser Liberal Government gave the manufacturing sector no chance to become internationally competitive or export oriented. The legacy of all that is now clear. Of course, other factors were at work which camouflaged what went on at that time, in a sense, from a wide range of people in the community. The fact is that our manufacturing sector now exports less than 15 per cent of its output. This percentage is far lower than that in countries such as New Zealand, where the figure is 25 per cent, Canada where it is 32 per cent, Korea and West Germany where it is 30 per cent, the Netherlands where it is 48 per cent, and Sweden where it is 45 per cent. Only 60 per cent of our manufactured exports are elaborately transformed. Only a few, 3.5 per cent, are research and development intensive. Many other countries are well ahead in these respects. It is hoped that this poor performance is in the past and that Australia's competitive position has now been greatly enhanced by the devaluation of the dollar. Of course, it has also to be enhanced by better performance in marketing, quality design and things of that kind-the other side of competitiveness. As I have said on a number of occasions, the effect of the exchange rate movement will be slow on the export and import competing performance of the manufacturing sector. The balance of payments figures of recent months suggest some improvement in export volumes. The overall picture is one of a very gradual adjustment to the devaluation and the associated renewal of international competitiveness. As I have said on previous occasions, we cannot expect a quick turnaround in either the balance of payments or the behaviour of industries which grew up in a highly different and highly protected environment and which were stifled by an inappropriate exchange rate regime. Today the Bureau of Industry Economics will release a further study of the impact of the devaluation on industry performance. The first study, released two or three weeks ago, examined the effects on importers and import competing manufacturers. It found very limited scope for import replacement in the short term as two-thirds of imports have no suitable locally produced substitute. Senator Crichton-Browne —Seventy per cent. Senator BUTTON —I said two-thirds. I do not know whether the honourable senator is having a debate with me or is just telling me what two-thirds is. The export study was undertaken in February-March 1986. The earlier study was done in 1985. The export study examined the adjustment of exporters of elaborately transformed manufactures and processed foods. The results were derived from a postal survey conducted early this year and from personal interviews. The results are not encouraging for those who seek the quick fix for industry problems and performance. Overall, the study found that, although the volume of locally manufactured exports increased in 1985 following the sharp drop in the value of the dollar, most of the growth was due to a temporary increase in demand for some products and did not indicate a sustained growth in Australia's export performance. One of the major findings in the study was that, in the short term, a significant increase in manufactured exports is unlikely, partly because of the prevalence of corporate strategies which do not place prime importance on exporting and also because of the difficulties associated with export orders. This result could also reflect the fact that for many products price is only a relatively minor factor in achieving export sales. Another major finding was that a number of market factors inhibit the growth of manufactured exports. They include overseas concerns about reliability of supply; the fact that many Australian firms have not been consistent exporters, but have used the export market as an arena for surplus products; and also that Australia's reputation has not been good as a reliable supplier over many years. Another factor was continuing competition. Many newly industrialised countries have revalued, or devalued only slightly, against the Australian dollar and continued to compete in overseas markets. A further factor was weakening overseas markets, some of which have not increased as much as expected. Senator Chaney —Do you want me to take a point of order? Senator BUTTON —I do not care what honourable senators opposite think is important. The survey indicated that firms which are already export oriented form the only identifiable group which clearly increased the profitability of their export activities as a result of the 1985 devaluation. A number of other things in the study are very important, but they amount to this: The devaluation is not likely to lead to a significant increase in exports in the short term. It shows that some manufacturers will take advantage of it, while others will not; and that the process of adjustment to renewed competitiveness is likely to be very slow. I draw the Opposition's attention to the survey; it is worth reading. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister for Education aware that some external students in higher education are already being asked to pay the Government's proposed administration charge at their enrolment in November of this year, even before this Parliament has determined whether there should be a charge? Is the Minister aware that these external students, unlike internal students, usually enrol or re-enrol in the November preceding the year of studies? Have the tertiary institutions been given any specific instructions regarding the enrolment of external students and the application of any charge: If not, is the Minister taking steps to overcome the apparent confusion regarding external students and so avoid embarrassment to higher education institutions and uncertainty in the minds of those students enrolling for external studies? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of the claim made by Senator Macklin that external students are being asked to pay their administration charge for 1987 in November of this year. If it is the case that they are being asked to do that, I think it is quite surprising that I am not aware of it, since I met with the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee just last week to discuss the implementation of the charge. Senator Macklin —CAEs. Senator RYAN —I see. Well, it has not been brought to my attention. In any event, a working party is to be set up, with representatives of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals in Advanced Education and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, to discuss the most straightforward and efficient and least difficult way of ensuring that students who are liable to pay the charge for 1987 do pay it without undue difficulty to themselves or their institutions. Senator McKIERNAN —My question also is directed to the Minister for Education. Is the Minister aware of a movement called Feebusters which has been organised by tertiary students in South Australia? The organisers of this movement are calling for all eligible students to boycott the payment of the higher education administration charge. There has also been a call for the Government to introduce a fairer system in relation to the charge. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the Government's opinion of this movement? Senator RYAN —I am aware that some student activists have been calling for a boycott of the charge and I think in Western Australia that situation might be a bit more prevalent because the Western Australian Minister for Education seems to be encouraging students to resist paying the charge. That is not a very sensible course of action because, as Mr Pearce would understand and as all student leaders who have spoken to me now understand, non-payment of the charge will simply penalise the institutions. Our Government's grants to the institutions will be adjusted to take account of the fact of the charge being paid. So, if students are liable to pay the charge and refuse to pay it, that will be a matter for the institutions to take up with them, since they will be reducing the amount of money available to their institutions. As to the comments about the fairness of the charge, I remind honourable senators, and I particularly remind those student activists who are engaging in a bit of a disinformation campaign, that the charge will not affect any student who is in receipt of education allowances, formerly under the tertiary education assistance scheme, but now known as Austudy. It will not affect Aboriginal students who are on Austudy. It will not affect single parent beneficiaries, invalid pensioners or carer pensioners. Also, of course, the charge extends only to students in colleges of advanced education and universities; it does not affect technical and further education students in any TAFE courses. So, the claim that there is no equity in the charge is really very poorly based. The charge is a very modest one. We have made it clear that it is our intention to leave the charge at $250, adjusting it only to account for inflation in future years. In the light of the public benefit that students in higher education get-a benefit which ranges from about $7,000 a year up to $18,000 or $20,000 a year, depending on which course is being undertaken-we consider that it is fair to require a very modest contribution to the administration costs of the institutions from those students who are not in the poorer category of students. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the Minister to his comments about interest rates in the Australian Financial Review of 12 November 1985-nearly a year ago. I know that the Minister has a good memory; so I know that he will remember these words: The predictions made by Mr Keating and the Prime Minister have turned out to be incorrect: there is no doubt about that. Have predictions by some Government Ministers that interest rates would fall this year also turned out to be incorrect? When will Australian interest rates return to world parity, given that this week the prime lending rate in the United Kingdom is 11 per cent; in the United States, 7.5 per cent; in West Germany, 7 per cent; and in Japan, 4 per cent; while in Australia it is 19 per cent? Senator BUTTON —I, of course, recall what I said on 12 November 1985. That was, as I remember it, the day after 11 November 1985 and, of course, it is fixed in my memory. I do not think anybody who has predicted that interest rates will fall in this financial year is incorrect. The honourable senator went on to ask me when Australian interest rates will assume some degree of world parity. I have been around here long enough to see conservative politicians in previous governments with egg all over their faces through predicting interest rate movements. I will not be in that game. I do not think anybody really should be, except in the general sense. But if the honourable senator wants me to make a general prediction I will do so: Yes, interest rates will fall significantly this financial year. The honourable senator can use that prediction in July and refer me to my answer of 12 November 1985, if he wants to. I do not regard comparisons with other countries as terribly important or relevant in the current context, following the devaluation of the Australian dollar and having regard to a wide range of other economic indicators which might be quoted on both sides of the chamber. Senator COATES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen allegations that the Budget figure for Medicare benefits is understated? How does this allegation measure up against the current level of expenditure on Medicare benefits? Secondly, what is the current rate at which medical practitioners are bulk billing the Health Insurance Commission for their services to patients? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the allegation has been made, particularly by the Opposition spokesman on health, whose name I cannot remember, that the Medicare budget has come in considerably in excess of the sum estimated. The facts are that for the first quarter of 1986-87 the budget was $746.3m and actual expenditure $742.1m, which is an incredible piece of estimation. Not only is the budget on target, but utilisation of medical services has only marginally increased in the September quarter compared with the same period last year. In September over 50 per cent of all services were direct billed-50.6 per cent to be exact. According to the Opposition and other opponents of Medicare, this should lead to excessive servicing and increased costs. This has occurred despite the concerted campaign against direct billing by the Australian Medical Association and the Opposition. The simple fact is that it is popular with both doctors and patients and, as happened in Canada, does not lead to overservicing. In Sydney recently a consumers' guide to Sydney general practitioners was produced and showed that of 2,000 surgeries surveyed 94 per cent direct bill at least some patients, 60 per cent direct bill card holders and pensioners, and 36 per cent direct bill all consumers. It is natural that direct billing is most common in the least affluent areas. What I think the Opposition will do in developing its health policy, if in fact it ever does so-it did not do so in its previous seven years of government-is revert to the 1976 type opting out scheme. If this is the case, the Opposition will have to explain to the people of Australia why people in the least affluent areas will be denied the bulk billing they get now; why people with private health insurance will have to pay at least $25 a week; why people who remain in Medicare will have to pay a levy twice as much as they are currently paying; and why, if the scheme that the Opposition spokesman advocates is workable, in 1978 the previous Government had to reject that scheme. It seems to me that the Opposition will develop the sorts of policies it tried to develop in 1976. If by some misfortune Opposition members were to get into government, we would have a repeat performance of 1976 and 1978 so that those who would follow me in this place would have to get up every year to debate a new health scheme because of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the sort of scheme the Opposition would introduce. Senator GARETH EVANS —Perhaps I may be allowed to supplement the answer I gave to Senator Elstob on Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreements with some further information that has just come to hand. Senator Durack —Why don't you just admit that you don't know the answer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am glad to hear that Senator Durack is at last displaying some interest in his shadow portfolio, for a change. The communique which has just been released shows that OPEC members have agreed to continue their present temporary production limits to the end of the year, with a small modification-an increase in the quota by 200,000 barrels per day to just on 17 million barrels per day. There are some small additions to the quotas of all countries, except Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The OPEC Ministers will meet again in mid-December for a renewed effort to try to hammer out some permanent quotas for each state. The expressed intention of the continuation of the agreement and terms of statement of the OPEC President, Ralwanu Lukman of Nigeria, is to drive up oil prices to between $17 and $18 per barrel by December, which is about 20 per cent above present limits. I simply add by way of further comment that I for one would be sceptical about whether the quota agreement thus reached will succeed in doing anything of the kind. It is most likely that prices will jog along at more or less their present levels until the end of the year, with the uncertainty, based on all the considerations I mentioned before, certainly existing about next year. Senator GARETH EVANS —I wish to respond further to a question from Senator Teague on 17 October. I undertook to provide him with further information in response to his question about Soviet forces operating out of Vietnam. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the further answer based on advice given to me by the Minister for Defence. Leave granted. The document read as follows- On 17 October I undertook to provide Senator Teague with some additional information in response to his question on whether Soviet forces operating out of Vietnam ``directly endanger Australia''. Senator Teague specifically asked whether there was a contradiction between my advice that the government has no evidence that the Soviet Union has deployed weapon systems in Vietnam which directly endanger Australia, and earlier information from the Minister for Defence, in response to questions on notice, concerning the capabilities of Soviet naval vessels and aircraft operating out of Vietnam. There is no contradiction. The information provided by the Minister for Defence concerned the theoretical capabilities of these vessels and aircraft, but as the Minister pointed out, it does not necessarily follow that the actual missions and tasks of these forces match these theoretical capabilities. Due to the sensitive nature of the information on which the government's assessment of this matter is based I shall not comment further, but I reiterate that there is no evidence that the Soviet Union has deployed weapons to Vietnam that directly endanger Australia. That said, I would not wish to leave honourable senators with a misapprehension of the seriousness with which the Government views the build-up of Soviet forces in Vietnam, particularly those operating from Cam Ranh Bay. These forces represent a new and unwelcome factor in the region. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Mason asked me yesterday about the response of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of overseas students. I now have a further more detailed reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- OVERSEAS STUDENT POLICY In reaching its decision in 1985 on overseas student policy, the Government gave careful consideration to the reports of the Jackson and Goldring committees. Decisions that were taken then and subsequently ensure that adequate opportunities will continue to be available to overseas students to study in Australia, under conditions consistent also with the Government's policy of encouraging greater participation of Australian students in tertiary education. At all stages the Government consulted with the major source Governments. Their views were taken into account by the Government in reaching its decisions. These Governments have expressed their understanding of our need to balance all the relevant factors in reaching a decision. Students from PNG and the South Pacific are exempt from the overseas student charge. It is paid on their behalf under the Australian aid program. In reaching decisions on the overseas student charge, the Government has had to take into account the difficult Australian budgetary pressures and costs to the Australian taxpayer which are still significant. However, by way of recognition that the increases could cause financial hardship for some students already undertaking tertiary courses in Australia, the Government decided to limit increases for those students who commenced studies prior to 1986 to a maximum of 15% for each remaining year of their course. I am not aware that any overseas students have been forced to discontinue studies because of inability to meet the increased charge. Although consideration was given by the Government to a means tested subsidy system in the context of the Jackson and Goldring Committee reports the idea was judged impracticable. Senator Ryan may also wish to comment on this matter. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 a.m. today, Senators Jones and Parer each submitted letters in accordance with standing order 64 proposing matters of public importance. To decide which letter should be submitted to the Senate, I determined the matter by lot in the presence of the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip and the Clerk of the Senate. In accordance with the result of that procedure, I now read Senator Parer's letter. The letter is dated 22 October, is addressed to me and proposes that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's broken promises and the continual failure of its inconsistent economic and industry policies which have caused uncertainty and confusion in the community leading to reductions in investment, employment and economic growth. 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 PARER(Queensland)(3.07) —It is apparent that these days the Government cannot take a trick! Today the Opposition is debating as a matter of public importance the failed inconsistent policies and broken promises of a failed Labor Government. The Labor Government has promised a new order of consensus and prosperity and has delivered to us a banana republic. They are not my words, but the words of the Labor Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Labor Government has given the people of Australia higher government spending, in fact the highest in history; higher taxes, again the highest in history; real interest rates which have been consistently higher than at any time since the Great Depress- ion; negative economic growth for the last three quarters in a row; stagnant private investment; high and rising inflation, particularly when compared with other comparative countries; a massive overseas debt and a continuing imbalance of payments disaster month after month; and an unacceptably high level of unemployment. Most of all the Labor Government told Australians for three years that they had never had it so good, until it could not hide the facts any longer. But the people out there know. They know that their living standards have declined, that inflation and high interest rates have gobbled up their savings, and what it is like to try to survive economically when this Government continued to pretend that all would be well. The people must be sick and tired of hearing the same message day after day-that the Fraser Government is to blame for all our problems. This Labor Government has now been in office for 1 1/2 terms-in fact it is now getting on for two terms. Now is the time for the Government to face up to reality. Things are now worse not better than they were when the Hawke Government came to power. Senator Cook —That is not true. Senator PARER —The honourable senator will have his turn. I will show this to him later and I will be interested to hear what his response will be. Like Whitlam before him, the current Prime Minister, the emeritus President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, promised the world. In 1983 he said he would deliver to the people of Australia, reconciliation, reconstruction and recovery. Yet by any statistical measure this Government has failed to deliver any of its own promises. It has a record of indecision, reversals and broken commitments. To use a favourite word of the Prime Minister, its credibility is finito. The Government which, had set its sails for growth, has run aground; it is shipwrecked. The main item on the Government's current political agenda is how to fill a couple of ministerial and Party vacancies. That issue will consume this Government while the Australian economy withers. This Government has no sense whatsoever of priority, leadership or direction. A quick glance at a few economic indicators reveals our current state of decline, despite what the Government might say about recovery and the J-curve being just around the bend. It is certainly around the bend. Let us look at economic growth. In the December 1985 quarter, growth in Australia was minus 0.6 per cent. In the March 1986 quarter it was minus 0.2 per cent and in the June 1986 quarter it was minus 0.2 per cent. Technically we are in recession. In recent months we have had a decline in car registrations, building activity, consumer sentiment, business investment and, above all else, confidence. We are lacking confidence. The 30 per cent depreciation in our currency has not turned around our mediocre performance. What about the balance of payments? In 1985-86 the current account deficit was $13.7 billion, or 6 per cent of gross domestic product. The 1986 Budget estimate is $14.6 billion or 5.75 per cent of gross domestic product. In the first quarter of 1986-87 we have already notched up in excess of $4 billion-in fact $4.263 billion or an increase of 19 per cent over the same three-month period last year. We are heading for a total deficit for the year of about $16 billion. Let me compare this performance with those of other countries. Taking the current account deficit as a percentage of GDP, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that in 1986-87 Australia will have a figure of minus 0.6 per cent. This compares with Japan with an estimate of plus 4.2 per cent; West Germany with plus 3.4 per cent; France with plus 1.1 per cent and Italy with plus 0.9 per cent. I repeat that the estimate for Australia is minus 0.6 per cent. More importantly, our growing balance of trade deficit is sending this country into hock at the rate of $1 billion-that is, $1,000m-a month. The number of goods we import continues to rise and our exports are simply not paying for them. Our foreign debt has tripled in the time this Labor Government has been in power and this financial year the Treasurer is set to become the world's first non-Spanish speaking Treasurer to preside over a $100 billion foreign debt. What a record! It is only matched by the Treasurer's other great achievement-the recent loss of Australia's AAA credit rating. The Treasury expects that foreign debt of $100 billion to be reached this financial year. It represents $7,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia. Every new born baby in this country will carry into the world an IOU for $7,000. The Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council, in its recently released report entitled `External debt and economic growth', pointed out that in 1980-in what now seems like a golden age before the Labor Government came into office-our net external debt amounted to 6 per cent of GDP. In 1986 that figure is 29 per cent. In 1990 EPAC estimates that our foreign debt will be 40 per cent of gross domestic product-that is, 40 per cent of what we produce in this country. The staggering thing is that each month's balance of trade figures, which nudge us ever closer to the precipice, seem to create less and less concern in the community. We have become so used to bad economic news, yet our problems do not go away. What about inflation and unemployment? Honourable senators should remember that this Government was elected on the promise of simultaneously reduced inflation and unemployment from the admittedly high levels of the recession of 1982-83. What is the situation now? Inflation is forecast to be around 8 per cent in 1986-87. In Japan, which is one of our major trading partners, the inflation rate for 1987 is estimated at zero. For West Germany it is 0.25 per cent and for the United States 2.5 per cent. The average for the OECD is 3 per cent. With the devaluation-indeed the debasement-of our currency under this Government one might well ask what has happened to the quick fix? Why has the J-curve not worked? Why has there not been a correction on our balance of payments? One of the major reasons is that our inflation rate remains high. Unless and until that inflation rate is brought down we will be back where we started and the massive devaluation will be of no benefit whatsoever. It is horrifying to think about the situation of this country and the trend in interest rates. In fact, the two major reasons why there has not been a response to devaluation have been the enormously high interest rates and inflation which continues to increase at a rate which is significantly higher than those of our trading partners. The most recent figures on the growth in average earnings in Australia show an increase of 6.6 per cent. In Japan the figure is 2.2 per cent, in West Germany 3.3 per cent, in the United States 2.4 per cent and in Canada 2.6 per cent. It is little wonder that our cost structure in Australia is so high. On the unemployment front we record a current figure of well over 8 per cent and rising. Our stagnating growth will ensure that that gets worse and the Government itself admits this. Unemployment among our young people remains above 20 per cent-that is, one in five of our children are not able to get jobs when they leave school, mainly because of a rigid centralised wage fixing system which prevents employers from paying them realistic wages. This is truly a crime against society caused by a crazy, inflexible award structure. The theme of the 1983 National Economic Summit, which was the cornerstone of the Australian Labor Party's economic strategy, was `jobs, jobs, jobs'. Three years later, despite all the Government's bluster, the average length of periods of unemployment for people has increased from 34 weeks to 52 weeks. I wonder what the kids who are just about to leave school will think about that. When they find there is no work for them what will they think about the Government's promise of `jobs, jobs, jobs'? Struggling families, particularly single income families, know the cruel triple whammy of ever growing taxes, rising prices and crippling interest rates on their mortgages. Short term interest rates today are running at about 17.4 per cent. In Japan they are 4.7 per cent, in West Germany 4.4 per cent, in the United States of America 5.6 per cent and in Canada 2.6 per cent. What does that mean to average people with mortgages of, say, $50,000 on their homes? It means that average people out there battling with those sorts of mortgages on their homes are paying $70 per week extra in interest than people in comparable countries overseas. That money is not being spent on consumer goods, investment or savings. These figures tell a very sorry tale. They show why our standard of living has fallen and private capital investment is declining. It is a fact that Australia's high interest rates and taxes mean that a gross return of 25 per cent is required on investment in Australia, compared with 15 per cent in Hong Kong, 16 per cent in the United States and 18 per cent in Britain. That is why business is not investing in this country and that is why our immediate prospects are so grim. I have no doubt that Government senators opposite will talk in this debate about consensus and the accord. Let me tell them what this business of consensus really means. I refer to a little-publicised speech by the Prime Minister to the Fabian Society in May 1984. The Prime Minister addressed the Fabian Society which, as everyone knows, is the philosophical and intellectual base of socialists throughout the world. He said that what the Fabians were all about is the principle of gradualism. He referred to Sidney Webb, one of the Society's gurus, who talked about permeation. The Prime Minister said that what we need to do is change the hearts and minds of people. Today he says that we do not call this permeation or gradualism; we call it consensus. If that does not put a new meaning on the word `consensus' I will be very surprised. Finally, in the Prime Minister's speech to the Fabian Society he pointed out what we must do. He said: . . . you must wait, as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard . . . That is what the word `consensus' means. Our standards of living have fallen dramatically under this Labor Government. The ordinary Australian knows this. It shows up in the miserable amount of increase in after tax take home pay that everyone will receive and it shows up in the price of goods on the supermarket shelves. It shows up every time we fill up the car with petrol and every time we take the family out for a meal. The Labor Party promised us that during its term of office there would be no increase in the overall tax burdens as measured by the share of gross domestic product taken by the Government in tax revenues. This was part of the famous trilogy about which we do not hear much these days. What has actually happened? In the past two Budgets the Government has increased the percentage of tax collected as a proportion of gross domestic product. In 1986-87 the Government will collect $1.4 billion in additional tax over the trilogy ceiling. Tax collections as a proportion of GDP have gone up from 25 per cent to 25.5 per cent in the last Budget. In addition to the false nature of the tax cuts promised in December we have a whole range of new taxes-a sales tax hike, an increase in the Medicare levy, a capital gains tax, a fringe benefits tax, a higher tax on lump sum superannuation and an entertainment tax. When we talk about these taxes, everyone will recall the famous statement on the new capital gains tax by the Prime Minister when he said: `Let me say in words that even the Opposition will understand: There will be no capital gains tax'. One of the many promises. Now we are told by the Government that all will be well again; that the necessary decisions have now been taken to set things right. Yet the Government's very own Budget forecasts for the year show no fall in inflation, unemployment, foreign debt, the balance of payments deficit, the overall levels of taxation or wasteful Government expenditure. Part of the matter of public importance is in respect of the broken promises. Recently some research was done on Labor's record of promises versus performance. The catalogue of indecisions, reversals and broken promises for 1986 alone in that research came to 18 pages. Let us look briefly at that catalogue of 18 pages of broken promises. Of course we have the most famous one, to which I referred earlier, the capital gains tax. We were promised lower petrol prices. We remember how Paul Keating, when in opposition, accused the Government of establishing a branch of the Australian Taxation Office at every petrol pump. Yet under the Labor Government car users are paying an additional 14c a litre in petrol taxes since Labor came to power. Before the 1984 election Mr Hawke and Mr Keating promised lower interest rates. Since that promise was made we have suffered the highest continual interest rates for 50 years. The Government simply has not informed the people of Australia of the true state of our national plight. For three years we have been led to believe that we were living in some sort of paradise. In reality we were living in a Hawke's fools paradise. Unfortunately, the people placed their trust in Labor, but it will not happen again. What we need and must create in Australia is an environment where wealth creation, individual enterprise and business investment are actively encouraged and rewarded. Our primary concern must be the creation of wealth, which is impossible under the Labor Government's inconsistent policies. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.27) —Page 21 of today's Bulletin makes amusing and interesting reading. On that page there is a cartoon. `What's a tautology?' asks the student doing his homework in the cartoon. The parent reading his newspaper replies `Qld-electoral gerrymander'-that is a tautology. We have just heard from Senator Warwick Parer-Liberal, Queensland-about a new type of gerrymander, an economic gerrymander. When we take the malapportionment among his statistics, the disproportionment among his arguments and a result that does not reflect the true position, that is a gerrymander. That is what we have just had presented to the Senate in the form of an economic argument. Why a Queensland Liberal would want to attack the national economy is quite clear-obviously, there is an election in Queensland and this is the last broadcast day for the Senate before the Queensland electors go to the polls. Why a Queensland Liberal senator would not want to differentiate his own position from that of the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government in Queensland remains something for open conjecture, because in fact the economic truth about Australia and the theme for my remarks will be that Queensland is the sick State of the Australian economy and Queensland is pulling down the statistics of the Australian economic performance. I propose, unlike Queenslanders, to demonstrate that by reliance on statistics and facts. In a number of the areas that Senator Warwick Parer dared criticise this Government's economic performance, the performance of the Bjelke- Petersen National Party Government in Queensland is much worse. The distortion in our national statistics belongs at the door of that Government. It is interesting to note that Senator Parer, in his presentation, did not differentiate his position from that of the National Party of Australia. We can only conclude from this that the same political philosophy is being peddled under different brand names in Queensland and that that is why the voters of Queensland are set to put the Bjelke-Petersen Government out of office. The Morgan gallup poll in today's Bulletin makes interesting reading. Part of the summary introduction to that poll states: National Party backing has crashed by 8 points-from 36 to 28 per cent-since early September. In Brisbane, the drop was 7 per cent-from 27 to 20 per cent. In rural areas the slump was a dramatic 10 points-from 44 to 34 per cent. In the November 1983 election the National Party won 38.9 per cent of the vote-and just fell short of winning an absolute majority. For anyone interested in the slightest vestiges of democracy, I think this is the most damning comment of all: Since the redistribution, the Nationals need about 36 per cent to keep government. It is a travesty of democratic perceptions that 36 per cent of electors can elect a so-called democratic government. The article goes on to indicate the results of a poll taken just this month showing the plummeting fortunes of the Bjelke-Petersen Government and, at least as far as this quotation is concerned, it concludes: Liberal Party support stands at 24 per cent (down 1). The party has lost support in Brisbane (from 31 to 27 per cent) but has picked up in the country (from 21 to 22 per cent). Labor has surged ahead strongly, from 33 to 42 per cent. It has gained both in Brisbane (up 8 points to 45 per cent) and in the bush (up 10 points to 40 per cent). Therein lies the clue as to why Senator Parer would want to attack the economic performance of the Federal Government-to try to blame the ills of the Queensland economy on the Federal Government. That is a tried and now failed technique in Queensland politics. Australian Bureau of Statistics catalogue No. 5646, released on 17 October, has something to say about investment. The matter of public importance that Senator Parer has launched includes a reference to investment. Let us just look at what the latest survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics says about actual investment in Queensland. The results refer to actual private business investment spending over the period up to March 1986 and the investment spending which private business enterprises expect to make during the 1986-87 financial year. Between the December quarter of 1985 and the March quarter of 1986 private business investment spending in Queensland fell by 26.7 per cent in current price terms. This was a greater fall than that in any other State in Australia. Since part of this fall can be attributed to seasonal factors, it is perhaps better to look at the March quarter 1986 figures compared to the March quarter 1985 figures. Again, on that comparison, Queensland comes out as consistently the worst performer. Over that period private business investment in Queensland increased by 9.8 per cent in nominal current price terms compared to the national figure. Honourable senators should remember that the figure is 9.8 per cent for Queensland and the national figure is 19.8 per cent. But the most interesting figure in the survey relates to business expectations for investment in the 1986-87 financial year. If we compare expected spending for that period with actual investment spending during the 12 months to March 1986, we find that Queensland private enterprise will be investing a massive 22.3 per cent less in 1986-87 in real terms and the decline will be even greater. That is some indication of what Queensland investors think of that economy and it is a measure that honourable senators opposite in the conservative coalition often rely upon. Investors are voting with their investment funds. They are not investing in Queensland. They are investing in other Australian States more successfully. We in the Australian Labor Party have another standard for economic performance, not just the movement of the investment dollar. For us, the standard of economic performance that is vital is the question of employment and the level of unemployment. Historically, if one sees in any economy a departure of young work-aged prospective employees away from that economy, that is a sign of a decline in that economy. The truth about Queensland is that the young work-aged potential employees are leaving that State. Queensland has the highest rate of unemployment of any State in Australia. On the national average figures for July, it had 9.6 per cent unemployment compared to 7.9 per cent nationally. The Bjelke-Petersen fallacy is that southern dole bludgers go to Queensland and that is the reason why the Queensland unemployment figures in those categories are high. That is just not true. That is a strings and mirrors exercise by the Bjelke-Petersen Government to distort reality. In fact, there is a net population loss in Queensland in the key age groups of 20 to 34; that is the most mobile age group. The young work-aged potential employees in that age group are going south in search of jobs, family security and a future. They are going south to the Labor States. Queensland has 16 per cent of the population of Australia, but it has 20 per cent of the young unemployed in Australia, 20 per cent of the 15 to 24 year age group. It is the State with the worst youth employment record in Australia. The truth is that of the 18 key economic indicators released up to August, Queensland's score card was the worst of any State in Australia. On that score card of the key 18 economic indicators, Queensland scored the worst in five of them, the second worst in six of them, and it was below the Australian average in 12 of them. That is the economic performance of Queensland. If Queenslanders regard the jewel in their economic crown as the tourist industry, let me put that fallacy to rest. Up until March this year both South Australia and Western Australia, on the latest figures, out-performed Queensland as a tourist destination. I remind honourable senators opposite, in case they come back in this argument, that that was before the tourist boom in South Australia and Western Australia for the Grand Prix and the America's Cup respectively. On the number of guest nights spent in hotels, motels and resorts in all Australian States in the March quarter, South Australia had an increase of 15 per cent, Western Australia, 19.8 per cent, and Queensland came in third with 14.4 per cent. The tourist industry is supposed to be Queensland's best performing industry. Of all the Queensland statistics, I think the most damning is the fact that there has been a palpable decline in living standards over the last period. For 1984-85 household income per capita was $10,410 in Queensland. That was 9.8 per cent below the national average. The latest average weekly male earnings in Queensland were $391.40. That is 7.4 per cent below the national average. Women employees in Queensland are worse off. The average weekly income for them was $250.50, which is 9.4 per cent below the national average. Queenslanders who try to blame Canberra for everything must face the reality that all States are similarly affected by the macroeconomic climate. One State that is a more correct model to compare with Queensland is Western Australia. Both Western Australia and Queensland are commodity exporting States. They are mineral exporters and agricultural exporters. If we compare the performances between the Burke Labor Government in Western Australia and the Bjelke-Petersen National Party Government in Queensland, we find that it is Burke all the way. Western Australia is a State grappling with change and making rapid advances, compared with Queensland, which is wallowing in economic recession and pulling the rest of the Australian economy down. On the national scene, let me deal now with the problems for the Australian economy. There are problems for the Australian economy because there has been a terms of trade reversal in the last 12 months and that has affected our trading position quite severely. Australia relies on commodities. Queensland relies on commodity exports to make a quid. We have to rely on commodities while we move to diversify our economic base more towards manufacturing economy. One would think, therefore, that there would be some effort to prop up the commodities export section. The Queensland Government is one of the greatest taxers of commodity exports of any State government. It does not do so openly. It does not tax commodity exports by slapping on a tax that everyone can identify; it does so invisibly. It does so by imposing taxes upon freight rates and charges which do not show up as direct taxes but which, nonetheless, are a massive disincentive upon the mining industry. Let me cite one example of the effect of that. I go to the 1986 Mount Isa Mines annual report. A breakdown of figures shows that 94 per cent of the tax paid by this major company was paid to the Queensland Government and 5 per cent was paid to the Federal Government. Let us get those figures in proportion. That 94 per cent of the taxes paid to the Queensland Government had a total cost of $143.8m, of which $88.9m was paid as clear profit on freight rates. For the coal rail freight rate Mount Isa Mines paid $83.3m, of which it estimated $61.2m was clear profit to the State Government. The cost of rail freight to Mount Isa Mines was $65.2m of which it estimated $27.7m was clear profit to the State Government and was not a fair price for the service. Of the total taxes of $143.8m paid to the State, $88.9m was clear profit and was thus a hidden tax on an export industry which had to export volume because of low commodity prices around the world. As it tries to lift its volume in order to get a consistent return with lower prices, it pays more tax to the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland, and thus a massive disincentive is imposed upon the mining industry there. The other fallacy about the Queensland economy which is perpetrated by the Bjelke-Petersen Government is that the Commonwealth Government is not a government that shows any sign of generosity in terms of Budget outlays to Queensland. I want to quote from the 1986-87 `Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities'. If we look at page 119, table 89, `Summary of Payments to each State and to the Northern Territory', we find in general terms that Queensland receives one of the highest outlays of Commonwealth funding of all the States. In terms of payments per head, Queensland receives $1,453 of Commonwealth outlays. The figure for Victoria is $1,286, and for New South Wales is $1,295. Queensland does much better than those States. If we look, however, at how Premier Bjelke-Petersen funds his operations and at borrowings per head, we see that in Queensland borrowings per head are higher than they are in the other States. Sitting suspended from 3.44 to 4.05 p.m. The PRESIDENT —I am told by the Secretary of the Joint House Department that there has been a power failure which has affected the whole of southern Canberra and Queanbeyan. I understand the problem has now been rectified, but I have asked for a full report to be made available to me. Senator COOK —Before the Senate was plunged into darkness I was shedding light on the Australian economy and in particular spotlighting the fact that the Queensland State economy was dragging down the economic performance of the Commonwealth. I did not realise when I was focusing such a searching glare upon the abysmal performance of the Queensland economy that this would happen. However, that only lends force to the argument that those who do not want to see will invite darkness to descend upon us so that none of us can see. This matter of public importance has been mounted by the Liberal Party in the form of Senator Warwick Parer, Liberal, Queensland, who has argued that in summary the Australian economic performance, after the whole hotch potch of words he has used in formulating his matter of public importance, is not as good as it should be. If that be the case-and I do not for one moment concede that it is because the environmental factors in which our economy dwells have to be considered-or whatever be the case it is certainly true that by any objective review the Queensland economy is the sick economy of all the Australian States and its abysmal economic performance is having a major effect on our overall national statistics. Queensland is dragging the national average down. It is below the other States on 18 key economic indicators. It is below the national average on 12 of those indicators, scores the worst score of all the States on five and the second worst on six of them. That is a factor that has to be considered in the general economic scenario. I was about to conclude my remarks by going to some of the details of our general national economic performance. Perhaps, given the delay that has occurred, I can summarise that by referring to a speech presented to the Confederation of Australian Industry by Dr Don Stammer, a consultant economist for Bain and Co., and circulated to back benchers. In that speech he calls upon the detractors of the Australian economy to look at the opportunities available and in effect to stop bad mouthing Australia and get on with the job of producing the wealth that is there to be produced. By very strong inference, one can say that the lack of objectivity and the always carping criticism of the Opposition is nothing short of an economic crime against the performance of this country. Those who perpetrate it should stand clearly identified as those who would deny Australia the growth it could achieve were they to promote a more confident vision of this country, which is an accurate vision. That is essentially the theme of the Stammer address to the Confederation of Australian Industry. I conclude by referring to a graph on page 9 of his address, headed `Australia's International Competitiveness'. The graph is formulated from his own research and shows that unit labor costs are the lowest they have been at least since 1970 and that on a less competitive-more competitive scale Australia is now more competitive in its internal economy and with its trading partners than it has been at any time in that period. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Before I call the next speaker, I point out that Standing Orders do not cover the contingency of a failure of power. Nevertheless, I intend to count the time lost as a result of the power failure as not being part of the debate on the matter of public importance, which will therefore end at 5.29 p.m. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.11) —The Hawke Labor Government came to power on a wave of social and economic optimism. The Australian Labor Party claimed to stand for participation, consensus, equity and justice. The National Economic Summit Conference in 1983 epitomised a new era of consultative government which eventually culminated in the National Taxation Summit. It was said then that tax reform would mark the beginning of a new era in economic justice and growth. However, since then the lights have gone out. The Labor Government lost its nerve. Instead of tax reform, we got more of the same. We have had patch on patch on the old tax system which is leaking like a sieve and requiring more and more bureaucratic paperwork, more and more bureaucrats and more and more accountants working overtime and discovering new ways to plug new rorts in the taxation system. Instead of economic justice and growth, we have seen a rundown in the economy to the point where many small businessmen are giving up the unequal struggle with the Government's regulations, exports have slumped and unemployment is again rising out of control. Deregulation of coal export prices is a signal to the world that we are prepared to drop our prices and allow our coal producers to be picked off one at a time. Indeed, this will have quite an effect on the Queensland economy. The indicators are that already this has caused a price drop of around $4 a tonne. Rex Connor died protecting our national resources from that type of cartel pressure. The Government pays lip-service to the concept of buying Australian but it has taken no strong measures to tie Australian suppliers into the large resource projects on the North West Shelf. Along with the burgeoning bureaucracy, the Government has set about dismantling the protective machinery against foreign takeovers and foreign ownership of Australian land and resources. There is no credible foreign investment policy. The Foreign Investment Review Board is being weakened although for the last few years it has reported decreasing productive investment in new and expanded manufacturing enterprises and increasing incursions into the Australian property and financial services market. It is not productive investment that we are getting; it is speculative investment by people from overseas. This leaves Australia with no strategic view of foreign investment and allows takeovers of successful Australian firms such as Nicholas Kiwi Ltd and Repco Corporation. Now Australian Consolidated Industries is under threat from an American company, Henley Group Inc., which is about to buy 10 per cent of its capital. Since it is unlikely that ACI will want a sleeping investment of 10 per cent, Henley will probably attempt to get a controlling interest at a later date. We are selling Australia holus-bolus to foreign investors. This Government is not doing anything to protect our local people from being taken over. There are no `buy Australian' regulations for government departments, in spite of the Government's lip-service and public expenditure on a campaign to promote this policy in the private sector. A notice of motion on this subject standing in my name will be debated tomorrow. The Government has a dualistic view of the value of the dollar. On the one hand, we are told of the advantages to our exporters of a low dollar exchange rate. We are told that it is part of the Government's strategy to keep the dollar low so that Australian exports are more competitive on world markets. On the other hand, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Government have been taking steps to maintain the value of the dollar on international exchange markets. In July and August this year these measures resulted in the loss of Australian foreign currency reserves of $2.5 billion-more than the total drop in reserves for the previous 12 months. The Government is giving away our foreign reserves. The Government has consistently refused to support the obvious need for world currency reform, despite the slide in the value of the Australian dollar caused by massive movements of speculative capital in and out of Australia, of so-called `hot money'. Our terms of trade have declined by 15 per cent since January 1985 but the dollar has declined in value by 40 per cent. This leaves Australian resources wide open to invasion and takeover on a grand scale and underlines our position as a Third World country, a banana republic, in trade terms. We would have much more influence if we joined the developing countries and negotiated from their total current pos- ition of strength. Indeed, with them we would have the capacity to bring about the demise of the current world banking system rather than hanging on the coat tails of the United States of America and supporting a system that is basically already bankrupt. The time is ripe as never before to pressure for a new world economic order, for economic justice and an international code of business conduct enforceable at law. The time is ripe to set standards of acceptable international corporate behaviour and international accounting standards for scrutiny of the books of large international trading conglomerates. The time is ripe for reform of the international currency market, which disadvantages developing countries and advantages those which are technologically advanced. It is only through international justice that we can expect a lasting world peace and an end to poverty, and to the diseases and starvation which are caused by that poverty. Indeed, the Government is doing little or nothing about this. Yet our own survival is dependent upon our getting a sensible trading relationship with countries around the world, upon setting up a new world economic order in which Australia can be a proud and sensible partner in trade with all the other countries of our region and beyond. As most honourable senators will know, there has been a massive decline in our terms of trade and an equally massive decline in our current account. Australia has always been a trading nation dependent on agriculture and resources for export income, with our prosperity stemming pretty well solely from the export of those commodities which are subsidised by a high level of foreign investment. Manufacturing has never comprised more than about one-quarter of the gross domestic product. Because of natural disadvantages such as distance and market size, compounded by inefficiencies stemming from the high level of protection, the manufacturing industries have seldom been competitive either at exporting or even at import replacement. The Government is doing nothing effective about this problem. Despite the fact that the cost of industry protection through tariffs, quotas and bounties has been well known for decades, the alliance of employers and unions, and the fact that many industries are geographically concentrated, which increases their political influence, has led to the survival of protection as a means of holding together certain industries such as the motor vehicle and textile industries. We need to look very closely at our trading arrangements. The Government has not properly done that. It has just accepted the edicts from the mandarins at Treasury, the `Stone clones' who have been running this country for many years. It is very disappointing when a government such as the Hawke Government, which put forward high ideals before it came to power, continually breaks promises. That is exactly what this matter of public importance is about. The Hawke Government has broken promises. It has permitted the large scale introduction of foreign banks, contrary to its position prior to being elected to government. It has permitted major overseas ownership in vital resource projects such as the North West Shelf, and it has now effectively closed down the Foreign Investment Review Board. It has permitted the export of uranium to France, relaxed the ceiling on home loan interest rates, and replaced wage indexation, the centrepiece of the prices and incomes accord, with a wage discounting system. I must say that these are rather fundamental policy reversals. But it is indeed funny that the Opposition should object and criticise the Government for these particular broken promises, because in each case, in breaking the promises, the Government has substituted for its own policy that of the Opposition during the last election campaign. The introduction of foreign banks was Opposition policy. The Opposition argued that the FIRB should be done away with, that uranium should be exported and that wages should be discounted. We have, in fact, two identical groups of people-the Government and the Opposition-following the same types of policies and insulting each other for doing so. This is quite unreasonable and I believe that not only has the Government broken its promise but also members of the Opposition have abrogated their responsibility to the people who elected them, because they are currently letting the Government carry on on a helter-skelter course towards economic destruction of Australia and are not doing anything about it. The Opposition basically lets the Government do whatever it wants provided that the Government uses the words `this is a Budget Bill' in front of whatever it presents. I believe the people of Australia need to know this. The main point of my presentation is that, while a lot of the problems that have come about have been due to external factors, the Labor Government has not been up to handling them. The Labor Government has lost not only its economic nerve but also its electoral nerve. This really is a problem. More and more the Government is hiding from the people, avoiding consultation, abolishing or emasculating all the democratic and consultative institutions which it proudly espoused when it came into government. We have seen just recently the proposition for the demise of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-a national representative and consultative body to promote multiculturalism in Australia and to redress the inequities and the difficulties faced by non-English speaking people and people of non-Anglo-Saxon culture. The Government wishes to replace this consultative body with an office within the Public Service which can never fulfil the democratic representation of our ethnic and Aboriginal communities-something which they now entirely lack. Along with abandoning consultation with multicultural Australia, the Government has abandoned its commitment to migrant education through cutting the English as a second language program. In the schools area, it has failed to implement the national language policy, which seeks to encourage and support multilingual education in Australia. How can we export? How can we employ all these migrant people in Australia who may have difficulties with English unless we have a sensible program for educating them and allowing them to work effectively within our industry? There is no excuse for this type of behaviour. Where the Government has made changes to the taxation system, it has in fact simply fiddled with it. The fringe benefits tax is very much a fringe tax, despite all the noises made by the Opposition. It has caused an enormous amount of administrative disruption and it merely enforces something which the Liberals in government were quite unable and unwilling to enforce. The Governments's failure to provide self-government for the people of Canberra and its dismantling of the advisory Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, which is being replaced with a body appointed by the Minister for Territories, is leaving the people of Canberra with no elected input into the management of their affairs, leaving those in Canberra with a real problem. This was despite the promises which the Government made in the Governor-General's Speech at the start of this Parliament. We could go on, as Senator Parer said, looking at the broken promises. We also have the major problem with the Freedom of Information Laws Amendment Bill which passed through this Senate just recently, with the support of the Opposition. In this case the Government has raised the cost of freedom of information requests so much that it is practically impossible to get any information, particularly in the economic field where it is extremely useful for industry to be able to make requests. I just make the point that the people of Australia are in fact seeing our enterprises and our resources sold out to foreign conglomerates, our information sources sold out to corporate multimedia networks and our Government selling our birthright for a mess of potage, for funds for the next election campaign and for exposure in the commercial media. It is time that the Australian people elected an Australian Democrat government which is prepared to take a long view of Australia's needs. The Democrats have not and will not sell out their principles for media backing nor for corporate electoral financing. Senator Gareth Evans —Down, boy! Senator VIGOR —I say to Senator Evans that the Democrats are the only party prepared to consider seriously issues beyond the next election. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(4.26) —We are today debating a matter of public importance, namely: The Government's broken promises and the continual failure of its inconsistent economic and industry policies which have caused uncertainty and confusion in the community leading to reductions in investment, employment and economic growth. The Senate is indeed indebted to Senator Parer for bringing this very important matter before it. Since this Government came to office about three and a half years ago Australia has been hit with broken promises. It has seen an industrial policy that has caused confusion. It has seen inconsistencies in the business sector. It has seen taxation policies which not even members of the Government opposite can understand. The Government had to postpone the collection of the fringe benefits tax for two weeks. One would not know whether this was because it did not understand it or whether it was trying to dive for cover because an election in Queensland was coming up in another week. We have seen increases in sales tax on birdseed, icecream, milk and fruit juices. Anything that can move is taxed. That is the Australian Labor Party policy, both Federal and State: Anything that can be taxed is taxed. We have seen a tax on superannuation and a capital gains tax which incorporates a death duties tax. We have seen the assets test and the abolition of the tax deduction for entertainment expenses, which has just about abolished the restaurant industry. We have seen $440m ripped off the rural sector and now we have the fringe benefits tax, the tax to end all taxes. The Labor Party is supporting the Australian Council of Trade Unions in an industrial claim on redundancy payments and on superannuation for the unions. All these things are taking away the people's ability to invest. We are locked into a spiral of inflation because of the ACTU-ALP deal on the accord. The fuel excise has risen from 6.1c a litre to 19.7c a litre. That is a massive increase of 336 per cent. This Government has become a taxing disaster area. It is a typical ALP approach to anything-if it moves tax it, and then tax it some more. Day after day we hear Senator Walsh in this House and the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in the other place trying to talk up the economy, answering carefully worded questions, dorothy dixers, telling people how wonderful the economy is. But Australians are not that simple-minded. We should look at some of the economic indicators to see how Australia is faring against our overseas competitors and at how the economy is performing. Let us look at interest rates. I know that Senator Parer covered that matter, but let me go over the ground again. On the short term money market today in 90-day loans Australia rates at 17.4 per cent, the United States of America 5.6 per cent and Japan 4.7 per cent. As to housing interest in Australia the banks here are locked in at a rate of 13.5 per cent. But what is the Government doing for the hundreds of thousands of people who have borrowed money from housing corporations? Those interest rates have skyrocketed now to 15.5 per cent. The Government did hold bank interest rates at 13.5 per cent, but most people who borrow money from banks are reasonably well off. Let us look at the position of the dollar overseas. It has been devalued by 36 per cent against the United States dollar, 58 per cent against the Japanese yen and 38 per cent against the trade weighted dollar. Inflation rates in Australia are running at 8.4 per cent; in the United States of America the figure is 1.7 per cent and in Japan 0.5 per cent. They are our trading partners. As to the cost of imported goods, we are bringing in $1.45 billion worth of goods compared with Australia's exports. Our purchasers exceed our sales by that figure. Anyone who runs a business or household will know that when one's sales are exceeded by one's purchases, one is bankrupt. Unfortunately, that is what is happening in Australia. Let us also look at external debt. From the beginning of the Commonwealth Parliament to the advent of the Hawke Government our external debt was $25 billion; from the Hawke Government to the present it has risen to $86 billion. On any financial indicator the Hawke Government has been an economic disaster. It is a government that is caught between the extreme left faction and the right faction and the three or four factions in between. It is caught between implementing the right policies for Australia and what it is allowed to do by its ACTU bosses, and it can only survive in that environment. Australia is paying the price for that incompetence. There is no plan to encourage investment, to manufacture, to export, to create jobs. There are no policies to encourage employment. Who will invest in this country when interest rates are at a level that cannot be sustained, when faced with capital gains tax, redundancy payments and union controlled superannuation-of which the people out there are terrified. That figure will be not 3 per cent. The unions have said that that is only an initial ploy and the figure will be 6 per cent with a 6 per cent contribution from the employee. These matters are worrying small business and obviously the business sector out there. Yesterday I was talking on the telephone to a friend in Queensland, a man who had recently sold a fairly significant business. I asked him what he was going to do with his money and where he intended to invest it. I asked whether he was going back into business. He summed it up for the whole of Australia. He said: `I would not put confederate money in anything when this Government is in power. I will put my money in the bank and when this Government is thrown out of office, I will reinvest when I can get a fair go'. I think that sums it up for the rest of Australia. That man is not going to invest his money while Labor is in charge, taxing him on everything that moves. What is happening, as we gathered from Senator Cook's contribution to the debate and as we see every day at Question Time both here and in the other place, is that the Government, in seeking to divert attention from its miserable economic performance, attacks unmercifully the Queensland Government and the Tasmanian Liberal Government. Labor, to divert attention from its own miserable economic performance, has set itself up as a de facto opposition in Canberra. I can tell the people of Australia that Labor has enough economic problems on its own plate without worrying about Queensland or Tasmania. They are performing very well. Every day questions are asked, and some by the honourable senator from South Australia who is next on the speakers list. He bowls up a ball every day to Senator Walsh. But let us look at South Australia's performance. In South Australia, where Senator Maguire was an economic guru, he has just about wrecked that State's economy and that State has had to send him to Canberra. South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in Australia; it has the lowest retail sales, well below the national average. It has the lowest labour force growth rate in Australia. I would say to Senator Maguire that a person does not have to be an economist to go and look up the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, because anyone can do that. I have done it and I have proved that South Australia is the worst economic performer in the Commonwealth of Australia. Senator Brownhill —The daily double-a Labor Party Premier and a Labor Party Prime Minister. Senator BOSWELL —That is right. I would take to task the previous senator who spoke-- Senator Lewis —Whatever his name is. Senator BOSWELL —Whatever his name is-he is so insignificant, it escapes me. He said that the latest ABS projections for investment in Queensland were well down. He selectively quoted figures. Let me tell him that the latest ABS projects for investment in Queensland-Queensland with 16 per cent of the population-totalled 16.6 per cent. Senator Maguire then said that Queensland had the highest youth unemployment, when one sees from the ABS figures that in the last three months it has had the lowest youth unemployment. I suggest that he should not quote figures that are 6, 8, 9 or 10 months old. He should go to the latest ABS figures and quote those. In the September quarter Queensland had the lowest youth unemployment figures-- Senator Parer —Labor policies are hurting Queensland. Senator BOSWELL —As my colleague says, the impact of the Federal Government's policies is hurting Australia, and Queensland in particular. We are never told by the Labor Party that Queensland has the highest growth rate of employment. For example, judging by the ABS figures, Queensland was the only State to record an increase in the number of people employed in the month of August. In a month when all other States lost jobs Queensland gained 1,300, a growth rate of 0.1 per cent and higher than all other States. Since the last Federal election in December 1984-and I hope Senator Reynolds is listening to this as I want her to be well informed when she goes to Queensland and would hate her to be telling the people of Townsville and the north untruths-Queensland has created 80,900 jobs or 31 per cent of all new jobs created in Australia. But we never hear these things from the ALP. All Labor members do is come into this place and attack the two conservative governments that are left in Australia. Senator Cook —Eighty-one thousand new jobs? Senator BOSWELL —Eighty thousand nine hundred new jobs, or 31 per cent of all new jobs created in Australia, have been created in Queensland. With 16 per cent of the population Queensland has created 31 per cent of the jobs. Labor members never tell us these things. They make selective quotations of figures all the time. Senator Maguire said that Queensland had the highest bankruptcy rate. I looked up the ABS figures and I found that New South Wales, with a Labor government, had 429 bankruptcies for the September quarter; Victoria had 404, another great ALP State; and South Australia, another ALP State, had 388 bankruptcies. Queensland had 91 bankruptcies and in Tasmania 35 people went bankrupt. But of course we never hear Government senators admit that Queensland has no petrol tax, no tobacco tax, no financial institutions tax or that it has the lowest taxes of any State in Australia. We do not ever hear those sorts of things in this House. The Queensland Labor Party is the same Labor Party as the one we have here, yet it has the audacity to say to the Queensland people: `We have given you a capital gains tax, we have given you a fringe benefits tax, we have taxed petrol. Give us a chance to wreck the Queensland economy in the same way as we have wrecked the Australian economy'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The next speaker is Senator Maguire and I hope that he will remind us of the subject of this matter of public importance. We seem to have been ranging a little wide in some of the speeches. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.41) —This afternoon we are debating a motion by Senator Parer on economic management. I find the motion breathtaking. Whoever would have thought that the Liberal Party of Australia would move a motion in the Senate alleging that this Government had broken promises? Whoever would have thought that a Party that was in office for 23 consecutive years and then for almost eight consecutive years would introduce a motion today-after only 3 1/2 years of Labor Government-claiming that this Government had broken its promises. That is particularly so when such a motion is moved by a Queensland senator. It is absolutely breathtaking and hypocritical. Senator Parer in his motion alleges a `continual failure' of the Government's economic measures and industry policies. Let us look at this so-called failure and the alleged broken promises. The Hawke Government's record on economic management is tremendous. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia must be jealous. Under this Government there has been a major lift in total employment in the community. Since the National Economic Summit was held in April 1983-just 3 1/2 years ago-the number of Australians in work has increased by 650,000. I am not talking about a figure of 60,000, I am talking about 650,000 extra jobs in 3 1/2 years. What was the Hawke Government's promise on employment in the March 1983 election? The promise was to create 500,000 extra jobs in three years. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went around the country and told the Australian people that his Government would create half a million extra jobs in the first three years in office. What has it created? Not 500,000 extra jobs, but 650,000 jobs in 3 1/2 years. That is the record, that is the achievement and that is the so-called broken promise. As a candidate in that election, I recall the Liberal Party of Australia ridiculing that promise. The Liberals scoffed at that suggestion that half a million jobs would be created by the Labor Party in three years. As I have already pointed out those 500,000 jobs were created and created within three years of our coming to office. Despite the carping, the knocking and the sheer negativism from the Opposition benches, the great majority of those extra jobs were created in the private sector. They were not band-aid jobs or make work jobs; they were permanent jobs in the private sector of the Australian economy. Opposition members said that it could not be done. They scoffed at the idea. They scoffed because all they had to base their ideas on was their own experience in government. That was the basis for their ridiculing our promise. In the last year of the Fraser-Howard Liberal Government, when Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition, was Treasurer of this country, 186,000 Australians were thrown out of work and on to the industrial scrapheap. That is the record. I was a candidate in the 1975 election; so my memory is very long. I can recall Mr Fraser going around the country saying that there would be jobs for all who wanted to work. I remember that very clearly. He said that in 1975, yet in the last 12 months of his Administration, when Mr Howard was Treasurer, 186,000 Australians were thrown out of work. That is the record of the Liberal Party. As a result of that fall in employment in Australia, unemployment peaked at 10.4 per cent in 1983. We had double digit unemployment as a result of Liberal Party policies. Certainly and clearly there were not jobs for all those who wanted to work in Australia. The Liberal Party left Australia with a record post-war jobless tally. What about that broken promise, Senator Parer? What about the promise to create jobs for all those who wanted to work? Those are the facts; that is the Howard record and that is why the Liberals are now in opposition. Under Labor unemployment has been cut from 10.4 per cent in 1983 to 8.4 per cent now-a 2 per cent reduction in that period. That is, there has been a reduction of 95,000 in the numbers of unemployed in that period. I am prepared to say that 8.4 per cent unemployment is far too high, given the resources of this country. Personally I find it unacceptable and I want to see further reductions, but the point is that under this Government the unemployment rate has been reduced from the 10.4 per cent that we inherited to 8.4 per cent now. The Liberals and the Nationals talk about broken promises so let us have a look at inflation and that particular promise. In seven years in office the Liberals talked about the horrors of double digit inflation. That was one of their slogans. Their policy, espoused around this country on various platforms, was `fight inflation first'. I remember that very well. It was a key Liberal policy. The community was told that sacrifices had to be made, belts had to be tightened and that there was no such thing as a free lunch. This was all done in the name of fighting inflation first. What was the Liberal Party's record? What was the record of Mr Howard when he was Treasurer? He left the Labor Party with 11 1/2 per cent inflation in 1983. We had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment as a result of the policies of Mr Howard. Therefore, the Liberals broke their fundamental promise to fight inflation first. I repeat: We had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. What a record, what a double. No wonder the electorate hurled the Liberal Party from office in 1983. Another great promise that was made by the Liberal Party was to reduce taxation. That was one of its major promises. I recall the 1977 election-the so-called `fistful of dollars' election-when a disgraceful, deceitful advertisement appeared, showing dollars to the electorate and suggesting that the Liberal Party in office would reduce taxation. What was the record of the Liberal Party of Australia on taxation? Let us look at some of the facts. When the Liberals left office the taxation system they bequeathed to the Australian Labor Party had a top marginal tax rate of 60c in the dollar. From 1 July next year the top marginal tax rate will be 49c in the dollar. The best that Mr Howard could do as Treasurer was to have the lowest marginal tax rate in the tax system at 30c in the dollar. Under Labor, from 1 December this year the lowest marginal tax rate will be 24c in the dollar. Let us look at another aspect of taxation. The record of the Liberal Party in office between 1975 and 1983, as set out in the 1986 Budget Papers, is that the share of Australia's gross domestic product going in taxation was higher at the end of the Liberal's period in office than it was in the beginning. That is a fact which cannot be denied by those opposite. The taxation share of gross domestic product rose by 1.7 percentage points over the period in which Mr Howard was Treasurer. He did not reduce taxation. I am surprised that Senator Parer, a senator from Queensland, has raisedthis matter this afternoon alleging broken promises on the part of this Government, specifically on economic matters, because his State's economy is on its knees; it is going backwards. That is due to broken promises of conservative governments in Queensland. It is the fault of the Liberal- National Party Administration up to 1983 and it is the fault of the National Party Government of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen since 1983 that the Queensland economy is littered with broken promises. Let us look at Sir Joh's 1983 policy speech, which I read today. It is very interesting reading indeed. In 1983 Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said that he would `present policies for growth and jobs in the State'. He said: We will give the style of leadership that generates business and investment confidence, a style which creates jobs and security . . . Now more than ever we must keep Queensland moving ahead. That is what Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen said just three years ago, promising the earth to Queenslanders, promising economic miracles in his State. Regrettably, it was a mirage, a sad hoax on the Queensland labour force. Let us look at the reality, not the mythology of the National Party. The reality is the reverse. Queensland has not had development; it has had stagnation. In only three out of 36 months since Sir Joh's 1983 policy speech has the unemployment rate in Queensland been below the national average. When he delivered that policy speech in September 1983 Queensland accounted for 14.8 per cent of all of Australia's unemployed people. Today the figure is not 14.8 per cent, not 15.8 per cent, not 16.8 per cent, not 17.8 per cent; it is 18 per cent of Australia's unemployed. Eighteen per cent of all unemployed Australians now live in Queensland. That is the record of the Bjelke-Petersen Administration. Queensland is contributing more and more to Australia's total of unemployed. That increased share of unemployment is one barometer of the misery and despair facing more and more Queenslanders under the policies of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. Sir Joh has not given the leadership that generates business and investment confidence as promised. Senator Parer should look to his own State for broken promises. He should look at the continual failure of Queensland's inconsistent economic and industry policies. As a result of that failure, on 1 November Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen will have a bigger and more extensive power failure than we had this afternoon in Canberra. I can say that all over Queensland the lights are going out for the National Party. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.56) —I rise to support strongly the matter of public importance today, which states: The Government's broken promises and the continual failure of its inconsistent economic and industry policies which have caused uncertainty and confusion in the community leading to reductions in investment, employment and economic growth. Before examining the broken promises of this Government and the continual inconsistency of its economic utterances and policies, I want to take a few minutes to look at the state of the Australian economy today. In doing so, I pick up a comment of Senator Maguire, who sanctimoniously said that he also wanted to see reductions in unemployment in Australia. I say to Senator Maguire that if he wants reductions in unemployment in Australia, he should get his Government to adopt policies that will encourage investment and lower rates of interest, which will therefore encourage economic growth and, therefore, job creation, instead of the raft of anti-business policies that the Government has imposed which are the great destroyers of economic growth and employment in this country. Coming back to the state of the economy today, despite the deliberate attempts by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to talk up the economy-I will come back to that later-the fact is that the Australian economy is facing its most serious prospects since the 1930s. It is facing this potentially disastrous situation fairly and squarely as a result of the policies of this Hawke Labor Government. What are the facts? For starters, inflation in Australia today is more than three times higher than the average of the rest of the Western world. The gap is widening because our inflation rate is increasing. Inflation in Australia today is running at an annual rate of some 10 per cent. In Japan and Germany it is near zero, in the United States of America it is some 3 per cent and in the United Kingdom it is about 5 per cent, so on prices we are becoming increasingly uncompetitive. For the past 18 months we have compensated for the decline in basic competitiveness by a massive depreciation of the Australian dollar. But that can be only a short term palliative; it cannot continue indefinitely and it is not the solution to our problems. The only solution to our problems is to increase our productivity and to lower our unit labor costs. But our unit costs are not being lowered; they are rising. During the three years 1983 to 1985, the first three years of the Hawke Government, unit labour costs in the seven major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries rose by about one per cent per year. In Australia over the same period they rose by about 4 per cent per year. So much for the Hawke Government's totally false claims that the recent wage restraint in Australia has been as good as or better than most Western economies. The fact is that nominal wage growth in Australia has consistently outstripped that of our major trading partners during all the period of the Hawke Government and the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions prices and incomes accords marks 1 and 2. Along with rising inflation and wage costs we have rising unemployment. Unemployment is on the rise again. It is now 8 1/2 per cent and this is certain to continue as investment falls and gross domestic product declines. Australia has now had at least nine months of negative economic growth. The latest figures, when they come to hand for the most recent quarter, will almost certainly extend that negative economic growth to 12 months. Despite this, our foreign debt continues to spiral as our balance of payments on the current account continues to deteriorate. The Government tries to make a positive virtue out of the fact that last month the deficit in our overseas account was only $1.45 billion. On an annual basis, that is a deficit of $1,000 each year for every man, woman and child in Australia-and the Government says that it is encouraged by such an outcome! As a nation we are going into debt to the rest of the world at the rate of $40 million every day. That is more than $25,000 every second of every hour of every day of every week of every month. Senator Brownhill —It is a disgraceful legacy to give to our children. Senator SHORT —It is a legacy that will bankrupt not only our children but also our nation as a whole. Merely to service the overseas debt that we have now accumulated-that is a debt that is approaching $6,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia-takes up 40 per cent of every dollar that we earn in selling our goods and services overseas. Five years ago the corresponding figure was 8 per cent. This parlous state of affairs is due very largely to the policies of the Hawke Government. The Government cannot blame the declining commodity prices for the state into which it has led the Australian economy. Other countries have experienced reduced terms of trade and they have coped. They have coped because they have taken the necessary corrective action and made the necessary adjustments. This Hawke Labor Government has failed completely to take these measures. Instead, it has pursued economic policies of increased government spending, increased taxation and increased borrowings to their highest levels in our history. In the process, the Government has mounted a massive attack on the productive sector of our nation through the introduction of a whole raft of new taxes and charges on business which will destroy incentive and make almost impossible the task of accumulating capital for future investment. It is not only business which has been hit for six by these enormous tax increases. At least as hard hit have been average income earners. In that context I note that in 1984-85, the second year of the Hawke Government and the last year for which figures are available, although the number of taxpayers in Australia increased by only 4 per cent, the number of taxpayers in the middle tax bracket increased by 32 per cent and the number in the top bracket increased by 33 per cent. The effect of inflation on the tax bracket creep has been enormous in this country. But the most hard hit has been the single income family. Even if the so-called personal tax cuts of the Government take full effect next year-that is surely a dubious assumption-a single income family with a dependent spouse and children will be paying 20.5 per cent of its total income in tax compared with 17.5 per cent when the Fraser Government lost office in March 1983. To put it another way, that family would need to receive a further tax cut of $15 per week over and above what the Government has promised in order just to be as well off as it was in March 1983. That comparison makes no allowance for the huge increases in interest rates, including housing loan interest rates, or any of the other tax imposts of the Hawke Government, such as increased sales taxes and similar taxes and charges. The Government has yet to deliver on its promised so-called income tax cuts this year and next year. I do not think that we should be holding our breaths waiting. Already the promise to introduce the first instalment of the cuts has been broken. The date promised was 1 September 1986. That promise was broken. The scheduled date is now 1 December. Let us see what happens to that date and to the second instalment date of July 1987. It will be no surprise to see these promises broken, too. The record of the Hawke Government is one long litany of broken promises. All Australians will recall Mr Hawke's solemn promise prior to the 1983 election. He said: There will be no capital gains tax. Soon after that a capital gains tax was introduced. Who will forget Mr Hawke's solemn promise before the 1984 election about Medicare? He said: . . . and now I give this undertaking-that for the term of our next government the Medicare levy will not be increased. He reaffirmed that promise as recently as February 1986. Lo and behold, the August 1986 Budget provided for a 25 per cent increase in the Medicare levy. Another famous 1984 election promise from the Prime Minister was the so-called trilogy-namely, that over the next three years neither taxation nor expenditure would rise as a percentage of gross domestic product and that the deficit would fall in money terms. The taxation leg of that trilogy promise has been broken in each of the two Budgets since it was made and it appears that the expenditure leg of the promise may have been broken too in this latest Budget. What about the Government's promise not to reintroduce tertiary education fees? That promise has been broken too and so has its promise on uranium exports. On and on it goes. Australia is littered with the list of the Hawke Government's broken promises. These broken promises have destroyed the electorate's confidence in this Government. There is a growing perception of a deceitful, leaderless government at a time when honesty and firm leadership is essential in Australia. But how can the Australian people and business have confidence in a government which treats its promises as leaves in the wind, to be blown away without a trace and without concern? How can the community have confidence in the morality of a government whose Treasurer claims and receives $17,000 in travelling allowances in one year alone by claiming that his principal place of residence is in Sydney when in fact it is in Canberra? The Treasurer collects this large, tax-free allowance, which is paid for by the taxpayers, at the same time as he is calling on Australians to tighten their belts. Senator Peter Baume —He was not entitled to it. Senator SHORT —Of course he was not. But not content with broken promises and shattered morality, the Prime Minister and his senior Ministers have embarked upon what appears to be a deliberate campaign to confuse the electorate, particularly the business sector, by conflicting standards, statements and actions. We had the Treasurer telling us on 9 May this year that the economy was in great shape and that 1986 would be a year `in which we will see consolidation of the very strong gains of the past three years'. Five days later, on 14 May, he made his now famous banana republic statement forecasting gloom and doom. Six days later, on 20 May, he proclaimed: `What we have is an entirely healthy economy'. Two months later, in July, he told the New York Times in an interview that Australia's economy was in `a perpetual and permanent deterioration'. Now he is back trying to talk the economy up-a highly dangerous course to take because it will raise entirely false expectations and we have all seen what can happen to governments and economies when that occurs. Apart from that, it just adds confusion and uncertainty to an already confused and uncertain business environment. The confusion is compounded by the obviously rubbery growth and other assumptions on which the 1986 Budget is based. One key assumption, domestic growth, was discarded or disowned by the Treasurer's principal economic adviser in recent days. The Budget strategy itself was virtually disowned by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button)-three of the most senior Ministers in the Government-only three weeks after it was brought down, when either they refused to guarantee the integrity of the Budget throughout 1986-87 or they actually foreshadowed changes to it in the course of the year. One could give many similar examples of the broken promises and the confusion and uncertainty generated, seemingly almost deliberately, by this Government over a period-fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and the like. Senator Parer —They are trying to do the same thing in Queensland. Senator SHORT —I was just going to say that the Labor Party in Queensland is trying to beguile the Queensland electorate with similar promises to those made and broken by Labor in Canberra and by Labor in my State of Victoria over many years. In Queensland it is promising cheaper petrol, a freeze on taxes, relief for farmers and so on. All these promises are set against a background of Labor's increased taxes, higher petrol costs, cost slugs on farmers and deliberately high interest rate policies. Labor in Canberra has shown clearly that it cannot be trusted to keep its word. There is no doubt that the same would apply with a Labor government in Queensland as has happened in my State of Victoria with the Cain Labor Government. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(5.11) —This afternoon we should have been debating a genuine matter of public importance. As the President indicated at the beginning of the debate on this matter of public importance, two matters were submitted this afternoon. I consider one to be very important. It related to corruption in the Queensland Government and the possible constitutional crisis after the 1 November poll. I found it very interesting this afternoon to listen to the hypocrisy of Queensland senators and other senators putting forward a matter of public importance about the so-called broken promises of the Government and the continual failure of its inconsistent economic and industry policies which have caused uncertainty and confusion in the community, leading to reductions in investment, employment and economic growth. I may well ask, as I am sure the majority of Queenslanders would ask: To which government does this matter of public importance refer? I presume it refers to the Federal Government, but the emphasis of Senator Parer's wording, ironically, is much more appropriate to the Queensland Government. If Senator Parer and the Opposition were genuine in examining broken promises and failure of inconsistent economic and industry policy-- Senator Peter Baume —I raise a point of order. I note that the subject of the matter of public importance today is the Government's broken promises. I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that that would be out of order if it did not refer to the Federal Government. In order for this matter to have standing for debate in this House-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —It is a good enough argument. I uphold the point of order. I ask Senator Reynolds to stick to the point-to the Federal Government. Senator REYNOLDS —I cannot really understand why Senator Peter Baume, who really is quite reasonable and even one of the more intelligent members of the Opposition, is so keen to defend the Queensland Government. I cannot understand why senators such as Senator Peter Baume are always so quick to jump to their feet to defend the economic performance and other aspects of the Queensland Government. As Senators Cook and Maguire have so effectively highlighted, it is the Queensland economy which is so obviously lagging behind that of every other State. It is Queensland that has the unenviable record of the highest level of industrial disputes in the country. Examination of any number of economic indicators shows quite conclusively, regardless of the statistics that Senator Boswell and others may quote, that something is rotten in the State of Queensland. No amount of defensive distraction by Opposition senators can hide the economic realities which have so affected the lives of Queenslanders. Opposition senators are continually resisting any attempt to examine seriously the facts relating to the performance of the Queensland economy in comparison with that of other States. When one looks at the opinion poll that was published in the Bulletin today, it is not surprising that National Party of Australia senators are rather defensive. Let us look at some good news in the same edition of the Bulletin this morning. It was a report from the economics editor, John Edwards, who comments on the Australian economy. He reports on early signs that the economy is picking up. He says: Retail sales are up, employment is up, exports are up, imports are up, the dollar is up and share prices are up-all signs that the Australian economy is strengthening and investors are more confident. Yet in this place this afternoon Senator Parer wants to use up this very precious time which is set aside to debate genuine matters of public importance. Perhaps he had not had time to read this morning's Bulletin. He is only interested in bad mouthing the performance of this Government, and that is restricting confidence in the economy of this country. I think many people, both in Australia and overseas, are tired of the doom and gloom merchants on the Opposition benches. I would like to continue reading from the comments that were made by the economics editor of the Bulletin. He goes on: It is always possible there is worse to come, but most of the evidence suggests otherwise. I would like to emphasise that we on this side of the House are interested in the evidence and the facts. Senators on this side are continually frustrated in their attempts to put forward the facts as they relate to the Queensland economy. The economics editor of the Bulletin goes on: Within six weeks upper income consumers will be enjoying useful tax cuts . . . Obviously he does not share the pessimism of Senator Short. He says: . . . upper income consumers will be enjoying useful tax cuts, the effect of depreciation will continue to stimulate export and import competing industry, interest rates have peaked and may trend downwards while growth in the United States, Germany and Japan is stronger now than it has been for six months. Obviously there are people of considerable expertise in Australia who have faith in the Hawke Labor Government's economic strategy. We have heard from a number of senators on the other side of the chamber about this Government's tax policies. I would like to focus for a few moments on the Queensland Government's tax policies and compare them with those of the Federal Government. By national standards Queenslanders were taxed quite heavily. With hidden taxes plus declared taxes in 1985-86 every Queenslander is paying well over $705, while Western Australians pay $670 and South Australians pay only $625. Hidden State taxes on rail transportation of coal were almost $400m. Total revenue raised by the much opposed fringe benefits tax will be only just over $300m for the Commonwealth. The Bjelke-Petersen Government has been concealing a lot of its own tax income, and it is time that it was fully exposed to the voters of Queensland. The Federal Government's scheme to cut taxes by $4,600m in a year will begin on 1 December, and there will be a further tax cut, regardless of the pessimism of Senator Short, on 1 July next year. The combined effect will mean that for someone on average weekly earnings the tax reductions will be well in excess of $12 a week. The other matter that does concern me is that when Queensland Opposition senators attack the Federal Government's economic performance they conveniently overlook the very favourable treatment that has been given them by the Hawke Labor Government. I would like to put again on the public record, because Opposition senators so conveniently try to disguise it, just some of the very important initiatives of this Government in regard to Queensland. First of all, Senator Boswell was boasting about the number of jobs created by the Queensland minority Government. But let us put that in perspective. Of these jobs that Senator Boswell was talking about, 19,000 jobs-that is worth about $184 million-came from the community employment program. Let us look again at recurrent grants from the Federal Government. I have already stated before in this place that recurrent grants are the equivalent of $1,215 per capita. That is higher than what was given to New South Wales or Victoria in recurrent grants. Health care is $915 higher than for New South Wales and Victoria. Yet we still have Opposition senators trying to avoid the facts, trying to discredit this Government and trying to pretend that somehow in an election year in Queensland that Queensland has been mistreated in regard to its entitlements from the Federal Labor Government. Let us look at Queensland's performance in regard to private fixed capital expenditure and look at some figures to see whether or not this matter of public importance that we are debating applies more to Queensland than it does to the Federal Government. The newly released Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on private investment show an expected pick up nationally for the 1986-87 financial year, but with Queensland remaining in the doldrums. Estimates of private new capital expenditure show that Australian investment will grow by 26.9 per cent in 1986-87 to $17.7 billion, but Queensland's growth rate will only be 2.9 per cent, the lowest of all States. To me that does not sound as if there is any need for the concern that has been put forward in Senator Parer's matter of public importance today. Queensland is expected to spend $2,370.6m in 1986-87 in private new capital expenditure-2.9 per cent higher than in 1985-86, but 11.4 per cent down on actual investment expenditure in 1984-85. I could go on with any number of figures relating to the abysmal economic performance of Queensland, but I would like to turn now to broken promises. It is a catchcry that we often hear in this place. I suppose that as a Queenslander I am in a very good position to talk about broken promises on the part of the Liberal Party of Australia. At this election we find that the leader, Sir William Knox, is going to the Queensland election campaign with a slogan `Trust us'. No-one could trust those two defecting Liberals, Austin and Lane, in 1983. I firmly believe that we cannot trust them again. In conclusion, I would like to look at the statement about the uncertainty of investment, employment and economic growth. I wonder whether Opposition senators, particularly those from Queensland, have given any thought to the uncertainty of investment, employment and economic growth under the political patronage of a Mafia-style National Party Government. Nothing is less likely to encourage economic growth than the complex, corruptive system of political manipulation which exists in Queensland. In Queensland we find that private enterprise is so admired by the National Party Government, and so private that nobody knows anything about just what is going on behind closed doors. There is no Public Accounts Committee in Queensland. It is the only State in Australia not to have a Public Accounts Committee. There is so much behind the scenes manoeuvring with friends of the Queensland Premier and other senior Ministers, that private enterprise development is very much a matter of whom one knows and how much one is prepared to pay into the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. In actual fact, the Queensland economy is the most politically controlled because the National Party Government contrives to reward only those who support it. Look at Sir Edward Lyons, Keith Williams, Sir Leslie Thiess and Barry Paul and now more recently Alan Bond in the Queensland economy. To what do they owe their particular personal success and wealth? Their success has resulted from the direct intervention of political figures to guarantee that their business enterprises get the nod from the Bjelke-Petersen Government. That may be good for those who can become millionaires, but it certainly is not good for Queensland and it certainly is not good for Queenslanders. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.26) —This matter of public importance introduced by Senator Parer brings up the whole question of the economic management of this disastrous Government. There are many aspects to economic management. The Budget deficit, or perhaps more accurately the public sector borrowing requirement, is a key element of it. So too is the total level of Government expenditure and the total level of Government taxation. In both of these it is not only the total amount but also the type of taxation and the type of expenditure that matter-whether they promote equity, whether they encourage increased efficiency and whether they promote general well-being or only feed sectional or selfish interests. On all these counts this Government performs very badly. It is also the highest taxing government in our history. This year we have the highest level of taxation this country has ever seen and also the highest amount of spending. But even more serious is the essentially fraudulent nature of this year's Budget. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) trumpeted a great deal about the deficit having been brought down to $3,500m; though why he should be so triumphant about that I cannot imagine for after four years of growth, financed by very heavy overseas borrowing, it seems an outrage that there should be any deficit at all. But this is merely one more sign of the total incompetence and mismanagement of this Government. But worse still, the deficit is a phoney. It has been achieved not by cutting expenditure, but by deferring tax cuts, transferring expenditure from one year to another, deferring payments and bringing in windfall profits from bodies such as the Reserve Bank of Australia. The real crunch will come in the Budget for next year when even the smallest amount of economic responsibility will force the Government not to have a higher deficit. The effects of these deferrals will mean that it has to cut $4,000m out of its expenditure which will be required to continue the services it is providing this year. That will be very painful indeed both for the Government and for the people of Australia. The problem with this Government is that it always acts too little and too late and ultimately the people as a whole pay the penalty. Since the Hawke Government came to power we have been borrowing more than $1,000m a month or $32,000 a minute to maintain our current standard of living. There is no sign of this lessening. We are living recklessly beyond our means. Any responsible Government should be cutting down expenditure, holding down wages and encouraging productivity because improved productivity by our manufacturing sector is where our salvation lies. One of the two ways to improve productivity is to cut out restrictive work practices, which are the bane of Australian manufacturing industry. I will give just one example-loading containers on board a ship. In Melbourne, 12 containers are loaded in an hour. With identical equipment in Singapore the figure is 24, double the productivity. The figure in Japan is nearly 27. These are all imposts on the Australian people as a whole, and this example can be multiplied right across the Australian manufacturing and mining sectors. We must tackle these as a matter of urgency. We must also get more investment in plant and equipment. That has been declining while the Hawke Government has been in power. It is disastrous for our future. If we want to see why people are not investing we only have to look at interest rates. Our interest rates are much higher than those of any of our competitors, and in turn they are fuelled by an inflation rate which is four times that of most of our competitors. Senator Brownhill —And the Government is propping up the dollar. Senator HAMER —That is another factor, and both have to be tackled. What do we get for all this? There is not time to deal with all the problems, but I shall deal with one of them. The Treasurer, who has been recently assessed as being the second worst Treasurer in the world, responds to serious questions on the economy with abuse. I list a few of the words he uses: He describes questioners as harlots; stupid, foul mouthed grubs; sleazebags; a piece of criminal garbage; scum; and half-baked crims. I could go on. That is his method of replying to serious criticism. That may be all right in the New South Wales Labor Party-in fact it is par for the course-and it may be acceptable in the House of Representatives, and in fact the majority there seem to accept it, but I do not think it is appropriate behaviour for the Treasurer of a major nation. He does great harm to our international image and I believe he owes more to this country and this Parliament. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This paper from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission is volume 4 of its report for the 1985-87 triennium and it contains the Commission's recommendations for 1987. It will come as no surprise to honourable senators to learn that six of the first seven paragraphs in this report deal with the fees the Government has imposed upon tertiary students in Australia and which it has chosen to call an administration charge. It is quite clear from what the Tertiary Education Commission has to say that there will be considerable difficulty with this charge. The Commission notes that the Government has decided to introduce an administration charge of $250 per student and to allow institutions to keep a little bit of that money. The Tertiary Education Commission, this Government's advisory body, draws attention to some of the issues of equity that will flow from the imposition of this charge, particularly in the advanced education sector and particularly in relation to part time students and students in certain faculties such as nursing and teacher training. It is quite clear from this report and it is quite clear from the Government's announcements that universal free access to tertiary education in Australia is dead, and it has died under a Labor Government. It has died under Senator Ryan as the Minister for Education; it is dead by virtue of the action of the Hawke Labor Government. This $250 is in fact a fee. This Government is not even honest enough when it imposes a $250 charge to admit that it is imposing the first universal fee for those not covered by Austudy and other exemptions. The Minister has argued on many occasions that an administration charge is not a fee and by using this semantic trick she hopes to convince Australians that fees have not been introduced. I am a member of the Council of the Australian National University and I was present a few weeks ago when a building dedicated to the memory of Sir John Crawford was opened. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) performed that opening and I saw then-it was not a very edifying sight-the protests of the students at the Australian National University who booed and heckled the Prime Minister continuously because of the fees he has introduced. They have no doubt that fees have been introduced. When Senator Ryan went to Sydney University a few weeks ago she was left in no doubt as to what the students there thought. I have looked up a book of synonyms, the Macquarie Thesaurus, to see whether I had this wrong. Under the entry for `cost' I found words of similar or equivalent meaning to include going price or entrance fee, so fees and charges are in fact the same kind of thing. The Government is using a trick because it is not honest enough to admit to Australia's tertiary students that it has gone down the road of imposing fees. I must declare my interest as a member of the Council of the Australian National University. I represent this Parliament on that body. It is the intention of the Australian National University to obey the law, and if the law requires that students must pay an administration charge, whatever the Council thinks of it-and it does not think much of it-once it is enacted the Council will not attempt to do anything to circumvent the law, and the Council will expect the students attending the university to obey it. It is quite clear that universal free access to tertiary education in Australia is now dead. In Question Time today Senator Ryan drew attention to the fact that even at Harvard University most students are subsidised by virtue of the substantial endowment which that university has. I put to the tertiary students of Australia that there is not much difference between Harvard University, where people pay these fees and enjoy some subsidy from endowments, and Australia, where they get some subsidy from the Government but are now required to pay a fee for part of their course. The difference is one of degree. It has been a policy and a promise of the Hawke Government that there would be no fees. This represents one further broken promise and further evidence of bad faith. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.38) —I am provoked to rise by Senator Peter Baume's intemperate and absurd comments about this issue of the administrative fee which has been imposed in respect of Australian tertiary students. The first point I make is that we have to recognise, and Australian students have to recognise, that this is one of the few countries, if not the only one, where tertiary education has been able to be described as free for many years. In spite of the payment of union fees and other fees which students pay, the fact of the matter is that this country has had a free tertiary education system. Of course the Opposition is committed to full fee charging in universities. Senator Peter Baume —How can you possibly say that? Where did you get that from? Senator BUTTON —The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, has said that. Let us be quite clear about that. Senator Baume said that students in Australian universities get `some subsidy from government'. What is the subsidy given to medical students? He ought to know. It is about $36,000 a year. That is some subsidy from government all right. That is what medical students get, and it cannot be described as just `some subsidy from government'. The Government has instituted what has been described, appropriately, as an administrative fee. It is a flat rate fee which is charged to students irrespective of the extent of government subsidy extended to them. It is rebatable in the hands of the more disadvantaged students in the Australian community-those who are recipients of the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance, or those who are genuine recipients of TEAS as distinct from others who are not in my view genuine recipients but swingers on the system, coming as many of them do from wealthy families. Senator Watson —It discriminates against part timers. Senator BUTTON —Well, that is another issue, which I will come to in a minute. Let me deal with the points that Senator Baume spoke about. I am not surprised that he cluttered up his speech by reading from the Macquarie Thesaurus about things that he ought to have known about years ago. That is a student debating trick. If he had a serious point to make, he would not resort to primitive student debating tricks-as does his cousin, who sits up the back. Of course, his cousin, Senator Michael Baume-Liberal, New South Wales; I must identify him-after all, is something of a professional debater outside the House as well as in it, so he is to be more pardoned-- Senator Michael Baume —We won, even with you on our side. Senator BUTTON —I have watched my back too. The fact is that Senator Peter Baume ought to know better than that. He is part of the Opposition which has publicly expressed views, through its Leader and others, about the re-introduction of tertiary fees as a whole. But Senator Peter Baume, because of some demonstration at the Australian National University, adopted a pious posture, saying: `At the ANU we will obey the law'. Good on him! Big deal, Senator Baume! Senator Peter Baume, Liberal, New South Wales, says that as a member of the Council of the ANU he will obey the law. It is a great thing for him to say in the legislative chamber of the Commonwealth of this country, that he will obey the law. The fact is that students may be aggrieved in part by this fee. But for Senator Peter Baume to make a populist speech in here, trying to widen his ratbag constituency to include students, is a very reprehensible thing for a member of the Council of the ANU to do, and for somebody who takes himself seriously as an Opposition spokesman on tertiary education. Senator Baume said: `Free tertiary education is dead'. That is the expression he used. Senator Peter Baume —Quite right. Senator BUTTON —It is not right. Free tertiary education is not dead in this country. In the next breath, Senator Baume no doubt will be expounding the virtues of the Bond university on the Gold Coast, because that is related to incentives and all those things; that is probably a good thing too. The fact is that to say that free tertiary education is dead in Australia is a lot of bunkum. A whole range of things described as free in this country, including health care and so on, are not absolutely free in terms of administrative fees and charges. That was a very regrettable statement from a relatively senior Opposition spokesman in the Senate. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.43) —I commend the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report to the Senate. I will begin by addressing some remarks to those remarks made by Senator Peter Baume. In looking at this report, it certainly struck me, as it did Senator Peter Baume, that a considerable amount of the very early part of the report is devoted to the Commission's concern about the introduction of the $250 fee. I agree with Senator Baume that it is a fee-there is no question about that-and I share the outrage that he has expressed and the concerns that are expressed about that in the report of the Commission. I will take a little more time than Senator Baume did to outline some areas of concern that were addressed in the report under the headings of participation and equity, key elements of the Government's education policy. The report points out that there is likely to be a considerable impact on participation. It underlines a couple of areas-teacher education and nurse education. On the issue of equity, which is addressed here, one group that is particularly mentioned is single supporting parents. I have a particular concern for all of those groups because the vast majority of them are women. It has been notable that since free tertiary education was introduced in 1974 by a previous Labor Government, tertiary education not having been free under coalition governments before then, there has been a considerable advance in the numbers of women participating in post-secondary education. In 1975, 40.7 per cent of students at colleges of advanced education were women. In 1984 the figure was 46.8 per cent. In universities the figure has risen from 37.9 per cent to 48 per cent, and in technical and further education institutions, since figures were available to us, in 1982, the figure has risen from 48 per cent to 53 per cent. There has been a substantial impact on access and equity for women students under the system in which tertiary fees did not apply. Senator Baume suggested that the Government was not honest in calling this an administration charge rather than a fee, which it is; I agree with him. But what about the Opposition? Immediately prior to our addressing these Government papers, a Bill was returned to this place, a Bill for which the Opposition voted and which contains the very imposition of this fee. When we deal with the Bill in the Senate, the Opposition will again vote to ensure that the fee is instituted. Senator Baume has expressed his outrage and his concern as a member of the Council of the Australian National University. He assures us that he knows what students feel. Some of the rest of us also know what students feel. I had lunch with some student leaders at Deakin University some weeks ago, as did representatives of the Government and the Opposition. Those students wanted to know what all of our policies were on more fees, and particularly on this fee. The local member of the Liberal Party of Australia simply said to them: `We do not have a policy on fees'. This is just another example of members of the Opposition expressing outrage-dare I even use the words `pious' or `sanctimonious', which sometimes seem to echo around this chamber-when they represent a Party which has the gall to say to students whose access to education is being limited, again I underline that this is particularly the case for women, that their Party does not have any policy. Senator Baume was not even honest enough to tell us that. I am not a member of the ANU Council, but I assure him that I know what 5,000 Victorian students feel about this fee. The Government should know, because the students assembled on the steps of the State Parliament House in Victoria and they very clearly let people know what they think about the imposition of this fee. I am concerned, as is the Commission, for participation and equity, particularly for women and other disadvantaged groups who, since the abolition of fees, have participated far more fully in the education process at post-secondary level. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.48) —The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's report for the 1985-87 triennium is a very interesting document. It contains a number of extremely provocative items, particularly those, which hopefully people will get round to reading at some stage, about the notion of equality and cost-effectiveness which occur later in the report. Initial suggestions in the beginning of the report relate to allocation of funds and in particular to the allocation of additional places that the Government has proposed to the Commission. Of course, the Commission had the task of allocating those places throughout Australia. When honourable senators look at what it did, I am sure they will agree that it has done a reasonable job. Of course, the difficulty is that the number of places that the Government proposes to create is fewer than would be necessary merely to keep pace with the growth in population in Australia. Senator Tate —It is still very considerable. Senator MACKLIN —That is seemingly not a step forward, as the Government is suggesting. It is a smaller step back than we would otherwise have taken, but it is still a step back. From across the way we have an interjection, which I want to pick up, about money. The point is, Senator, that we do not talk about money when we are talking about roads, bridges, mines and everything else. Only when we talk about education do we start talking about money. We are talking about the development of the best resources that we have in this country, and all that Senator Tate can talk about is money. We have more money being collected by a flat tax on students than the Government will spend in funding these 3,000 places. If the Government wants more money used in education it should spend the money raised by the flat tax that it is actually putting on students-that $250-on funding some places. Part of that money is funding these places but the rest is going into Consolidated Revenue and will not be funding the additional places. Some of the students, in fact, might feel a little better if it were going to fund additional places in this country rather than simply going into Consolidated Revenue, as is currently the situation. I referred to that item because I had a number of calls this morning with regard to the House of Representatives debate on that $250 administration fee. The callers said: `All the Liberal Party speakers are saying that they are opposed to this tax. Does that mean it is going?'. I said `Do not bother listening to what they say; look at how they vote'. That is the crunch item and I think they will vote for this tax. They have to be taken as being for the tax because that is the way their vote is going. The other item I wish to mention is raised tangentially in the report in terms of the costs of tertiary institutions. I refer to the debate in Australia today about the proposed Bond university. I think it is a very odd debate, quite frankly, because I doubt very much whether we will ever have a Bond university. Anybody who actually looks at the costs of private universities in comparable countries, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, will find that all of those so-called private tertiary institutions are very heavily funded, sometimes to the tune of 60 per cent. We can look at such examples as Yale and Princeton, which are funded as to about 40 per cent of their recurrent fees from the public purse. Looking at the problem that Bond is facing, I doubt very much whether the thing will ever get off the ground. The types of fees that would have to be charged simply to recoup the interest on the capital costs would be enormous. The types of fees that would be necessary to pay for the staff would be astronomical. I do not believe that in Australia there is even an ability to break even. What is more I would be fairly loth to go into the exercise, as a business proposition, particularly as its economic viability could be undermined entirely by a decision such as that referred to on page 10 of this report under `Queensland University' or `Griffith University', which simply created another 500 places, because those places would be free and therefore much more attractive than the $20,000 places at the Bond university down the road. As an exercise, I think it is interesting. I doubt very much whether it will proceed and I doubt very much whether it has actually added very much to the education debate in this country. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.53) —I have been drawn into this debate much against my normal instincts to refrain from engaging in the type of confrontation that is now occurring; but I do want to say that the speakers representing both the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats on the other side of the chamber have misled the Australian public in their contributions this afternoon. I recall very well, for example, in relation to the Liberals, that third week in July when they had their famous conference in Adelaide. The Federal Council, the national body of the Liberal Party of Australia, met in Adelaide and, not by a bare majority, but by a very substantial majority, endorsed the idea that fees should be charged for students attending tertiary institutions throughout Australia. Of course, there has been some back-tracking by certain members of the shadow Cabinet as they have reacted to the Young Liberals putting motions to them and so on. But the fact is that the highest policy-forming body within the Liberal Party of Australia in Adelaide in that third week of July-this is on the record and I remember it well-by a vote of 26 to 19 decided that fees would be introduced for those Australians participating in our tertiary institutions throughout Australia. So, let us get that very clear first of all in relation to the Liberals. Senator Kilgariff —That is not quite right. Senator TATE —How is it wrong? Senator Kilgariff —It was not the parliamentary party; it was-- Senator TATE —Yes, we all know that. The fact is that that body is representative of the Liberal Party organisation throughout Australia, and we know that the organisation calls the tune. One need only look to Mr Elliott to know who calls the tune in the Liberal Party at the moment. He is all for market forces, which is what honourable members opposite would reduce education to in this country. In relation to the flat tax, as Senator Macklin so gracefully portrays this administrative charge, I make these points. I have explained this measure to students on the campus of the University of Tasmania, who are not happy about the introduction of this $250 charge which, of course, is not to be imposed on those of modest means, whether their own or their parents'. But, when I explain to them that 10 per cent of that charge is to be returned to the University of Tasmania-the tertiary institution which they attend-and 90 per cent is to be used to create these 3,000 extra places throughout Australia so that other people throughout Australia can participate in tertiary education, they can see some merit in it. I do not say that they accept the argument totally. Senator Macklin —You know that it isn't. Senator TATE —I do not. The fact is that the Budget Papers make it very clear that 90 per cent of the money to be raised by this measure is to help another 3,000 Australians participate in tertiary education throughout Australia. I believe that many Australian students presently enjoying a most heavily subsidised tertiary education-which I believe ought to be available to them-are very happy that others should be able to share in that opportunity. I just wanted to put those matters on the record and to contribute to a fuller understanding of the purposes to which this charge is to be put. Certainly I wanted to say that the Liberals, as indicated by their Federal Council meeting in Adelaide, would, given an opportunity, impose this fee in its fullest sense on all those people participating in tertiary studies in Australia. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.58) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission is a response to the Government's guidelines for funding for 1987. The Commonwealth Schools Commission, in a report which appears to be signed by all commissioners, takes the Government to task for a number of cruel and mean cuts in programs. The Commonwealth Schools Commission draws attention to the Government's decision to discontinue three specific purpose programs for schools and the Government's decision to reduce, in real terms, the funds available to a further four of these programs. This is the Hawke Labor Government's funding of education. The Government has decided to discontinue the program for professional development, the program for multicultural education and the program for computer education. In so doing, it has taken approximately $25m from education for next year. One of the programs which have had their funding reduced is the general support element of English as a second language. This very important program element has been reduced by some $27.7m. The supplementary recurrent element of the special education program-a program which helps people who have special educational disadvantages-has also had its funding reduced, as has the education centres element of the professional development program. What the Commonwealth Schools Commission has to say about these decisions-I quote from paragraph 1.4 of the report-is as follows: The effect of this overall reduction of $56.128m to specific purpose programs will be to reduce services to students in the equity areas concerned, as well as to reduce the contribution made to the quality of schooling through professional development. That is a very serious indictment of the Government and its priorities. The Schools Commission goes on, at page 4 of the report, to make some further remarks about what it calls `other effects'. It says: For instance, reductions to the English as a Second Language and the Special Education Programs, along with the cessation of the Professional Development Program, will make it harder for the students affected to gain the full benefits of other programs . . . It goes on to name several of these programs. It goes on: The significant support provided to teachers, particularly those in disadvantaged and isolated communities, by Education Centres has often relied on Professional Development Program funds. The reduction of this support, which contributed in important ways to the achievement of Commonwealth objectives, will be felt in schools facing difficult tasks. It goes on in the next paragraph: Compensating for reduction in the specific purpose programs by using funds from the general recurrent grants program will, in turn, undermine the achievement of improved resource standards . . . The Commonwealth Schools Commission has no doubt about the effects that the Government cuts will have on the educational opportunities of those with special disadvantages. It is further evidence of the meanness and inappropriateness of this Government's approach to all those with disadvantages and to those requiring equity in provision. This is a Government of fixers for the big and the powerful, a Government that withdraws support from the weak and the needy. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received information from the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority concerning the loss of power to Parliament House this afternoon. The Authority has advised that there was a loss of supply to the inner south Canberra area at approximately 3.45 p.m. today due to a failure in the high voltage main line supply. Power was restored at approximately 4.03 p.m. The problem was isolated to the Dairy Flat Road area. However, at this stage the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is unable to ascertain exactly the cause of the power loss due to traffic problems in the area making access difficult for maintenance crews. I had previously been advised by Australian Capital Territory police operations that it was understood that a car accident in the area may have caused the power loss. I have been advised that the emergency lighting system in Parliament House operated effectively during the blackout. Honourable senators-No! The PRESIDENT —I think that is a reference to the lights in the corridors! I understand that in the new Parliament House emergency diesel power generation equipment has been installed to provide sufficient power and light to enable the Parliament to operate with minimal inconvenience during blackouts. The system has been designed to operate within 30 seconds of a power interruption. Debate resumed from 15 October, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.06) —This debate on the report of the Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 provides one of the most important ethical and moral dilemmas that have come before the Senate. The Committee's report proceeded from a proposed piece of legislation introduced by Senator Harradine. Honourable senators may recall that, when Senator Harradine's private member's Bill first came before the Senate, there appeared to be an almost unanimous view that that Bill should be taken straightaway to a Senate select committee for investigation and report. I think that I alone spoke against that course of action and indicated at the time that I believed Senator Harradine's Bill should have been proceeded with and defeated at the second reading stage. Nevertheless, the Committee was established, and I am glad to say that at least one of its recommendations is that Senator Harradine's Bill in its present form should not be proceeded with. The Committee has drawn attention to a number of defects in that piece of legislation. It would appear-and one cannot speculate with any degree of accuracy-that Senator Harradine's Bill in its present form as a result will not come before this chamber but that, following consideration of the Committee's report, it is likely that at some future stage either a set of guidelines or a specific piece of legislation will be produced. When that happens, it will be capable of being debated in full in this chamber. I have had the opportunity of reading the report and also of starting the journey of reading the transcript of the evidence presented to the Committee. I am full of admiration for the work of the Committee's members, the Chairman in particular, and for the amount of effort expended in analysing the issues that came before it. Having said that, one comes to the nub and heart of the matter. We are faced with a majority recommendation or majority viewpoint and with a dissenting report signed by two Committee members. It indicates what must be regarded as a fundamentally different approach to the way in which this question should be resolved. The senators who signed the minority report, Senators Crowley and Zakharov, essentially take a view about the human embryo which itself is fundamentally different from that taken by the majority of the Committee. To the extent that I have read and understood the report, the transcript of evidence and the material which I have studied in advance of that, I find myself squarely in agreement with the minority report of Senators Crowley and Zakharov on this matter. To that extent I suppose that when the debate comes forward again there will be an opportunity to go into those items in more detail. In essence, it seems to me that the majority report has latched itself on to the fundamental principle that from the moment of fertilisation there does not then appear, between that point and the point of the birth of the child, to be a significant marker point which can be accorded so much weight as to believe that the status of the embryo is different prior to that point from what it is after that point. As I understand the dissenting report, it takes a different view. The dissenters take the view that there is a point in that period from fertilisation to birth which allows a distinguishing judgment to be made, pre and post event. Upon that basis they believe that it is possible for certain things to be done or that it is legitimate that certain procedures should be carried out. That exact marker point is clearly a matter for debate. If one reads this report carefully and also other reports such as those of the Waller Committee on the Social and Legal Issues arising from In Vitro Fertilisation and the Warnock Committee and some of the other investigations that have taken place in other State jurisdictions, one realises that the matter has been approached differently by different committees in different countries in different time frame works and with different terms of reference given to the committees concerned. In some respects this report by seven senators has come to a series of conclusions which do not necessarily agree entirely with the conclusions reached by other expert bodies, in particular the Warnock Committee in the United Kingdom. It is certainly true that the findings of this committee are much closer to those of the Waller Committee in Victoria than they are to those of the Warnock Committee. Nevertheless, there seems to be a series of recommendations and decisions made from committees which have approached this in essence as a purely scientific question, a medical question, and those that have tried to bring a more comprehensive ethical framework to the whole debate. Therefore it is important to realise that what we are focusing on is not just this particular issue, but the continual vexatious issue of values and value neutrality in science; whether it is possible to erect a series of scientifically neutral positions which do not indicate an ethical predisposition and do not have ethical consequences. Many scientists have argued for that, but that is not a view which I share. I do not believe that science or the practice of science is ever ethically neutral. At this stage I do not need to try to canvass that huge philosophical argument which has bedevilled most of the great minds which have paid attention to this issue. They have not been able to resolve it. In my consideration of this document I have attempted to bring to bear a set of ethical values of my own. I cannot do anything else; I certainly cannot adopt someone else's ethical values or standards for this debate. I certainly cannot adopt any formula that has been laid down by somebody else-no matter how much I might otherwise agree with that person's general approach to things-and say that working within that framework I can answer the questions that this Committee report raises. I can only approach my own values in this matter, and they are coloured. They are coloured primarily from the point of view of a married person who has been through the misery, the agony, the pain and the distress of being part of one of these IVF programs. There is nothing more intrusive, more difficult, more embarrassing and more strenuous than the process through which a married couple go in terms of the tests, the results, the procedures and temperature taking and in terms of everything else that goes on in relation to these matters. Because I believe that for many people the processes of in vitro fertilisation are the last hope of their desperate desire for children and because within the extent of my own commitment and moral framework, I believe in the value of experimentation over and beyond that which the Committee has recommended, I have to conclude that my own position is in accordance with the minority position. That is because I know what it is to be desperate, hopeful and, at the end of the day, unsuccessful. Other people should not be put through that process if there is an alternative. I believe that the alternative which arises from the minority viewpoint on this matter is a viewpoint to be preferred. It is one that I will support and defend if necessary if legislation is introduced into this place which would attempt to prevent or limit that alternative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.17) —I wish to make a few comments on the notable report of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 which was introduced into the Senate a little over a year ago by Senator Harradine. I believe that that report has been a landmark report of the Senate. It is in keeping with the distinguished record that the Senate has developed over the last decade or more in tackling a variety of major problems-not simply political issues, but major social and ethical questions which do or may require a political solution. I am pleased that the Senate's approach to this matter has been on non-party lines and I hope that any further debate on this matter will remain so. We do not want this subject to become a party political issue. Nevertheless, it is a political issue in the sense that it can only be resolved by our political process and by the Parliament exercising its responsibility to deal on behalf of the community with matters which, hopefully in most cases, are resolved by individuals and families themselves. These basically moral issues are better resolved by individuals and families. However, there are clearly a number of such issues which require a political solution in the sense that there must be a public decision on behalf of the community in relation to some social and moral questions. The first question that had to be faced was whether the in vitro fertilisation program, with all its connotations, particularly that of experimentation, was an appropriate matter for a public resolution rather than a private matter of individual conscience and behaviour. The only rules that exist at present in this area are those that have been laid down by medical ethics committees and particularly by the National Health and Medical Research Council's guidelines. I suppose that would come within the category of self regulation. Certainly the NHMRC is a prominent medical body, familiar not only with medical and scientific questions, but also with the ethical issues that arise. Certainly, there is a strong case to be made that issues of this kind should be resolved in that way by individual conscience, by medical ethics and no doubt by moral principles established by religious affiliation and religious bodies or by other institutions that assist people in making their moral decisions about individual conduct. It became clear that the issues involved in the in vitro program were very wide and that was the reason which motivated Senator Harradine to bring forward his Human Embryo Experimentation Bill, which was not to regulate the in vitro program as such but to deal with the problem of experimentation on the embryos. He sought in his Bill to limit experimentation in a fairly severe manner, if I may say so, and proposed to prohibit certain types of experimentation with criminal penalties and so forth. The effort of Senator Harradine in bringing forward his Bill is to be highly commended. On behalf of a number of honourable senators I moved that the Bill should be referred to a Senate committee because I thought that was the best way of tackling the matter. The report has certainly not disappointed me. In fact, I believe that it is one of the major reports that the Senate committee system has ever produced. The Chairman of that Committee, Senator Tate, and the members who served on it, including Senator Harradine, deserve high commendation and our gratitude for the great work they have done. I think that the report as a whole-I do not exclude the dissenting report-has pointed a way towards the solution of these very sensitive issues. Senator Puplick, who has just spoken and who has had personal experience of this matter, has highlighted the sensitive nature of this question. However, like the abortion debate, this issue raises the question of when human life begins and how it should be dealt with from the time of fertilisation, long before there is an implantation in the womb and before there is a recognisable foetus. The question had to be faced of what form of protection is required or justified for the embryo. That has been answered unanimously by the Committee. The dissenting report has recognised that the embryo is distinct from other human tissue and should be accorded special regard. Although the members of the Committee may have put it in different ways, they were unanimous that here we are dealing with something unique, because it is a human embryo which has the potential for full development as a human being. I commend the Committee for some of the suggestions it has made for resolving the problem. I believe that the problem requires legislation in broad terms. The Committee has not recommended against Senator Harradine's Bill, but that does not mean that there should not be some legislation. The Committee has suggested a form of legislation, preferably of a national kind. I believe that is appropriate. I hope that the legislation will not be draconian or too positively prohibitive of conduct, but will lay down guidelines, establish a monitoring body to ensure that the guidelines are observed and establish a licensing system of medical institutions to carry out these experiments. The Committee has adopted a distinction between some forms of experimentation which it calls therapeutic and those forms which are destructive of the embryo, simply for the purposes of unlimited scientific research. That is also a valuable contribution to the solution of these problems and to continuing further debate. I believe that the Committee's notion of a guardianship principle in relation to the embryo is far more appropriate than the notion of property, which hitherto has been the approach that the law has taken on anything to do with this matter to date. I think it is more consistent with the normal legal approach, when dealing with children and married couples or those in de facto relationships, to have a notion of guardianship. As I have said, the Committee rejects the notion that these matters are the sole perogative of the medical profession; they require a resolution on behalf of the community as a whole. I believe that governments in Australia should now act on this Committee report. If they do not, I am quite sure that there are sufficient senators in this place who are deeply concerned about these matters, who believe that the Committee has pointed a way for their solution and who will be interested in proceeding further in a positive way broadly along the lines of the recommendations of this most valuable report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Senator Colston: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.26) —The second report on the agenda for discussion today is the report of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts entitled `Audio-Visual Copying by Educational Institutions'. This report proceeds, like the previous one, from a motion moved by Senator Durack in this place. When we were discussing the question of copyright amendment, the issue arose as to whether some amendment of copyright law should be made to provide for educational institutions to be able to copy programs for educational purposes without breaching the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act is part of that complex framework of intellectual property which receives very little discussion in this place, but is a matter of some concern to some honourable senators. For in excess of five years the Attorney-General's Department has been struggling with amendments to the Copyright Act to try to bring some sense into audio-visual copyright matters. It is perhaps not surprising that it took so long-I am not altogether sure how long the Franki Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction inquiry took, but I suspect that it was considerably more than five years. That inquiry ended up producing a scheme which was very complex and largely unworkable in terms of the paper burden which was placed upon institutions to maintain the sorts of photocopying records which they have to at the moment. Despite the best endeavours, on this occasion the Senate Committee was unable to come to very specific recommendations about audio-visual copying for educational institutions. In fact, at paragraph 2.21 and subsequent paragraphs the Committee recommends that the Senate should not proceed with the proposed amendments to the Copyright Amendment Bill 1986 which were in prospect in terms of finding some solution to this particular matter. The report notes that virtually all of the witnesses who came before the Committee agreed that educational institutions should be able to copy television programs for educational purposes. By and large there appeared to be a general presumption in favour of a statutory licensing scheme. It is interesting that the evidence presented to this Committee clearly indicated that the majority of programs that appear to be copied off air are copied for the purposes of time shifting; so that individual viewers can see the programs at a time which is more convenient to them. When this matter was investigated in the United Kingdom, the Department of Trade and Industry produced a White Paper entitled `Intellectual Property and Innovation', which was presented to Parliament in April this year. That Department indicated in its report that video recording was almost exclusively for time shifting. It said: . . . not much of the material recorded is retained for repeated viewing and there is very little home copying of pre-recorded videograms. It went on to indicate that as far as the United Kingdom Government was concerned, it had no plans to introduce a levy on blank video tapes but in respect of blank recording tapes there was no realistic alternative to a compulsory levy. Representations have been made by bodies such as the Australian Record Industry Association Ltd claiming that there is only one way in which there will be any protection of its proprietorial interests in audio material copied for educational purposes. After all, a large number of programs are now broadcast on radio which are of very great educational significance. One thinks, for instance, of Robin Williams's programs. Frankly, in a large number of science courses that I know of in high schools throughout Australia, students would get a far better education, as far as scientific matters are concerned, if they spent more of their time in the classroom listening to Saturday's broadcast of The Science Show than they would reading some of the textbook material that is currently churned out, which very often is quite out of date and quite misleading. I think, therefore, that the claims made by people for the imposition of a levy on some blank tape, particularly that which is used in the audio section that this report deals with, are entirely justified. The report is important in drawing attention to an interpretation of section 200 (2) of the Copyright Act, which section had not previously been brought to my attention. That was the belief that the protection afforded by section 200 (2) appears to allow educational institutions to copy radio programs intended for educational purposes but seems to have minimal application for the copying of educational television programs. To that extent the recommendation in the Committee's report that section 200 (2) be looked at as an area for potential amendment, so as to make clear that the protection that that currently extends to radio broadcasts of an educational nature should also be extended to television broadcasts of an educational nature seems to me to be a very sound recommendation. However, the report indicates not only the complexity of the task which was given to the Committee but also it draws attention once again to the extreme slowness of the Attorney-General's Department in pursuing this matter. It was quite evident when Senator Gareth Evans was Attorney-General that a far higher priority was given to copyright issues, under his stewardship of that portfolio, than is the case at the moment. For instance, Senator Evans, in an address which he gave to the Copyright Society of Australia and the Australian Communications Law Association in Sydney on 11 November 1983, said: . . . I do see considerable attractions in the proposal for a royalty on blank audio tapes as a trade-off for removing the existing legal restrictions on non-commercial home taping. Although this very largely relates to the question of the taping of entertainment programs rather than educational programs, the point is precisely the same. It is impossible to sort them out. Everybody knows that, these days with the prices of records as high as they are and the prices of compact discs as high as they are, the majority of young people have no particular aversion to purchasing the latest LP and all their friends supplying them with blank tapes that cost either $2.99 or $5.99; the record is then mass produced and distributed, with, of course, consequent losses to the industry and consequent losses to the intellectual property of the artist concerned. As I have said, the Senate Committee report is, therefore, a very useful one. It is useful, firstly, in saying: `It is altogether too hard for us to come to grips with this problem right at the moment but, nevertheless, here are some general directions which ought to be pursued. Section 200 (2) needs to be addressed; the proposed amendments to the copyright legislation should not be proceeded with in the form in which they were previously being discussed in the Senate, and some sort of impetus should be given to the Attorney-General's Department to try to conclude a very lengthy study on audio-visual copyright which has been under way for some time'. Although the United Kingdom report entitled `Intellectual Property and Innovation', to which I have referred, suggests some different approaches, I believe that we would now be well served by putting this Senate Committee report together with the eventual recommendations from the Attorney-General's Department and the white and green papers that have been produced by the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry in trying to resolve some of these questions and to give a proper legislative underpinning to advances in technology which have outstripped the protections provided to the owners of intellectual property under existing copyright law in Australia. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.36) —The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquiry into Audio-Visual Copying by Educational Institutions and the reference to it of the amendments to the Copyright Act are very good examples of the Senate's inaction and of the benefits of a more considered inquiry into legislation that comes before us. The Copyright Act is a very technical matter. The amendment that was before the Senate during the last session of Parliament sought to facilitate in our schools and other educational institutions the ability to use broadcast material for sound and useful education purposes. Whilst the intention of the amendment was clear, it was difficult to achieve a workable amendment to the Act that was fair to all the considerations and principles involved in copyright. It was difficult to achieve this amendment not only on the run but also in the preparation of its drafting. By referral this difficult matter to the Senate Committee, we were able to look at the various questions concerned and to bring down this valuable report of four or five chapters. I was very happy to be involved in this inquiry. As Senator Puplick said earlier, we have moved from the printed page days to the radio days, to the television days and to a profusion of video machines, into the current era of the compact disc. The ability to so transcribe material and to have information stored that can then be used, particularly in the context of this debate, for educational purposes, is, to use a cliche, light years away from the educational provision of our parents and even our own primary school days. The Copyright Act, as it is presently set out in its various sections, really relates to the emergence of radio and its use in the classroom. An educational program, broadcast particularly by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, could be slotted into a school's curriculum or its program with prepared material that would widen the scope of education and give a new medium of attention for the children, and a lot would be learned. So we would have, as it were, education on the air. The Copyright Act is limited because it does not really visualise any communication for educational purposes beyond radio. Accordingly, in the critical area, section 200 of the Act, there is no reference to film; there is no reference to any method other than the broadcasting of sound. That remains very useful, particularly for music that is broadcast and radio programs such as the science broadcasts of the ABC. In schools, colleges of advanced education and other educational institutions it is television material for which there is even more scope for useful, valuable and educational programs. The fact that we had an amendment to the Copyright Act before the Parliament gave us room to try to bring the 1950s legislation up to date to take account of television, video machines and the like. But it cannot be done quickly. The nearest we came to seeing a solution was to change two parts of the Act. First of all, in section 10 of the Act, in which definitions are set out, the definition of `record' could be widened to include a cinematographic film, that is, something that is beyond what is on a tape recording of sound. If we extended the definition of `record' to include visual images and then in section 200 explicitly added the term `cinematographic film', it is possible that we would have extended the original 1950s concept to allow what was then intended for radio in schools to be applied to television. Such are the technicalities of copyright that even that is in doubt. Film copyright subsists in the person who wrote the script, the persons who directed and produced the film, the performers in the film, the person who wrote the music and the persons who performed the music which is interspersed in most films, the package owner of the eventual product, and then there is a copyright in the company that is transmitting that material. When one is seeking a right, even for a good educational purpose, to rebroadcast or reproject that film, technically, the rebroadcaster, even a junior teacher in a school, would need to contact those five or six layers of copyright owners to get their permission. By a strict or even a straightforward reading of the Copyright Act, it is unlawful for a teacher to rebroadcast without that explicit permission. In the case of radio broadcasts for educational purposes simpler layers of copyright are involved. Broadcasts are put together with the knowledge that the Copyright Act will enable a bona fide educational institution to take that material and rebroadcast it without any legal limitations. When we looked at the wider perspective of what is happening in practice at the moment in our schools and domestically, we found that an enormous amount of illegal copying is going on and that a practice has developed whereby-- Senator Puplick —You wouldn't do that, would you? Senator TEAGUE —None of us is happy that a proper reward is not going to the copyright owners. I believe, as does Senator Puplick and I think all the Senate-I have not heard anyone dispute the principle-that we ought to reward copyright owners for two main reasons: Firstly, for all the creativity and hard work that has gone into producing the material and, secondly, as an incentive for others to be creative in the future, to let them see that there is a reward and that it is worth producing something a little better so that it can be recognised and there can be proper compensation. There is a reward aspect and an incentive aspect to rewarding copyright holders. In practice, whether at school or in the home, unlawfully many of us tape on our videos that evening's Olympic Games broadcast, for example. The answer to this lies in the conclusions of the Senate Committee's report; that is, we must see this question within the context of a solution for all the considerations of copying for rebroadcast. I wholeheartedly support the conclusions that we have reached. We call for the Attorney-General's Department's negotiations with the industry to be concluded much more quickly than has been the track record to this point. We hope that by the first day of the new year, 1 January 1987, we may have before us a solution that can then be placed in legislative form within the Act. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(6.46) —in reply-I thank those honourable senators who contributed to the debate. Senator Newman contributed on the day on which the report was presented. I thank Senator Puplick for his remarks. Towards the end of his speech he put forward some ideas which I think should be taken up by the Attorney-General's Department, with all the various types of reports and papers that have been presented, to present some form of legislation which we may look at next year. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for their assistance during the time that we had to look at this problem. The reference was given to the Committee with a deadline on it of some time in August. Because that particular day turned out not to be a sitting day, we had the time extended for a short period. The reference that we had was fascinating. I think some of us felt a bit out of our depth at some stages because none of us were lawyers. Senator Teague —Senator Newman is. Senator COLSTON —I am corrected; one of us was a lawyer. We probably had some advantages in that we were able to look at the matter with the eye of the ordinary person who does not have legal experience. At some stages we thought that we were starting to understand copyright law. That was a little time ago, and I would not like to say that I still understand it. I thank the Committee members because a deadline was placed upon us and we virtually met it. With the help of the Committee staff, I think we brought down a comprehensive report. I also thank all those individuals and representatives of organisations who appeared before the Committee. Without their assistance we would not have been able to bring down the report. In conclusion, I mention two recommendations in the report. The first was that the Senate not proceed with the proposed amendment which was placed before us. Reasons for that are given in the report, and I think they have been well understood. The second recommendation is perhaps the more important one. We as a committee believed that the issue had been around for too long without a solution. We are recommending that concerted efforts be made to bring forward legislation which will cover audio-visual copying, not only for educational purposes but also for other purposes, and hopefully we will have this in the new year. The recommendation reads: The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department, taking into account the Committee's findings, should develop its proposal for a statutory licensing scheme for the educational copying of audio-visual material to the stage where the necessary audio-visual material to the stage where the necessary legislation may be introduced for Parliament's consideration in the 1987 Autumn sittings of the Parliament. I commend that to the Attorney-General's Department. While commending it to the Attorney-General's Department, I also suggest that the proposals put forward by Senator Puplick should be taken into account. I am hopeful that honourable senators will be looking forward to legislation of this type being introduced early in the new year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Orders of the Day relating to consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order, be not further proceeded with this day. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of my colleague Senator Tate, I present the sixteenth report of 1986 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill and Students Assistance Amendment Bill. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 16, dated 22 October 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 257th report of the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-There are few countries in the world today as free of serious pests and diseases as Australia. High quarantine standards are maintained to safeguard Australia from the impact of the introduction of exotic diseases of humans, animals and plants. The cost of providing quarantine services in 1984-85 was approximately $36m. This report of the Public Accounts Committee outlines the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the `Report of the Auditor-General on an Efficiency Audit-Administration of Quarantine Services'. The audit was undertaken in 1985 to review the effectiveness of the administration of quarantine functions by the departments of Primary Industry and Health and controls exercised by those departments over State Government agencies performing quarantine activities on the Commonwealth's behalf. The Auditor-General, in reviewing the effectiveness of the administration of quarantine functions by the departments of Primary Industry and Health, disclosed that whilst the administering departments recognised the changing nature of quarantine control, there were, nevertheless, a number of areas where there was scope for improvement. The more important findings of the audit included: The lack of formalised management information systems to assess the cost of operations and to monitor the effectiveness of activities undertaken by the States on the Commonwealth's behalf; a low overall level of cost recovery; the absence of a formal agreement between the Commonwealth and the States; the need for a comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the clearance of aircraft and passengers arriving in Australia; and the need to re-assess the role of coastal surveillance. The Committee, in its review of the management and organisational aspects of quarantine, noted that many of the Auditor-General's criticisms of the administering departments' operating procedures had been addressed. The Committee also noted that significant improvements in the administration of quarantine services had already been achieved. Nevertheless, the inquiry identified a number of areas that still required attention and the Committee made 23 recommendations for action by the responsible departments. These recommendations addressed the following major issues: The formalisation of a Commonwealth-State agreement on administrative arrangements for quarantine; the integration of animal and plant quarantine functions; the requirement for a basic level of education for quarantine officers such as a technical and further education certificate and the establishment of ongoing training programs; the annual revision of fee schedules and the monitoring of operational costs of all waste disposal sites to ensure maximisation of cost recovery; and quarantine procedures relating to international aircraft arrivals. The Committee expressed particular concern about the length of time taken to get a formalised agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. The agreement is still in draft form, despite the Department of Health being advised as long ago as 1973 that a formal arrangement would be legally desirable. The Department of Primary Industry is now conducting negotiations with the States and the Committee would like to see these finalised at the earliest opportunity. Another area of concern was the lack of a formalised management information system that would allow the Commonwealth to assess the cost of operations undertaken by the States on the Commonwealth's behalf and the effectiveness of such operations. The Committee has recommended that the Department of Primary Industry develop a proposal for computer systems, giving early consideration to compatibility with systems already in place in the States, thereby enabling satisfactory data transfer. The Committee would wish to see prompt action in particular on these issues. I commend the report to honourable senators. Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Kakadu National Park Plan of Management, prepared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, and laid before the Senate on 18 September 1986, be disallowed. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(6.57) —Some days ago we were debating the Government's plan for the Kakadu National Park. I spoke very briefly on the matter. I wish to speak only briefly on it tonight. I think it is worth while to bring forth one or two points. The Australian Democrats give guarded support to the Kakadu plan of management because the Government's plan does attempt to prohibit mining on stages 1 and 2 of the park. The Government's plan attempts to do this because the Government has not even been able to get rid of all mining in stage 1. We have the Ranger mine operating there and the Jabiluka prospect is still going. But even on stage 2 the Government has not been able to stop exploration. We have seen the confrontation between the Government and Peko-Wallsend Ltd. This company is persisting in pursuing its lease to explore in stage 2 of the park. It is on record as saying that exploring and mining are inseparably linked and that it is going to push the Government to the limit to get its way. Going on the record of Peko-Wallsend, we have no doubt that this uncompromising company will push the Government to the limit. The Peko-Wallsend company brought up the Robe River dispute. Last week it sacked 500 employees at its Besco Batteries plant in Sydney with half an hour's notice. The crux of the matter is: Does an exploration right also cover a mining right? If a company finds minerals, can the Government then stop it mining them? The legal position, to say the least, is uncertain and the Government has not moved to dispel this uncertainty. With complete disregard for the problems of separating exploration rights from mining rights, the Government plans to amend the Foreign Takeovers Act to allow foreign companies to take over exploration leases without seeking Government approval. We are told and we are supposed to believe that this is not going to weaken the foreign investment rules because the Government says it will be able to refuse rights to mine if it feels that this is in the national interest or if these rights are threatened in any way. Of course the Peko dispute throws this question wide open. So far the Government has refused to recognise this. I asked a question of Senator Evans just the other day and he said that the problems at Kakadu and other places around Australia are not necessarily connected. So it is in a very guarded way that the Democrats are prepared to support the Government's plan of management for Kakadu. At least it does try to do something in stages 1 and 2. Of course the Government has been incredibly weak-kneed over the whole uranium issue. On its record it cannot be trusted to make any firm commitment at all to uranium mining or to the protection of national parks. We saw the present Opposition allow the Roxby Downs project to go ahead and two Labor governments have supported that. That was a complete about face of Government policy. In the recent Budget the Government gave the green light to the exporting of uranium to France, despite the expressed wishes of its members and despite resolutions to the contrary carried by the Australian Labor Party Federal Conference. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has favoured mining in the Kakadu National Park and only pulled away from that because of the furore it created within the Labor Party and the labour movement generally. So we wait to see what in fact does happen. We are very concerned that the Kakadu National Park is at risk. Senator Evans made his views on stage 3 very clear. He said that it is clapped-out buffalo country-a fairly emotive sort of comment which captured people's imagination, but the implication is quite clear. This Government is not concerned at all about stage 3. The fact that it is clapped-out buffalo country does not really matter too much because experience in other areas has shown that if buffalo numbers are restricted the country does regenerate very quickly. However, stages 1 and 2 are subject to some sort of protection at the moment and that must be a step in the right direction. The whole campaign to open up Kakadu National Park to mining is an intensely political one. The Opposition, the Northern Territory Government and the mining industries are combining to gain mining access to national parks nationwide, not only Kakadu. We have been told that Kakadu is a national treasure chest that the conservationists are trying to lock away for their own selfish ends. However, the truth is far from that. Maps produced by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service show that up to 80 per cent of the mineralisation in the Kakadu area is outside the Park-that is, outside stages 1, 2 and 3. So there are many good prospects outside the park for the mining interests to exploit. Everyone who has some interest in the region is throwing figures around on the value of the minerals in the park. The truth is that most of these figures are fanciful in the extreme. Most relate to mining deposits. For example, we have seen estimates that the value of the minerals in the park could be as high as $34 billion. However, if we add up the published figures we see that the value of the uranium deposits in the area amounts to $33.6 billion. So the vast majority of the supposed mineral wealth in the park is in fact uranium, and half of that wealth has already been mined. The rest is doubtful as a commercial proposition simply because of the calamitous state of the uranium market at the moment. Senator Collard —You must have a good accountant running your business interests. Senator SIDDONS —If the honourable senator bothered to look at the National Parks and Wildlife Service maps showing where the mineralisation is, what I have said would be clear. I suggest that Senator Collard has not bothered to do so. We are seeing an orchestrated campaign to open up our national parks, not just Kakadu, to economic exploitation of all types. It is in the vital interests of future generations of this country for us to resist with every breath in our bodies the further exploitation of our wilderness areas. We must preserve Kakadu and keep our national parks intact for future generations. As far as the Democrats are concerned that is the challenge in front of us. We are disappointed that the Government has not adopted a stronger attitude to uranium mining in general and to the Kakadu National Park in particular, and are disappointed that it has not made its position clear on exploration and mining rights, so whether it will contest the legality of the separation of those two sets of rights remains to be seen. We are fearful that the Government, as on so many other occasions, will go to water in this critical area but at least in the meantime we do have a plan of management for Kakadu which does give some measure of protection from mining at least in stages 1 and 2. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(7.06) —I support the motion moved by Senator Collard on behalf of the Opposition to disallow the new plan of management for Kakadu National Park which was tabled in the Senate by the Government on 18 September last. No doubt the Senate will recall that that was as a result of a somewhat precipitate decision taken by the Government two days earlier, early on the morning of 16 September, in order to stave off the revolt looming in Caucus about the development of this plan of management by the Government. Up until that time the Government seemed as though it was exploring the possibility of multiple land use being ordained in this new plan of management. Caucus reaction was very violent when a letter to that effect from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was referred to in the Canberra Times on the Sunday of the weekend preceding the decision. As has happened in the past, the Prime Minister completely went to water and was not prepared to stand up to Caucus and support the views which he undoubtedly held himself and which were clearly held by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. We now have this new plan of management and, in accordance with the decision of the Government and Caucus of 16 September, it prevents any exploration or mining for minerals taking place in a region covering 13,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory-indeed 13,000 square kilometres of Australia. That area is placed completely out of bounds to the mining industry, except in respect of certain mineral leases that are in existence and preserved and protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. It is in respect of those areas that the Geopeko company has been doing some further work recently which has been the subject of some notoriety. Certainly the full legal status of its mineral leases is a matter for the courts to decide, if necessary, but clearly it has some rights there and those rights are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act. The Opposition is concerned-and I believe the Senate should be concerned as I am sure Australians generally are concerned-about the decision of this Government to lock up, to declare out of bounds, this huge area of Australia from any proper exploration or even assessment of its full mineral potential. It was a decision taken in an emotional atmosphere at the time, without any proper regard being paid by the Government or the Caucus to this most vital question. In the debate that has been conducted for some time already in the Senate on this issue, those who support the present plan of management-this includes Government senators and the Australian Democrats, of which Senator Siddons is a member; he has just resumed his seat-made a number of points, some of which I wish to deal with. One of the points which was made strongly by the Democrats, and by Senator Richardson, who spoke in support of the present plan of management on behalf of the Government, was that we have to preserve the environment at all costs. Presumably, we have to keep it, and in particular the part which is of great significance, in its absolutely pristine state. As Senator Collard made quite clear, the Opposition believes that there are certain areas within the 13,000 square kilometres, particularly in the original stage 1 which is about 6,000 square kilometres, that are of great significance and which we in government would want to see preserved in their pristine state as far as possible. Those areas cover the escarpment, the Arnhem Land plateau, the wetlands which are the habitat for many species of bird life, the tidal flats and the rock art galleries, which of course we can all see, recognise and value as remarkable examples of Aboriginal rock art. The mining industry does not suggest for one minute that those areas should be mined or explored. Those areas should certainly be preserved in their pristine state and protected under a plan of management by the park's administration. What we are concerned about is that a great deal of this area is certainly not in a pristine state because it has been occupied by Aborigines for probably 25,000 or 30,000 years. The Aborigines pursued policies of land management, particularly by fire. That sort of usage does change the land. Indeed, land is always changing. This land will change even as a national park, simply because of tourists being in the area. So, although those areas that I have mentioned must be preserved, there are other large areas, particularly in stage 2, which is the one more recently proclaimed and an area of about 6,000 or 7,000 square kilometres, which do not fall within that category. Only about one-quarter or at the most one-third would come within the category of requiring full preservation in a pristine state. I will quote from the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry by Mr Justice Fox, a report which was dealt with and acted on by the Fraser Government. Mr Justice Fox describes the main natural features of the region. He talks about the plateau, the flood plains, the tidal flats-areas of great environmental significance, apart from the areas of Aboriginal sacred sites, rock art galleries and so on. The Fox report describes what is, as I have said, about at least two-thirds of the area we are debating. That area is called the lowlands. The report states: The lowlands are somewhat monotonous scenically. Most parts are undulating, and there are low hills and ridges. Most of the soils are sandy or loamy, and are highly susceptible to erosion if disturbed. A few have a cover of gravel or rocks which protects them from erosion. The lowland vegetation is mostly open eucalypt forest or woodland, or scrub. Tall grasses, reaching heights of 2 metres or more in the wet season, are the main ground cover over large areas. Fire passes through much of the lowlands each dry season, and most of the vegetation is adapted to regular burning. As I have said, that has continued for thousands of years. So probably two-thirds of the area covered by this plan of management, particularly the 7,000 square kilometres of stage 2, is being denied for mining exploration and assessment; it is being denied for mining altogether. There is nothing unique about that sort of country. One can easily see from that description that it is very common sort of country around Australia. To lock out the mining industry, to prevent it from even finding out what the mineral wealth is, is in our opinion quite absurd. The plan of management does just that. Because of all the government inquiries and decisions that have been made over the last 15 years, the mining industry has not been able fully to explore the region to discover the mineral potential. It had started to do so in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It discovered the major uranium province in that area, now being mined at the Ranger mine, and great uranium mineral deposits which are now being prevented by this Government from being mined simply because uranium is involved; it has nothing to do with the national park. When this plan of management was being developed, the Department of Resources and Energy wrote to Professor Ovington on 18 July 1986. The letter states: The BMR- that is, the Bureau of Mineral Resources- has identified the Kakadu region as one of the most promising areas of mineralisation in the world. There is no recognition of this in the Plan nor any discussion or attempt to resolve the land management questions involved. We believe the approach adopted at pages 112 and 113 of the Plan dealing with operations for the recovery of minerals is superficial in its discussion of this issue, and . . . unlikely to lead to any successful long term resolution of these undoubtedly difficult issues. It also states: In our view provisions similar to those in the first Plan would be adequate for this purpose and we would wish to see these reinstated. That sums up entirely the position of the Opposition in this matter. We believe that there must be the opportunity for full assessment by the mining industry of this already highly pros- pective region in which, as I have said, there have already been discovered three major uranium deposits, one of which is Ranger. That view was totally ignored by Professor Ovington and ultimately by the Government. It is strange that not only was that the view of the Department of Resources and Energy as expressed in that letter; it was the view expressed by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, on 8 September, just a week before the Government made this most unfortunate decision, in a letter to Mr Copeman, Chief Executive of Peko-Wallsend Ltd. In that letter the Minister said: My Department has provided comments on the proposed Plan to the Director, National Parks and Wildlife which, among other things, seek inclusion in the Plan of provisions for operations for the recovery of minerals similar to those in the first plan . . . You can be assured that I am following these issues carefully with the long term objective of establishing a multiple land use policy in the Region which balances the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that letter from Senator Gareth Evans to Mr Copeman. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY PARLIAMENT HOUSE CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 8 September 1986 Mr A. C. Copeman Chief Executive Peko-Wallsend Ltd Box R211 P.O. Royal Exchange SYDNEY, N.S.W. 2000 Dear Mr Copeman, Thank you for your letters of 5 May and 4 July 1986 concerning mineral activity in the Kakadu Region. I am conscious of the concern in the mining industry over future land use proposals in the Kakadu Region, including proposals for a new Plan of Management for the Park, World Heritage listing of Stage 2 and possible extensions to the Park. My Department has provided comments on the proposed Plan to the Director, National Parks and Wildlife which, among other things, seek inclusion in the Plan of provisions for operations for the recovery of minerals similar to those in the first Plan. I have also written to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment indicating that I support this approach. Although you have not directly referred in your letters to the World Heritage listing of Stage 2, I understand this matter is also of concern to you. It is my view, which I have again conveyed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, that it would be premature to pursue the World Heritage listing of Kakadu Stage 2 until related questions about mineral activity in the Kakadu Region have been addressed by the Commonwealth. You can be assured that I am following these issues carefully with the long term objective of establishing a multiple land use policy in the Region which balances the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users. Yours sincerely, GARETH EVANS Senator DURACK —That view, we know, was being supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It led to this outrage, particularly by the left wing of the Australian Labor Party's Caucus, which the Prime Minister would not stand up to. He changed the policy overnight because we can see from that letter the view of Senator Gareth Evans, the Minister for Resources and Energy, only a week before this rash and foolish decision was made by the Government. The Opposition supports the concept that there must be an opportunity for at least a full assessment of this area by the mining industry. Such an assessment has never been made. We have heard Labor senators speaking in here today. We have heard Professor Ovington indicating before Senate committees that there are not any great mineral prospects in that area. That is totally contradicted by the submission from the Department of Resources and Energy, from which I have just read. Of course, the suggestion that only a small proportion of this area is suitable for mineral prospectivity is completely refuted by the fact that there are these major mineral and uranium deposits which I have already mentioned, although they have been excised from the existing park. No doubt there are others to be found. Geopeko Mineral Exploration has already found a highly prospective area within stage 2, this lowland area of little environmental significance, which the company has not been able to fully explore but which it has already estimated could contain uranium worth $200m. This plan of management that we are dealing with ignores all this. It differs markedly from the first plan of management, which operated until December 1985 when it expired. That plan of management, which was adopted by the Fraser Government, recognised in detail the economic and geological significance of this area. The plan contained extensive provisions for mining operations to be conducted in this area. That is what we believe should have been retained in the present plan. Indeed, the same proposition was put by the Department of Resources and Energy in the quotation which I read. Clearly there is a growing understanding of the multiple land use concept, except in relation to areas of great sensitivity and significance. As I have already mentioned, no one, not even the mining industry, suggests that such areas would be the subject of mining or even exploration. But the idea of tying up vast areas of land as national parks and declaring them then completely out of bounds to any other uses-particularly to any major economic use-when there is such great wealth there is becoming very out of date. Modern methods of rehabilitation of mining areas make restoration possible after the mining operation is completed in the kind of area we are discussing; that is, this lowland scrub area which has been far better described by Senator Gareth Evans as `clapped out buffalo country'. That is probably the clearer vision of it. It is certainly the vision of it which I have had when I have visited there, as I have done on several occasions. That sort of country can be easily restored. We are not talking about threatening the wildlife or the wetland area. We are not talking about tearing down the rock art galleries. We are not talking about great beauty spots, such as Jim Jim Falls, which people see in beautiful pictures in weekly magazines and so on. We are talking about a balanced use of a large area of Australia. It is not only outmoded thinking by Professor Ovington, the Australian Democrats, the Government and the Australian Labor Party; we have seen in other places how a multiple use policy can work. For instance, the Barrow Island oilfield in Western Australia has a status in Western Australian law equivalent to that of a national park under Federal legislation. Under the very good advice of a notable environmentalist-probably the most notable in Australia, Harry Butler-that status allows this multiple land use to occur there. We will have to see more and more of this because Australia cannot afford to tie up such vast areas of land of high mineral prospectivity, as is this area, from even the assessment of its mineral potential. Decisions on whether a major mineral resource, upon discovery, would be mined would have to be made at a later date, depending upon the place, the environmental studies, and, of course, if it is Aboriginal land, on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The mining industry understands the need for that. All we are saying is that proper mineral exploration should be allowed to continue in this area. We are not talking only about uranium, although this area is highly prospective for uranium. It is also highly prospective for a range of other minerals, such as gold particularly, probably platinum, and copper, silver, lead and zinc. The Government made this panic-stricken decision, as I have said, overnight at a time when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Resources and Energy were in fact exploring and endeavouring to have the Government accept the multiple land use policy. The Caucus reversed that and we were landed with this plan of management which we seek to disallow because it simply locks up this land without us ever even knowing its mineral potential, preventing us from making rational decisions in Australia's time of economic need. No greater problem can face Australia at the moment than that of its export resource area, with our current balance of payments continually running Australia so heavily into overseas debt. It is increasing each month by such horrific amounts. Of course, we had an example of this the other day. Australia cannot afford to lock out the mining industry, which is one of the major creators of wealth in this country and which accounts for over 40 per cent of our export earnings. Here we have the Government and the Democrats trying to lock out the mining industry from more and more areas of land which may otherwise have been available for the discovery of the wealth which Australia so desperately needs and will continue to need for the foreseeable future at least. For all those reasons, the Opposition has moved to disallow this totally inadequate plan of management. It has been criticised by many people. I was interested to note the many other reasons, which Senator Puplick explained the other night, that this plan of management is deficient. Professor Slatyer, one of Australia's most distinguished scientists and the Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council, has also criticised the plan as lacking a clear statement of the values to be preserved. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(7.30) —In August this year I was nearing the end of an afternoon of interviews with various constituents and lobby groups in my office in Salamanca Place in Hobart when a group of students from Geilston Bay High School trooped in. I was very quickly captivated by the enthusiasm of this group of young Australians who came up with a very ambitious project as their practical contribution to the International Year of Peace. They wanted to circulate a petition to other schools in Tasmania which would express the concerns and, to put it more positively, the hopes of young Australians who are so much more aware of political issues than I was at their age. The core group at Gielston Bay High School-and I have in front of me their photographs in the Tasmania media which has been very supportive of the project-are Joanne Fleming, Janet Sieven, Melissa Cracknell, Melinda Maddock, who I think conceived the idea at a student representative council meeting, and Simon Padman, the SRC President, at that high school. They were assisted by Peter Godfrey, a social science teacher. I explained to them how to formulate a petition, whose wording as we know is very ancient, as befits one of the longest standing forms of voicing a concern to the elected representatives of the people in parliament assembled. I thought that this spontaneous expression of hope was so vital that my office was put at the disposal of the students. We obtained a list of all the schools in Australia, some 2,359, and circulated the petition with an accompanying letter. I would like to read some of the paragraphs from that letter sent by Simon Padman as President of Geilston Bay Students Representative Council. It reads as follows: Dear Fellow Students Geilston Bay High School Students Representative Council has decided to do something toward the Year of Peace. We intend presenting a petition to the Federal Parliament asking our Government to work towards a more peaceful world. The idea came about after a suggestion in a meeting that school kids our age `Blaze a Trail' for a more peaceful Australia. Despite it being the International Year of Peace it didn't seem as though anything of significance would be accomplished by anyone or group that would represent the thoughts of youth in Australia. In the not too distant future it is going to be our Australia. We have an opportunity now to have a say in what that future may be like. There are 2,359 High Schools in Australia. If a significant number of their students sign the petition, we can have a great impact on our future. The more signatures your school provides, the more successful our campaign for a peaceful world will be. We have the chance to present to our Federal Parliament, the biggest petition ever. The point I wish to make initially-and I am sure that Mr Godfrey would wish to emphasise this point also-is that we played merely a support role to the whole school, which became involved in the project. As the Mercury `Out of the Blue' weekly feature on young people noted in an article on 2 October this year: The entire Geilston Bay High School has been involved in the project. Each of the envelopes to the 2,259 Australian schools had to be stamped with the school emblem, addressed by hand and filled with petition forms and explanatory letters. So there wasn't a student who wasn't roped in to help. What then are the words of the petition? It reads: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1. A continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space, 2. Military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels, 3. Continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1. Encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as the means of solving issues, 2. Persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world, 3. Promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty will ever pray. What has been the response? So far I have tabled in this chamber petitions from some 8,357 signatories. I know that at least 7,000 more have been received at Geilston Bay High School over the last couple of days. No doubt I shall have an opportunity to present even more petitions to this chamber when we return after the time in our electorates. So far some hundreds of schools, both government and non-government, throughout Australia have responded with signatures freely gathered usually by the student representative council in the school concerned. There are those who have described this project as revealing how young people can be deceived or manipulated. The attacks in the Press have no doubt begun the political education of some of the pupils concerned. That is what they can expect if they are daring enough to try to change the world in a peaceful direction and if they voice their concerns and hopes in a public way rather than just over a cup of coffee with a few friends. These young people I met are not the types to be easily manipulated. On the contrary, they realise their emerging power to require politicians to be answerable for their future, and we must listen to be truly representative. Alistair Hobday, Head Prefect of the Rose Bay High School, in a letter accompanying signatures from that school said: Our politicians, concerned as they appear, are mostly alienated from the youth of today. Thus you are helping to guide the leaders of the country. That was a letter written to Simon Padman who circulated his letter with the petition forms to all schools throughout Australia. I believe that the impact of the expression of opinion by these young people on our politicians has captured the imagination of many pupils in many schools throughout Australia. I ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of the schools in Tasmania which have responded to this request for signatures on the petition. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Rokeby High School Rosetta High School Kingston High School Margate Primary School Rosny College Mt Carmel College Elizabeth Matriculation College Geilston Bay High School Bothwell District High School Leighlands Christian School Roseberry District High School Rose Bay High School Riverside High School Alanvale Community College Launceston Community College St Patrick's College King Meadows High School Exeter High School Smithton High School Wynyard High School Kingston High School Taroona High School Oatlands District High School Sorell District High School St Brendan Shaw College Friends School Bridgewater High School Dover District High School Riverside Primary School Senator TATE —I thank the Senate. I am proud of these young Tasmanian petitioners who have started to take part in the democratic and parliamentary processes that are so vital in our country. I pay special tribute to the Students Representative Council at Geilston Bay High School in Hobart and hope that we as parliamentarians respond in helping to create the sort of future that they deserve and demand that we bend our energies to achieve. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(7.37) —In this International Year of Peace and on the occasion of the visit to Australia and to this Parliament today of representatives of the Great Peace Journey initiated by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, I wish to speak about women and our vital contribution to world peace. I am very happy to follow Senator Tate's contribution on the subject of peace and youth. We are living in a time which is unique. Never before in our history have we had the capacity to destroy the earth, its people and every living thing many times over. It is a fact that this dreadful prospect did not exist before the development of nuclear weapons. It is also a fact that these weapons of destruction were created, designed and have been progressively developed by scientists, by the military, by men-powerful men, in powerful positions. Down the centuries, the worlds of science and the military have been virtually exclusively the preserve of men-men who have developed these weapons, men who have trained other men to use them, men who have given the orders, and men, as well as women and children, who have died from their own weapons. The women of the world have largely been excluded from the laboratories, the armaments factories-except as a reserve work force in times of war-the educational institutions of the military colleges and the political and military decision-making process. This is the environment in which wars are made to happen-a male world from which women have largely been excluded and in which women of peace do not want to be included. More than that, women of peace want a world of peace and such a world will not come from an environment of war. This very different perspective of women of peace needs desperately to be introduced into the community's consciousness and into the decision-making process at personal, local, national and even global levels, as the representatives of the Great Peace Journey with whom I had lunch today clearly agree and recognise. One way of doing this is for women to highlight their values, their roles and themselves at appropriate times and in appropriate places. Until recently our community has always taken for granted a number of exclusively male domains. As someone who lived in the country, I well recall that the bar of the local pub was certainly a place where no woman would be seen. Fortunately, that has changed, just as the attitude to other traditionally all male preserves is changing. I mention particularly the all-male members' stand at the Melbourne Cricket Ground and the all-male members' enclosure at Moonee Valley Racecourse. Unfortunately, there has been no change in the membership of clubs such as the Melbourne Club, the Canberra Club and so on. We still have our male preserves. The lawns in front of Parliament House have become a traditional place for the widest possible range of groups to highlight their concerns, values and presence. They have ranged from the Aboriginal `embassy', to the atom free `embassy', the Vietnamese camp and scores of others. The very day I came to this place as a senator, there were students camped on those lawns expressing their concerns. The fact that women, believing as I do and as they do that they have a special role to play in the promotion and achievement of world peace and in creating an environment of balance rather than war, chose to follow that tradition and camp on the lawns of Parliament House should not be seen in any way as particularly remarkable or threatening. Groups and individuals who have felt threatened, because they are still tied to the confrontationist modes of thinking and acting, have been unable to accept the naturalness of what that camp is and means. Any group wanting to highlight the issue of United States bases, Australia's role in world nuclear strategies and the whole issue of war and violence would have to decide that the most appropriate place was in front of Parliament and that the most appropriate time was when the Pine Gap lease could be ended, if the Government so wished. Many other women around Australia have chosen this time to demonstrate in a variety of ways, as I did last Sunday in Melbourne. Many men have joined in these protests and will continue to do so. I support what Women for Peace are doing, as do so many of my colleagues in this place. So, too, do a great many enlightened men who, far from feeling threatened, welcome the moves of which this is just a part, towards a more balanced and humane society. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.43 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Public Works Act-Corrigendum-Public Works Committee Report-Provision of 50 Replacement Houses at Woomera (5th Report of 1986). Remuneration Tribunal Act-Determination 1986-No. 18-Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-General Manager, ACT Health Authority and others, dated 12 September 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1121) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: (1) Is the Minister aware of a recent statement attributed to business analyst David Price, that under proposed Government guidelines trustees of superannuation funds would become `whipping horses'. (2) Is the Minister concerned that such claims are part of the conservative campaign against the current Australian Council of Trade Unions' National Productivity Case and the introduction of universal occupational superannuation. (3) Will the Minister give consideration to the provision of an educational program for trustees of such schemes, by the Government, should a need later emerge. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am aware of a statement by Mr Price on this matter. That statement indicated, inter alia, that the responsibilities of trustees will increase as a result of the application of the Government's Operational Standards to superannuation funds and that the trustee would become the pivot point/`whipping horse' for superannuation in Australia. The Government recognises that the Operational Standards, announced by the Treasurer on 11 June 1986, will impose responsibilities on trustees beyond those arising from trust law generally. The Standards are aimed at ensuring that taxation concessions for occupational superannuation are directed towards meeting members' retirement needs and enhancing protection of their entitlements. (2) The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in its National Wage Case decision of 26 June 1986, indicated that it would not impose by arbitration any obligation on employers to pay contributions to occupational superannuation schemes on behalf of their employees during the life of the current Wage Fixing Principles. However, the Commission's decision provides for award prescription of superannuation by way of consent agreements. The Commission has stated that it will certify agreements or make consent awards which provide for payment of employer contributions up to the equivalent of 3 per cent of ordinary time earnings to approved superannuation schemes, subject to a number of conditions outlined in the decision. The operative date for employer contributions will not be before 1 January 1987 except in special and isolated circumstances. Consequently, superannuation is now a matter to be processed in a rational and orderly manner under the centralised wage fixing system. The Commission's decision is one to which all unions, employers and governments should give their strong commitment. (3) I do not see any need for the Government to provide for an educational program of the kind mentioned and would note that this appears to be largely a matter for consideration by the relevant industry and professional bodies. I should add that an Interim Group of the Occupational Superannuation Commissioner has now been established within the Department of the Treasury and that the Group is able to provide background information and advice on the application of the Operational Standards and the new responsibilities being imposed on trustees. (Question No. 1272) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. (2) What were the dates and the salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The following reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions have been made in my Department since 5 March 1983: (a) Senior Executive Level 3 to Senior Executive Level 4 in Employment Policy and Training Division, Central Office. (b) Senior Executive Level 1 to Senior Executive Level 2 in Queensland State Office. (c) In June/July 1986 the Department's Central Office was restructured resulting in the creation of fifty six Senior Executive Service positions which replace the previous structure of sixty five positions (and four Clerical Administrative Class 11 positions which were abolished as a part of the overall exercise). (2) The dates and the salary details are reflected below: (a) The Level 3 to Level 4 was approved on 31.1.1986 and resulted in a salary increase of $4766. (b) The Level 1 to Level 2 was approved on 27.11.1985 and resulted in a salary increase of $4765. (c)- PROFILE OF SES POSITIONS BY LEVEL Level Old structure New structure Variation Date approved Salary difference $ 6... - 2 +2 9.7.86 +145,390 5... 3 - -3 2.6.86 -203,790 4... 2 8 +6 2.6.86 +378,984 3... 13 6 -7 2.6.86 -408,786 2... 6 21 +15 2.6.86 +804,480 1... 41 19 -22 2.6.86 -1,075,074 Total... 65 56 -9 -358,796 In addition to the SES savings reflected in the table, the restructuring also involved the abolition of four Clerical Administrative Class 11 positions (-$169,552) and nine Steno-Secretary positions (-$169,780) so that total salary savings were $698,128 in all as a direct result of the restructuring. The Department's approved salaries appropriation for 1986-87 has been adjusted to reflect these net savings. (Question No. 1289) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) What reclassifications of Senior Executive Service positions in your Department have been made since 5 March 1983. (2) What were the dates and salary details of these reclassifications. Senator Button —The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) One Senior Executive Service position has been reclassified in my Department since 5 March 1983. (2) The position of Senior Assistant Commissioner Policy, Patent, Trademarks and Designs Office, was reclassified from Level 1 to Level 2, $43 974 pa to $48 262, on 26 September 1984. (Question No. 1345) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: (1) Are overseas born residents, upon qualifying for the Australian pension, advised to claim the pension from their country of origin first, and then apply to the Minister's Department to correct any shortfall that may exist between the overseas pension and the value of the Australian pension; if so, to how many residents of each country does this apply. (2) Has the value of the supplement received by these pensioners been changed at least 12 times over the past 18 months because of the Government's decision to float the Australian dollar. (3) Does the Minister for Social Security agree that it is very difficult for these pensioners to plan with any certainty their financial future, as many of these pensioners are also receiving other income from their country of origin. (4) Have many of these pensioners who are in receipt of the Commonwealth Pensioner Entitlement Card had their card continually withdrawn then reissued as the value of the Australian dollar varies against other currencies, since March 1983, when the dollar was first floated. (5) Have those pensioners who have appealed to the social security appeals tribunal about this situation been advised by that tribunal to ignore any letter from the Minister's Department informing them that they are to return their card, and to continue to claim fringe benefits, if so, what action will be taken to correct the conflicting advice given to pensioners by the Minister's Department on this matter. (6) Does the Minister agree that this whole situation needs to be reviewed and a more enlightened and compassionate policy adopted; if so, will the Minister establish an inquiry and inform the Senate at a later date of its findings and what changes will be implemented as a result. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am not aware of any instances where officers of my Department have been instructed to advise overseas born residents claiming an Australian pension that they must first claim a pension from their country of origin and then make a claim for the difference between the amount of foreign pension paid and the amount of Australian pension payable. Where it is evident that a person has come from the United Kingdom and there may be eligibility for a UK pension, my Department advises that this entitlement may exist. Such a person is not advised to claim from the UK first and then apply to my Department to correct any shortfall. In no circumstances would a grant of Australian pension be delayed pending the determination of a claim for foreign pension. The Reciprocal Social Security Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom provides that, where a person entitled to an Australian pension by virtue of the Agreement is also entitled to a UK pension, the amount of the UK pension is to be treated as a direct deduction from the Australian pension entitlement. In effect, this tops up (supplements) the UK pension to the maximum rate of Australian pension which the person would be paid under the income and assets test if he or she qualified under the Social Security Act. As at 27 June 1986 there were 12,148 Australian pensioners paid under these arrangements. The direct deduction provision is not applicable to recipients of UK pension where entitlement is not based on the Australia/UK Reciprocal Social Security Agreement. Any UK pension received in those cases is subject to the normal income test in determining the rate of Australian pension payable. (2) The amount of Australian pension received by Australia/UK Agreement pensioners has changed 15 times since February 1985. It has increased 3 times since February 1985, in May and November 1985 and May 1986, due to CPI related increases in the rates of the Australian pension. It has also changed 12 other times since February 1985 due to variations in the notional exchange rate used to value UK pensions and other sterling income. Variations to the notional exchange rate are generally made whenever movements in the actual exchange rates are relatively substantial. (3) The Australian dollar value of each pensioners total pension package (Australian and UK) has been kept the same even though exchange rates have fluctuated. This is so because the Australian pension paid tops up (supplements) the UK pension to the maximum rate of Australian pension which the person would be paid under the income and assets test if he or she qualified under the Social Security Act. Any other overseas income received would of course be subject to the fluctuations of international exchange rates. (4) No statistics are kept which would enable me to provide an answer. (5) I am not aware that the Social Security Appeals Tribunals are advising appellants to ignore departmental advices requesting the return of Pensioner Health Cards and Transport Concession Certificates in situations where entitlement to fringe benefits has been lost. I think it is most unlikely that they would do so. However, if the Honourable Senator is aware of any specific instance where a Tribunal has so advised an appellant I would be pleased to receive more precise details so that I may have the matter fully examined. (6) No, see (3).