Monday, 23 February 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: Despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights statement that ``the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State'', the present Australian tax system penalises families with children at every level of income. The tax system discriminates in particular against families with large numbers of dependants. This may be one reason why, according to Professor Bettina Cass, only 27 per cent of married couple families with children had three or more children in 1985, in contrast to almost 35 per cent in 1969. Fair levels of family allowances and taxation benefits are the reasonable entitlement and expectation of parents. Such a change in government policy may help to arrest the sharp decline in Australian births with beneficial results for our country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue the fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senators Jones (from 42 citizens), Richardson (from 435 citizens) and West (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Honourable members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, based on a 4 zonal weighted system, is an affront to democracy. The National Party under the leadership of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is always returned to Government with no opportunity for the voting public to bring about change. Your petitioners point out that under the Queensland voting system the National Party at the State Elections on 1 November 1986 managed to achieve 55 per cent of the seats with only 39 per cent of the votes. This demonstrates that 61 per cent of Queenslanders do not want a National Party Government yet receive one. Your petitioners therefore earnestly pray that the Federal Government legislates as a matter of urgency to bring about a democratic system of voting in Queensland State elections based on the principle of one vote one value. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that whereas: (1) Identification cards and numbers severely threaten our freedom to live unfettered by excessive bureaucratic surveillance; (2) the Government has been unable to present any realistic justification for the introduction of ID cards and numbers; We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should reject any proposal to inflict ID cards and numbers on the freedom loving people of Australia. by Senator Mason (from 1,421 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the taxation proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' are anti-business, They will destroy incentive, by penalising business growth; they will cost Australians jobs and contribute to higher welfare payments, Such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Tax Proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from three citizens). To the Honourable President and senators in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal Government Departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. the FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will pray. by Senator Reid (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned for the future stability of the Tasmanian forestry industry as a result of continued attempts to disrupt our vital industry. We humbly draw your attention to the continued efforts by the Tasmanian Government and all those persons who derive their livelihood from the State's forestry industry to abide by guidelines established as a result of several Environmental Impact Studies, State regulations and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments. Your humble petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to ensure stability of our industry by informing the people of Australia of the moves being taken by the forestry industry in Tasmania to preserve the environment and to farm our forest resources for the mutual benefit of all Australians now and in the future. And your petitioners as in duty will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 60 citizens) and Walters (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the decision of the Government to introduce an administration fee of $250.00 for students undertaking tertiary education be amended to reflect the study load of each individual student. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled amend the regulation to ensure: that tertiary students pay the full $250.00 administration fee when undertaking 100% of the faculty load; students undertaking less than 100% but more than 75% pay three-quarters of that fee (i.e. $187.50); students undertaking in excess of 50% but less than 75% pay one-half of that fee (i.e. $125.00); students undertaking less than 50% pay one-quarter of that fee (i.e. $62.50); and that mature age students on a scholarship who fall below the means test level for undergraduate students who have no other means of income be exempt from the administration fee, and that external students be subject to pro-rata administration fees as proposed for part-time students. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 629 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to open a Soviet Information (Communist Propaganda) Centre and if it is allowed to be opened, it will have a far more pervasive and detrimental effect on the Australian community than any other such centre possibly could. It is appalling that the Hawke government has attempted to allow this opening to be contemplated. That the recent Soviet amnesty to some prisoners of conscience be not taken as a sign that the Soviet dictatorship has changed from being an oppressive murderous regime to one that somehow can be called more democratic. It has not changed and for all purposes is unlikely to change as it is by nature an oppressor of the people it subjugates. That all Governments in Australia and the Australian media should be aware and to take note: that Soviet is not Russian (the Soviet Union is not Russia), and the dictatorial government of the USSR is communist, international and anti-Russian in its essence. In 1917 Russia and the Russian people were the first victims of the marxist-communist disease and that communism annihilates religion, violates human rights, tramples on human dignity and all freedom of speech is absent. The whole population of the USSR is equally enslaved by the communist dictatorship. No people, no nation is free under communism. That in 1988 the Russian people inside the Iron Curtain and in particular abroad will be celebrating 1000 years of Orthodox Russian Christianity and that all Governments of Australia (State and Commonwealth) together with the Australian media speak the truth in defence of those who are persecuted and imprisoned for the truth of God, and extend a helping hand to their families! That in the USSR all closed churches be opened and returned to the orthodox christian people and that all persecution of religious people cease henceforth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from two citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 150 citizens). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) notes with dissatisfaction the attack by the Federal Labor Government on Australian families by increased taxes, increased petrol costs, increased food costs, increased motor vehicle costs and increased mortgage interest rates; (b) calls upon the Government to admit that its economic policies have failed; and (c) calls upon it to implement policies which will redress the current falling living standards of all Australian families. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bjelke-Petersen for the period 20 February 1987 to 26 February 1987, inclusive, on account of ill health. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) Condemns the Federal Government's arrogant and shortsighted dismissal of Democrat amendments to the tertiary fees legislation, which would have totally eliminated the present burden on part-time and external students and Austudy recipients officially recognised as being poor; (b) notes with concern the likelihood of falling academic standards as part time and external students accept an unmanageable work load in order to reduce their enrolment period and hence their financial burden; (c) totally rejects Labor's justification that fees are necessary because some graduates can expect to earn above average incomes; and (d) further notes that no other sector of the work force is required to pay a tax on future earnings. Senator Chaney-Mr President, I raise a point of order. I ask whether the last notice of motion is in order. Does it reflect on a vote of the Senate? The PRESIDENT —I must say that I did not hear the full terms of the notice of motion. I will look at it and give a ruling as quickly as possible. Senator Chaney-If you will, Mr President. I did not hear the full terms either, but it seemed to me to reflect on a decision of the Senate, and it may be out of order. If that is the case, perhaps the Senate can be advised and the notice of motion not listed. The PRESIDENT —I will do that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 23 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. 2. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 36(3) of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. 3. The Australian Wine Research Institute- Annual Report 1985-86. 4. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation- Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 38(3) of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. 5. Australian Special Rural Research Council- Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 39 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 6. Chicken Meat Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 7. Cotton Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 8. Oilseeds Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 9. Pig Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 10. Poultry Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 11. Tobacco Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 12. Research Council's Selection Committee-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 60(2) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 13. Australian Dairy Corporation-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 29 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924. 14. Japanese Tuna Long-Line Fishing-Subsidiary agreement between the Governments of Australia and Japan-Pursuant to Section 9 of the Fisheries Act 1952. 15. Pork Promotion Committee-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 16 of the Pork Promotion Act 1975. 16. CSIRO-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 57 of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949. 17. Dairy Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Sub-section 30(5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 18. Australian Atomic Energy Commission- Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1983. 19. Operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956. 20. Australian Institute of Criminology-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971. 21. Criminology Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86. 22. Human Rights, family migration, and disabled family members-Human Rights Commission Report-Pursuant to Section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 23. The Law Reform Commission-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 24. Family Law Council-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to Section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975. 25. Proposals for work within the Parliamentary Zone-Pursuant to Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974. 26. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-Together with the Auditor-General's Report-Pursuant to Section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. 27. Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation-Volumes 1 + 2-Report. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because it covers a number of Government portfolios. I ask: Is it a fact that the Government's Budget acknowledges that wages cannot be maintained in real terms, and that that means living standards in Australia must fall? Is it also a fact that, apart from some reduction in entitlements to the family allowance, no adjustment has been made to the family allowance or to the dependent spouse tax rebate by this Government over the four Budgets that it had brought down and that, as a result, they have lost more than one-third of their value since the Hawke Government came to office? Is the result of this, in a time of declining disposable incomes, that families with dependants are relatively even worse off than other Australian wage and salary earners? What will the Government do at least to restore the relative financial position of families, which has deteriorated markedly since it came to power? Senator BUTTON —It is true that the Government's Budget predictions provide for a failure of wages to keep up with the consumer price index figures on an annual basis. In fact, in the last three years of government there has been a decline in real unit labour costs of the order of 7 per cent, as I understand it. The Government has been quite consistent in its view about that. The Opposition cannot have it all ways. It cannot be calling on us to have fiscal and wage restraint and so on. Senator Chaney —I am merely asking whether it is true. Senator BUTTON —It is true, but if Senator Chaney is asking me a question about living standards in the total context, as he is, I remind the Senate that the Opposition has consistently called for a wage freeze, which would have had a very marked impact on living standards, particularly for lower paid workers in this community. Again, he cannot have it both ways. Senator Chaney will be aware, of course, that in the current case before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Government is committed to a flat increase, which at least has the advantage of being comparatively beneficial to lower income earners. It is true that there has been no adjustment to the family allowance, except for minor adjustments of the kind to which Senator Chaney referred. Senator Chaney asked me whether families with children were relatively worse off. I think it is true to say that most people in the community are relatively worse off as a result of the dramatic decline in Australia's national income because of our incapacity to market goods adequately overseas, falling commodity prices and the exclusion of many of our agricultural products from traditional markets. I think most commentators accept that, and there is recognition that we cannot have a declining national income of the order of which we have had dramatically in the past two years, but consistently over a number of years, and still sustain across the board living standards in the way in which they have, artificially, been sustained in the past. That is a fact. I cannot give any sort of statistical information on the relative decline in living standards of people with young children and so on. I concede that those families are probably worse off, as other sections of the community are also probably worse off. For example, in the last Budget, the Government deferred pension increases for two periods. As a result of that, pensioners are relatively worse off. The position of wage earners is also that they are relatively worse off as a result of policies that this Government has embarked on over the last few years. As I have said, insofar as relativities are concerned, I cannot be precise about that but perhaps I can answer that another time. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for his answer but I note that he said that families are probably worse off, as others are probably worse off. I ask him: Will he examine whether families with dependants are worse off to a greater extent than others? That is the whole point of my question-that the burden which is necessarily being borne by the whole of the Australian community, and which he has acknowledged, is in fact being borne disproportionately by families with dependants, whether those dependants are spouses or children. I ask: Will he examine the relative position of families with dependent children as against those people simply looking after themselves and without dependants? Senator BUTTON —I am sure that, while some families with young children may be relatively worse off, they are not badly off. The point is: Whom are we talking about? Are we talking about a category of all families with young children as though there is some fixed point in history when all families with young children are capable of being categorised in a particular way, whether they are rich or poor families? Senator Chaney —No; their relative position has declined; it is socially unfair. Senator BUTTON —It is not socially unfair for the relative position of wealthy families with children to have declined. Senator Chaney —What about poor families? Senator BUTTON —I am quite happy to answer the question and I will obtain an answer in respect of that, but not in respect of the others. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Is the Minister aware of the Queensland Cabinet's decision to give the green light to sand mining on Moreton Island? What would be the likely environmental impact of the implementation of this decision to allow Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd to mine a six-kilometre strip from Cape Cliff to an area opposite Blue Lagoon from the middle of this year, 1987? I further ask: What is the Federal Government's view of any proposed mining on Moreton Island? Senator RYAN —The Queensland Government has recently announced that Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd has been given Queensland Government approval to begin a test drilling program on the eastern side of Moreton Island for mineral sands for the domestic market. It is by no means clear that such an operation-that is, without exports-would be economically viable. Of course, the whole of Moreton Island is on the register of the National Estate. In response to this, the Commonwealth reaffirms its policy of opposing sand mining on Moreton Island, to maintain the exceptional recreational and conservational values of the island. Of course, this policy was announced in February 1984. The Government refused to grant export licence approval for mineral sands from Moreton Island in 1984. Moreton Island is the only virtually untouched example of a coastal sand mass form, once common in south-east Queensland. It is also the last such unspoilt area close to Brisbane and is enjoyed by a very large number of visitors from Brisbane and elsewhere. So any attempt to proceed with mining will be economically nonsense since no export licence will be granted. Senator REID —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer the Minister to a survey by the Real Estate Institute of Australia which reveals the rapidly increasing burden of home mortgage repayments under the Hawke Government. Is the Minister aware that in just over two years since the last election average home loan repayments have increased in Canberra, for example, from $541 a month to $718 a month. Is it not a fact that the survey shows that the mortgage burden has increased at a much faster rate than have family incomes? Now that it is clear that last year's housing package has failed, and given that the bank subsidy expires in April, what action does the Government propose to relieve the plight of families which are facing the inevitability of even higher interest rates as they are trying to pay off their home loans? Senator RYAN —The report indicates that mortgage funds remained readily available over the September quarter and on the whole were only marginally less affordable than in the June quarter. Prior to 2 April, the limited funds available at 13.5 per cent were strictly rationed. Without the 2 April package there would currently be no bank lending. The level of bank lending for housing for 1986-87 has increased from the $4 billion projected in April to $7 billion now. The measures used in the report ignore significant structural changes in the way that housing finance is being provided. Since the introduction of the 2 April package, cocktailing of housing finance has disappeared. This has enabled prospective home buyers to borrow from one source only, and at one interest rate. This has led to an increase in the size of the average loan recorded by financial institutions. Total repayments under the new arrangements can be significantly less than for a cocktail loan. For example, $60,000 borrowed over 25 years at 15 1/2 per cent costs about $782 per month. A $60,000 low start loan at 11 1/2 per cent costs about $604 per month in the first year. A cocktail loan made up of $40,000 at 13 1/2 per cent over 25 years and a $20,000 personal loan at 18 per cent over 10 years would have cost $816 per month. So those figures indicate that, far from having failed, the package of 2 April brought forward by the Government to assist home loan borrowers has brought about substantial improvements. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to an article in Friday's Age newspaper which reported Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's defence of his Government's economic record. Can the Minister provide any further information to support a comment by his staff reported in the article that Sir Joh's points were juggling with figures? Is Sir Joh correct in suggesting that his points indicate the strength of the Queensland economy or is Queensland dragging the rest of Australia's economic performance down? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, Queensland has the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State. It has had the highest unemployment rate of any mainland State for about 12 months and it approximately alternates with Tasmania for having the highest unemployment rate of any State. That is a fair indication that Queensland is dragging the rest of the country down. I can elaborate on the other matters which were in that article. I have seven or eight different areas where I could comment, but I will comment on three of them now. Sir Joh claimed that Queensland is not a high tax State. If one looks at what is recorded as State taxation it is true that Queensland is not a high tax State but what those figures, as conventionally defined, do not show is the hidden taxes paid particularly by mining companies in Queensland through the rail freight surcharge. The hidden loss is estimated to be $394m for 1985-86, and when what would otherwise be an operating deficit is taken into account, that figure becomes $431m. If that is added to State taxation, as it ought to be because it is a hidden tax, the per capita tax in Queensland for 1985-86 was some $705, which is higher than South Australia at $625, Western Australia at $670 and Tasmania at $560. On the question of electricity charges, it was claimed by Sir Joh: It is not true that Queensland has the highest electricity charges. Western Australia does. I interpolate that it is correct that Western Australia does have the highest electricity charges, which is a consequence of the `take or pay' contract that Joh's bosom friend Sir Charles Court forced the State Energy Commission to sign some years ago. As a consequence of that, I might add, the State Energy Commission is now technically bankrupt. Let me continue quoting Sir Joh. He also said: Since most of Queensland's electricity stations have been built, electricity charges will plummet. Charges in Brisbane for electricity have increased by nearly 32 per cent since Sir Joh won government in his own right in October 1983, whereas the consumer price index for Brisbane increased by 22 per cent. More importantly, there is no possibility of electricity charges in Queensland plummeting because the power stations have almost been completed. They have been completed, but they have not been paid for. The Queensland Electricity Commission has a total debt of $3.4 billion of which-I hope this point will be noted by people who are concerned about `reckless overseas borrowing'-$1.1 billion was borrowed overseas. The interest payments on that debt will continue long after the construction of the stations is complete. In 1985-86, $444m in interest payments accounted for nearly 36 per cent of the total expenditure by the Queensland Electricity Commission. The other specific point with which I will deal is related to the first point, that is, Sir Joh's claim that New South Wales has the highest coal freight rates in Australia. The annual report of the New South Wales Department of Transport shows that the average charge for rail freighted coal in New South Wales is $7.97 per tonne, while the report of Sir Joh's own Queensland Railways shows that the average coal freight rate in Queensland is $10.92 per tonne-some 42 per cent higher than the New South Wales rate. Senator HAINES —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence-if he has not already seen it-to a report in yesterday's National Times on Sunday of a study by Professor Jackson Davis of the University of California's nuclear policy program on the consequences of an accident involving nuclear weapons or a nuclear reactor on a warship in an Australian port. I remind the Minister that the study used the standard methodology of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and indicates that such an accident in any major Australian city could result in several thousand cancer deaths. I ask the Minister: First, does he agree that the study is much more realistic than the environmental considerations report of 1976 on which current port safety planning for nuclear accidents is supposed to be based? Secondly, in view of the apparent seriousness of the human, environmental and financial consequences of such an accident and the unresolved issue of liability, will the Government impose an immediate moratorium on visits by nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships to Australian ports until it has fully considered the findings of the current Senate inquiry into the matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the Press report but neither I nor anyone else in the Australian Government or any of the responsible authorities has had an opportunity to examine or evaluate the study in question. The Government does, however, remain quite confident that the very detailed environmental impact statement prepared by the Department of Defence, of which the 1976 report that Senator Haines referred to is a summary, was a fully realistic basis for planning for nuclear reactor accidents. As to the latter part of her question, the Government remains confident that in view of the extreme remoteness of the possibility of a nuclear reactor or nuclear weapons accident occurring on a visiting United States warship, there is no justification for a moratorium on allied warship visits. But I will certainly take steps to have the report examined and evaluated in detail and hopefully will be in a position at some later stage to give a fuller reply. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment: Is it true that the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray, is still, after a four- or five-month delay, refusing to process the recommendations of his own Heritage Advisory Panel on projects eligible for National Estate grants from the Federal Government? Is the Tasmanian Premier taking his opposition to, and scorn for, the whole concept of the National Estate to such an extreme that he could cause Tasmania to lose more than half a million dollars? Is this the same Premier who complains that Tasmania should receive an increased level of Commonwealth Government financial support? What can the Federal Government do to ensure that worthy projects in Tasmania are funded? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided me with the following information in response to Senator Coates's question: I understand that the program of $503,000 was put to the Tasmanian Minister by the Heritage Advisory Panel in late September 1986, some five months ago. I have been most concerned at this delay and I wrote to the Acting Tasmanian Minister for National Parks, Mr Hodgman, in December 1986, urging him to finalise his recommendation to me and asking him to let me know what was happening. Officials of my Department have also been in touch with Tasmanian officials to try to speed things up at the Tasmanian end. Despite this, I have heard nothing from Tasmania. As suggested by Senator Coates, the reason for the delay appears to be that the Tasmanian Premier cannot bring himself to agree to recommendations supporting projects related to the Aboriginal and natural environments. He has exerted pressure on his own panel of experts to change its program but, to its great credit, the panel has refused to compromise its principles. The Premier is, therefore, jeopardising this grant of $503,000 to the Tasmanian community. It reflects his disdain for the preservation of the National Estate in the same way as his woodchipping activities and his wish, recently conveyed to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, to try again to build a dam in the South West Tasmanian World Heritage area. Senator Walters —The Minister is reading her answer. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister should be heard in silence. Senator RYAN —Thank you, Mr President. I point out, for the sake of those who might have heard the interjection, that of course I am reading the answer since I represent Mr Cohen on this matter. I am giving information to Senator Coates which he and, I believe, the entire Tasmanian community are interested to hear. Because of the legislation which authorises the National Estate grants program, funds have to be directed through State governments. Unfortunately, therefore, unless the Tasmanian Premier relents and agrees to a proper and balanced program, Mr Cohen may have no alternative but to reallocate the money intended for Tasmania to other States. This will mean that Tasmania will miss out on $503,000. Community groups, such as the National Trust and local government authorities, will have to seriously curtail their activities and the National Estate in Tasmania will suffer. Senator SHORT —Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that Australia's accumulated balance of payments deficit on current account since the Hawke Government came to office now exceeds $40,000m, equivalent to more than $8,000 for each Australian family, and that its continued growth is inevitable so long as the Government persists with those policies which have led to the highest relative inflation and interest rates in our history, as well as the highest levels of taxation, government spending and government borrowing? Is it a fact that Australia's foreign debt, as a proportion of our gross domestic product, is now at the crisis level of 34 per cent, compared with less than 10 per cent in the late 1970s, and that the current level of the debt, $101 billion-or $20,000 a family-is forecast by the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Business Council of Australia to increase to between $140 billion and $160 billion within the next four years? In these circumstances, why will the Government not give a commitment to an immediate mini-Budget as a first essential step in the process of taking the necessary policy measures to reduce Australia's crippling balance of payments deficit? Senator BUTTON —A number of questions are wrapped up in Senator Short's main question, designed, I suppose, to give it a bit of colour. Let me make just a couple of points about that. I do not know how a man of Senator Short's alleged erudition can refer to policies leading to the present situation. Let me look briefly at the overseas debt situation and the current account problem. Senator Short's comparison was with the late 1970s. If he looks at the private sector component of the national debt, he will see an enormous leap at the end of the 1970s. The reason for that was the resources boom which was so magnificently talked up by Ministers in the Fraser Government and which led to an enormous increase in private sector overseas debt. Senator Short —I am talking about the debt increase in the past few years. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. Let me make a second point in relation to that. Part of the increase in the debt in the past few years has been because of the very sharp decrease in the value of the Australian dollar. That lends some dramatic quality to the figures. In contrast to a government which was in office for seven years, the former Prime Minister of which has said that the dollar was deliberately overvalued in order to keep inflation down-that is what he says about the seven years of his Government-but which still ran double digit inflation for its entire period of government. That is the sort of problem this Government inherited. The only point to Senator Short's question, without having some lengthy debate about these issues, was to ask whether the Government will have a mini-Budget. I have said on a number of occasions-I am quite happy to repeat myself to Senator Short-that if the Government decides to have a mini-Budget, or a May statement, or whatever it might be called, it will make that decision and inform people about it at the appropriate time. Senator Chaney —That is a good non-sequitur-if you decide, you will make a decision. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry; I am very bitter about being caught up in technical deficiencies in the English language. I concede the honourable senator's point. If the Government reaches a decision-I think that is better put-it will announce it, and Senator Short and everybody else who has asked this question in the past week will be beneficiaries of that announcement. Senator SHORT —I ask a supplementary question. Am I to take it from Senator Button's answer that he does not agree that a foreign debt which constitutes 34 per cent of Australia's gross domestic product does constitute a crisis? If he does not agree that that constitutes a crisis, what on earth does he need to convince himself of the need for immediate action to be taken? Senator BUTTON —If Senator Short wants to characterise that as a crisis, he will. As I said last week, crisis is foremost in the mentality of the Opposition because it has a series of crises on its hands. What is disappointing about the implication of Senator Short's question is the sort of hip-shooting quality about it-that is, we have a crisis and if we have a mini-Budget that will in some way resolve it. That implication is a lot of rubbish. Senator Chaney —He said `a first step'. Senator BUTTON —No, he did not say `a first step'. He said nothing about a first step. I have said here on numerous occasions that the current account crisis and the national debt problem of this country, if one wants to characterise them in that way, have been years in the making under conservative governments, and they will not be unmade quickly. No responsible commentator thinks that. The implication of Senator Short's question is that he thinks that. If Senator Short reads-perhaps he does not read, I do not know-he will see that, time and time again, responsible economic commentators have said that it will be a medium to long haul to recover that situation, an expression they have got from Ministers of this Government, and that the Government is proceeding in the right direction. We will continue to do so. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister noticed comments by the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, that he would tax union funds if he were in office federally-an unlikely event? Is it a fact that union funds are in reality the funds of individual union members and does this comment by the Premier indicate that his assertions about reducing tax are highly selective? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article in question. Sir Joh was quoted as saying: Unions drag in $300 million from the public purse each year. It's about time their unlimited funds were taxed. That's one of the first things we'll be doing when we get down there. Who `we' is I am not too sure. Let us look at the $300m figure. I do not know where Sir Joh got it from, but he certainly did not get it from the Treasurer's statement on tax expenditures put out in October 1986. The 1984-85 estimate is that individual taxpayers deducted $350m for union fees and subscriptions to professional organisations. That is a deduction from taxable income of that order which would suggest a figure very much closer to $100m as a cost to the public in revenue forgone rather than the $350m that Sir Joh suggested. It is true that trade unions and registered associations of employers and employees enjoy a global exemption for all their income and that the members of those organisations usually are allowed to deduct the fee from their individual taxable incomes. If Sir Joh just did not fabricate the figure he presumably intends to remove-as well as the labour unions which he has in his sights-the tax deductibility for contributions or subscriptions to registered associations of employers and employees. This, of course, would include professional organisations such as the Australian Society of Accountants, the Australian Medical Association, and employer organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry and presumably even the Australian Federation of Employers. I do not know what Andrew Hay would think of that, any more than I know what Mr McLachlan, for example, would think of the proposition, because that would mean that the individual members of the affiliated organisations-for example of the National Farmers Federation such as the Primary Industry Association of Western Australia which receives subscription income in the order of $1m-who provide those subscriptions would no longer be able to claim the deduction in personal taxable income if Sir Joh's policy were, in fact, implemented. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Defence that last week I asked whether the Government would confirm or deny the official American interpretation of the recent satellite photographs of Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, that interpretation pointing to a massive development of an air force and naval Russian base with modern long range aircraft, nuclear submarines and surface ships, all capable of missile deployment in the Australian region of influence. I ask: Has the Minister now the answer which he undertook to get? If not, what is the reason for the delay? Does the delay indicate that the Government is so unconcerned about Russian military involvement in this area that it did not bother to check immediately as to the accuracy of the information? When will the answer be available? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not yet have to hand the information that I sought from the Minister for Defence. I do not think there is any sinister explanation for that other than that the Minister has had his hands full in finalising the terms of the defence White Paper which will be brought down very shortly. I do not think there is any novelty or excitement about the matters to which Senator Sir John Carrick refers, but since he has stimulated me again in this way I will do my best to get an answer before the week is out. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Do I understand that the Minister and the Government do not see any connection between the correct interpretation of the buildup of the base at Cam Ranh Bay and the preparation of a defence White Paper? Senator GARETH EVANS —Whatever connection there may be, I do not think it is envisaged by anyone that an attack is about to be launched from Cam Ranh Bay within the next few days and, under the circumstances, I think it is reasonable for the Defence Minister to take his time and to produce a considered answer. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is it true that the broadest indirect tax base on final consumption expenditure can be conservatively estimated at $140 billion, as stated in the document released by Senator Messner last Friday? Can the Minister explain how wide a range of expenditures would need to be included in the base for a VAT before it would be reasonable to state $11.2 billion as the gross revenue yield from a VAT of 8 per cent? Senator WALSH —The figure of $140 billion as the base for a value added tax appears to have been taken from Professor Porter's Centre of Policy Studies. It should be noted that it is not the broadest indirect tax base that could be applied, because it explicitly excludes rent payments. Indeed, in technical terms the $140 billion is taken from the national accounts and it is private consumption expenditure minus rent. I do not know whether or not the rent was deducted from the base because Professor Porter's organisation is funded partly by the Housing Industry Association. Nevertheless, the Porter figure is a very broad one. It includes basic necessities such as bread, milk, potatoes, children's shoes and clothing-an 8 per cent tax on children's shoes and clothing; that is what Professor Porter and Senator Messner are advocating-household electricity and gas bills and so on. The tax base would also include a range of other items less apparent. For example-and this is on the definition of private expenditure as the base, minus rent-when a farmer provides food for a farm employee as part of his wage that food would be part of the Messner-Porter VAT base. The VAT would be calculated and paid on that base. The people who complained about the fringe benefits tax want to impose a VAT on exactly that same area of remuneration in kind instead of cash. More importantly, perhaps, and more surprisingly to some, when an age pensioner visits the doctor or has a prescription filled, the full cost of the doctor's bill and of the pharmacist's bill, which is commonly as high as $15 or $16 per prescription, will be subject to a VAT of 8 per cent. So the pensioner would easily finish up paying $5 or more in value added tax for a `free' prescription if the policy of Senator Messner and Professor Porter were to be implemented. Moreover when a church body, a charity or a professional society pays wages or salaries to its employees the payment of those wages and sal- aries-plus add on costs, incidentally-forms part of that Messner-Porter tax base of private consumption expenditure minus rent. That would of course be the equivalent of an 8 per cent payroll tax on churches, charitable institutions and non-profit organisations. Senator Messner —On a point of order, Mr President: I draw attention to the fact that Senator Walsh is using this as some kind of misrepresentation of my own position. I am not sure of Mr Porter's position but I certainly object to my name being linked with any VAT proposal. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —The proposal would also require the levying of VAT on car registration fees, on the stamp duty that is levied on car insurance policies and on a portion of the interest charged on consumer loans. That is not an exhaustive list of the payments which are recorded in the national accounts under the heading of private consumption expenditure. Finally, if Senator Messner does not like the partial, the non-exhaustive, list of transactions that would be subject to a VAT based on private consumption expenditure, I would certainly welcome from him a comprehensive list of those that he does propose to include. I will try to get the base assessed for him, if he wishes, on that basis. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that, despite the introduction of full fee paying courses for overseas students, the demand has actually increased-and quite substantially? Is it or is it not a fact that there are many thousands of students who have achieved the necessary university entrance standards but who are denied access to any university course, let alone the course of their choice, because of the Government's unwillingness or inability to provide the necessary funds and its rigid ideological objection to the establishment of private universities? Why should Australian citizens not have the same rights of access enjoyed by overseas students? Would the Government be better placed to allocate the necessary funding if financial support were withdrawn from such fascinating mainstream courses as the Minister's own Australian Capital Territory technical and further education course on skiing and horse riding or the University of Sydney undergraduate course in gastronomy, its Master of Commerce course, Leisure in Society, and its infamous Political Economy course known as Bessy, which allows students the choice of such exotic but utterly economically irrelevant units as Working Class Politics, the Political Economy of Women, Fine Arts, Religious Studies, Philosophers of Disobedience, Direct Action and Political Authority, Environmental Studies, the Economic and Social History of Minority Groups and Peace Studies? Is this what the Government means by academic excellence? Senator RYAN —Well, what an interesting question! We have just managed to learn something about the Liberal Party's education policy about which it has been so understandably coy. We have learned from Mr Shack that any non-government school will be funded regardless of standards and regardless of its effect on existing schools, that we will have a totally libertarian, open-ended approach to the funding of private schools. Mr Shack told us that over the weekend. Now Senator Alston has told us that the higher education policy, the university policy, of the coalition parties is to be censorship of universities. He has just let the cat out of the bag that the policy of the people sitting opposite will be to censor the courses operating at Sydney University. I hope that the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney University, Professor Ward, is interested to hear that the policy of the Liberal Party and the coalition-if it still exists-is to intervene in the academic domain of universities and to abolish courses. How interesting! Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. The Minister should be heard in silence. Senator Chaney —Mr President, as you have disturbed the Minister's flow, may I say that I welcome that because the Minister is clearly debating the question and I would ask you to call her to order and to require her to answer the question asked by Senator Alston. She is clearly incapable of doing so. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I ask all Ministers to answer questions as quickly as possible. Senator RYAN —Mr President, Senator Chaney's embarrassment is understandable since he seems to be more attached to traditional Liberal values such as the autonomy of universities, but clearly the New Right brigade within his ranks has taken over and, quite clearly, by way of implication we have had the announcement that the University of Sydney and presumably the other 18 universities throughout Australia are to have their courses investigated by Liberal Party senators and censored. I should also point out, because the honourable senator seems somewhat garbled in his approach, that technical and further education courses such as the ones he cited are available on a user pays principle. That, I thought, would have attracted the support of the Liberal Party, although any expectation that we might have of consistency from the Opposition is absolutely unfounded. The hobby TAFE courses are established according to the interests of people who want to undertake them and they pay for them. So it is entirely irrelevant to raise in a question about higher education funding those courses which citizens require and have organised through TAFE facilities. As to the question of how many students will complete their higher school certificate satisfactorily but fail to gain a university place, we cannot answer that question yet because all the enrolments are not complete-final offers have not yet been completed-but of course, as always, the Tertiary Education Commission, in consultation with the Vice-Chancellors Committee, will let us know what those figures are. But whatever they are-and last year there were some thousands of young people who could not gain a university place but who had marks which in other years would have got them a place-they will be very much lower than what would have prevailed under Liberal-National Party policies. In the four years of the Hawke Labor Government we have created about 48,000 extra higher education places. How many did the Fraser Government create in a comparable four-year period? Eight thousand. Senator McIntosh —How many? Senator RYAN —Eight thousand. So, whereas we have created 48,000 places, publicly available on merit, the Fraser Government created only 8,000 in a comparable period. Whatever calculations we do when enrolments are complete and however many places we are short, we can add on another 40,000 to know how many short we would be if the policies of the Opposition parties had prevailed. It is no use Opposition senators rising in this place to complain on behalf of students who cannot get places when they know two things. First, of all, the period of the Fraser Government saw the greatest attack on higher education since the Commonwealth had a significant role in it. Sir Robert Menzies would have turned in his grave at the attacks and onslaughts on universities and colleges of advanced education-a real decline in capital funding, a real decline in recurrent funding and a real negative growth in higher education. Senator Peter Baume —You reintroduced fees. Senator RYAN —Senator Peter Baume is shouting because he was Minister for part of the time and he is very embarrassed by it. Honourable senators who were associated with that period, when we saw an absolute decline in higher education and only 8,000 new places created, now stand up and say: `Well, how terrible. There is a shortfall in places'. If they had pursued policies similar to ours during their seven years of government there would be no shortfall. We would have places for all qualified students. We have inherited the terrible decline that they presided over and we are overcoming it; but we have not overcome it completely. It is also very clear that if those students who cannot get public places under the merit system currently available want places, in the unlikely event of a coalition government, they will have to pay $14,000 or $12,000 a year for them. Let us see how much demand there is under those circumstances. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I can understand the Minister's apoplectic fulminations in the tirade of abuse, but she did not get round to answering the first part of the question, which was whether there had been any increase in the number of overseas students subsequent to the introduction of the full fee paying regime. Senator RYAN —Yes, of course there has been an increase. The final numbers of full cost overseas students are not yet known, but when they are known we will make them available to the Senate. Last year there were in excess of, I think, 400 students coming in under the full cost basis. Now that we have had such a growth in the number of courses being offered by universities and CAEs for full cost students, I think we can expect the final numbers to be some thousands, but those numbers are not yet available. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's West Australian reporting comments by the Premier of Western Australia, Brian Burke, to the effect that if Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's tax plans were implemented without any corresponding cutbacks in expenditure, the Federal deficit for 1987-88 would reach $14 billion, interest rates for mortgages would climb above 20 per cent, most forms of investment and housing construction would fall off, and there would be major drops in the value of the Australian dollar? Is Premier Burke's analysis essentially correct? Senator WALSH —It is essentially correct but, I believe, understated. I am not sure of the basis on which Premier Burke compiled his estimate of $14 billion. For example, I am not sure whether he took any account of the necessary adjustment in the rate of tax for companies, the alternative to which would have been a very substantial erosion of the company tax base. I suspect that that was not taken into account in the Premier's assessment of $14 billion. My estimate for the loss to revenue flowing from the adoption of Sir Joh's `25c, 25c' policy would be $16 billion or more. As a consequence of that, and this is not something that can be precisely calculated, if the Treasury were then to attempt to sell more than $16 billion worth of government bonds, or their equivalent, there would certainly be a very sharp rise in interest rates-I would expect much more than 20 per cent and more likely in the 30 per cent to 40 per cent range that I suggested last week when I was detailing the two possible scenarios if there were to be a change of government. The first scenario was with Sir Joh as Prime Minister, calling the senior Public Service officials together and saying `25 per cent flat tax, 25 per cent flat tax'. The reply from the officials would be `But, Prime Minister, if we have your tax policy, we will have a $16 billion deficit', to which Sir Joh would reply: `Don't you worry about that; don't you worry about that; that's immaterial.' The Treasury would then try to sell the $16 billion worth of government bonds, interest rates would hit 30 per cent or 40 per cent and the Prime Minister would call the officials in again and say: `Bring down interest rates'. Then the white shoe brigade would tell him to get interest rates down by ordering the Treasury to stop selling bonds-in other words, not to fund the deficit. For a period interest rates probably would come down before the dollar crashed and hyperinflation set in. Of course, the other scenario was of John Howard as Prime Minister, implementing his tax policy as amended by Sir Joh. The senior Public Service officials would say: `But, Prime Minister, there would be a $10 billion or $11 billion deficit if we were to do that'. Mr Howard would say: `Don't you worry about that. That is what it was when I was Treasurer'. Senator VIGOR —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware of an item in the Treasurer's foreign investment policy guide which states: Foreign investment in mass circulation newspapers is restricted. All proposals by foreign interests to establish a newspaper in Australia are subject to case-by-case examination irrespective of the size of the proposed investment. Approval is not normally given to proposals by foreign interests to establish ethnic newspapers in Australia, unless there is substantial involvement by the local ethnic community and effective local control of editorial policy. In light of this, can the Minister explain why the requirements for foreign ownership of mass circulation dailies are so weak compared with foreign ownership of ethnic newspapers? Furthermore, does the Government still claim that under the Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines foreign ownership of the print media is restricted? If so, why does it refuse to release details of any representations made to the Board in the course of the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd takeover so that all Australians can judge whether the guidelines have any effect at all? Senator WALSH —I think the question asked whether I was familiar with the guidelines issued by the Treasurer pertaining to foreign ownership of print media, or words to that effect. I am afraid I am not familiar with them and nor am I able, off the top of my head, to answer any of the other questions that Senator Vigor asked. I will try to get a reply from the Treasurer. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Following the Minister's answer to a question last week on Australian aid to Vanuatu for airfield upgrading, I ask the Minister: Has the Government yet received a full assessment of the damage to Vanuatu caused by cyclone Uma earlier this month? What emergency aid has the Australian Government given to Vanuatu since the cyclone? Is the Government satisfied that Australia's contribution, along with other international assistance, is sufficient to meet short term emergency needs as well as preparing the ground for a full recovery? Senator GARETH EVANS —Cyclone Uma, which hit Vanuatu on 7 February, caused very extensive and significant damage. Forty-five lives were lost and damage to property and infrastructure, including the essential and vital tourist industry, is still being assessed but will clearly run into many millions of dollars. Australia did act very quickly in response to requests for emergency assistance from the Vanuatu Government and to date approximately $780,000 has been committed. Royal Australian Air Force Hercules flights have been employed to carry emergency materials including shelter materials, communications equipment, food and medical supplies as well as personnel. Additional relief supplies were shipped on 13 February and are now available in Vila. Our High Commissioner in Vila is in close contact with the Government of Vanuatu on relief and rehabilitation requirements. The Government of Vanuatu co-ordination authorities are still assessing reports from remote and outlying areas. With the exception of remote and outlying areas the Government of Vanuatu is now beginning to focus more clearly on rehabilitation requirements. We are currently considering recommendations made by the High Commission in Vila based on discussions with the Vanuatu Government concerning the form of Australian assistance in the rehabilitation phase. In this context, the Government's decision last week to provide funding for the upgrading of the main airstrip at Bauerfield in Port Vila is relevant. In providing the commitment of over $1m in additional aid funds for this purpose, which I mentioned here last week, the Government took account of the fact that the Vanuatu Government has maintained its priority for that project in the context of demands on its national resources caused by the cyclone. I should say finally that the Government of Vanuatu has expressed its appreciation of the speed, effectiveness and generosity of Australia's response to the emergency. We are in close contact, through the High Commission, with the local Government's continuing aid requirements. Mr Hayden has approved arrangements to ensure that the flow of Australian assistance to Vanuatu continues as the Government of Vanuatu completes its assessment of remaining emergency needs and medium and longer term rehabilitation requirements. Australia will certainly respond to this further assessment sympathetically, quickly and, we hope, effectively. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the earlier comments of Senator Button in response to a question from Senator Short regarding the indication of a May economic statement. Can the Minister confirm that the tax cuts promised to apply from 1 July 1987 will actually occur? Senator WALSH —The tax rate scale to apply from 1 July 1987 is enacted. Senator MESSNER —I have a supplementary question. The Minister failed to answer the question. I would like a specific answer to the point that if there is to be an economic statement-and it looks as though there is-he can confirm that the tax cuts will not be revoked. Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to what I said before other than to say that we now have one hypothetical question piled on top of another. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It relates to Press reports on the weekend that a Japanese company is seeking financial support from the governments of Japan, Australia and the Netherlands to repair and improve the 170 kilometre Burma-Thailand railway. Considering Australian and other allied prisoners of war played such an important part in the construction of the railway at a cost of many tens of thousands of lives, will the Minister inform the Senate whether such a request for assistance has been received and, if so, whether the Government is considering becoming involved with this reconstruction project? Senator GIETZELT —No doubt there is considerable public interest in the suggestion which has been made by the Chiyoda Engineering Consultant Co. to repair and improve the 170 kilometre railway in the Burma-Siam area of South East Asia. It has been suggested that some approaches will be made to the Australian Government to provide funds for this restoration. It has to be recognised that it is 42 years since the end of World War II and that a considerable two way process of trade and relationships between Japan and Australia has developed. Therefore, relationships between our two countries need to be maintained and extended. I agree with the statement made by my colleague the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the Hon. Tom Uren, that restoration of this railway could be useful to the people of Asia and good for the interests of peace in the region. I remind the Senate that the Returned Services League of Australia has always taken a keen interest in reconciliation between past enemies and our country. I remind Senator McKiernan that the Returned Services League organised a trip to Gallipoli in 1960, some 45 years after that event. It is now 42 years since the involvement of Australian prisoners of war in the building of the death railway. In no way do I want to glorify the horrific experiences of those prisoners of war, of whom about a third perished during the construction of the railway. However, I have to endorse the general sentiments of the National President of the Returned Services League, who takes the view that we need more information about this matter before we are able to take a definitive position on it. Certainly the Australian Government would not be attracted to providing funds for the railway's restoration, although, as Sir William Keys has said, the RSL has provided $30,000 to supply a diesel electric generator to a village on the line as a practical memorial to those who worked on and died in the railway's construction. It is a question of understanding our practical approach to this proposition and not taking a racist position in respect of it. I believe that we should express compassion for those who died in the construction of the railway and concern for those whose lives have been affected by it. It is not something we can sweep away. It was a very horrible experience for those who worked on the railway. We need to take steps to find out the details. Some organisations or companies may have an interest in the project, not for the purpose of glorifying what happened in the construction of the railway, but rather to commemorate those who died in its construction. Senator GIETZELT —On Friday my colleague Senator Tate was asked a question by Senator Jessop in respect of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. I remind the Senate that health matters in the Australian Capital Territory come within my representative capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Territories, who has provided me with a response. Therefore, I take the opportunity to respond on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes. I am advised that, despite Mr Rowe's claims, it is not true that there is insufficient money available to maintain the mortuaries in the Australian Capital Territory, as suggested. A number of matters were raised recently with the Authority; for example, the provision of a shower facility for the staff. This matter is to be addressed by the Health Authority at a meeting to be held tomorrow, 24 February. Funds continue to be available for all aspects of the cost of providing the high level of Australian Capital Territory health care services. There is no truth in the suggestion that the quality and scope of those services is being adversely affected by funding problems. The recent restructuring of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority has reduced the cost of senior executives. The new arrangements facilitate management and the provision of health care services through the devolution of management responsibility and by providing more flexibility in the way health care services are provided. The Authority's senior executives have the same conditions of service as those applying generally in the Commonwealth sector. The lastest information available to the Authority is that as at 30 June 1986 the South Australian Health Commission had 24,163 full time equivalent staff. At that time, the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority, for a similar range of services, had 4,100 full time equivalent staff. It is also important to note that the Australian Capital Territory provides services not only for the 270,000 Australian Capital Territory residents but also for a significant number of the population resident in the surrounding regions of New South Wales. Therefore, the question of visiting medical officer contracts is quite separate from the other considerations raised. Negotiations on that matter were convened between the Australian Medical Association and the Authority in November 1986. Because of the very sensitive nature of the issues concerned and the implications of the outcome nationally, the matter of increased remuneration for doctors in the Australian Capital Territory is now being handled at government level. It is hoped that the matter will be finalised as soon as possible. The PRESIDENT —I have examined the terms of the notice of motion given earlier today by Senator Macklin in respect of which the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, raised a point of order. It is my view that the wording of the notice is not in breach of standing order 415 relating to reflections on a vote of the Senate, and I therefore will allow it. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Baume proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Labor Government to take the necessary action to stop the decline in living standards of Australian families. 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 PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.11) —The subject of this matter of public importance is the failure of the Labor Government to take the necessary action to stop the decline in living standards of Australian families, and it will rest upon several main limbs: First, there has been a decline in living standards of Australian people and their living standards are dropping further today and every day-and the Labor Government does nothing about it. Second, within that fall in living standards Australian families have been especially hit, particularly those families rearing children. Our future generations have been especially disadvantaged by what is happening in this country. There has been no equality of sharing of the burden. It has fallen on our families. They have borne an undue part of what is happening today. The third limb of the argument is that it has always been within the capacity of this Labor Government, had it so wished, to ease some of the burdens for families, but it has not done so and what it has done has been too little and insufficient. The fourth limb is that a Liberal-National Party government would recognise the problem. Our parties do recognise the problem. We give it priority and we have policies which would allow us to respond. Since the Labor Government was elected in March 1983 Australian families have suffered, and continue to suffer, a massive drop in living standards. The support structure provided by families has been undermined and eroded, putting more strain on individuals within families, and making it more difficult for them to perform the vital functions they undertake on behalf of all members of society. That has added to the pressures, has compounded the problems and has increased the difficulties under which they work. Instead of being able to concentrate on their fundamental task related to our national future, they are busy today just trying to survive. One major cause of family breakups in Australia, as we know, is the economic pressure which a decline in living standards can place on families as they have fewer resources to provide for their own needs. Labor's policies have hit families where it hurts most. Accommodation is harder to get and costs more. Health care and basic necessities have become more expensive. Senator Walters —Can't even get them in the hospitals. Senator PETER BAUME —As Senator Walters says, we cannot even get them into hospitals. Taxation is increasing, and medical costs are increasing markedly. Just 10 days ago I attended a public meeting of protest on a Sunday afternoon in Glossodia, which is west of Sydney, just outside Windsor. That ratepayers' protest meeting was not a small meeting; more than 200 people-fathers and mothers and their children-turned up. The immediate cause of the protest was a New South Wales Water Board levy which has hit every household in that area with a charge of an extra $500 or so a year. But the underlying cause and the thing that the citizens of Glossodia were putting to me time and time again-I was the only politician there; the Labor politicians, although they were invited, found it more convenient to stay away and not one of them turned up-was that the levy was the final straw for many families who were trying to bring up children in the area. They had moved to the area to try to own their own homes and to provide decent living space for their children. They were determined to do this. They were caring, responsible, motivated people who wanted nothing more than to own and keep their homes, to care for themselves and to rear their children. But the levy was the final straw on top of other things which have happened during the period of this Labor Government. What are some of the things that have made the functioning of these families so difficult? Inflation has risen and continues to be high, which has meant that everything families need, family essentials, are more expensive and are continuing to get more expensive. High interest rates, which have soared under this Government and are failing to fall in spite of its promises, have made families' mortgages too expensive for them to bear. Many of the families at that meeting asked me what they were to do. Were they to get out of their homes, give up and move away? How were they to pay off their mortgages and become home owners? We have seen a national debt which has soared above the $100,000m mark. This debt is diverting community resources from families to debt servicing. We have seen record tax levels and record tax takes, so that each family is being impoverished as it has to pay more and more tax, even under Labor's new regime. We have seen snowballing business taxes. This is affecting families because it means that fewer jobs are available than there would have been. Many family people are finding it difficult to find employment. There is less employment and less wealth for all Australians. Senator Walters —The businesses are going bankrupt. Senator PETER BAUME —Many businesses are going bankrupt, as Senator Walters said. There is a housing crisis which is getting worse month by month, so fewer houses are available. Higher rents and higher mortgage costs are becoming unaffordable. The collapse of the accord is imminent, which means that we will see what has taken place all over again, and all those factors will get worse and worse. Let us look in more detail at some of the declines in family living standards. During Labor's period in office wages have risen less than has the cost of living, so there has been a fall in real living standards. This has been bad enough for individuals, but it has been compounded for families, which have been unduly hit and have borne more than their share of the burden. One would have thought that the Government would try to keep the position of families steady. It has not done so-quite the reverse. The purchasing power of families has diminished markedly during this Government's three-year period, partly as a result of the fall in wages. The rise in interest rates and rents to record levels means that families are now having to pay more for everything; more from a declining pay packet. The effect on mortgage repayments has already been disastrous. Only yesterday the Real Estate Institute of Australia released figures which show that the average family is now spending more than 25 per cent of its gross income on home loan repayments. I have shown to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, a table which shows that mortgage repayments have soared by amounts of up to 25 per cent during the past year, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MORTGAGE REPAYMENTS SOAR State Average monthly repayment Increase over 12 months $ % A.C.T.... 718 +12 N.S.W.... 698 +21 S.A.... 622 +28 Vic.... 609 +24 Qld... 532 +18 W.A.... 495 +23 Tas.... 468 +35 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. Not only have interest rates and mortgages risen relative to real incomes, but also family health costs have been continually increasing because of a cost explosion, contributed to by the way in which the Medicare scheme is structured and operated. From last December Medicare costs rose by 25 per cent, when Labor broke yet another election promise-one of its many broken election promises. It raised the Medicare levy on all Australian families by 25 per cent. Even before this families experienced heavy increases in private health insurance costs and the lifting of the Medicare levy merely added to their troubles. The cost of basic necessities such as food and clothing have risen dramatically. Our inflation rate is now 9.8 per cent. I have a table here which shows our inflation rate compared to that of some of our major trading partners. It has been shown to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Inflation rate Japan... -0.3 West Germany... -1.2 United States... 1.3 France... 2.1 United Kingdom... 3.5 Canada... 4.5 Italy... 4.7 Australia... 9.8 Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. This table shows that the inflation rate in Australia today is five times that of the average of our trading partners and seven times the average of some major Western economies. I remind honourable senators that in Japan and West Germany inflation is actually negative-that is to say, costs are falling slightly-but Australia has a 10 per cent inflation rate. It means that it costs more here and that it is getting more expensive more quickly, and that is impacting on our families. Despite the much trumpeted Keating tax reform, taxpayers are paying more today in Australia than ever before. Even with the new tax regime, after 1 July the tax take from Australian families will be greater than it has ever been. Australian families are suffering and single income families are being particularly hit. They have had scant relief from any tax regime introduced by this Government. Australian families at the moment are struggling economically on a large number of fronts. As this happens, families are finding that they have to do without. They have to do without their own homes when they wish to become home owners. Some families, in the process of buying a home, have to give up that home as they can no longer afford the mortgage repayments. I know a young man who took a mortgage a year ago. The interest rates since then have risen step by step and now he is forced to work in a second job merely to pay the extra interest rates that have occurred since the mortgage was taken, which was then in the capacity of that family to pay. Families have to do without their food if they are in the position of having to pay more than 25 per cent of their average gross earnings on their mortgage repayments. Clothes cannot be afforded, essentials have to be put aside, households have to do without necessities. This is not the way we wish to see our families function or our children provided for. We know that economic pressure and stress are among the factors that have been identified by the Institute of Family Studies as contributing markedly to family breakdown in Australia. The regime being imposed on Australian families by the Labor Government today will mean more stress, more economic hardship, and will bring in its train more family breakdowns. Family living standards have declined because Labor's policies have taken us in the wrong direction. These policies have been responsible for the falling dollar. These policies have contributed to the collapse in our terms of trade. They have been responsible for Australia's massive increase in national indebtedness-more than $100,000m. Labor's policies have been responsible for the double downgrading of our AAA credit rating, something of which we were proud. It is these occurrences which have contributed to families living less well and to the fall in family living standards. Labor cannot avoid responsibility for bringing each one of them about. The Labor Party in government has busied itself with redistributing wealth before it has created the wealth-a sure recipe for disaster, but it has done it. It busied itself with increasing wages before it had the productivity-a sure recipe for national economic disaster, but it has done it. It has propped up a rigid and inflexible labour market, adding further to our problems and to our costs. It has added to our costs with more Government intervention which has made it more difficult for people who want to create wealth, who want to give jobs to people. Private employers have found it more difficult. The Government has launched a savage attack on Australian business, and Australian business understands that in spite of what Government apologists may say. We are aware that Labor's new capital gains and fringe benefit taxes, its accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions-now breaking down-its ending of negative gearing for the providing of housing and its big spending, big taxing, big borrowing policies have all impacted, perhaps through a series of steps, and ended up with our families being worse off. We have ended up with high inflation, high interest rates, uncompetitive business and a massive foreign debt. Under this Government we have a dollar which has collapsed, we have an Australian economy which is internationally uncompetitive and we have disastrous terms of trade. Senator Zakharov —So, we are borrowing for takeovers. Senator PETER BAUME —Perhaps Senator Zakharov will tell us about our terms of trade and tell us what her Government is doing to make this nation prosperous again. The story is a pretty sorry one, and I inform the honourable senator that it will get worse unless her Government repents and alters what it is doing. We must become competitive again if our living standards are to be raised, and only when this happens or when the Government decides to move decisively in a pro-family way will we see our families doing better. The coalition under John Howard's leadership is prepared to take the necessary action to restore Australia's trading position. More specifically, a government under John Howard will be prepared to take action to help the families of Australia. Honourable senators on this side will all know that the Opposition has put out a policy overview relating to families. We were the first major political group to get such a document out, and it states what we are going to do for Australian families. Senator Teague —A good policy. Senator PETER BAUME —It is a good policy, as Senator Teague says. It shows that we care for families and it contains some of the value statements which are so important. I will quote just one of the statements from it: We will implement policies which help form, support, encourage and maintain the family and promote its role in the continuing development of the Australian nation. I challenge Australian Labor Party members to say that they share that noble ideal or that they are prepared to take action to make it a reality. Of course they are not. This is the Government which gave us the inflation which made essential goods so expensive for every family; this is the Government which gave us the high interest rates which are causing families to be turned out of the homes that they are trying to buy; this is the Government which has made rentals so expensive; this is the Government which has given us the debt which has made less community money available for community purposes; this is the Government which gave us the levels of taxation which are impoverishing our families right across the nation; this is the Government which gave us such business taxes that we cannot create the jobs that we want; and this is the Government whose housing crisis has meant that fewer houses are being commenced, that fewer houses are available for rental, that rentals are too high and that mortgages are now unaffordable. Some housing record from a Labor Government! This is the Government that is promising that it will all get worse as its famed accord falls. In Question Time today Senator Button was asked a question by Senator Chaney about living standards in Australia. Senator Button readily acknowledged in his answer, as Leader of the Government, that family living standards have fallen in Australia. He said all living standards have fallen. I would like to say to the Leader of the Government that Australian families are worse off-we are delighted that he admits that everyone is worse off-and that this is not a particularly good record for a government. But Senator Button went on to say that Australian families were not badly off. Senator Button-on a Minister's salary of perhaps $100,000; perhaps a bit less when it is all added up-would not know what it is like for the average Australian family trying to cope. He would not understand the problems. I have news for him: They are badly off and they are hurting, and when they come to the protest meetings they are concerned that a water rate levy of $500 has tipped the balance, that they can no longer cope and that they do not know what to do. It does not matter to them what level of government is involved. This Government has always had, and continues to have now, the capacity to apportion the load differently. The Labor Government could, if it wished, take decisive action in the next few months to make sure that Australian families are helped a little with the job they are trying to do. But it has failed to do that in any effective way. Anything the Government had done has been just tinkering at the edges, and we have assumed this, of course, to be an expression of deliberate and a determined government policy. What has happened, what is happening, to the families of Australia is a tragedy; it is shortsighted; it is ideological and it will work to the disadvantage of the whole Australian society. This Government could help, it could intervene, it could do things which it has failed to do and we call upon it to recognise the falling living standards of Australian families and to do the things within its powers today to restore to Australian families the place they deserve and the opportunities they deserve. A Liberal-National Party government could do it; a Liberal-National Party government will do it as soon as we are given the opportunity. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(3.30) —We are debating today a matter of public importance concerning the alleged failure of the Labor Government to take the necessary action to stop the decline in living standards of Australian families. Unlike Senator Peter Baume, I will concentrate mainly on family policies rather than the waffle of broader issues such as the overseas trade balance, which may be indirectly concerned with this matter but which certainly has much more bearing on matters such as borrowings for company takeovers. Senator Walters —You haven't even got a Minister here. Senator ZAKHAROV —In order perhaps to quieten Senator Walters I should say that I was asked to speak on this matter because it is an area in which I have some expertise and some experience. The relevant Minister is new to his portfolio and I was asked to speak in this debate as a member of the welfare committee of Caucus and as somebody who is-- Senator Walters —That is how much they think of it; they don't even have a Minister in the House. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters is interjecting too much. Senator ZAKHAROV —I am trying to answer the interjection Senator Walters made. My work before I entered Parliament was concerned with family welfare. My many years experience as a sole parent has been in that area and since I entered Parliament I have taken it as a particular area of study. That is why I am speaking on the matter today. I would like to begin with a little bit of history. The Parliamentary Library last year produced a basic paper on Commonwealth social security cash benefits since Federation. It is interesting that the document shows that nearly all those benefits were introduced by Labor governments and most improvements in their level or cover have also come from Labor governments. For example, it was the Fisher Government in 1912 which introduced the maternity allowance, the first recognition by any Australian government that children needed particular support. It was the Curtin Government in the forties which introduced unemployment, sickness and special benefits. Those of my generation who can remember the extreme poverty and loss of dignity suffered by the unemployed in the 1930s realise just how important that decision was. The supporting parent's benefit was introduced by the Whitlam Government. Most recently, the family income supplement was introduced by the present Hawke Labor Government. I believe that was the first real attempt to give help specifically to low income families in the work force. Obviously, cash benefits do not present the whole picture. I will say something later about the components of the social wage, but I think it is significant that as a Labor movement we have had the interests of families paramount in our policies for over 60 years. There are two parts to this matter of public importance-the allegation of a decline in living standards of Australian families and the necessary action to stop that alleged decline. I will deal with the facts about living standards and, along the way, refer to actions we are taking and have taken to improve those standards. Firstly, what are Australian families? The common element in all families is that they have children-in this context, dependent children. The stereotype of the family, what most people traditionally think of as a family, would be two parents and, in contemporary terms, probably two to three children. But there are large numbers of Australian families that do not fit that stereotype, and it is important that we remember that a significant proportion of families do not fit that stereotype. In 1981-these are the latest census figures-there were 252,000 families comprising one parent and one or two dependent children. In addition, the census family type comprising parent, children and other adults accounted for another 65,000 families. Many of these are also sole parent families, the `other adults' being the older children in the family. In that same census the two parent, two child family comprised only 56.7 per cent of the whole. Yet that is the stereotype and that is what Opposition parties seem usually to be talking about. I have said that the common element in families is children, and what this Government has as its main family concern is children. Families with children have the Government's top priority. The authors of the Government's social security issues review paper on income support for families with children found that 20 per cent of children live in families below the poverty line, and they need our priority help. Without ignoring the needs of families above the poverty line-they are also being addressed-clearly the needs of that 20 per cent of children are paramount. Those senators who spoke last week with groups from the Low Income Network and the Campaign for Economic Justice will have some idea of what that sort of poverty means in terms of meeting children's basic needs. I doubt that any honourable senator in the chamber would argue about the priority of meeting the needs of those children. Incidentally, I did not see any member of the Opposition at that luncheon with low income families, although Opposition members were invited. The social security review is concerned with identifying such needs, consulting widely with the community about possible ways of meeting them and advising government on the best action to take. No previous government conducted anything like a similar review. I will be referring to other aspects of it later. Senator Walters —What have you done? Senator ZAKHAROV —The review is not complete. What then of the allegations that there has been a decline in the living standards of Australian families in recent years? Under the Liberals, the percentage of Australian children dependent on social security payments tripled, from about 7 per cent to over 20 per cent, while benefits paid for children slumped. The additional pension for children and the mothers/guardians allowance paid to single parents on social security under the Fraser Government both fell by over one-third. The Labor Government has worked to restore the real levels of assistance to families. Under this Government, additional pension for children has risen by 70 per cent from $10 to $17, while the mothers/guardians allowance has doubled, from $6 to $12. As I have said, the social security review is conducting an examination of assistance for families and the Government has established a ministerial committee to assess expenditure options in that area. Last year's Budget included measures to reduce the effects of poverty traps. These traps occur because a pensioner who earns anything over the income test free limit not only is taxed on that income but also loses a part of the pension. This is a very powerful disincentive to re-entering the work force and it works to keep low income families in poverty. As from July 1987 the poverty traps will be alleviated in the following ways: The amount pensioners can receive without any loss of pension is being increased from $30 to $40 per week for single pensioners and from $50 to $70 per week-an increase of $20-for married couple pensioners; and allowable income for each child in a pensioner family is to be increased from $6 to $12 per week. In other words, we are addressing that question of the poverty trap. The social security review survey on sole parent pensioners' work force barriers had this to say: Despite regional variations, the majority in each area indicated a preference for working in the future even though they saw work force barriers inhibiting their chances. . . . While the majority wished to improve their work skills, many saw difficulties associated with attempting to do so, in particular the costs and accessibility of both training and child care. By far the most commonly cited work force barrier was child care, including costs, access, transport to and from work, and hours. The pension income test combined with loss of concessions were also seen as important work force barriers for some. The child care barrier, of course, has received a great deal of attention. The present Government has increased the accessibility of child care, particularly for low income families, by over 150 per cent. When we look at living standards we are not looking just at cash benefits accruing to families since the Labor Government came to power; we also have to look at the other benefits gained by families which are components of what may be termed the social wage. I refer to such matters as the introduction of Medicare. I would remind Senator Peter Baume, incidentally, that it is not necessary for families to have private medical cover. Many of us do not. There have been improvements to housing and improvements to education at all levels as well as the provision of child care, which I have already referred to. It has been calculated that a family of two adults and two children with a pre-tax income of average weekly earnings is better off under the Labor Government, through the operation of the social wage, by over $7,500 per annum. I come now to the more recent initiatives to assist families in need, and that is in the area of child support in cases where only one of the two parents contributes to the maintenance of the child. This is an issue which means a great deal to me, as I was in the position of those sole parents in the years of conservative governments. That was not an issue they dealt with, I can assure honourable senators. Late last year a Cabinet sub-committee chaired by the Minister for Social Security, Mr Brian Howe, was set up to examine options for reforming current child maintenance arrangements. This is a problem that covers the entire economic spectrum, from low income earners who may have some financial limitation on what they can pay, to those on middle to high incomes who use the present system to do deals to maximise social security benefits. Incidentally, they often use the tax system to do that; in other words they are tax frauds as well. No matter what the economic circumstances, it is the children of irresponsible, non-custodial parents who suffer, and it is the Australian taxpayers who, through the welfare system, have footed the bill for that neglect. All too many parents who no longer share a home with their children now fail to share their income with those dependants. The disturbing figures are that 70 per cent of people who should support their children do not. Those children are suffering because one parent has turned his or her back on his or her responsibilities. This is an issue which I have discussed with Opposition members at both the State and Federal level, and I believe it will have Opposition support. In this matter of public importance the Opposition is expressing criticism of the Government's policy in the area of support for families, both direct and indirect. What would be the effect on families of the policies of the competing sections or factions of the Opposition? First, the income splitting proposal, which keeps getting recycled annually at least, looks superficially attractive, just as a flat tax looks superficially attractive. But income splitting would cost something like $3 billion. To allow for this, either the average tax rate would have to rise to about 8 per cent or Budget expenditure would have to be cut by that amount. What would the Opposition cut? Would it cut funding for health, education, housing or community services? There are cheaper and more equitable ways of assisting families in need. Income splitting is a very inefficient vehicle for family assistance because it gives most help to the highest income earners, and that help does not depend on family size. The poorest of the families who have two parents working in order to make ends meet would receive no benefit, and would probably have to pay more tax in order to make up for the revenue lost. Those whose income is below a taxable level would gain nothing and would possibly lose through decreased money available for such programs as public housing and education. Sections of the Opposition are also keen to have some form of consumption tax, and a level of 8 per cent seems to be popular, combined with a reduction in the top marginal tax rate to 40 per cent. In that case a family with two children on $15,000 a year would be $21 a week worse off. On the other hand, a household on $100,00 a year would be $54 a week better off. Is this what the Opposition means by assistance to families? Does it want assistance only for high income families? In addition, the Opposition has made it clear that it intends to cut the social wage. What would it cut first-health, education or pensions? These policies do not sit easily with the Opposition's statement to which Senator Peter Baume referred. In the second last paragraph of its `Policy Overview: Your family, the Liberal/National Party Approach', it says: We will not implement policies detrimental to families. In government, we will ensure that the interests of families are protected throughout the policy and decision-making process. When the Opposition finally gets around to a tax policy we will see how it fits with that statement. I believe this Government can be proud of its record on maintaining family standards and its moves towards greater social equity for families. It will be doing even more in the months and years to come. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.45) —The matter of public importance before us today is: The failure of the Labor Government to take the necessary action to stop the decline in living standards of Australian families. This failure is supported by ample evidence. The living standards of average Australians, and particularly of families on average incomes or below, are certainly falling. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and leading business persons all agree that our living standards will fall further. I might add that, at the same time, the living standards of speculators, takeover merchants and foreign investors, who can take advantage of Australia's economic miseries, are rising. The wealthy are getting wealthier, middle income families are being squeezed, and those dependent on social security payments for their income are, by and large, living in poverty. Evidence of the loss of net disposable income by families is, as I said, readily available, and one figure demonstrates that: Between 1975 and 1985 the amount of income tax imposed on a family with four children, living on average weekly earnings, has increased by 435 per cent, while wages have increased by only 135 per cent. The tax system has changed to the point where individuals are favoured over families. For families dependent upon government support the picture is also grim. Let us consider the case of a typical single mother, with two dependent children, whose only income is a supporting parent benefit and the family allowance. She is divorced, as are 80 per cent of single mothers, and receives no financial assistance from the father of the children. If she did, she would not be typical, since 70 per cent of maintenance orders are not complied with. Her total income, which comprises the supporting parent benefit of $106.20 a week, the mother's or guardian's allowance of $12 a week, the children's entitlement, twice over, of $34 a week, plus the family allowance, comes to $164.97 a week. The Melbourne University's Department of Economic Research states that the poverty line for one adult not working, with two children, is $211.70 per week. Therefore, that family's income is $46.73 below the poverty line. The `Social Security Review' has recently drawn attention to the fact that Australia's rate of cash transfer to families and its rate of tax rebates or deductions were the third lowest of the 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries listed. The `Social Security Review' stated: This is a reasonable argument in favour of immediate increases in cash transfers and tax rebates or deductions to families with children. The children that we perhaps ought to be most concerned about are the children who are living in poverty. Current figures show that 19 per cent of Australian children-some 800,000-are in families with incomes below the poverty line, and that percentage is increasing. This, of course, is an extraordinarily serious situation. There will be drastic consequences for these children and for Australia as a whole if this trend is not reversed. This is an argument in favour of targeting cash payments to families in greatest need. I gave the example of a single mother with two children, but let us take the example of a couple with two children to see how that compares and to draw attention to the fact that their position has declined during the Hawke Government's term of office. In March 1983 a couple with two children dependent on government support was $21.55 below the poverty line. In December of last year it was $37.60 below the poverty line. A couple with four children moved from $41.65 below the poverty line when this Government came to office to $69.60 below the poverty line at Christmas 1986. A single parent with three children has moved from $40.20 below the poverty line when this Government came to office to $62.30 below the poverty line at Christmas last year. One of the reasons for that decline, and the reason why I stress the situation at Christmas last year, was that the action taken by this Parliament in delaying consumer price increase rises had an impact which was felt by those families particularly at that time. They are having to wait until July this year to catch up. Of course, it is women in our society who are bearing the bulk of the burden in those families dependent on social security payments, government payments, for support. In the last four or five years, families-particularly single parent families, largely headed by women-have slipped further and further below the poverty line. As I have said, it is particularly women who are suffering in this situation. Of course, one of the most effective ways of improving this situation, of getting people out of poverty, would be to ensure that more family breadwinners, whether in single families or not, are able to secure employment. The level of unemployment among sole parents is extraordinarily high; 83 per cent of sole parents come within the social security system. Given that fact, it is significant that we should recognise the obstacles facing these unemployed people, particularly women, in attempting to get employment, particularly those women who have responsibility for families and who have to exercise that responsibility while living below the poverty line. The general high level of unemployment is the first barrier; it is still at over 8 per cent. In that context there is strong competition for jobs. Regrettably, it is women in our society who find it most difficult to overcome the obstacles in that situation. Even though we are approaching the end of the twentieth century, women and girls are still not achieving the same levels of educational qualifications, experience or expertise, or having the same opportunities, as men. I refer here to a recent Government action, supported by members of the Opposition in spite of their cries of protest over the issue, namely, the imposition of the $250 tertiary education fee which has placed another barrier in the way of women attempting to increase their level of qualifications and expertise. They have been hit markedly, as we are now seeing coming to this new education year. As Senator Zakharov said, those women also face the problem of child care. There has been a lot of talk about lower tax rates, flat tax rates and so forth. Not enough attention has been paid to the fact that people dependent on government benefits are really suffering an extraordinarily high effective tax rate. If they are able to earn money, they lose 50 per cent of their benefit. Also, once they move beyond the tax-free threshold, they suffer the regular tax rate. That seems to be a particularly unfair situation. We need to look at what is causing this decline in living standards and at what solutions this Government, the Howard Opposition and perhaps even the Joh party are offering. Our living standards are falling. We are massively in debt to foreigners and yet most individual Australians have not borrowed overseas. That borrowing is mostly at the hands of governments-State governments in particular, through their instrumentalities-and the private corporations which borrow overseas, use the money to take over an existing company, deduct the interest payments through negative gearing on companies owned overseas and thus avoid their tax liability. As we saw in the Budget session, this Government then turns around and says to people such as those families that we are discussing today: `You face the responsibility. You take the cuts'. At the same time those companies go ahead on their merry way. As a nation we owe over $100 billion overseas. All Australian governments since World War II, with the exception perhaps of the Whitlam and Gorton governments, have fed to us the line that it is the thing to do and that it will benefit Australia. We are now reaping the cost of that kind of bipartisan policy. Our domestic economic problems are a reflection of that overseas problem. We need to re-establish our trade position, which is bad because we continue to import at a massive rate. Our manufacturing industries cannot replace imported goods quickly enough and the prices for our exports, particularly of primary products and resource products, are falling in the world markets. Our dollar is low, our interest rates are high, our level of economic growth is low, unemployment is growing and inflation is high. What do the other parties offer? Well, the Hawke Government, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia, and even the Johists, all offer variations of the same solution-less government expenditure and let the unregulated market somehow solve everything. Senator Zakharov understandably leant upon the historical record of the Australian Labor Party-understandably because, of course, the current Hawke Government is scarcely recognisable as a Labor government. Its attitude to that very part of our overseas debt problem, which she was prepared to admit is relevant-that is, the negative gearing problem-is a clear demonstration of that. The Australian Democrats have looked at the policies of the other parties. As I suggested, they appear very similar to each other in fundamental principles. The Howard alternative would reintroduce the free lunch and abolish the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and the assets test in order to benefit the wealthy. It would also introduce further tax cuts on top of the Keating cuts and finance those by further expenditure cuts and by increasing indirect taxes. The increasing of indirect taxes would hurt all families since food, clothing, footwear and shelter would not be exempt. Massive expenditure cuts in social security would push those already living in poverty into the miserable conditions of people in Third World countries. We would truly be a banana republic, with a class of Australians so poor that they could not afford basic food and shelter. These people would work for very little money because they would want to eat. There would be created a group of desperately poor Australians. The abolition of Medicare would increase health costs for middle income Australians and leave the poor without health care. The reintroduction of tertiary fees would mean that only the wealthy would be able to afford tertiary education for their children. Yet the New Right and Mr Howard believe that such acts would make Australians better off. Perhaps those with jobs and those who are wealthy and have no children would be better off. The wealthy would continue to get wealthier. Joh's party-if there is to be one; it seems to change daily-does not want a consumption tax. The Australian Democrats agree with that, except that we do believe that there could and perhaps should be one on luxuries, but not on necessities. His party wants to deliver even bigger tax cuts but he will not tell us how they would be funded. Mr Howard says that 70 per cent of Australians would be worse off with the 25 per cent flat tax proposed by the Johists. I suspect that Joh's party would abolish or severely reduce unemployment benefits, as well as reducing other social security payments. It would introduce tertiary fees, abolish Medicare and abolish departments such as the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment and so forth. It would sell off Telecom Australia, Australia Post, and on its goes. It too would guarantee that the wealthy would get wealthier, that the poor would become slaves and that middle income earners would struggle to pay higher charges for gas, electricity, transport, health care and education to finance the past borrowings of Labor, Liberal and National governments and of business people. The Australian Democrats say: Get the economy in shape; stop selling out to the overseas takeover merchants; remove the tax burden from ordinary people, including that higher effective tax rate burden on pensioners and beneficiaries; introduce further measures to ensure fairness in the tax system, beginning by abolishing negative gearing for company takeovers; impose a 6 per cent duty on luxury imports; eliminate transfer pricing; tax the massive amounts of money leaving Australia to speculate against our currency; require superannuation funds to be responsible in their disbursement of funds and stop them from moving assets overseas unimpeded; tax all money leaving the country; and reduce petrol prices and interest rates. If that is done, families can be helped. Pensions and benefits can be lifted to levels above the poverty line and significantly indexed, as can child allowances for the unemployed, pensioners and beneficiaries. Rental allowances can also be raised and indexed. The tertiary education assistance scheme allowance could be a significant payment-120 per cent above the poverty line, as we have suggested. We would be able to pay for retraining for our unemployed people and particularly for low income earners with dependants. Let us get rid of the poverty traps. No, there may not have been any coalition representatives at the lunch with the poor people last week, nor was I sitting down to that lunch because there were people there who had voted to delay reductions in the poverty traps to those people whom I am speaking about today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.00) —I rise to support my colleague Senator Peter Baume on a matter of public importance regarding the failure of the Labor Government to take the necessary action to stop the decline in living standards of Australian families. This is a serious matter of great concern to a large part of the Australian population and I draw attention to the fact that the Hawke Government has not seen fit to provide a Minister to lead the debate from the Government side of this chamber. That is a disgrace, and it shows very clearly how this Government rates the problems and crises which Australian families are facing today. In referring only briefly to Senator Zakharov's walk through history, to which Senator Powell just referred, I draw attention to the fact that the family income supplement which she claimed was introduced by the Hawke Government in fact was introduced and passed by the Fraser Government in the 1982 Budget. If Senator Zakharov is going to talk about history, she should stick to historical facts. I am glad to see that Senator Powell agrees that the living standards of Australian families have declined. At least that shows that we in the Opposition are not the only two parties that recognise that fact, even if the Government cannot. Of course, the Australian Democrats are in the rather advantageous position of being able to point out everything that is wrong but not ever having to be in a position of responsibility to set things right. We know that Labor has fluffed the hard decisions. We are ready to bite the bullet. In 1985 the Sydney Morning Herald published a survey which showed that 70 per cent of 2,000 Australian families who were surveyed right across the nation rated the family as the source of their greatest satisfaction in life. I condemn the Hawke Government for failing those families. Let me list some of the ways in which those families have been condemned. Senator Peter Baume —They think it is funny. Senator NEWMAN —Thank you, Senator Peter Baume. Senators on the Government side of the House are laughing at this. We regard it as no laughing matter. Let me just list the ways in which this Government has failed Australian families and helped in the decline of their living standards. The family allowance and the dependent spouse rebate are the only financial support offered to traditional families. Together they amount to $15.97 for a spouse and $8.83 for each child in a two-child family. This obviously goes nowhere at all towards the actual cost of raising children. It is interesting to see the estimated cost for raising children today. Figures obtained from the Australian Institute of Family Studies show that recently it cost approximately $20 a week just to keep a two-year-old in a low income family. That rose to $50 to keep a teenager in a low income family. Those figures obviously would be slightly higher again for middle income families. But these are simply the survival costs. They are not the total costs as they do not include housing, transport, school fees, uniforms, child care, holidays or even medical and dental expenses. So much for the family allowance contributing to the cost of keeping children. The Fraser Government increased the family allowance in 1982. Since that time the Hawke Government has allowed that allowance to decline by 24.5 per cent. The dependent spouse rebate has also declined by 24.5 per cent. As Senator Watson says, it really is a shame. People outside know it, even if the Government refuses to recognise it publicly. Let me draw attention to what the family allowance would be if it had been indexed to cope with inflation. The family allowance for two children, if indexed, would be about $18. It is under $13. That is where the Government is clearly letting these people down. The introduction of means testing for the payment of family allowance for 16-to 17-year-olds was introduced in the last Budget too, in case anybody has forgotten. Sixty thousand people have lost that payment from this year's Budget. It is these little sneaky ways and the fine print that people start to forget when they wonder why it is that it is getting harder and harder for families to cope. When one starts adding all these awful things together one starts to see why families are having so many difficulties. Australia now has a lower family allowance than almost any other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. It is interesting to look at what has happened to costs that particularly impact on families in the last five years. From December 1981 to December 1986 food has gone up by 44.3 per cent, clothing by 42.4 per cent, housing by 48.7 per cent, transport by 56.3 per cent-and we all know what has happened to cars, petrol, public transport costs, repairs to vehicles and insurance, which is included in this 56.3 per cent increase-and education and child care by 52 per cent. Wages have not kept up. They have increased by 33.2 per cent over the same period. The upshot is that families are faced with ever increasing costs without the income to meet them. Families regard that family allowance as a very important part of their total income. Forty-nine per cent of all families, whether they are sole parent or otherwise, put the family allowance towards their children's clothing. So clearly the payment is not just icing on the cake; it is an integral part of their budgets. Family allowances should be paid to all families with dependent children because they are the only recognition which families receive for the extra costs which they bear as parents. Should couples with children have to pay the same tax as couples without children when their capacity to pay is significantly reduced because of the number of children dependent on their income? No. Since 1976 all families have experienced a decline in their disposable income relative to single people and to couples without children. In 1976 an average wage earner with dependent spouse and children had 13 per cent more disposable income than a single childless person on the same income. He now has only 10 per cent more to care for three extra people. In March 1983 the proportion of average weekly earnings paid as tax was 17.5 per cent. It is now 20.6 per cent. Even after the promised second wave of tax cuts on 1 July, which now must be held to be in doubt, the proportion will be 20.5 per cent. A taxpayer with a family and additional income is at a considerable disadvantage. If he earns $200 a week and has no additional income, his tax liability is 78 per cent higher than if he and his wife each earned $100 a week. It is better for him to take a lower paid job or work less overtime and allow his wife to make up the difference. The increased financial pressure on families is shown in the declining size of Australian families. In 1985 only about 20 per cent of families had three or more children. In 1969 the figure was 35 per cent. Over that period the total number of married couple families with dependent children rose by 300,000 while those without dependent children rose by 400,000. People are opting not to have children in this so-called lucky country. Senator Giles —That has nothing whatsoever to do with income. Senator NEWMAN —It has a lot to do with income. It is clear that an income which is adequate for a single person will not provide the same standard of living for a family. The Government is taking the contribution of those who do meet their family responsibilities for granted. It has made no effort to acknowledge, support or encourage their efforts. The Institute of Family Studies has stated: If the Australian community sees itself as requiring a future, it needs to invest in its children. Families with children cannot and should not be expected to stand alone, to shoulder the entire burden of providing for the next generation out of their own resources. The Government ignores that at its peril. Let us not forget some of the things that are worrying families too when they face having to see their children leave school and go on the dole. What is the Government going to do about that? Nothing. It has had four years and the situation gets worse and worse. We intend to introduce junior wage rates to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to assist employers to put on young people who, for their first year or so in employment, contribute very little to the productivity of the business. In the past children got jobs because it was financially advantageous to both parties for them to do so. Now they are condemned to the dole. The Labor Party might think that is fair on kids but certainly we on this side of the Parliament do not think so. Women are being discouraged from being self-supporting. They are encouraged to stay on social security. The $250 fee per subject for women gradually trying to get their qualifications upgraded was introduced by Senator Ryan, a Labor Minister for Education. This Government sits by while a textile industry award prevents women from taking casual work to increase the family's income. This Government says that it cares about women, but we see what it really does. In this lucky country no child should be brought up in poverty, yet Bettina Cass said that 20 per cent of children are in families poor enough to receive means tested welfare payments. Many of those families are not getting those payments, either because they do not know about them or because they are too proud. I welcome the Government's decision to try to do something about maintenance for the 70 per cent of families whose maintenance orders are not being honoured, but it is dragging its feet somewhat. I wonder whether we will get the legislation through before the election or whether it will be put in the too hard file. It looks to me as though that is the way this Government is going with maintenance legislation. I urge the Government to hurry and get our children out of poverty and away from dependence upon a social welfare system which bodes poorly for their future. It is not just sole parent families which are in poverty in this country. The Institute of Family Studies found that about 220,000 married couples as well as 164,000 sole parent families are in poverty. The poverty traps that have been mentioned by previous speakers are urgently in need of attention. We cannot allow people to continue to face the disincentive to getting off social security and into the work force of an effective marginal tax rate of 75 per cent to 80 per cent. Housing is another area which is impacting very heavily on families in Australia today. The housing situation is directly related to the Government's action: Its mishandling of the economy, interest rates that are going through the roof and the abolition of the negative gearing arrangement which encouraged people to provide rental accommodation. This latter has increased the number of families on public housing waiting lists, the length of which is increasing. This Government does not care about how families are housed. The August Budget hit hard on families with children. An example is given by the Institute of Family Studies which I would like to cite to illustrate my point. It compares the after tax situation of two families, each earning $40,000 per annum. Each family comprises a toolmaker earning $26,000, including overtime, and a part time secretary earning $14,000. Family A includes two children aged 16 years and 18 years, both students. Family B is childless. Before the changes in the last two Budgets family A was eligible for a concessional tax rebate and family allowance. Family A now has no concessional rebate and no family allowance. It has a higher Medicare levy but lower marginal tax rates. The net result is that, after the tax cuts are accounted for, family A will have $6.23 per week less disposable income and family B will have $10.77 more. So much for a government that is supposedly looking after this country and its families. There is no way this Government cares about families. The coalition parties have already spelt out their policy overview concerning the matters I have raised. We are committed to ensuring that the interests of families are protected through the policy and decision-making process. We will not implement policies detrimental to families, some of which I have tried to outline. There are many more but time does not allow me to cover them. We say that government policies should ensure that the efforts of individuals who meet their family responsibilities are acknowledged and supported in practical ways. Our taxation, social welfare, health and education systems, together with other areas of government action, should provide encouragement rather than the reverse. I condemn the Hawke Government for its failure to take the necessary action to stop the reduction of the living standards of Australian families. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.14) —When one looks at a list and attempts to tote up the winners and losers with respect to the tax policy almost released by Mr Howard and Senator Messner, the one certainty is that the real loser would be the average Australian family. When one looks at the tax policies proposed to be introduced by Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson and his ilk one is even more certain that the loser would be the average Australian family. When we look at the 1975 election and all that we were promised by Malcolm Fraser and at all those dark years through to 1983, what do we find happened to average Australian families in those eight years? The worst thing one can do to any Australian family is to take away the breadwinner's role, to make sure that there is no money coming in, to put breadwinners on to welfare. But what happened when that lot opposite ran Australia? Seven hundred and fifty people were put out of work every day in the last year of the coalition's reign. That means a quarter of a million people were put out of work in one year. That is what the previous Government did to average Australian families. It consigned family after family to poverty. I thought we exposed the Opposition's hypocrisy and the shallowness of its concern last week. It is extraordinary that a party lacking so much in credibility when dealing with average Australian families could back up for even more-- Senator Walters —Where is your Minister? Senator RICHARDSON —But if that is what Senator Walters wants, I am here to provide it for her. Senator Peter Baume —Look at the polls. Senator RICHARDSON —We will get to the polls in a minute. I am fascinated by the polls. There is one thing about the polls that I am sure of: I will be back in next time, but I am a bit worried about the honourable senator. Let us look at the terrible record of the coalition during its eight years in office when the breadwinners in all those families were pushed out of work and thrown on to the dole queue. The coalition let manufacturing industry, which employs average Australian families, run down. It kept up the overvalued dollar. It ruined our international competitiveness. Then there was the lunacy of the resources boom. Honourable senators remember the resources boom. Even Senator Peter Baume remembers the resources boom. What did Australian families get out of that? All that was ever presented to them was illusions. There was no reality. At the end of the day the cold, hard reality was that family after family faced the prospect of years without work. That is the only thing the coalition Government could do for them. I, for one, remember those days. I was interested to hear the claims of some Opposition speakers this afternoon. Last week those of us who were interested-unfortunately they were only on this side of the House-were able to talk to some of the parents of the 100,000 single parent families that were just referred to by Senator Newman. I had the opportunity to speak with many of them. I would be the first to admit that they have some complaints about what the Labor Government had done in the last few years. However, one thing terrifies them-the prospect of the Opposition ever getting back into government. They know that in all the high sounding, upper crust waffle which the lot opposite go on with about families and care for families, single parent families do not rate a mention or a thought. They are not part of the normal society which people opposite like to see. Because they are not part of that normal society they are the ones who will get neglected. When they get neglected the real losers will be the children. It is the children whom we on this side of the chamber are concerned about. It is the children whom we want to try to help. They know, and their parents know, that if the Opposition were ever to get into government they are for the scrap-heap. Opposition senators interjecting- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President; it was getting far too rowdy in here. If I could praise Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson for one moment, and I do not do that very often-- Senator Jones —Be careful. Senator RICHARDSON —I shall be careful. If I could praise him just for once, at least he is honest about what he wants to do. He does want to kick to death single income families. He gets up and says it. But not the slippery Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is a bit more cunning about it all. It will dress it up in much nicer language, the language of care and concern. But at the end of the day the same reality is there. On this side of the House we are acknowledging the difficulties of our times. When we have $6 billion wiped off our national income, obviously as a nation we have a big problem. There is no way that we could or should deny it. There is no short term alternative; we have no pot of gold to offer. As one tries to peer through layer after layer of the cooked and rubbery figures of the Howard-Messner document-that is, those parts of it that are not being retyped in accordance with what Ian Cameron thinks should be in the policy-one finds that, on the one hand, it says that those opposite will do marvellous things for average Australian families and, on the other, they want to pay for it by starting with an 8 per cent consumption tax. When I consider what an 8 per cent consumption tax will do in the current Australian economic climate, I know the reality is that the real losers will be average Australian families. They will lose out every time. That will be the direct hit-right amidships-for all of those families, and the one they will not be able to survive. Today in Question Time Senator Walsh outlined some of the things that a consumption tax would hit. When it gets round to hitting the food and clothing of the average Australian family, I know where Australian families will turn when they look, in years to come, for a culprit. It will be the present Opposition. The Opposition is out to wreck them. We, on the other hand, are out to try to make sure that, over time, their living standards can increase. Fortunately, the memories of Australian families are not so short that they have forgotten the years from 1975 to 1983 when many people were put out of work. When the previous Government left office-Senator Newman was not a senator at that time, so we cannot blame it all on her; although I am told that her husband had something to do with it-the unemployment rate was 11 per cent. I saw figures of only a week ago which show that it is down to almost 3 per cent-under a Labor government. Instead of creating extraordinary unemployment, as the previous Government did, we have provided 700,000 jobs. We have not knocked them out of the economy; we have put them in. We have put more people in work. The 500,000 people John Howard managed to put out of work in the last 18 months of his reign can be contrasted with the 700,000 that Paul Keating and Bob Hawke have put back to work since we got into government. Looking at the Liberal Party's history, one sees that the normal and easy thing for it to do when the economy is in trouble is to say: `Do not worry about responsible solutions. Just make sure that you get the unemployment rate up. Let the people at the bottom end pay for the problem, and all will be okay eventually'. The problem is that each one of those 750,000 people who went out of work was part of an Australian family. They took money home and paid off mortgages and car loans. What happened when those people went out of work? The economy ran into a hole. The Opposition's record in that respect borders on the criminal. It had no policy on wages and prices. I will turn to the policy it has now and contrast it with what happened in those days. In 1981, there was an 11 per cent increase in wages and in 1982, a 14 per cent increase. Those opposite, with those two little efforts, sent inflation through the roof. As I recall, that was their experiment with part-deregulation. That is a great advertisement for the policy that the Opposition has coming up! There are several policies, but the Opposition parties disagree as to what the eventual policy will be. Who knows what it will be. I cannot say that I do, but I can say that, if it provides for a deregulation free-for-all, again the losers will be Australian families. In the end, it will mean more and more unemployment. Some among the Opposition ranks talk about wage freezes, and some talk about semi-deregulation with minimum awards. But the one consistent thing that coalition spokesmen have done-perhaps the only consistent thing-is to oppose any increase in every single wage case in the four years since the Hawke Government came to power. Where would average Australian families be if, on every single occasion, they got nothing out of wage cases? I would be the first to admit-I would be proud of it, because of the times-that we did not support the Australian Council of Trade Unions in its claims. Constantly we asked for, and got, restraint. We did not allow a free-for-all. On each occasion the Opposition opposed any increase, even the smallest one. Where would Australian families have been in the last four years without those small increases that they did get? The Opposition would have consigned more and more of them to living in poverty. Wages count when one looks at living standards. If one does not look at wages when one looks at living standards, one wonders what one can look at. The fact that the Opposition has opposed every single increase shows just how empty its claims this afternoon are. Let us consider a little further the legacy left by the previous Government. The number of children in low income families more than doubled during the eight years that those opposite were in government-from under 9 per cent to just under 20 per cent. One in five children was a member of a family which was eligible for a pension or benefit. The numbers started off being less than one in 10. That was their contribution to average Australian families. The family allowance for a one-child family decreased, in real terms, by 24 per cent. For a three-child family, the real decrease was 20.1 per cent. That is what they did for average Australian families. For a sole parent pensioner with two children and no private income, there was a decrease again. Every time-no matter which indicator one considers for average Australian families-that was the case. Those opposite forced more and more Australian families to the wall. They allowed ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers to carry the can, to do the work for all of the tax rorters, the crooks and the cheats who flourished under John Howard's term as Treasurer of this country. They did nothing about providing tax relief. They could not bring down tax rates. It took a Labor government to do that. Under the Liberal-National Party Government, tax rates went up and up. As for all this preaching about new lower tax rates now, let none of us forget whose invention the 62 per cent rate was. It was John Howard's rate, and it took Paul Keating to get it down. The only memorable thing of the period was that infamous fistful of dollars. As I said earlier, average Australian families have a long memory. They remember what those opposite did with the fistful of dollars and how long it took for them to rip it back off them. In the 1977 election campaign they promised people a fistful of dollars, as well as tax indexation. The promise lasted a whole three months after the election before they got up and walked away from it. In those days, they had everything going for them. Oil was flowing from the Bass Strait, and obviously money was going into the Treasury from that. Commodity prices were high; our commodities were in demand all over the world. With a real chance to do something about average Australian families and their plight, once again they did absolutely nothing, except force more and more people to the wall. Let us contrast that with the record of the Hawke Government. It has had one standard to run on in its four years: Fairness and equity-not just in the tax system but in the welfare system as well. We have sought to improve the position of the poorest. There has been a fringe benefits tax, a capital gains tax, and the abolition of negative gearing. We have brought about the end of the free lunch. We have done as much as we can to ensure that average Australian families get a fair go and that those who have been able to avoid paying their fair share can do so no longer. Many Australian families have shared in those benefits. Given the length of time we have left in this term and the other term which we are sure to win, more and more average Australian families will benefit. We will not consign them to the economic scrap-heap. We will look after them, something which those opposite have never been able to do and never cared to do. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(4.30) —Senator Richardson has told us quite a bit about a few problems of the past and has perhaps given us a few policies for the future. This debate is about the failure of the Hawke Labor Government to take action to fix the problems which Australia's families have today. Senator Peter Baume gave a sparkling tour de force of those problems. He proved conclusively, backed up by the irrefutable figures Senator Newman put out, that this Government has not taken such action. I will take a different tack in the debate. I think I can prove not only that the Government is not taking action to fix the problems, but also that the Government is the cause of the problems. Recently a number of mothers were surveyed and asked what kinds of difficulties were facing their families today. In almost 99 per cent of cases they complained that it was taxes of one form or another which were causing their problems. One lady said that the problem was that she was paying taxes upon taxes upon taxes. She got a lot of derisive laughter from people such as Senator Giles, but what she was saying was perfectly true. Just the other day I looked to see which taxes were placed on what, and I was staggered to see that there were 50 taxes on a loaf of bread. In a double-sized loaf of bread only two slices are not taxed. Senator Richardson —It would be more than that in Queensland. Senator SHEIL —It would not; Queensland is the low tax State. Two-thirds of the cost of a glass of beer is taken up in excise or tax. The fees which people are charged by architects, doctors, lawyers and engineers are all geared to high taxes. In fact, one of the great benefits of the flat rate of tax would be that fees would probably come down quite considerably because they would not be geared to the high rate of tax. High pay as you earn taxes are built into the production of a loaf of bread all the way along the line, from planting the grain and harvesting the wheat to milling it and turning it into flour and then bread thereby increasing the costs. To decrease the costs, all we would have to do is reduce taxes, which would be an enormous benefit to families. Families cannot even plan ahead because of economic hardship and turmoil and the uncertainty of their future. I have been a doctor for over 30 years and I have seen most of the worries in the world, but the worst worry of all is lack of money. That causes people such insecurity that they develop complex psychological problems and patterns. Lack of money is the basis of quite a few of those problems. Senator Richardson apparently did not hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, today when, in answering a question, he said: `Yes, certainly we have to tighten our belts. We are in a tough spot; the Government has run into a sticky patch'. He seemed to think that some families were worse off-that the rich children were getting worse off but the poorer children were getting better off. That is a convoluted way of thinking about the problem. It is a continuation of the idea that if one weakens the strong one can strengthen the weak. That socialist theory has been discredited for many years. Typical socialist states such as China and Russia destroy family life. Families cannot have any allegiances to anything but the state. Religion is destroyed, so people cannot have an allegiance to that. I blame the situation in this country on the socialist Government we have today. It is just one step along the way to destroying family life. Two of the most important purchases that people make in their lives are a house and a car. Families make a great commitment to those purchases and spend 40 years paying off their house. Senator Walters —Look at what has happened to them. Senator SHEIL —Look at what has happened, as Senator Walters said. I would not like to be starting off now as a young married man, with the costs that are lumbered on people and the debt burden they have to take on their backs to try to make a go of it. The fact that the Government has got rid of negative gearing and has brought in capital gains taxes, the assets test and all of those sorts of things has decreased the amount of rental housing available. Houses are for sale everywhere but nobody can afford to buy them because of high interest rates. In past months the price of cars has almost doubled. People cannot afford to buy them and pay them off. If people do buy a car, they have to pay the enormous petrol tax lumbered on them. All those costs are lumbered on families which need a home and transport to take the children to all their different engagements. Parents become more or less glorified chauffeurs as the kids grow up, as they have to take them to all their sporting engagements. We should think of the costs. In a family of three children, one of whom plays hockey, one of whom plays tennis and one of whom plays football, the father has to buy a tennis racquet, hockey stick, football boots, tennis shoes and uniforms. One could pretty well bet that those things are not made in Australia today; they will be imported. Looking at our position relative to our trading partners, their inflation rate is down to one per cent or 2 per cent whilst Australia's consumer price index is up to 10 per cent, which is four or five times higher than that of our trading partners. All the parts that come in-- Senator Peter Baume —It doesn't seem to worry the Labor Party. Senator SHEIL —No, it does not seem to worry it. Nearly all of our whitegoods are not manufactured in Australia. Most of the important parts, the engines, which are high cost items, are manufactured overseas. People need household appliances. If mothers are forced by economic circumstances to go out to work to get money, they need those things in the house, and they are priced right out of their range. Medical insurance has been mentioned. It is quite right to say that people, and families in particular, are disadvantaged by the Medicare system we have today. There is no incentive for people to have private insurance, and Medicare is an absolutely second rate service. The rebates are geared to the standard fee, but the standard fee has no connection with reality. That fee was a figment of the imagination of somebody in the Government. The rebates are geared to the standard fee, but the fee is not connected with proper doctors' fees, which in turn are geared to high taxes, so people are disadvantaged. We have only to look at what is happening medically in Australia today. Thousands of hospital beds are closed, there are long waiting lists and people cannot get in to see specialists. People cannot have operations done when it suits them; they have to go on a waiting list which is years long. All of that sort of thing is disadvantaging patients. Senator Walters —Waiting lists in the children's wards. Senator SHEIL —Yes, children are waiting for important surgical operations to relieve suffering. Even with all the good will in the world, if the Government pays benefits to people such as single mothers, the unemployed or other disadvantaged people, the Government in effect is subsidising that disability. It is subsidising single mothers, so we will get more of them. If the Government pays higher unemployment benefits, we will get more unemployed people. If the Government pays benefits to homeless people, we will get more homeless people, particularly poor people, who will send their kids out in order to qualify for the benefit. Senator Zakharov —That's an outrageous insult to the Australian people. Senator SHEIL —It is before our eyes for us to see. The Government has altered the whole attitude of the people and has made them benefit conscious. People have a welfare mentality; they will not go out to work while we have the high taxes that we have at the moment. The more money people earn, the more tax they pay, so they get to a point where they will not work any more. Throughout the country we see that some people will not work overtime because of the high taxes. We have to introduce incentives and a flat rate of tax would do that. We would have an immediate boom in the country if we reduced taxes. If the Government wants to have a happy country with happy families it should reduce taxes, not increase them. Senator Tate —Senator Peter Baume does not agree with flat tax. Senator SHEIL —A lot of people do not agree with it. Senator Baume believes in a flatter tax; he is coming towards the view of a flat tax. I do not want to go through the argument about the cost of education again as that has been adequately covered this afternoon. We have sustained the argument quite clearly that the Government has failed to take any effective action-it may have taken some action of which we have not seen the results. None of the action has been effective in stopping the downhill slide. The J-curve is still around the silver lining of the cloud and nobody knows when we will see anything of it. We have been threatened with a banana republic. We have been told that we have to tighten our belts. When the belts are tightened it is the families who suffer disproportionately. This is what is happening in Australia today and the Government is doing nothing about it. It is a disappointment to us. It will act badly for the Government, but in the meantime the people will suffer further. The people who will suffer most will be families. They are our most precious commodity. Some parties put the individual first and some put the family first; we happen to put the family first as the basic unit of our society. People should be fostered and given a chance to get governments out of their pockets, off their backs and out of their hair. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.42) —Senator Sheil has given us his usual misrepresentation of the universal health insurance scheme and I do not think I will give that any legitimacy at all by bothering to reply. We have also had his incredibly simplified approach to taxation. This is typical, of course, of the approach of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia. In quick response to that it is probably worthwhile making the point that the radical tax plans coming out of Queensland could well push up income tax by up to $615 a year for those earning less than $25,000 a year. That is something like 80 per cent of the population. It could push interest rates to over 20 per cent having, without a doubt, a disastrous effect upon families. Senator Newman's paper was a heavily researched one and I pay it the tribute of a fairly detailed reply. Unfortunately, it lacked very much in the way of analysis. This Government, despite what she claims, recognises the facts: We have gone to considerable lengths to establish the state of affairs, evidence of which is a number of very well researched discussion papers, all of which, I believe, are available to every member of the Senate. I would like to quote from the most recent of these, discussion paper No. 11, `Trends in the Disposable Incomes of Australian Families 1964-65 to 1985-86'. On page 28 this paper gives a summary of trends with accompanying tables which demonstrate changes to real disposable income for wage and salary earners with gross incomes equal to 100 per cent of average weekly earnings which is now about $420 a week, and disposable incomes of wage and salary earners with gross incomes equal to 50 per cent of average weekly earnings. This is a summary of trends over about 20 years. I quote: This analysis of trends in the real disposable incomes of families at different selected income levels in the period 1964-65 to 1985-86 shows that over the entire period there have been substantial increases in real disposable incomes, ranging from around 30 per cent for those with gross incomes of twice AWE to between 50 and 60 per cent of pensioners. Beneficiaries generally had higher increases, but these were required to raise their disposable incomes to levels equivalent to those of similar pensioner families. The introduction of FIS in 1982-83- as Senator Newman has said quite correctly, that was announced in the 1982 Fraser Budget and was implemented by the Labor Government in 1983- provided significant increases in the real disposable incomes of those low income families who had children and who received the payment . . . This suggests that during the past twenty years there has been some overall narrowing of the relative gap between the poorest families and the rest of the community. I hasten to interpolate here that I am not, for one moment, minimising the enormous amount of poverty in this nation-there is far too much in all the groups that have already been mentioned in this debate-but I think we have to put much of this into perspective. The paper goes on: There have been and are substantial absolute differences between families at different income levels . . . There are also very substantial differences between the periods analysed here, and particularly since 1976-77 the position of pensioners, beneficiaries and most families with children have declined relative to families without children. The reason for this has been mentioned on a number of occasions in this debate and I want to emphasise very strongly that for many years after the family allowance was established it simply was not indexed. We have heard over the last few days from two highly significant unions in this nation-the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and the Federated Clerks Union-calling on us to double family allowances for the first child. This, I think, we would like to do to bring its value back to what it was in 1977 and to add some extra, but the cost of that would be $900m. It would cost that much to bring it up to the point at which many of us would believe it was beginning to be adequate. We have been left with an enormous deficiency in the amount that is required to bring that particular payment to its 1977 value. As Senator Newman has said it is a very valuable payment to Australian families. It is the only payment that is directed to the families with dependent children. It is directed to the caring parent and in most cases to the mother. It comes regularly. It is disposable income in the mother's hand. She knows it will come and she uses it to buy shoes for her children, to pay for their school requirements and, in many cases, to top up the budget for regular requirements such as food and rent. We had a couple of references to some industrial matters from Senator Newman. I am a little puzzled by her reference to the textile and clothing trade workers being unable to undertake casual work. If she is referring to outwork she should be aware of the fact that outwork is the most exploitative system and very difficult to undertake. Senator Newman —No, I'm not; I'm referring to casuals. Senator GILES —Well, I think there would have to be a very good industrial reason for that. Her reference also to families A and B would have to be in relation to families in very comfortable circumstances. They are not the ones who are of the greatest concern to those of us on this side of the chamber. We are currently working very hard to try to identify, from amongst the available funds, those ways in which we can target those families in most need. The toolmaker that Senator Newman mentioned, earning $26,000 a year which includes overtime, is the cream, amongst the highest paid of trades people. Senator Newman —Still agitating. Senator GILES —Yes, he is still hurting when his children are young, and when one of the parents is unable to work because of the care needed for those children. There are many ways in which this Government has taken a great deal of action and we will be taking more. We are already seeing enormous returns on much of the action that we have taken, action to improve the standard of living for many Australians. Certainly sole parents, particularly women, have a very high rate of unemployment but honourable senators should be aware of the fact that the average length of dependency on the sole parent's benefit is only two to three years, so their dependence on that benefit is relatively short. Quite a few women repartner, of course, but fewer divorced women than divorced men repartner. So we have many women beginning to take advantage of the education and training schemes introduced by this Government. They are taking that opportunity to develop their own independence, and this is one of the ways in which it is possible to provide the set of circumstances in which individuals can lift themselves out of dependency, can attain dignity and a future for themselves and their families. Employment matters and the great increase in employment has been well covered by Senator Richardson, but I would like to point out that of the increase of 727,800 jobs since April 1983, 80.7 per cent are in the private sector, giving the lie to that oft heard accusation that these are not real jobs, that they have been somehow fabricated and will not last. Over the year to January 1987 employment rose by 126,200 jobs, or 1.8 per cent. Of course the opportunity for teenagers leaving school to go into the work force is absolutely crucial to their standard of living and, I might add, the standard of living of the households from which they come. Teenage employment has increased by 10 per cent between August 1983 and August 1986, and teenage full time employment accounted for a quarter of the employment growth which indicates that many teenage people are still going into part time jobs, and amongst them a lot are still in at least part time education. The unemployment rate for teenagers seeking full time employment fell from a peak of almost 28 per cent in mid-1983 to 21.1 per cent in January 1987, and closely associated with that phenomenon is the fact that in Australia now, by contrast with what was happening in 1982, nearly one half of students are staying on for the twelfth year of education. Announcing that this was the case, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) said that this was a classic illustration of the success of the Hawke Government. Our policies aimed at increasing the participation of all Australians in education have enormous implications for their future. Our target of 65 per cent of students undertaking year 12 by the early 1990s is well within the bounds of possibility. This to me, as a person who spent many years involved in the education of my own five children in state schools and who deplored in the late 1960s the fact that less than 20 per cent of children were able to stay on to five years of high school, is a matter of enormous satisfaction. I see this policy as having more long term importance than any other single action that this Government has taken. In regard to higher education, as we were reminded in Question Time today, 48,000 extra places have been opened up in four years-an average of 12,000 places a year, as against the abysmal average of the Fraser Government over the previous four years of 2,000 places a year. There still are not enough. We are reminded of that time and again. Higher education must still be made available for more people but it is certainly a matter in which there has been a great deal of action by this Government. Senator Zakharov referred to the fact that our community services initiatives have added substantially to the standard of living, to the social wage and to those non-income aspects of people's living which are of such enormous importance. There has been a revolution in accessibility of children's services to many Australian families, making it possible for women to begin to attend to their own education in many cases, to develop the independence of which I have spoken, and it has given a degree of freedom to many men, not to mention its socialising value for many children. We have doubled the number of long day places that we inherited in 1983, from 42,000 to 85,000 places. Most people would appreciate the fact that one place often provides care for more than one child. We can estimate that in about 85,000 places we will be accommodating well over 100,000 children, so something like 55,000 extra children and perhaps 50,000 extra families are benefiting from this channelling of resources. In 1985-86 we spent $165m on children's services, as against $65m in the last year of the Fraser Government. Next year $195m will be spent on child care, representing an expenditure increase of 200 per cent in only four years. We have a similar picture with aged care services. We have channelled funds into home and community care, subsidising twice as many services as were available in 1982-83. Expenditure has increased by 150 per cent. There is a similar picture with supported assistance to the young homeless. An amount of $49m will be available this year, compared with only $7.8m in 1982-83, and the number of services has increased from 250 in that year to something like 726 in the most recent financial year. Given the imbalance of our trade and our overseas debts, both of which are results of generations of failure to acknowledge that our primary products could not keep us buoyant forever, the miracle is that we have been in the position to improve so many aspects of family life. There is a great deal still to be done. Many of us are spending a great deal of time and effort on it. We hope that within a few months the evidence of that effort will be more apparent but the opportunities and expectations of many Australian families have expanded significantly. One shudders to think what might have been their fate under the economic rationalists of the New Right who seem to be in the process of hijacking Opposition social policies. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.57) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I will seek leave shortly to incorporate in Hansard figures that have only just become available and that indicate that over the last 10 years there has been on the part of successive governments the greatest robbery that has taken place in this country. Before doing so, however, I observe that 1987 appears to be the year of the family rediscovered. I welcome this debate because as you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and others would know, over a number of years I have been pointing out the fact that families with dependent children have been discriminated against by successive governments. Let me turn to these figures that have been prepared by the Statistics Group of the Department of the Parliamentary Library. These statistics deal with family allowances. Honourable senators who were here in 1976 will recall that when the tax concessions for children were abolished and cashed up into family allowances, I said that that was a good idea because normally the tax concessions had gone to the taxpayer, who was usually the husband, or the father, and in some instances they did not get to the mother. On that occasion the money was taken out of the hip pocket and put in the purse. Since then government after government has been robbing that purse. The robbery figure is $10 billion. The purses of the mothers of dependent children in this country have been robbed of $10 billion. That is the greatest robbery that has been perpetrated in this country; and it has been perpetrated on the mothers of this country, who have the greatest vocation-nurturing children and bringing up our future citizens. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard those dramatic figures. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Statistics Group Department of the Parliamentary Library FULLY INDEXED FAMILY ALLOWANCE Question: What money has been forgone to families due to Family Allowances having not been fully indexed since 1977-78? Answer: Assuming adjustments were made using the same method applied to Social Security pensions, i.e. May adjustments based on the six months CPI movements ended the previous December etc., the following money has been forgone. Period Cost at 1986 prices $m Jun. 1977-Nov. 1977... 116 Nov. 1977-May 1978... 267 May 1978-Nov. 1978... 350 Nov. 1978-May 1979... 410 May 1979-Nov. 1979... 486 Nov. 1979-May 1980... 560 May 1980-Nov. 1980... 630 Nov. 1980-May 1981... 706 May 1981-Nov. 1981... 763 Nov. 1981-May 1982... 827 May 1982-Nov. 1982... 759 Nov. 1982-May 1983... 343 May 1983-Nov. 1983... 455 Nov. 1983-May 1984... 529 May 1984-Nov. 1984... 608 Nov. 1984-May 1985... 608 May 1985-Nov. 1985... 648 Nov. 1985-May 1986... 708 May 1986-June. 1986... 257 Total 1977-78 to 1985-86... 10,029 Compiled at request by the statistics group of the legislative research service. Senator HARRADINE —In 1976, whilst welcoming the transfer of the tax concessions to family allowances, I gave the warning that it would be important to ensure that those family allowances kept pace with inflation, otherwise mothers would not be able to buy with the family allowance what they could then buy. That is the situation now: Family allowances are now worth only two-thirds of what they were worth in 1976. As has been stated today by a couple of senators who spoke prior to me, the fact of the matter is that taxation for a family with four children has increased since 1976 by 435 per cent, whilst average weekly earnings have gone up in that time by only 135 per cent. Of course, I am flattered that people are using those figures which I first incorporated into the Senate Hansard about a year ago. I am a bit sick of standing up in this chamber and saying how families are being discriminated against. I warn the Labor Government that it will find itself in very deep trouble at the next election unless it reverses the unfair burdens carried by ordinary families on average earnings. These families have made, and are prepared to make, sacrifices but the Government's family policies mean that the burden of Australia's economic ills is being unfairly visited upon families with children. By comparison with others in the work force, the net disposable income of male and female workers with family responsibilities, under all Federal and State awards, has fallen substantially. Those families have been saddled with an unduly greater share of the taxation burden. For example, the living standards of a family with four children on average earnings have dropped by 11 per cent over the last 10 years and will fall a further one per cent, even given the forthcoming tax cuts. In fact, the purchasing power, the real disposable income, of such a family in 1987 will be $1,230 less than for the same sized family 10 years ago. On the other hand, the purchasing power of a couple with no children and the combined income of 1 1/2 times average weekly earnings will increase by $910. Whom does this Government represent? Why has it adopted those policies? I am concerned that it is getting advice from the two-income Canberra aristocracy that would not know what it is like to live on one income. I was travelling home in the bus the other day and a young fellow was sitting next to me. He said: `Brian, we can't manage'. His family has one income. He said: `Last year prices went up some 10 per cent and our wages by about only 3 per cent'. There has been an enormous hike in mortgage repayments. They now average 25 per cent of the income of the family. He said: `We can't make ends meet'. This Government's policy ought to enable families to perform their functions freely without economic discrimination. Had this discrimination been suffered at the hands of industrial tribunals or employers, the trade union movement would not have tolerated it. Why should the trade union movement tolerate this discrimination against the workers because it has been perpetrated by the government? Honourable senators may have noticed that the trade union movement is now considering readopting its advocacy role on behalf of workers with families. Unions can see from their members that there is discrimination between a worker who has a family and a worker who does not. On previous occasions I have outlined in this chamber-or more particularly, elsewhere-the reason that the family concept in wages is no longer operative. Of course, that was understood and to an extent recognised by what happened in 1976. What has occurred since 1976 must be rectified and remedied. The time surely has come for the establishment of an industrially and politically supported social wage which recognises the family as the basic unit of society. This system would require specific government commitments before the trade union movement agreed to enter into any further accord or agreed to what is happening now-the attempt to get it to agree to a two-tiered wage structure. The government commitments should include action to lessen the unfair costs and tax burdens on workers with family responsibilities. As I pointed out, that burden is being unfairly visited on families. This is at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), recognising the economic problems that this country has, says that the burden should be spread fairly. But it is not. The Government must also restore the true value of family allowances which, I remind honourable senators, in the words of the Institute of Family Studies, are the only measures in the tax transfer system that recognise the extra calls on the incomes of all families with children. The Government must declare right here and now that it will resist the accord-breaking threats to abolish the spouse rebate, and it must declare that it will give a fair go to families. Unless it does this it will be in very big trouble. I notice that the Opposition has come forward with a family statement. I hope it is better than the last one we had, which provided proportionately a great deal more for the children of the dual income family than it did for those struggling on one income. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. A reading of this report may well leave the impression that it raises mundane issues only. One issue not mundane is that of the categories from which the Australian Meat and Live-stock Selection Committee is drawn. They are set out in section 11 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act. The various categories indicate that the cattle producers, the sheep producers and the meat processors and exporters are represented, but there are no representatives from either the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union or the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In other words, apart from management, there is no representation on this body from the people who actually work in the industry. The thrust of both the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act and the one that runs with it, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act, is that most people working in the industry have no voice in the workings of the Corporation, yet the Corporation performs functions that are vital not only to the well being of the industry in general but, in particular, to the well being of the people who work in it. Most of the people who work in it are represented by unions and in particular by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. Both the Acts presuppose that proprietors and managers are the only ones capable of attending to the welfare of the industry, and that they alone have the necessary interest in it to want to do so; and that the workers on the stations, in the abattoirs and in the shops are deficient in skills and lack a proper regard for the prosperity of the meat industry. The fact is that workers have a stake in the industry-they realise that-just as do those who fit the categories provided in section 11 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Selection Committee Act. I will develop this point a little. There is much said these days about unions having too much power, but it can be seen from both these Acts that very little influence is available for the workers and their unions to exert in the fields set out in section 7 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act. If the meat industry is to flourish in Australia there must be co-operation between producers, processors, management and workers. Denying workers and their organisations any voice in the functions of the Corporation, which are set out in section 7 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act, deepens the division between employers and employees. Employees are represented by their unions and the unions have great management skills. I give one example. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, on the initiative of Mr Curran, the Secretary of the Victorian Branch, conducts a most successful superannuation scheme for its members in Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales. There are millions of dollars in that fund. It is one of the most successful superannuation schemes to be run. The unions, and in particular this union, the Victorian branch which I know something about, take great care of their members and attend to their needs most helpfully and in a very generous way. I think-and I hope all other members of the Senate agree with me-that a union with the responsibility it has to its members in the meat industry should have representation on a body which has much to do with the prosperity or otherwise of that industry. For example, under section 7 the Corporation is required: . . . to improve the production of meat and live-stock in Australia; to encourage and promote the consumption and sale of Australian meat, and the sale of Australian live-stock, both in Australia and overseas . . . I suggest that had the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union been a member of this Corporation, the sorts of struggles that took place in Portland arising out of the export of live sheep would never have happened or would not have been so bitter. On that occasion there was a lack of consultation with the employees at the abbattoirs. This may well have been prevented or there may well have been a happier result, had there been representation of the union on the Corporation's board. As I said, that would be in the interests not only of those who conduct the abattoirs and produce the meat, but also of the workers generally. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report draws attention to the fact that products of interest to the Australian Special Rural Research Council are expected to face continued market pressure on both the domestic and export fronts. Unfortunately, Australia is now faced with a highly competitive world market, not only for primary produce and minerals, but also for manufacturing. We believe that action must be taken expeditiously to ensure that the trend that has seen Australia drop in the world exporters league from the thirteenth to the twenty-second position is reversed. The impact of the European Community's agricultural policies of releasing some of its stockpiles into some of our traditional markets and the extension of United States subsidies on agricultural products through its export enhancement program are also having severe repercussions for Australian rural exports, in terms of both their effect on market prices and the possible loss of the traditional market share. My own State of Tasmania is also concerned about the impact that the closer economic relations with New Zealand are having on certain pockets of the agricultural sector in Australia. I believe that we need to monitor developments in this area, and particularly movements in the relative exchange rates. I think the pressure on prices, and the other problems brought about by the loss of our overseas market share for our primary products, are matters of great concern. Of course, that is reflected in Australia's overseas debt. This is another problem that has reached an all time high of over $100 billion. The advantage to exporters of devaluation has been lost due to high interest rates, our high inflation rate, the higher cost of importing machinery and also because of international promotion. It is essential that emphasis be given to the competitive edge that may be gained through research and development projects. To make an impact in such a competitive environment, Australian exporters need to produce quality products to meet customer demand. We must assert marketing techniques to increase the awareness of products that Australia has to offer. To this end research and development projects need to be pursued vigorously. While current research and development programs are to be commended as a step in the right direction, it is unfortunate that 90 per cent of Australia's rural research and development resources are devoted to activities in support of the larger established rural industries to the exclusion of the smaller components such as horticulture, the development of which is a matter of great importance to my State of Tasmania. The capacity of these sectors of rural industry to make significant contributions to export earnings should not be overlooked. The time to take initiatives to restore Australia's flagging export performance is now. The report recommends extending research and development for rural industry as one way of achieving this; I commend the report. Whilst the growth of manufacturing exports will continue to be important in trying to redress the imbalance in Australia's terms of trade, more speed is needed in the rural sector. Our best bet is to get improvement through the agricultural sector because it already accounts for a very significant slice of Australia's export earnings. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I commend the report to the Senate and I congratulate the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on its continued excellent performance over the past 12 months. This is in the face of a continuing erosion of its funding base. The CSIRO continues to be a bright star of hope in Australia's public interest research and development program. Years of attack, of review and of reorganisation have been imposed from outside the organisation. But these have failed to dampen the enthusiasm of its researchers, who continue to adapt their work and their drive to suit the changing needs and changing policies of the various governments and administrations that they are getting. Indeed, they are moulding themselves to the aspirations of Australian industry. However, I believe that this type of enthusiasm cannot continue under the current attacks on funding. This year the cuts in funding have been even more intolerable than before because the funding has been kept at a constant level. A large number of funds has been moved from the conventional areas of CSIRO-from agriculture, mining and the environment-into the new burgeoning areas of manufacturing. Of course, we need the support in those areas but we need new funds to be put into them rather than having them taken away from existing areas. In 1985-86 funding cuts reached the point at which departments, after meeting fixed costs for buildings, salaries and overheads, were left with funding for research projects amounting to around $2,500 per project for each year. This is almost intolerable. But, again, in 1986-87 funding for CSIRO has been cut in real terms. Even worse, budgeted funds have been diverted from the normal programs of research in order to boost funds available for those areas that have been declared of major national importance. This has left ongoing research projects virtually bankrupt, with insufficient funding to effectively carry on research projects in areas on which a large amount of money and time has already been expended over the years. This has left CSIRO's scientists in the invidious position in which they can no longer work effectively, in which their scientific careers are jeopardised and in which Australia risks losing the investment that the scientists have to date put into these various projects. It is particularly surprising, at a time when the Government is looking more and more to innovation and research to lead the Australian economy out of its current trade difficulties, that Australian scientists are being prevented from effectively carrying on research. It is scandalous. When announcing the Government's decision on the Australian Science and Technology Council's review of CSIRO, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) said: While CSIRO will place more emphasis on the application of its research, it is important that its ability to contribute to future industrial development is not inhibited by excessive attention to the short-term needs of existing industries. He went on to say: CSIRO must maintain a balance in its activities, with a major emphasis on strategic research, while ensuring that its science remains at the forefront of world developments. While CSIRO is forced to rob Peter to pay Paul and while no extra funds are being provided to develop strategic research, the Government will continue to slowly kill this goose that lays the golden egg. The Minister's statement must be seen as empty words and as proffering nothing for the long term future of Australia. The Chairman of CSIRO points out that most industrialised countries have singled out the same strategic areas of research as Australia. These are space, information systems, material technology and biochemistry. So we are probably just advancing and spending a lot of money to stand still. We have to look at new areas and we have to support the areas in which we have really had exciting things happen. We have to move into agricultural robotics, and water conservation using underground basins. We have to have more understanding of our soils-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.28) —I wish to make a few points on the tabling of the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for 1985-86. I have considerable sympathy with what Senator Vigor has just been saying. The organisation is one that has done much for Australia. It is a scientific research organisation of the highest calibre. Its contribution to Australian society in a wide variety of sectors is a cause for great pride. It is active in research in the fields of conservation, engineering, manufacturing, health, space technology, biotechnology and in many other areas. The one area of CSIRO's work on which I wish to concentrate relates to the rural industries. However, I will just make a few general comments concerning the Federal Government's treatment of CSIRO generally. It is surprising to find that the Minister responsible for CSIRO, the Honourable Barry Jones, who is such a self-professed advocate-I believe he is one-of advancing scientific interests, has allowed the CSIRO to remain a captive of organisational difficulties; perhaps these have been out of his hands. Last year the Federal Government had the opportunity to implement changes that were recommended by the Australian Science and Technology Council. These changes would have solved a number of problems that are restricting the ability of CSIRO to operate at its full potential. One important item was that the links between CSIRO and the Public Service should be severed. This would have given CSIRO the autonomy to enable it to operate unhindered by the problems associated with retaining staff in areas where research was being wound down. It would have given the Organisation much greater flexibility. I note that recent reports indicate a major redundancy scheme for CSIRO employees is being implemented in order to achieve much the same result. It is a pity that the same opportunity was not taken last year to implement that same policy in an enduring legislative form. Another problem is that portability of superannuation is not presently available, which hinders the ability of CSIRO employees to move between the Organisation and the Public Service or other government authorities. These are difficulties which the Federal Government must address, but the difficulty which I briefly wish to talk about today is, as I have mentioned, the cuts which are being suffered in the area of rural research. Funding for CSIRO has at least kept parity with inflation in previous years. However, the freeze placed on CSIRO's funding in the last Budget amounts to a cut in funding of some 9 per cent in real terms. One of the effects of this cut in funds is that rural research programs are stagnating. Some areas have been left to languish, and rural research is one of them. The new CSIRO Chairman, Neville Wran, and the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones, have both made public statements signalling a greater emphasis on manufacturing industry research. The diversion of funds into this area will leave many of the other research divisions short. It seems that the rural research division is one of those divisions to be left on the shelf, and this is in spite of the fact that the rural sector contributes some $41m per annum to CSIRO in the form of levies on producers. The rural industry is one industry that is paying its own way in terms of research costs, yet it is now being expected to come up with the money to subsidise research into other areas. I urge the Government to alter the emphasis placed on funding in favour of rural industry research in recognition of the importance of rural products to Australia's economy. The report notes that our rural exports are vital to our prosperity. In recognition of this fact, the rural sector should be encouraged, not penalised, and, accordingly, research funds should be made available. It is with great regret that we see this very great Organisation experiencing the problems that it is today and I certainly regret too that these rural programs in outback Australia will stagnate or come to a close after so many years of tremendous effort by the scientists who have given much of their lives to this dedicated work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.33) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak very briefly to the very fine thirty-fourth annual report for 1985-86 of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which covers a multitude of matters relating to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Time permits me to speak only briefly on the rehabilitation of the overburden dumps at Rum Jungle. Many years ago the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was responsible for the mining of uranium at Rum Jungle, near Batchelor, some 60 to 70 miles south of Darwin. In those days mining techniques were extremely poor, with the result that, through weathering, monsoonal rains and such there was a tremendous leakage down into the Finniss River of oxide and various types of soil that were lifted out of the open cut and dumped. The Finniss River, which used to be a favourite fishing place, became a dead river. The fish disappeared and overall the effect of the mining techniques was tremendous erosion and wastage. It was very pleasing, therefore, to see that the Federal Government provided funding and that, in liaison with the Northern Territory Government and private enterprise, it rehabilitated Rum Jungle. I do not have the actual figures in front of me but I think that that rehabilitation program was carried out at a cost of some $18m to $19m. The interesting thing about the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle was that the project was completed within its allocated budget. Through the work of the engineers, scientists and private enterprise people who carried out this operation Rum Jungle has now been fully rehabilitated. If people are interested in the rehabilitation of areas subjected to poor mining techniques I suggest that they visit Rum Jungle. It was suggested that these poor mining techniques were the result of uranium mining. This was not the case; it was the oxide and other ores that were allowed to leach out and so kill the river. I might add that the river has now recovered. Fish are now in the river, and right throughout that whole area the rehabilitation has brought about a regrowth of plants and vegetation. It is also interesting to note that at Whites dump, where there were two or three open cuts of considerable depth-200 or 300 feet-the water was absolutely poisonous. If anybody had swum in that water they would not have lasted very long. However, following rehabilitation, that water is now pure and can be used for local sporting events. All in all, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which oversaw the rehabilitation project, the Federal Government, for its funding, the Northern Territory Government and private enterprise, for carrying out a lot of these measures, are to be congratulated. It is indicative of what can be done to rehabilitate some of these old mining projects if they are attacked with earnestness, funding and expertise. All of those organisations are to be congratulated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.38) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In the very short time that I have available I would like to commend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for its 1985-86 annual report. A set of very informative pie diagrams in the report show the activities of the Authority. In 1985-86 it carried out operations in managing this magnificent resource of Australia, in planning and developing the area, in providing educational information and material on the activities that go on inside the park, in carrying on research in various areas in the park as well as supporting the development of tourism in the area. I note with great interest that, in the distribution of funds for research programs, 62 per cent of those programs were carried out in the area of marine biology. We are learning an enormous amount about the genetic material which exists in the area and the exciting species which populate the Barrier Reef. Only 4 per cent of funds were spent on research into oceanography. Research into that area needs to have considerably more spent on it, particularly remote sensing and the effects of weather patterns on the ocean around the Barrier Reef. The crown of thorns starfish comes in for a considerable amount of comment. It is quite obvious that the starfish will be a continuing scourge in the area. Initial analysis apparently shows that not all reefs are similarly hit and that it may be just a continuing problem on the Reef. I commend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of government papers has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to give notice of a motion of disallowance of certain delegated legislation which is before the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —I give notice that, 11 sitting days after today, I shall move: That Fisheries Notice No. 174, made on 10 November 1986 under the Fisheries Act 1952, be disallowed. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Committee is presently considering whether this subordinate legislation falls within its terms of reference. Today is the last day on which it can give protective notice of motion. Accordingly, I have done so. Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.45) —The Opposition welcomes and supports the new defence initiatives in the South Pacific which were outlined in a statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) which has been tabled in this place. However, these defence initiatives, although small steps in what is no doubt the right direction, have to be evaluated in the context of the whole of the Government's relations with the South Pacific. I propose to address my remarks to this problem. One of the initiatives that are referred to, namely, the Pacific patrol boat program, has been a policy for some time. The first of those patrol boats, which are being made available to South Pacific countries which are interested in them, is already undergoing trials. So, that program has been in existence for some time. Other announcements, such as the increased deployment by the Royal Australian Air Force of long range maritime patrol aircraft in the region and the increased deployment of Royal Navy ships in the region are new matters. There is to be an upgrading of defence co-operation in technical matters. The statement, although welcome, is not really adequate to address the problems in the region. One of the most striking things about the statement is that it makes no explicit mention at all of the growing position and role of the Soviet Union in the region. We are all well aware of the fishing agreements which the Soviet Union has succeeded recently in negotiating with Vanuatu and the agreement which it is renegotiating with Kiribati after its expiry. The Soviet Union's presence in this region represents a very considered, deliberate and new policy of the Soviet Union to take a much higher profile in the region that it has hitherto taken. Australia's defence links with this region are of vital importance to us, as is our trade across the South Pacific to the Americas and particularly North America. This is to say nothing of our direct trading relations which for many years have existed with countries of the region. So we must be concerned. I am sure that the Government, although perhaps not sufficiently concerned, has an understanding of the problem. There has been nothing haphazard about the Soviet Union's approach to the region. I quote a statement by the General-Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, Mr Gorbachev, given in a speech at Vladivostok in July last year: The Soviet Union's policy towards Asia and the Pacific region is an integral part of the general platform of the CPSU's international activity worked out by the April plenary meeting at the 27th Congress. But a platform is not a chart that can be applied to any situation. Rather, it is a set of principles and a method based on experience. So, the growing penetration of the South Pacific by the Soviet Union in recent years is a quite deliberate policy by the Soviet Union. As I have said, it has runs on the board already. Mounting economic problems in the Pacific make the small states particularly vulnerable to approaches from a country such as the Soviet Union which has many bribes to offer. The smaller states are very dependent on overseas aid. Australia has been a major contributor to aid to the region. Those countries are almost a bottomless pit of demand for aid. They have to balance budgets, pay for imports and reach minimum standards of health, housing and water reticulation. As we have seen recently, they are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters. Fortunately, Australia has been able to be in the forefront of assistance given recently both to Vanuatu and to the Cook Islands, which have suffered severely from cyclones. The Soviet Union is seeking to exploit this situation to gain a foothold in the region, which it has already done. The Soviet Ambassador to Australia, speaking of the Vanuatu fishing agreement in January-only a short time ago-said: We plan to send about eight fishing boats there and we are paying rather good money for the licence. That is a very good indication of what the real intentions of the Soviet Union are. It is paying `good money', which of course that country badly needs. The agreement between the Soviet Union and Vanuatu allows Soviet fishing vessels access to designated ports. This is the first time that the Soviet Union has had port access in the Pacific, which is very important politically. No doubt the Soviets will seek to extend their activities beyond the commercial in a small state such as Vanuatu, which has already been forging some links with Cuba, as we know from the recent visit to that country by the General-Secretary of the Vanuatu Party. Apart from the direct penetration into the South Pacific, there is the Soviet military buildup in the base at Cam Ranh Bay. The Soviet Pacific fleet now represents 35 per cent of the Soviet Union's total naval assets. Its Pacific fleet is the largest of its four fleets. We know, based on recent reports on the size of the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay, that the developments that have occurred there have placed the Soviet Union in a very strong position to strike not only at the South Pacific region but also at Australia itself. Of course, that was denied by the Soviet Union until it was fully established by the published satellite photographs that we saw recently showing the strength and deployment of those ships and aircraft available to the Soviet Union there. It is in this situation of threat that we see the Government's attitude, as expressed in the Minister's statement, towards maintaining peace and stability in the region. Certainly, there has been peace and stability in the past, but it is that very peace and stability which is now threatened and about which the Hawke Government seems to be remarkably complacent. Of course, the immediate problem of the ANZUS alliance as a result of New Zealand's refusal to admit United States warships because the United States will not confirm or deny that they are carrying nuclear weapons is of a most serious kind and is an example being given to South Pacific nations, because New Zealand's influence in that region has always been, and still is, very great. That destabilising position and the threat to the United States alliance have been caused not only by New Zealand's attitude but also by New Zealand's influence generally in the region. In addition to the problem which I have outlined, there is the Hawke Government's determination to put in place in the region the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. We debated that Treaty in this chamber a little while ago. The Opposition strongly opposed it for two reasons. The first is the broader strategic perception which has been created by that region whereby Australia is seen to be aligned against our ally the United States because of the provisions in the Treaty which, although allowing the passage of nuclear armed and nuclear powered vessels through the region, prevent the stationing of ships or aircraft with such weapons anywhere in the region. That has been of great concern to the United States, which has now declined to sign the Treaty. The Soviet Union has signed the Treaty. Australia has been a leading proponent of it. The impression is now being created that we are sympathetic to the Soviet Union's stance in that region and are opposed to the United States. That is the worst possible perception that Australia could have put itself in as far as the defence of this region is concerned. It is all very well for the Australian Government to announce new defence initiatives, ones which incidentally are somewhat contrary to the Government's report-the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence capabilities-about attitudes to defence and projecting our defence presence beyond the fortress Australia. However, that is the subject of another debate. Although the Government is moving to recognise more sharply the defence needs of the region, we are in essence being seen in that region as opposed to the United States. That places us in great conflict with our major ally, the United States. I noticed in this morning's Australian newspaper, I think it was, a report of an article by a distinguished United States naval officer, Admiral Thomas Hayward, who is a former Chief of United States Naval Operations and who was, at an earlier stage in his career, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Seventh Fleet in the Pacific. He expressed great concern about the influence of thinking which the Dibb report has revealed and with which the Government obviously has a great deal of sympathy. He believes that the developments portend a far more serious problem for the United States than New Zealand's policies or even Soviet gains in the South Pacific, and that the viability of the ANZUS alliance is at issue. He expresses his concern that the Minister for Defence has shown considerable support for the radical realignment of Australian policy away from the ANZUS alliance. That is a very alarming view which the Government has allowed to develop in the minds of distinguished United States naval persons such as Admiral Hayward. The Opposition can only continue to express and reaffirm its very grave concerns about developments in the South Pacific not only on defence matters but also because of our political ties in the region and our trade ties with it. The Government simply seems to be encouraging these developments. Its policies, such as the support and, indeed, the leadership it has more or less given to the establishment of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, will have long term serious consequences for Australia. Although the Opposition believes that the Government's small new initiatives in the region are to be welcomed, they must be considered in the context of the Government's total policy towards the region, which is facing a very considerable threat from the Soviet Union and, as I have said, in its relations with other countries, such as Cuba. Even Colonel Gaddafi is showing interest in the region. Those are very serious threats of which the Government does not seem to be aware. It is all very well to encourage such policies and to maintain our aid programs, but if we get the major foreign policy settings and defence policy interests wrong, no matter how many steps of that kind we take, we will ultimately fail in achieving our true interests in this most important region. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.00) —The statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is very important because it sets out not so much a course of action as a dilemma for Australia. The statement begins: The islands of the South Pacific have always been regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic well-being. I would agree with that. The statement continues: This was proved correct in World War II, when battles on land and at sea in the island chain to our north turned the tide of Japanese expansion. It was at Milne Bay that Australian forces won the first significant victory against Japanese land forces in the Pacific war. The bottom line, or the crunch, in this matter is that our Pacific neighbours on the whole are not at all well-equipped to defend themselves. Furthermore, they are divided by huge expanses of sea. As we have found before in history, that is a very difficult area to defend. Even the largest of the islands has an armed force of only a few thousand men, virtually no air force and a small navy with only one or two patrol boats. It is the view of the Australian Democrats that it is totally unrealistic to expect that Australia should be able to contribute to much of the defence of all or even most of these island territories in the event of a major war even approaching the scale of the Pacific war during World War II. That seems to me to be absolutely axiomatic and a nettle which the Government ought to grasp, but which it does not even begin to deal with in the statement. The nettle is at the top of page 4, where the Minister makes a statement with which I agree. He says: The island countries lie across important lines of communication between Australia and Japan, our major trading partner, and the United States, our major ally. They also lie across important trade routes and approaches to Australia's east coast, where many of our major population centres are located. An unfriendly maritime power in the area could inhibit our freedom of movement through these approaches and could place in doubt the security of overseas supply to Australia of military equipment and other strategic materiel. The key to this is the position of Papua New Guinea, particularly its geographic position. Of all the South Pacific nations, except for Australia and New Zealand, Papua New Guinea has the largest armed forces, but still with an army of just under 3,000, five patrol boats, one landing craft, a squadron of Nomads and some other patrol-type aircraft. It is also very close to Australia geographically, forming a kind of geographic shield right across our northern approaches. There is not a large area of sea between us and Papua New Guinea, and that area of sea is fairly easy to get across. In the Democrats' view the practicality is a closer concentration on reality than this statement appears to achieve. I believe that the Government and all Australians must look to a greater concentration on Papua New Guinea and the corridor it provides to the north. If one looks at that as a fundamental priority achievement, one begins to see some line of sense in the whole situation, embracing the Minister's statement that it is necessary for us to maintain some line of communication to our north and not to be utterly cut off from that area. How far should that consideration go? I believe that it should embrace all kinds of options, up to and including something such as the American Monroe Doctrine which, as honourable senators will know, involves a commitment by the United States of America that an attack on any part of the American continent will be regarded as an attack on the United States itself. That statement should and must be limited by the fact that Papua New Guinea is an independent nation. Her political future is her own affair; and the degree to which she might want involvement with or protection by Australia must be her decision as a sovereign nation. That said, I assert that our diplomatic and governmental efforts ought to be directed at a closer and more effective defence co-operation with Papua New Guinea that with the rest of the Pacific area. It is a hard decision, but not to make that sort of distinction would place us at grave peril. That sort of dangerous indecision about our defence planning has created a situation in which so much has been spent over recent years, but it has resulted in a largely ineffective defence force. This has been conceded, not only by me but also by committees of this Parliament and virtually every expert who has looked at it. The general consensus has been that that waste-that is what it is-and lack of proper concentration on what our defence efforts should be, have been due to a failure to perceive the real strategic requirements of this country. There is also the idea, which goes right back to the time when this nation was a colony, that somehow our only means of having a reasonable defence potential would be as the associate of some kind of father figure-first the United Kingdom and later the United States-and that the only possible way we could defend ourselves would be to throw in our little bit of weight with that father figure and hope that it would take our hand and defend us in the event of a major war. In these days of nuclear war, nuclear-powered attack submarines and the like, we all know how unrealistic that view is. It is quite absurd to accept the idea that anybody could protect us in a major war or that our sea lanes would be in any way protected by even the closest possible concentration of forces by our allies, even if they were in a position to put those forces there. There is no way, for instance, that a submerged submarine carrying missiles could be prevented from attacking our shores and cities. We must look reasonably, as we are doing with the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, at the idea that we can defend ourselves only in a non-nuclear situation and that what defence potential we have ought to be directed to defending this continent and our northern approaches. In doing that, we are doing two things. For the first time we are providing a practical means of defence, because it is a fact that in these days of smart guided missiles and relatively cheap, lightly manned missile carriers, even major naval forces which seek to invade other countries are at risk from that type of weapon. The Falklands war and the Israeli and Middle East conflicts have made this abundantly plain. Therefore, it is possible for us to defend this continent, or at least to create a defence potential which would probably deter anybody who wanted to attack us-not that I believe anybody does at the moment. A second advantage of that stance is that it gives a clear foreign policy message to the rest of the world that we are not in the business of foreign adventuring or meddling in the internal affairs of the countries of South East Asia; that we will do the best we can to defend ourselves; that if other countries come here they will come at their own cost; and that we have the materiel and weapons with which to defend ourselves. That is basically Dibb thinking, there is no doubt about that at all. I might say that it was Democrat thinking years before it was Dibb thinking. Unfortunately, the idea, which seems to be coming through the Minister's statement rather muzzily, is that somehow we can defend the whole of the South Pacific by sending a few reconnaissance aircraft to the island countries helping them to upgrade their surveillance systems, increasing the number of Royal Australian Navy ship deployments to the area and engaging in defence co-operation activities such as providing technical support to island defence and security forces. As Senator Durack said, that is fine as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. The danger is that if it is taken further it will run foul of the excellent plans in the Dibb report for the effective defence of this continent. I comment briefly on the Pacific patrol boat plan, which I hope will be effective in the sense that there ought to be some compatibility of weapons and some planning for the future with these ships. We do not want another disaster like the Fremantle class. These first-class small warships are absolutely incapable of firing even a shot across the bows of a Taiwanese fishing boat proceeding upwind, because the main armament is the World War II Bofors gun. We tried for years at least to have ships built so that they could have the space for wiring channels and so on, for future conversion to missile deployment-mainly to Harpoon, the missile in which we are specialising. I understand that some of the later ones have wiring channels. I hope that is the case. It would be prudent, I think, that these patrol boats that are going to Pacific nations-plainly, there is no way they can be given Harpoon missiles as they are enormously expensive weapons-have a wiring channel space. But it is possible that new owners may want to provide that capability at some future time. In that case at least one would hope that the ships had the wiring channel space and the space for the necessary control systems. The fact that the very small craft that are being built in the United States could carry missiles effectively makes it plain that provided we have a reasonably fast, low profile platform they will deliver a missile as well as anything else. I was concerned to see the statement, which Senator Durack mentioned, by the former Chief of the US naval operations, Admiral Thomas Hayward, quoted in this morning's Australian. Senator Durack seems to take the view that because we do not do everything that even unofficial opinion in the United States asks us to do somehow we are allies of the Soviet Union. I really cannot understand that. He advanced the views of ex-Admiral Hayward in just this way. I find the tendency by aging and retired civil servants in the United States to intrude in the affairs of friends rather unfortunate. I do not believe that statements of retired servicemen should be given the weight that they are sometimes given. If there is a serious public official statement from the United States Government we should take some heed of it, but we should not boost headlines, which are inaccurately quoted, with statements of a retired admiral. Admiral Hayward is quoted as saying: It is not easy to avoid the conclusion that a major shift of Australian defence policy is being shaped, placing at risk one of the foremost assumptions underlying the ANZUS alliance, that Australia and the US share their commitment to regional stability as a whole. That certainly is not the case on my reading of the ANZUS Treaty. I would think that Admiral Hayward has not read the Treaty. If he did he would find out that there is no commitment whatsoever on Australia under ANZUS to defend regional stability as a whole-whatever regional stability as a whole might mean, we are not told what it means-but merely to consult with our ANZUS allies and then act according to our constitutional processes. The United States has reminded us on a number of occasions that it regards us in that light, that it does not see any particular need or any commitment under ANZUS to defend us. That has been made absolutely clear by the same sort of high official of the same rank as Admiral Thomas Hayward. I find it rather incongruous that he should now turn around and make requirements of us-he seems to make requirements of us-even though the United States has been very careful to withdraw itself from where we are concerned. I hope someone will tell Admiral Hayward that planning for our own defence is our affair. When he talks about commitment to regional stability as a whole he might mean things like seeing that perhaps the Philippines is anti-communist. I hope that the Philippines stays anti-communist-I fervently hope that-but I feel that as things are going in that country that is not very likely. The people who see a forward defence system as controlling that kind of situation ought to go into some of the Filipino barrios or slums in Manila such as Tondo and have a good look around. They will see why there is a danger of the Philippines becoming communist. It is because of the gross social inequalities which persist in that country and which are likely to persist until a very determined effort is made by somebody to overcome those inequalities that mark the contrast between Tondo and Forbes Park. Forbes Park is a suburb of Manila where there are houses of the very wealthy, defended by barbed wire and high walls with broken glass on top and armed guards. Fleets of air-conditioned Mercedes and large Fords go through the slums every day. In 1981 when the Pope visited the Philippines the Government spent large sums of money erecting large white lines of palings along the route so that the Pope, other important visitors and the television crews with him could not see the appalling slums through which they were driving. If we feel here that we can talk about the defence of our region and feel that that is not a factor we are fooling ourselves and, of course, Admiral Thomas Hayward is fooling himself too. If he thinks that this country will go in consort with the United States for something like the Vietnam war, it is something very few people in this country would require. If that is what he means by a commitment to regional stability as a whole it is something we do not want. I spent an hour or so earlier on this afternoon reading through the Pentagon Papers again and looking at that disgraceful history publicly revealed in those papers, in the Pentagon's own statements, of its involvement in the Vietnam war. One sees from those statements the gross association of Ambassador Lodge, the American generals, and the connivance of the Central Intelligence Agency in the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother in 1963. An ally of eight years was destroyed quite soullessly and with the knowledge of the American President at the time, according to the Pentagon Papers. That is probably what one's last word ought to be on this ministerial statement. There is no way we will maintain the peace and stability of the region to our north by military means. That has been proven I would have thought in our generation a couple of times. It will however be maintained by a proper emphasis by the friendly powers of the world-and I include the United States naturally, and Australia and New Zealand, among their number-in respect of the problem redressing the economic problems of that part of the world, of creating there a series of prosperous democracies where there is not the sort of gross inequality that we find in Manila and which we are finding increasingly in Jakarta and in the other main capitals of the area, but instead a group of ordinary, reasonably, self-respecting peoples who are given a chance to progress according to their own lives in their own way. As has been proven again in our generation, there will not be the growth problems of population pressure and so on, because once people are given certain economic horizons they will limit their population through their own means. The issues behind this statement are far more profound than anything which the Minister has seen fit to set forth. It is high time that a Minister of the Crown, who is there as a servant of the people of this country and there to diligently pursue their best interests, came forward with something better than this when it comes to such a matter of great importance. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(6.19) —This ministerial statement on Australian defence initiatives in the South Pacific brings together in one place the Government's specific defence aid proposals for the small island states to our east and to our north. It seems to be a fair, low key approach and would appear to serve the immediate interests of Australia and the island states. In addition to the Pacific patrol boat project, which has been in the pipeline for some time, the statement indicates the Government's intention to upgrade Royal Australian Air Force maritime patrols, Royal Australian Navy ship deployments, defence co-operation through technical support, hydrographic surveys, and maps. The statement does not cost these additional measures but they would not appear to require an enormous increase in spending. I have little doubt that all island states receiving this aid will welcome it, even though there are specific political differences between Australia and some of the countries. Any aid which will assist them to protect and use their sea resources is clearly in their interests. The patrol boats will certainly assist them to ensure that fishing boats from countries with whom we share political and economic relationships do not illegally poach their fish resources. As the statement makes clear, this aid is also in Australia's interest. Such programs assist us to keep an eye on the area of our immediate strategic interest. Hydrographic surveys and mapping clearly serve our long term interest in having detailed knowledge of the geography of our immediate region-in the same way that the mapping of Indonesia, Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea serves our interests. In addition to these obvious benefits, such programs keep the island states in a condition of dependence on Australia-a point that will not be lost on the islanders. The statement says that the islands of the South Pacific have always been regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic well-being. The fact is, however, that it is only very recently that we have again turned our attention to their importance. The statement says: . . . the island groups of the South Pacific have developed into independent nations (and) they have developed their own strategic perceptions and concerns. What this really means is that they are thinking for themselves and are no longer prepared to be just taken for granted as an appendage to Australia. By looking elsewhere, for example for agreements to protect their fishing resources, the island states have brought this message home to us in a powerful way. So I think the Pacific states have been quite successful in telling us that we have to pay a price for their compliance with our interests. It is this give and take which will promote the growth of inter-dependence between ourselves and the island states. If they are entered into willingly, such arrangements are a proper basis for relations between countries. I would like to think that this is the major basis of the program outlined in this ministerial statement. It is certainly a better basis than that promoted by some members opposite who hear the words `South Pacific' and immediately start shouting `the Russians are coming'. This scare-mongering tactic has continued unabated for more than thirty years and I will not be holding my breath waiting for it to stop, but I do suggest that those opposite who continue this tactic-and that is all it is-have a look at what Peter Hastings says about the Soviets in the South Pacific in yesterday's National Times. Mr Hastings has a lot more in common with conservative party thinking on defence issues than he does with mine but he does occasionally drop pearls of wisdom. He begins his article by quoting none other than the retiring Defence Force Chief, General Bennett, as dismissing Soviet strategic penetration of the South Pacific as a threat to Australian security. Hastings writes: In strict strategic terms the South Pacific is a tiny stop on the road to nowhere. This is why Moscow found it so easy to sign the Rarotonga Treaty and watch the US shoot itself in the foot. It didn't have to give up anything. Hastings lists the reasons why Soviet influence in the region, even though it is increasing, is likely to be very limited. On one of the other magic scare terms, `Cam Ranh Bay', Hastings say that the force Russia can project from there is `demonstrably inferior to that deployed by the US at Subic Bay.' I have given up hoping for a more balanced assessment from Opposition members on the Soviet Union, but perhaps they might spare the time to read Hastings's article in full. The statement notes the fact that the South Pacific has begun to attract increasing international attention. This fact, in the words of the statement, `carries the potential risk that disputes between the major powers, and influences which could be harmful to our longer-term interests, may be introduced into the region'. I would only say that we cannot blame people in this country, as well as those in some of the island states, who feel that we can reduce the possibility of super-power conflict in our area by keeping all super-power presence at a low level. New Zealand, Vanuatu, and to a lesser extent some other island states, do question the presence in our region of United States facilities and nuclear-capable ships. So far there is little sign that Australia is directly penalising these countries for their views and actions on this matter, and I can only hope it stays that way. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.25) —I must say at the outset that I welcome this defence statement. A lot needed to be said and I am glad to see that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has put his views on record in certain areas. The Minister sets out initiatives which I believe are needed and I think the security of the region will be that much better as a result of the initiatives. I do not believe that they go far enough and I hope that I can demonstrate that during the course of my speech. I still give credit where it is due and say that this statement has been needed and it is good that it has been brought down. It is important to note that the Minister has emphasised in his statement the significance of the region. Mr Dibb, in his Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, says that this is one of the most stable regions in the world and I think all Australians would hope that that is and will remain accurate. I have fears on that score, and I know Senator McIntosh has been claiming that we on this side of the chamber continually see reds under the beds. I remind Senator McIntosh, however, of the well known example of the British Empire managing to train its guns on the wrong side of Singapore Island. We cannot be wise after the event; we cannot afford not to be careful about where our strategic interests and threats lie. Therefore, one must watch what is happening to this region. Our interests are served by maintaining stability in the region and one of the ways we can do that obviously is by assisting in the region's economic stability, but tonight I want to examine more the changing strategic factors which should be kept under close watch, as I hope Senator McIntosh would agree. I do not want to put any of these points too strongly but I do believe that, if we take them together, one cannot rely on this region remaining stable. Given that it is so important to us-I think Senator McIntosh was casting doubts on whether it is so strategically important, but I insist that it is-we should keep close watch on the strategic changes in the area. Obviously one of the most widely publicised changes of recent times is the defection, if I can put it in those terms, of New Zealand from the ANZUS Treaty. I regard that as a great shame and I feel that it has diminished to some extent the value of ANZUS. The importance of ANZUS I do not think can be diminished. It is extremely important and I welcome the fact that this Government says that it is committed to ANZUS. I only wish that it had expressed its feelings, or our feelings, more strongly to the NZ Government when it opted out of that treaty. I am concerned also at the presence of Libyans and Cubans in the Pacific. That is not something, according to their history, which will be conducive to stability. I am concerned also about the buildup of Soviet military presence in the region. It is easy to dismiss this but when one recognises that two out of Moscow's three aircraft carriers are operating in the Soviet's Pacific fleet and when we look at the continued development of Cam Ranh Bay-as was revealed recently to Australians by way of photos in the media-we must take serious account of the situation. A third of the Soviet Navy, nearly a third of its air power and a third of the available SS20 intermediate range ballistic missiles are in the Pacific theatre, not to mention the 53 Army divisions available to that theatre. So it is something that we must continue to watch carefully. Equally, we must watch the buildup of Soviet commercial and diplomatic actions in this area. I believe that there is heavy pressure on the Association of South East Asian Nations countries at present, quite apart from the South Pacific nations, to improve diplomatic as well as commercial activities. The Soviets are not prepared to take no for an answer and they are knocking very hard at the doors of our neighbours in order to have increased influence in our area. It is a matter we must watch. When we take into account also the speech of Mr Gorbachev in Vladivostok, the politics I believe they are playing with the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and also the fact that the Tongan Government, which has traditionally been so conservative, now has its Crown Prince in Moscow negotiating on undisclosed matters with the Moscow Government, we must be wary; we must keep an eye on these things. I am not the only person concerned about these issues and I would like to quote some people who have much greater reputations in this area than I to confirm my view that we should keep a close watch and that action is needed to maintain good, friendly relationships with our neighbours in both the ASEAN and South Pacific areas. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator NEWMAN —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was drawing the attention of the Senate to the changing factors which apply to the strategic situation in the southern Pacific. We must take the changing factors very seriously. Whilst we may not be in a position described earlier by Senator McIntosh of looking for reds under the beds, a number of world authorities on this area speak of their concern. I am not just mouthing my own right wing reactionary views. I draw attention to the comments by Admiral Synnot on the Dibb report. He says that he is concerned that Mr Dibb has said that Australia is one of the most secure countries in the world. He finds this statement very dangerous and he draws attention to the fact that we have threats to our overseas shipping and to our trade. He said: The report unwisely seems to discount the importance of trade to Australia. It is only discussed from a submarine threat aspect. For instance, if our trade were interrupted outside the 1000nm zone by missile-armed surface raiders with helicopters to extend their range of action, the country could suffer very serious economic trouble. There could also be serious threats to our offshore resources zone . . . In addition, Captain Jack Roome of the United States Navy, a member of the United States Defence Intelligence Agency, examined in an article in the Pacific Defence Reporter last year Soviet military expansion in the Pacific. He said: Moscow's use of all the instruments of foreign policy-military assistance, diplomacy, trade, aid, propaganda, and overt and covert activities-demonstrates a determined effort to extend Soviet power and influence and to promote the USSR as the dominant world force. To this end, it is becoming more apparent that the Soviets are also building a military force in the Far East which surpasses any reasonable defensive requirements. Last year, Dr Robert O'Neill, in the keynote address to ENSA/NAVTEC'86 said: But scepticism and willingness to see the Soviet point of view will not hide the fact that the Soviets are a real challenge through their peculiar ability to give such continuing high priority to their military requirements in time of peace . . . The greatest challenge of all in those circumstances is to maintain a credible deterrent posture which does not undermine stability nor create new tensions of its own. Management of the naval balance is one of the most crucial elements of meeting that challenge. The Japanese Foreign Minister warned just recently that Soviet intrusion into the South Pacific would be very bad for regional stability and security. He said that Japan and Australia had to co-operate and to remain in close contact to ensure that the Soviet Union did not gain a strong foothold in the region. I am glad to say that our own Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, was reported in December last, while speaking during a visit to New Zealand, as saying that such a deal as was proposed in Vanuatu, for fishing rights, would lead to Soviet infiltration through lack of security surveillance. He said that a country the size of Vanuatu could not afford to keep tabs on Soviet activities and he made it clear that he was deeply suspicious of the Soviets' motives. He went on to say: The Soviet Union on the ground, on past experience, will take the opportunity to engage in other than commercial activity. It is very clear that we have a lot to be concerned about, despite comment from Senator McIntosh that we in the Opposition are rather paranoid on the subject. We await with interest the White Paper on defence which the Government has promised is coming shortly. I hope we will see in it that ANZUS and regional security arrangements will be much more thoroughly covered than they were in the Dibb report. I believe that there was great value in the Dibb report, particularly because it raised the question of defence to a matter for national debate. That in itself is rare enough in this country in time of peace. I hope we will see in the White Paper that the strategy of denial is modified. We simply cannot accept the strategy of denial, nor can we accept the assessment that we are in a totally benign region. I believe that our defence policy should provide the nation with the widest possible range of options. We simply must not allow a blinkered view of the role of the Russians to prevail. We would be restricting our range of options for preparedness. There is an old saying that if an enemy has three options he will usually choose a fourth. We must build a defence force which is relevant to Australia's needs and which will have the equipment and the material infrastructure base to achieve it. Australia's needs have to be taken into account in the light of the changing situation amongst our neighbours. Australia's shipping has to be protected outside our brown waters. Evasive routing or becoming self-sufficient in basic commodities will not be enough. An airborne early warning system is still not being implemented. We recognise the fact that the haemorrhaging of our defence personnel has to be stopped. The loss of morale and the waste of scarce resources cannot be allowed to continue. One has to wonder whether we will have submariners and pilots for the equipment that we are buying. I do not intend to pursue these matters of detail on this occasion because, as I said, the White Paper is coming. I particularly welcome the announcement in the Minister's statement of the establishment of a maritime surveillance course at the Australian Maritime College. It would be unusual if I did not welcome that as a senator for Tasmania. It is obviously a recognition of the important role which this college is now playing in the life of our maritime community. It is giving strong leadership and great academic backing for people whose lives are involved with the sea. I welcome the fact that we have something which is of such world class quality that it is attractive to people from other nations to have their students trained there. From that point of view, as well from the point of view of our Pacific neighbours, I feel it was an excellent decision to establish this maritime surveillance course at the Australian Maritime College. In the efforts made by the Government in the South Pacific area greater emphasis could be given to the training of Pacific island personnel, both in Australia and in their own countries, by Australians. I recognise that such training is being given, but I believe that for a number of reasons it could well be increased in volume. All countries involved would be the better for that, including our own, if for no other reason than the understanding which such exchanges can generate. I also question the restriction to one engineer construction unit project per year. From the point of view of our own Royal Australian Engineers and from the point of view of our neighbours in the Pacific, we could look at increasing such activities. As I said, I welcome the initiatives which the Government has taken. I also welcome some of the statements which have been made by the Minister in his speech. One of the most important parts of his statement is on page 4, where he describes the island countries as lying across important lines of communication between Australia and Japan, our major trading partner, and the United States, our major ally. He also describes how they lie across important trade routes and approaches to Australia's east coast, where many of our major population centres are located. He points out that an unfriendly maritime power in the area could inhibit our freedom of movement through these approaches and could place in doubt the security of overseas supply to Australia of military equipment and other strategic material. I welcome that statement from the Minister because it really is, I believe, a retreat from the position set out in the Dibb report. I hope that is a sign of the sort of thing we might come to expect shortly in the White Paper. It is a recognition of the realities of our situation and it shows which way we should be heading in our force structure and in our outlook on the world. I feel that there are things in this statement which could have been improved upon; more could have been done and more could have been done earlier. Nevertheless, I do welcome the statement. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) put: That the debate be now adjourned. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Black, J. R. Macklin, M. J. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. (Teller) Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Chaney, F. M. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Grimes, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(8.16) —The Opposition is opposed to the motion moved by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) to adjourn this debate to the next day of sitting. I accordingly move the following amendment: Leave out `the next day of sitting', insert `a later hour of the day.'. The role of the Government in this matter is nothing short of disgraceful. This statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) was put down in the other place last Friday afternoon. The House of Representatives devoted most of Friday to this matter, other than for ordinary business, with 11 speakers participating. The matter was then adjourned until today and it is on the Notice Paper of the House of Representatives for further debate today. The Government brought this matter on for debate in the Senate today and has now gagged the debate, I think after less than an hour, and after only four speakers, including one Australian Democrat. The Democrats' performance in this matter is even more disgraceful than that of the Government. The Democrats, now abandoned under their present wimpish leader, Senator Haines, have sold out lock, stock and barrel to the Government. Having had a speaker in this debate they have decided to co-operate totally with the Government's wishes to bring an end to this debate in the Senate. Why would the Senate, as a House of review, be accorded far less time to debate this vital question than the House of Representatives? That is what the new Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) has done. We know about his management capacities. His only management experience was running an undergraduate course for law students, and here he is now presented as the Manager of Government Business. We now have the first test of his capacity as the Manager of Government Business; that is his capacity to steamroll and railroad the Senate into submission according to his will. That is his conception of how to run anything. It is certainly quite beyond his capacity to run the Senate. This defence statement by Mr Beazley deals with some minor upgrading of the Government's defence initiatives in the South Pacific. It raises questions of vital importance to Australia's defence and, indeed, to its foreign policy. As has already been indicated in the debate, this matter is of most serious moment. The Senate should be debating matters of this kind. Presumably Senator Evans wants to proceed with Government Business, which involves some amendments to important legislation no doubt, but nothing of any great urgency. So he is now seeking to abandon a debate about this nation's future defence capacity, its future allies and its future defence arrangements in a region that is totally adjacent to Australia. As I have said, the debate has been concluded in less than an hour in this place, and with no real assurance that the matter will ever be brought back for debate in this session. For those reasons alone I have moved the amendment to enable this debate to proceed later this day. There is no reason why other urgent business of the Government should take precedence over this matter for the next two hours tonight. Even at this stage the Government should think again and resume the debate on this particularly vital and important subject without further delay. The motion moved by Senator Evans is designed to shunt this subject off. There is no likelihood or guarantee that there will be any further debate on the subject this session. We should be able to resume this debate tonight and continue it, if necessary, tomorrow. As I have said, already the House of Representatives spent most of Friday debating it. There were 11 speakers. The debate is being continued in the House of Representatives today. The Senate should not be denied the same opportunity as has been accorded by the Government to the House of Representatives. I know that, for instance, Senator Harradine was very anxious to speak in this debate. There are a number of speakers on this side of the House who wish to contribute. We know perfectly well that senators on the government side are prepared to go along with the Government, to shut up and not contribute anything further. One of them, Senator McIntosh, spoke very effectively and quite adequately for about five or seven minutes. There is no reason why this debate should not continue with some self-restraint on the part of Government senators in particular. Presumably the Australian Democrats have now decided that, one of their number having made a minor contribution to this debate, the other five of them do not want to say anything and they want to deny the rights of other senators to speak on this vital matter. In order to accommodate the wishes of the Senate, as I have said, I have moved that the debate on this matter be resumed at a later hour this day. I trust that the Government will accommodate the Senate and enable that to take place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(8.23) —I do not want to prolong this debate, but let me put a few things accurately for the record. The way in which this matter would be handled has been the subject of quite a deal of discussion with a number of the relevant parties-- Senator Harradine —I take a point of order, Mr President. Is Senator Evans closing this debate? The PRESIDENT —Not if he is speaking just to the amendment, and that is what I take it he is doing at the moment. I see that there are other people who also want to speak to the amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS —The conduct of this matter has been the subject of quite a deal of consultation and discussion around the chamber as part of an effort that I have been making over the last week to communicate quite openly about the problems that the Government and this chamber will confront with the legislative program and other timetables this session, bearing in mind that we have not only a major legislative program but also debates that people want to have about Standing Orders, pecuniary interests, privilege matters and so on, all of which are enormously time consuming. Senator Durack said that there is nothing of great urgency around at the moment. That fails to appreciate that, if we are going to have sensible timetabling with an opportunity for everybody to speak on issues that are dear to their heart over the course of the session, it is important right from the outset of the session that business be programmed in such a way as to enable a rational distribution of time. Quite a number of discussions are taking place on a very constructive and amicable basis between all parties in this chamber to try to get some greater predictability into our programming. There has been very extensive debate in the House of Representatives. But it is not normal or usual for every statement that is the subject of an extensive debate in one chamber to be replicated with an equally extensive debate in the other. It is very often a subject of agreement between the parties that the debate be confined in some way. If a debate is brought in by a Minister in this place, naturally one expects there to be a major debate in this place. A further relevant consideration was that the major defence White Paper will be brought down by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, in the next sitting period. There is no question of there being anything other than an absolutely full debate on that. If people want to treat that matter cognately with the present one and want the opportunity to speak specifically on this matter in the context of the White Paper, there will be no difficulty in scheduling the debates together. The debate on the White Paper will be a full one as befits the importance of the subject matter. I am certainly happy to undertake to do that. Deliberately, the arrangements made today were such that there would be two Opposition speakers. Senator MacGibbon —We never agreed to that. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may not have been a subject of agreement. I do not pretend there was an agreement. I thought there was an understanding. There was not an agreement and I do not claim that there was an agreement. But I made it clear that there would be no question of the motion being moved to adjourn the debate until at least two Opposition speakers and a Democrat had spoken. There was ample opportunity under those circumstances for those speakers to take their full half-hour. Senator Durack and Senator Newman had so little to say about this policy statement, about which they are waxing so indignant at the moment, that they used nothing like their full entitlement. That is a demonstration of just how synthetic the indignation is on this occasion. I want there to be proper and full debate on these matters. I am happy to engage in as much consultation as is possible to produce that result. But please do not let us have the kind of quite synthetic outrage that has been demonstrated on this occasion. Let us just have a sensible debate about these matters. Time will be made available to do that. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.28) —It has taken only a week of sittings to turn garrulous Gareth into guillotine Gareth. That is obviously the pattern that we will be subjected to by this new Manager of Government Business in the Senate. Here we have an important debate. There is nothing on today's Notice Paper that is of more significance to the work undertaken by the Parliament than the question of what the nation's defences are or ought to be. Yet the Government has decided in its wisdom to put aside the first opportunity that the Senate has had for many months to debate significant matters of foreign and defence policy in order to get on with the sort of priority legislation that Senator Gareth Evans has sought to identify today. Having previously told us that he wanted to be co-operative, that he wanted to assist in the running of this place, that he wanted to wash away all of his previous sins and establish himself as a sympathetic, caring and-heaven help us-even intelligent Manager of Government Business in the Senate, he has now decided that the way to do it is with the bludgeon. Of course, the bludgeon he has on this occasion is the quisling co-operation of the Australian Democrats, whose views about the defence policies of Australia have always been notorious for constituting a non-defence policy. As Senator Durack has said, this matter was considered of sufficient moment for all of the pressures of the House of Representatives to be put to one side to allow for a decent and reasonable debate-something rarely heard of in the House of Representatives-in which 11 speakers participated on the day on which it was first listed for discussion. The debate there is to be continued not at some mythical date in the future, as Senator Evans's motion-supported by the quislings in the Democrats on this occasion-has provided, but rather on the next available day when members have the opportunity to debate the matter. We have seen already the way in which Senator Gareth Evans intends to manage business in this place. He is now taking advice from Senator Grimes, who at least knew how to handle this business. It is significant that he has to go and find from Senator Grimes the best way of getting himself out of yet another one of the holes into which he has put himself by something, as Senator Walters said, which seemed like a good idea at the time. We have seen the way in which he has managed to construct the program we have had for the week. The first piece of legislation we were invited to deal with when we got back for this session was the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation legislation, a piece of legislation specifically out of the Minister's own portfolio. He could not wait until he became Manager of Government Business in the Senate to make sure that his own particular interests were looked after, that his own portfolio got first crack of the whip and that his own piece of legislation got scheduled for the first item of debate. After all, he had been prepared to allow it to languish around since March or May of last year, but the moment he had a new rattle he was determined to make maximum amount of noise with it, and he managed to do that on the ANSTO legislation. When we have something which is of as much significance as the questions which have been raised as far as defence initiatives in the South Pacific are concerned, he is prepared to terminate the debate. The Government has not faced up to the issues which have been raised in that debate. It has not faced up to the questions which Senator Sir John Carrick has put to it about situations in Cam Ranh Bay and the position of the Soviets in this part of the region. It has sought to dismiss this as somehow being insignificant because it wants to get on with legislation, including legislation that will once more stick it into the taxpayers of Australia, by bringing up for debate its Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 and by then debating Standing Orders Committee reports, the aim of which, honourable members might be reminded, is to limit the amount of time that senators will have to debate in this chamber by limiting the number of speeches that can be made on the adjournment, by limiting the number of people who will be able to participate, by limiting the length of speeches and by limiting the adjournment debate and all the value that goes with that. Once again he knows he can proceed down that course because the Democrats have already sold out to him on Standing Orders. Yet another grubby deal has been cobbled together with this fading remnants of Senator Chipp's once great and significant party. But as Senator Gareth Evans knows, because he is the person who said it, the Democrats are a small party and they tire easily. He is determined to make sure that they tire easily at the beginning of the session by getting them, through these various quisling deals which he is negotiating, to terminate discussions on defence policy, to terminate the time that will be available to members of the Senate to debate important legislation and to terminate the adjournment debate so that issues of importance to individual constituents-the things that we are supposed to be protecting in this Senate-will be terminated. He is about to wander over in a minute to see whether he can get some deal with the Democrats to continue to get through all of this legislation. He has taken advice from Senator Grimes and the advice that Senator Grimes gave him when he came in to try to rescue him from yet another one of his messes was to go over and talk to the Democrats to see whether he can get some little deal going with them in order to frustrate the capacity of the Parliament to deal with matters which are genuinely matters of importance. There is nothing on the Notice Paper today which is of more importance than the question of Australia's defence and how it relates to what is occurring in the South Pacific. If that were not the case, there would not have been the extensive list of speakers on both sides of the chamber who wished to participate in this debate. Yet Senator Gareth Evans is now about to cut this debate off; he is now about to take us to the debate on plant variety rights-a matter which has been around for years because of the sloth and neglect of his Government. There has been a Senate inquiry, Professor Lazenby's inquiry and Senator Hill's private member's Bill. You will recall that one, Mr President. That was the one when the majority of Australian Democrats wandered into the chamber like Brown's cows to find that Senator Vigor had approved the second reading of the Bill whereas in fact it had been their intention not to. This is the sort of confusion that the Democrats are in over these things. So little wonder it is that the Democrats have wimped under this particular tirade that they have undoubtedly had from Senator Gareth Evans. No doubt the plant variety rights legislation will be guillotined through as well in order to accommodate what Senator Gareth Evans thinks is the sane and sensible way of dealing with this legislation. He has only had a week in the job. The only reason he has this job in the chamber is that a deal was put together as to who was to get the presidency, who was to get the ministry, who was to get the deputy leadership and who could be counted upon to do the right thing on the National Executive whenever it was picking on the Queensland branch, picking on the Victorian branch or reorganising somebody else around the place. Undoubtedly his colleagues will find that they will be unable to count on his vote on the National Executive and that they have made a terrible mistake in allowing him to manage Government business in this place. Senator Ryan was supposed to have this job. It they had actually wanted an effective and sensible Manager of Government Business they would have given the job to Senator Walsh because at least he knows how to get things organised. This is about as well organised as the spy flights over Tasmania. There is no doubt that by the time he has had this job for a couple of months he will have exactly the same reaction on his back bench as he did when he was Attorney-General. They could not get him out of the job fast enough before he made more of a mess of it. They managed to shunt him off to the ministry of pipes and holes and as far as he is concerned, as long as he gets his own departmental legislation through, he does not really very much care about the rest of the program. If Senator Gareth Evans thinks that in only the second week of the parliamentary sittings he is building up a capacity to deal with the Opposition, particularly as we get towards the end of the parliamentary session, he will find that he is certainly doing nothing other than making a very hard rod for his back because this is the sort of thing which will rebound on him. If he thinks that he can terminate discussion and debate on a matter as important as Australia's defence position in the South Pacific, he ought to be clearly placed on notice, as he is now being placed on notice by the Opposition, that he is fast running out of any degree of credits which he might have had for the effective management of his program. Senator Grimes would never have allowed a thing like this to occur. He knew perfectly well the reasonable and elementary way in which one should deal with these matters to ensure that there is a smooth and orderly progress of the legislation. We in the Opposition are here only to assist in the passage of sound legislation and to oppose the passage of unsound legislation. Where we have a situation where there is legislation such as plant variety rights which we are prepared to support-indeed, we give it our wholehearted support-we have cut our speeches down. Senator Gareth Evans is now criticising Senator Durack and Senator Newman for making speeches which, despite the fact that they were excellent speeches which encapsulated all the significant issues that had to be addressed, did not take their full time. Senator Gareth Evans works upon the principle that speeches must automatically use the time available in order to be worthy. When Senator Gareth Evans was in Opposition we remember sitting here giving him all the time that he wanted. I remember when he spoke for an hour on the matter involving Sir Garfield Barwick and then told us that he needed an extension of time. He spoke for more than the hour and he got the extension of time because that was a matter of national significance. Sir Garfield Barwick's taxation arrangements pale into insignificance when one is dealing with the question of defence initiatives in the South Pacific; yet Senator Gareth Evans is not prepared to give the Opposition and the Democrats, although by their own quisling behaviour they have forfeited any right to be considered in this matter, an opportunity to debate this issue. He is not prepared to give Senator Harradine the opportunity to participate in this debate. He is not prepared to give the once again absent Senator Vallentine an opportunity to participate in this debate. He ought to, because people are concerned about these issues. He ought to realise the extent to which this is a matter of enormous national significance. Yet here he is, terminating the debate and expecting that it will lead to the effective management of Government Business in the future. I say to him through you, Mr President, that this is not the way these things ought to be done. It is not the way that Senator Grimes would have done it. Senator Grimes would have ensured that significant issues were properly and adequately debated. When Senator Grimes goes off to The Hague in a couple of months and sits there I hope that every now and again he will find the time to write a note home to Senator Evans saying: `Dear Gareth, how is it going? Have you got past the program that you originally scheduled for the first week?' The answer that he would get back from Senator Evans is: `No, here I am doing my best but we are still stuck on the first week's program. The reason we are stuck on the first week's program is that I thought that the only way we could manage it was to terminate all the debates. Every time I tried to terminate a debate the Opposition got up and took full advantage of all of the Standing Orders and spoke interminably on motions to put the adjournment to a later hour of this day instead of to another day of sitting'. I say to Senator Evans that we are only here to co-operate with him. Senator Evans said a week ago that what he wanted was co-operation and friendship, that he had forgotten all his nasty habits, that he was going to be a good boy, that he wanted to co-operate. We find that it has taken him less than a week to decide that sweetness and light are simply something that he is genetically unable to manage. He is simply genetically unable to manage a co-operative arrangement around this table. He is simply unable to be nice as far as this matter is concerned. He is now offering Senator Harradine a deal but Senator Harradine will not give him a deal. I can tell you that, Mr President. He is attempting to force Senator Harradine into a deal but Senator Harradine will not give him a deal. The reason Senator Harradine will not give him a deal is that Senator Harradine has dealt with members of the Labor Party's national executive before. Senator Harradine knows what it is. Senator Evans is peddling his wares round the chamber. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind Senator Puplick that standing order 419 deals with relevancy. I have let the debate run outside the normal bounds. Any honourable senator speaking to this matter should deal strictly with the amendment that is before the Chair. The last remarks of Senator Puplick are outside standing order 419. I ask him to speak strictly to the amendment moved by Senator Durack. Senator PUPLICK —The amendment moved by Senator Durack was for this matter to be adjourned to a later hour this day. That clearly indicates the importance which members of the Opposition attach to this debate. I am seeking to contrast the importance which the Opposition attaches to this significant matter with the lack of importance which is accorded to it by the Government. As I was saying, Senator Evans has indicated the extent to which he and the Government do not believe that this matter is sufficiently important to be debated today. One of the ways in which he has done that is by trying to offer shabby deals to the Democrats and to Senator Harradine to terminate the debate. As I said, Senator Harradine has dealt with members of the Labor Party's national executive before. He knows exactly how much latitude they should be given. He knows what a gag or a guillotine is. He has had his neck under the guillotine of the Labor Party's national executive more often than just about anybody else in this chamber with the exception of Senator Georges. Mr President, I am conscious of the fact that you are most anxious to enforce standing order 419. I would never want to trespass upon the latitude of the Chair as I never did under the distinguished reign of your predecessor, who undoubtedly would have given me a large amount of latitude in this matter and whom you quite rightly said you sought to emulate. Therefore, to that extent I simply conclude by saying-- Senator Lewis —Oh, come on! Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I am being provoked by my colleagues. Senator Hill —What about the importance of the subject matter? Senator PUPLICK —Senator Hill reminds me that I should also address my remarks to the importance of the subject, so let me come to that. The importance of the subject which requires it to be dealt with at a later hour of this day, rather than on some mystical day in the future, allows us to consider the questions of the defence initiatives in the South Pacific. We have to list at least the following matters upon which I could discourse at length: The Soviet buildup in the area; the developments at Cam Ranh Bay, which Senator Sir John Carrick has drawn attention to on a number of occasions; the failure of the Government clearly to respond to an analysis of the photographs which have been published; the implications for the South Pacific region of the very important speech made by General-Secretary Gorbachev at Vladivostok some time ago; what is happening in New Caledonia, whether the FLNKS is going to be a significant force in that matter; the implications of the clear disagreement between President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Chirac about the independence referendum to take place in New Caledonia; the question of what exactly are the relationships between Libya and the various independence groups in the area-- Senator Gareth Evans —Before Senator Puplick chokes on the artificiality of his rhetoric, I remind you, Mr President, that Standing Orders do not permit irrelevance and that matters addressed to the generalised subject matter of the motion are not relevant to the matter before the Chair, which is why this motion should be debated at a later hour this day rather than next week or in a couple of weeks time when it will be back on the agenda. Senator Puplick is in order in referring to these matters only if he wants to point to some dramas that are likely to ensue should this matter not be debated tonight rather than in two weeks time when we resume. The PRESIDENT —I have made the point about relevancy to Senator Puplick. I remind him of it again and ask him to address himself specifically to the amendment moved by Senator Durack. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I take it that I am also in order in referring to the principal motion which is before us, that is, the motion moved by Senator Evans, that I am not restricted to the question of adjourning the debate to a later hour this day and that I am also entitled to speak to the motion moved by Senator Evans that the matter be adjourned to the next day of sitting. I take it that that is correct, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —Yes, as long as you do not go into the realm of debating the original motion moved by Senator Evans. I think you should address the amendment that has been moved by Senator Durack. Senator PUPLICK —It appears to me that the original motion moved by Senator Evans for the gag has been carried and is therefore not a question of debate. Senator Evans has moved that the matter be adjourned to the next day of sitting which, in parliamentary parlance, may mean that it never reappears during this session or until this Parliament is prorogued. Senator Durack has moved an amendment to the effect that it should be debated at a later hour this day; in other words, that we should proceed to it as a matter of urgent dispatch. I am addressing the question of why this is a matter of urgent dispatch. As I was saying, it is a matter of urgent dispatch because the policies of the Soviet Union in the South Pacific are matters of concern which require to be addressed urgently. One of the reasons they require to be addressed urgently is that we will shortly have visiting this country a Mr Eduard Shevardnadze, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. He is entitled to have the benefit of the debate which takes place in the Australian Parliament about what the Australian Parliament believes to be the situation of the Soviets in the South Pacific. The Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union should be told quite clearly that the view put to him by the Government is not necessarily the view held by all people in Australia or held by the whole Parliament. He cannot be given the benefit of that extensive debate on the part of the Parliament if we are not permitted to have the opportunity in the Senate to debate the matter prior to the Soviet Foreign Minister's visit. What I am saying, therefore, is that all the issues which I have mentioned previously are ones which need to be addressed, and can be addressed, in terms of this statement on defence initiatives in the South Pacific. I have mentioned the question of Cam Ranh Bay and the Soviets and the FLNKS and its role in New Caledonia, the problems that the French have between the Mitterrand presidency and the Chirac Government in sorting out independence steps in that country, and I have had the opportunity to mention briefly the fishing deals that have been done with Vanuatu and Kiribati. I have some clear interest in what the Libyans are up to in terms of the visits which a number of people from the Kanak Liberation Front and other Melanesian organisations have made to Tripoli and the extent to which the penetration of Libyan terrorism into the South Pacific is a matter of concern. I have not yet even touched on the racial tensions in Fiji and what that might mean. I have not yet touched on the ANZUS alliance and on the relations between Australia and New Zealand. I have not yet touched on the Antarctic Treaty or on any of the important matters which abut regional politics in the South Pacific. I have not even started to get on to the western coast of the South American continent to raise the very significant issues which are involved there. There is the question of the South Pacific nuclear free zone; there are questions about the 200-mile economic zone and fishing agreements; and questions which relate to the nuclear free zone in South America-whether that is a precedent for the SPNFZ Treaty and should be further developed. Those are all matters of urgent necessity. They are all matters which ought to be aired in the Parliament. They are all matters which should be comprehensively debated. Yet, the Minister says that he wants to adjourn the debate to some time in the future, which may mean that the matter will never come back on to the program. He has the agreement of the Australian Democrats who, once again, have sold out on their responsibilities-that is, to the defence of this region-and he has prevented all other senators who want to take part in this debate from doing so. That is a most unfortunate situation. I think the Senate is very fortunate that Senator Durack had the opportunity to move that this subject be brought up as a matter of urgent debate, because that gives us the opportunity this evening to make it clear to the people of Australia that what the Government is doing is gagging, cutting off, guillotining, preventing a debate on one of the most significant and important issues that could possible come before a national Parliament, namely, the question of our country's regional security, defence, and alliances. It touches upon our trade, the economics of the region, our relationships with the small countries of the region, the question of independence for the remaining colonial possessions in the South Pacific, and upon the whole of the nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. I would not be giving up my valuable time, which I could otherwise be spending watching Yes, Minister, to participate in this debate if it were not extremely urgent to debate the matter. It should be debated at length. Senator Evans should not be allowed, in his first full week as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, to get away with terminating a debate which is as important and vital as this for Australia's future and for our defence and security arrangements. Mr President, I know that your patience has been exceptional, and that undoubtedly I have used up a great deal of credit as far as you are concerned-I see by your vigorous nodding that you concur with that point-but those comments needed to be made in response to Senator Gareth Evans's disgraceful behaviour this evening. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.54) —I support the amendment moved by Senator Durack. I do so very conscious of the fact that the question before us-namely, the defence of Australia and particularly the security of our near region-is one of the most vital issues to come before the Parliament. Indeed, it is for the Federal Government a key issue. It is for the Federal Parliament a key issue. The real reason this debate should take place tonight is that the Government is pursuing, as to defence, a policy of public relations rather than subjecting defence policy to the parliamentary procedures. That is an insult to the people of Australia. I say that quite deliberately because, last year or the year before last, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced that there would be an inquiry into Australia's defence capabilities. It was announced that that would be conducted by Mr Paul Dibb. When the report was prepared and submitted to the Government, did the Government immediately present the report to Parliament? It certainly did not. Members of parliament had to read it in the Press, because there were deliberate leaks to the Press of the details of the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. After there was a debate throughout the community and, eventually, in this Parliament, the Minister announced that the Government would prepare a White Paper that has been in preparation for some considerable time. Today we heard that the White Paper was submitted to Cabinet and received Cabinet endorsement. We have been told that the Parliament will be given an opportunity to debate that in three weeks' time. Senator Durack —Perhaps. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. What did we hear tonight on the news? We heard a detailed analysis of what is contained in the White Paper. Again, the Government is pursuing a policy of public relations. It is pursuing a policy of selected leaks of documents, such as the White Paper, which should, in the tradition of our parliamentary Westminster system, be debated in the Parliament before they are given to the Press. Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr President, I suggest that Senator Harradine is diverging from the particular subject matter of the amendment now before the Chair. Senator MacGibbon —On the point of order, Mr President: I have been listening with great attention to what Senator Harradine has been saying. What he has been saying has perfect relevance to the amendment proposed by Senator Durack. He is instancing the double-crossing that has gone on in earlier agreements. We were given an assurance that the Dibb report would be debated in this place and it never was. That is the ground Senator Harradine is using to support his argument. The PRESIDENT —I have listened carefully to what Senator Harradine has said. I remind him of standing order 419, which deals with relevancy. I ask him to continue but to address his remarks to the amendment moved by Senator Durack. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr President. In addressing my remarks to that amendment, I wish to point out that the amendment will ensure that the debate, at least on that part of the response to the Dibb report-namely, the Minister's statement on defence initiatives in the South Pacific-will be debated tonight. The reason I would like to see that debated tonight is to ensure that the Minister is made aware of what the response of this Parliament is to that statement-not only the Minister but also others who are responsible for the practical implementation of the defence of this country and others in various parts of the South Pacific for whom this statement is relevant. I feel that insufficient has been drawn out of the statement and that no attention has been given to the key thrust of the statement. Tonight we should have at least the opportunity of saying that the significance of the Minister's statement is in its political message rather than its defence detail. The statement is rather thin on defence detail. It is a response to the Dibb report, but in the verbiage of the Minister for Defence there is an unmistakable signal to friend and potential foe alike that Australia regards the Pacific area as one of vital strategic importance to it and intends to act accordingly. That is a very important and welcome change. What ought to come out tonight is that the statement, taken as a whole, is really a means by which the Minister for Defence is distancing himself and the Government from Dibb. One will find in the White Paper, if what is reported in the media tonight is correct, that that will continue to a certain extent, but the Government is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is or ought to be. That is the crucial point. I do not wish to transgress Standing Orders, but it is very difficult to address properly the importance of having this debate today without referring in detail to the statement which the Government is attempting to gag. Finally, it has been suggested that there have been discussions and arrangements. There have been no discussions or arrangements with me. For the Australian Democrats to enable the Government to adjourn this debate, after they have had their say-- Senator Gareth Evans —Your name was not on the list. We didn't think you were interested in speaking. Senator HARRADINE —I said to the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip last Thursday, when this matter was going to come up, that I wanted to speak. This is a matter in which I have had a great deal of interest. The Whips said that the debate would be on today. I do not always run and put my name on the list, but Senator Gareth Evans ought to know, as many people in the defence area know, that on defence matters and the Dibb report I have said as much as, if not more than, anybody in this chamber. I was one of the two senators who went to Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea in the first parliamentary delegation to visit those countries. Indeed, I was the only back bench member of the Federal Parliament to be invited to the opening of the new House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea. I have had a long and abiding interest in this question. Indeed, one of the other reasons why we ought to be debating this defence paper tonight is that talks are proceeding currently with Papua New Guinea. The Deputy Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Julius Chan, when he addressed the National Press Club in Canberra a couple of weeks ago, virtually appealed to Australia to enter into a defence treaty with Papua New Guinea. Those discussions are likely to have concluded before we get back on to the statement by the Minister for Defence. Senator Gareth Evans —Not true. Senator HARRADINE —They will still be going? Senator Gareth Evans —Too right. Senator HARRADINE —How am I to know that, when Senator Gareth Evans said that this debate is to be adjourned to the next day of sitting? I have seen things adjourned to the next day of sitting which have not come on in 12 months. I have stated openly and clearly the need for a joint defence facility on Papua New Guinea soil. I believe that that matter should be firmly on the agenda during these discussions. It is vital that members of Parliament have the ability to perform their express functions. I recognise that one should not go on and on and I do not intend to do so, but we have the responsibility to express the views of those people who have elected us. I say to the Australian Democrats that they have not insulted me-I cannot be insulted-but they have insulted the electors in my State of Tasmania by trying to cut off this debate at this point, and the State of Tasmania will remember that. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(9.07) —The Government is seeking to stop-indeed, to gag-a very important debate in this Senate. Senator Gareth Evans —Just to adjourn it; be fair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister is saying: `Just to adjourn it'. The Government's record is that when it adjourns such debates they do not come on again. Its record of promising debates is one of broken promises. The debate is on a very significant paper entitled `Defence Initiatives in the South Pacific'. The Government is seeking to gag the debate and the Australian Democrats are supporting the Government. I make it very clear to those who may be listening that there has been no arrangement at all for this debate to terminate tonight. There is a long list of speakers on both sides of the Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —One Labor member, one Democrat-that is all-and 11 on your side. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —If the new Manager of Government Business is to engage in this kind of disruption, he will set his own execution. I warn him of that. For a Minister who is wet around the mouth as Manager of Government Business in this Senate to take this kind of action now is simply to make a rod for his own back. He must know, if he has any maturity at all, that one cannot run any parliamentary chamber by gag or heavy fist. One requires the co-operation of every single senator in this chamber if the business is to be done. Nobody who tries to use the technique of a fascist will be able to succeed inside this chamber. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Deputy President, while making due allowances for rhetorical over- kill on these occasions, I think `the technique of a fascist' is a little more than the situation warrants and I ask Senator Sir John Carrick to withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator, you will withdraw the remark. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Deputy President, I am very happy, because of the Minister's tender feelings, to withdraw. Let me say that it comes very badly from a Minister who, when he and his colleagues were in Opposition, used every kind of gutter language, as it was used today. It comes very badly from a person whose Treasurer (Mr Keating) uses gutter language every day in the other place. My goodness, how they cite the scripture for their own purposes now. Let Senator Gareth Evans cleanse the mouth of Paul Keating and those in the other place. I will always be happy to observe the rules of this chamber. My goodness, we are seeing tonight someone who is making an enormous rod for his own back. If this chamber is to work, it will work with the voluntary assistance of all 76 members; it will not work with the iron boot of a government, and it will not work with an Australian Democrat-there is only one member of that Party sitting in this chamber at this moment-who has pledged in writing never to apply a gag. The honourable senator who is sitting there now looks shocked at this situation; but the Party will break the promise even though these Australian Democrats are the hypocritical people who are going to keep the Parliament honest. So we have a new Manager of Government Business who is the keeper of human liberties and freedoms, is he not? He is that person who always talks of the rights of human dignity and freedom and he is attempting to gag this debate. It is no good his saying: `We will put it on some other time'. The Government said that about the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence capabilities, a valuable document to debate and one that has enormous imperfections revealed by the defence forces and by the public. The debate has never come up. The Government has said it about defence papers, one after the other, over the months and years. The fact of the matter is that when the Government moved this adjournment tonight its intention was that this matter should never come up again. Why should it be adjourned until a later hour this day, as my colleague Senator Durack asked. We will support the motion with our amendment. If the Democrats do not support it those who look towards the Democrats should understand what this means. The Democrats are breaking a fundamental plank of their Party. Senator Chipp was as one in saying that the Democrats would never gag. They are going to gag tonight and we will watch this situation with great interest to see who keeps who honest in this place. They will support the gag; they make their little limpet fish arrangements behind the Chair all the time. Why is there urgency? Can there be any more urgency than this? Next week there will be the first visit to Australia by a Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze. The discussions the Government and the people of Australia will have with Mr Shevardnadze are of great importance. It is vital that we should have the opportunity to express the views in this chamber on one great important subject, and that is what is happening in the South Pacific. The essence of the statement is that there must be some implied threat in the South Pacific although, seek as one may in the statement, one will never get any indication that there is even a nation called the Soviet Union or that it may have some kind of a movement into the South Pacific. How incredible are the priorities of this present Government? My colleagues here heard me last week and this week ask the Government to give us confirmation or otherwise of the most important piece of defence information that Australia confronts and that is this: Only a week or so ago the American Government released a series of satellite photographs of Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. The American Government, through its defence officers, analysed those photographs and showed something that was in complete denial and refutation of everything the Russians have said and much of what this Government has pretended over the years. The satellite photographs showed that Cam Ranh Bay is now a major military establishment in Australia's region of influence, in an area to which we must look towards our defence. The importance of Cam Ranh Bay is that Russia has in Vladivostok in the Eastern capital an icebound port. It has been seeking to get an all-weather port in the Pacific straddling the Pacific and Indian oceans for years. `There is nothing significant about Vietnam' says the Labor Party. `There is nothing at all significant about the fact that the Vietnam war has ended and that the Russians are now in control there-nothing at all' it says. But the satellite photographs show an enormous buildup of not only aircraft and seacraft but aircraft and seacraft of superlative quality, long-range quality, great capacity for nuclear missile development and great capacity for undersea development of nuclear submarines. I have been asking a simple question: Will the Government confirm or deny this? What does the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) say? He says: `We are too busy with our White Paper to worry about this'. I wonder how one has a White Paper on defence before one discusses whether there is a need for a particular defence. How can one understand the needs for defence in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean-the two great oceans that wash the littorals of Australia-unless one knows the truth or otherwise of Cam Ranh Bay? Right in the teeth of this situation the Government says that this is not important at all. It says: `Let's not debate this. We can put it off until another time. What does it matter if in a few days we do not know the truth or otherwise of Cam Ranh Bay? We do not know whether they have these modern long range aircraft and nuclear missile equipped vessels, those modern nuclear submarines that can range over the Indian and Pacific oceans, and these modern surface craft. That does not matter at all. We will give the Opposition a defence White Paper, quite irrespective of that.' That is, of course, what Dibb did. We are basically looking at a paper on the South Pacific in the knowledge that the Government has basically accepted a Dibb report which just about every military authority has panned. It is a Dibb report which says that we should have defence by denial, that the only thing we should do is to wait for an opponent to come close to our shores and then do something about it. You ask about the importance of debating this matter tonight, Mr Deputy President. I have tried to read this paper and I have to say to this chamber and to the people of Australia that platitudes and pious statements are no substitute for defence statements. We should debate this tonight because that paper is simply a string of pious platitudes. There is no defence undertaking in this paper at all. What this paper says-this is why we should debate it tonight-is that we should get some patrol boats and do some surveillance. If I can use a northern expression: `By golly, you need not worry. Don't you worry at all. Just leave it to us. Don't worry, by golly, the fact of the matter is that it will all come right.' What absolute nonsense. Here is a paper that purports to be defence initiatives. At no stage does the paper say anything at all about what we would do in the defence of this Pacific area. It says nothing about defence. It says: `By golly, we'll tell you if some opponent comes into the place. We will tell you about it if they come in. That is the sole extent of what we will do. We will get you some patrol boats; in fact, we'll build them for you. We will do some flights over the show and we'll send a few ships to have a look around, but don't expect to find from us any kind of statement of what our foreign policy will be to help our colleagues. Don't you eight major independent states in the South Pacific expect to hear from us, or that we will come to your aid. Not at all. We will be able to tell you with precision when the other fellow is coming near you, but don't expect anything else.' How astonishing that we should be faced in this place, a few days before the Russian Foreign Minister comes here, with a piece of paper that in itself is meaningless and we are denied the right to debate it and to ask in this Parliament what is the meaning of it and what does the Government intend. After all, the Dibb report says that the ANZUS Treaty was a wonderful thing in terms of goodwill and trade and in getting information, but it never said anything at all about our requirements and responsibility in terms of defence. In fact, if one goes to the Dibb report and if one looks at this debate tonight one will find an interesting thing. It says that we should not construct any of our defence requirements-troops or hardware-on the basis of what might be our external needs. In other words, Dibb has said-and this is why we should debate this tonight-that we should not equip ourselves for any kind of commitment out in the field at all; we should simply look at a kind of fortress Australia defence. Let us sum up this situation. We have here a newly-fledged Manager of Government Business in the Senate. One would have thought he would come here tonight seeking the co-operation of this place. He knows that there was no arrangement at all made between the parties. He knows that there was a long list of speakers. He must know that this is an important subject and, out of the blue, he attempts the gag. He says: `Oh well, we will bring it on some time; it doesn't matter whether the Foreign Minister is coming next week; it doesn't matter whether Cam Ranh Bay exists in all its strength or not-some time or other we will have a debate on it'. If this Minister sets out to use his jackboots in running this Senate he will fail. Numbers can never win. Numbers, I can tell him as one who had the great privilege of being Leader of the Government in the Senate for five years, will never succeed in this place. If this chamber is to be run, it will be run properly with the consensus of all its members and without the jackboots of the Government. It must be run with full understanding and co-operation. The sad fact is-and the Minister knows it because I have said it in this place-that this chamber is no place for the gag. I applied the gag once-to my sorrow-in five years. I regret very much that I did that and I would advise all in this chamber that the Senate itself, by its very nature as a House of review, should reject the gag. The essence of this Senate is that we should be able to take a subject, worry it out to its conclusion and by consensus carry the program. The fact of the matter is that the Senate has got through its business over the years by co-operation and goodwill. Whenever the gag has been applied the Government has failed to get through its business. We cannot be bullied and no honourable senator should ever put himself in the position of being bullied. If the Minister comes to us and asks us to co-operate, he will get that co-operation. Senator Gareth Evans —I did and I got 11 speakers on the list. I asked for co-operation and I got 11 speakers when it was expected that the debate would take about an hour. What sort of co-operation is that? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let the Minister speak because that statement in itself is naive. His idea of co-operation on this debate on our defence initiatives in the South Pacific is not to have 11 speakers, but something less. Four? After all, that is what the Minister said-a couple from the other side and one of the Democrats, and that is that. Does the Minister really say to this place that his idea of co-operation is that everybody must co-operate with him? I want to tell him that that road is absolutely in ruin. Does anyone suggest that on a subject like this 11 speakers is excessive? Senator Gareth Evans —When you have another debate in three weeks time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let us hear this, because this is the Minister who has been down the road to ruin in this place. This is the Minister who sent the F111s to photograph Tasmania. Could anyone else have done such a crass thing? And what did he say? He thought it was a good idea at the time-the streaker's defence. Now comes the streaker's defence tonight. He is stripped to his own nudity-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Carrick, we should get back to the motion before the chamber. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —With great respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am talking to the motion. What I am saying is that if this Minister uses these tactics, we will never have this debate and the idea of this motion is to have this debate tonight, at a later hour this day, and not perhaps never or at some time in the distant future. So I am pointing out that this Minister, instead of seeking co-operation, uses the jackboot all the time-or is it the F111? I plead with the Minister: It cannot be done. He should have learned this in the past though, true, he does not take his lessons; he does not learn very readily. Senator Boswell —He is a slow learner. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —He is a very slow learner indeed. After all, he has not taken his defeats very willingly. I plead with the Minister: This chamber is designed in our democracy to allow full review. It is run best when there are no gags. It is run at its worst when gags are thrust upon us. It is run at its worst when Government Ministers are so arrogant that they believe that they know best, that 11 speakers on one of the most important subjects in this Parliament are too many because Senator Gareth Evans says so. That in itself is the epitome of arrogance and one has to learn in this place a little humility when one sits on the Government benches. After all, it is a privilege and a responsibility to be a Minister; it is a Minister's task not just to use the jackboot to marshal his own votes and those cringing Democrats who are now breaking their word and supporting a gag as they promised the people of Australia they would never do. The Minister and the Government owe to the whole of this chamber the respect that this chamber is due, and that involves co-operation and consensus. I cannot think of a subject that demands more full debate than this; I cannot think of a matter more urgent than this; I cannot think of more contempt than that shown by the Minister last week when I asked him an important question and he did not take that matter to finality and speed up his handling of one of the most important matters that this Parliament has before it. Even now he is unable to answer the matter I raised. All he has to do is tell us whether the Americans were right or wrong. Let me just take that as a classic example for the Minister. From the moment that the Americans published those photographs it was imperative that the Government find out, within minutes or hours, whether they were right or wrong because the whole basis of our defence, of the security of Australia, depends on whether those photographs are right or wrong. He does not know, or if he does know now he is hiding it from the Senate. If the Government does not know, it is not fit to govern-and indeed it is not because, frankly, no debate on this matter should come before this place without those photographs, without these revelations to the people of Australia. The Government will never want to reveal that the fall of Vietnam to the communists was a tragedy for South East Asia and for Australia. The Government has built a fantasy about Vietnam; it has pretended that it does not matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Carrick, I again remind you of the motion in front of us. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am very conscious of it, Mr Acting Deputy President, and will not offend the Chair. I am simply pointing out that if this Government wants to give true credit and basis to the subject before it, it must bring before the Senate, urgently and in substance, the information we have been seeking. I conclude by reminding the Senate that there was no agreement at all on this and, on the face of it, 11 senators were to speak. I also remind the Senate that the Democrats have not just broken another promise but have provided more proof that their own ethics are not what they say. They are not keeping the Government honest; indeed, nothing at all could keep it honest. What we have had tonight is a show of arrogance by the Government. The Manager of Government Business in this Senate has proposed a course of action which, if pursued, will result in huge delays, in huge resistance. The only thing that any honourable senator has here is his power to use the Standing Orders to ensure that ordinary debates shall be carried out. That will happen. On the other hand, if the Minister shows his willingness to co-operate, if he does not set his supercilious judgment on what is or is not important, we will co-operate, but of course the reason he gags us is that the matter is important, because he does not want to hear that the Government's pack of cards argument about defence and Vietnam, about Dibb and everything else, has fallen apart. That is the reason the gag is on tonight-he does not want to reveal to us that the Government's story about Vietnam is of no consequence. Its story that there has been no Russian intrusion into the Indian and Pacific oceans has fallen apart. Why would he want to have a debate that would reveal that? Why would the Government want to bring this out, and why would it want to bring it out ahead of the visit next week of the Russian Foreign Minister? But it is for us to bring it out. After all, was it not a Russian diplomat in Australia recently who said that there was no such base in Cam Ranh Bay? Indeed, the Government has not in fact refuted that. What kinds of cringers are the people in the Government that such a statement can be made? The Government must know it is wrong, that it is fundamentally a danger to Australia to persist-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Sir John Carrick, you are straining the patience of the Chair. There is an amendment before us that we leave out `the next day of sitting' and insert `a later hour this day'. I would like you to direct your remarks to the motion and that amendment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not want to offend the patience of the Chair, but I want to point out that the patience-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You were not offending it; you were straining it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, the patience of this Senate has been stretched to breaking point by the attempt to break the ordinary consensus and co-operation under which this Senate works. That is what this debate is about at this moment and that is why I have addressed myself with relevance, I put to you, on every part of the subject. The reasons why the Government wants to gag the debate and not bring out evidence are quite clear. I simply conclude by saying that this is a sad day for this Senate. The new Manager of Government Business has shown that he is going to rule by gag and not by co-operation. I know no more bitter lesson than is to be learnt by a government with that kind of path. I ask the Minister to go back, look at his philosophical navel and reform. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.32) —I wish to speak in support of the amendment to the motion that the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The relevance of what I have to say falls into three categories. The first is the context of the report. It is a most important report. A slim and slight volume it might be but it does have a great deal of importance to Australia. It demands the attention and the examination of the Senate and debate that comes from that examination because it flies in the face of traditional Australian Labor Party policy, which is essentially pacifist and non-aligned. It is proposing that Australia's Defence Force be committed into the South Pacific region. The second point of relevance in what I am about to say relates to national security. There is simply no more important task before a parliament than the welfare and protection of its people. The third point of relevance relates to the fact that there is a breach of faith on the part of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans). We were promised on Friday, when this report was brought down, that we would be given an opportunity to debate it fully. That opportunity has been denied us. No amount of dissembling by the Minister can get away from the fact that we have had our rights taken away from us. The Minister was dissembling when he said that we would get a chance on the White Paper. We never had a chance on the Dibb report, the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, a most important document on the whole of the defence structure of Australia. Promises were made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in the other place and promises were made by the Minister in this place that there would be a full debate on it and yet the definitive critique of the Dibb report which I put down in this place had to be done in an adjournment speech. I could not find a time to do it through the legitimate course of business. The Senate is the home of debate on foreign affairs and defence matters. When a Labor government is in power-if this Government is any guide to what Labor practice is-we have no opportunity to debate any foreign affairs or defence issues. We have not done so since this Government assumed office in 1983. It is not correct for the Minister to claim that if a matter is debated in the other House it does not need to be debated in this House. If that is so, why do we ever put Bills through the Senate? The fact is that, both legally in the eyes of the Constitution and in practice, every bit of legislation has to be debated and passed by both Houses. When we come to the field of foreign affairs and defence, I yield to no one that this is not the home of reasoned and informed debate. The debate that we have had on this report has had only two speakers speaking in favour of it. They have both raised charges which need to be answered. Senator McIntosh took a line of support for the non-recognition of Soviet activity in the Pacific. In fact, he ridiculed people who thought that the Soviets were a threat at all. He said: `For 30 years I have been comfortable with them-never seen one in the Pacific'. Yet the very reason this statement was brought down by the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Kim Beazley, was a very belated response by the Government to the presence of the Soviets in the area. The Soviets had been trying to get bases, both port facilities and landing facilities, in the South Pacific for ages. Over a decade ago at Nuku'alofa in Tonga they sought port facilities. There was a fishing agreement with Kiribati in October 1985. The negotiations started in 1984 and the Government knew about the matter but did not react to it. An agreement was just signed with Vanuatu. On 28 July 1986, Secretary-General Gorbachev, in the famous Vladivostok speech, signalled where the Soviets were going in the South Pacific. That was further ammunition for the Government to act. Seven months after the Gorbachev speech we now have this slim document before us which we cannot debate. We have Senator McIntosh ridiculing the Cam Ranh Bay-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator MacGibbon, I must remind you that the amendment before the Chair now is that this debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day and I would like you to direct your remarks to that particular amendment. Senator MacGIBBON —Senator Mason has taken the usual strident, anti-American line of the Australian Democrats, ridiculing Admiral Thomas Hayward, former Chief of Naval Operations and a man who has now made a very successful professional career in the field of international relations. He is very intelligent, very well informed and a very rational human being and just because-- Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I accept the point of order that I think you are going to make, Minister. Senator MacGibbon, I said to you that your remarks must be relevant to the particular amendment that we have before us. That amendment is that this debate should be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. I would ask you to make your remarks relevant to that. As far as I can see, the remarks that you are making at the moment are remarks that you might make in the debate on the statement and that cannot be permitted. Senator MacGIBBON —Very well, Mr Acting Deputy President. I must then turn to the content of the report itself and relate it to urgency. The report makes several proposals. It neglects to recognise the instability in the region that we have with the New Zealand Government, New Caledonia and Vanuatu and the deteriorating situation in Papua New Guinea. The report makes proposals about the provision of patrol boats, Royal Australian Air Force flights through the area and the provision of survey crews, among others. Those matters are relevant at the present time in this debate because, as Senator Tate would remember, when the contract was let for the Pacific patrol boats there was a very tight time constraint. The present contract is at least six months late and it is causing a great deal of trouble to Papua New Guinea because it is going to have to refit some of its ships. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator MacGibbon might be talking about time constraints in relation to letting of contracts to do with certain vessels, but he should be talking about the time constraints which would require that the debate be held now rather than tomorrow or on some other day. I do not believe he is directing his remarks to that matter. Senator Durack —I wish to speak on the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have moved that this debate should proceed at a later hour of this day rather than be postponed to the next day of sitting. We all know that the adjournment motion means that the Government intends to bury this debate. There is a difficult question of relevance, I admit, in handling a matter of that kind, but it is clearly necessary for any speaker in the debate on my amendment to be able to refer to the nature of the statement and the great significance of the matters the statement deals with. In support of my motion that the matter should be debated today speakers must be able to bring out arguments which are clearly related to the nature of the subject. In fact this debate has proceeded this evening with, I think, a proper attitude from the Chair on questions of the relevance of the contents of the statement. It is not just a matter of the contents of the statement itself, it is a question of the relevance of the subject matter to which the statement refers. Senator MacGibbon has been referring, I think quite relevantly-as speaker after speaker tonight has been referring quite relevantly without being interrupted by the Chair-to the great seriousness of the subject, and it is of great importance to Australia. One of the major issues in this debate is the question of Soviet penetration and Soviet intentions in the Pacific, which is of such vital interest to Australia. We are right in the Pacific region. What are the Soviet's intentions and what is the Government doing about them? As has been pointed out, we will be having a visit from the Soviet Foreign Minister to this country. What is the Government's attitude going to be to discussions with that gentleman about these matters? These are all questions that are totally relevant to the debate on this statement continuing tonight, or tomorrow, or for the rest of the week if necessary. The Government wants to bury the statement indefinitely. The motion of the Government is to postpone this matter to the next day of sitting, but we all know what that means. We know perfectly well that governments use this device to put off debate indefinitely, way beyond the visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister next week and probably way beyond the current session. If honourable senators look at the Notice Paper they will see that probably over 100 items have been postponed under this device, employed by Senator Gareth Evans tonight, of moving the adjournment of the debate to the next day of sitting. I plead with you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to exercise some common sense in the application of the relevance rule. It has been exercised from the Chair tonight on this matter and I would be very disturbed indeed if you were now to clamp down on a speech in which Senator MacGibbon is quite properly referring to the matters that he has mentioned in the debate so far. It may be fair enough to remind him of the need to be relevant, but there is no need to adhere to nit picking points of order by the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who seems to be just as bent on stifling proper debate in this matter as the Minister who was in charge of it earlier. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Before I call Senator MacGibbon, I say to Senator Durack that I hope that I do use common sense at all times when I am in the chair. Senator MacGibbon, I understand that a point of order was called. I understand that you would have to make certain reference to the document or to other matters which you think are relevant, but such references should be directed towards the motion that we have before us; in other words the urgency of carrying on with the debate tonight. I ask you, when you are speaking, to remember the motion that we have before us and to direct your remarks around that so that they are relevant to it. I expect that you will be making remarks about the document, but I would ask you not to go into the full scale debate that you may go into when this matter is next before us. Senator MacGIBBON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know you would not wish to apply different standards to me than to other speakers in this debate, and I will respect your rulings. The very first point I made when I rose to speak on this matter was that the relevance of my statement would be related first of all to the content of this report, and that is something that I will do scrupulously from now on. The importance of time is that one of the central features of this report is the provision of 12 patrol boats. We all know that there is at least a six months slippage on this program, and the consequences of further slippage are very important, and very important for Papua New Guinea. It will have to spend a lot of money refitting its old patrol boats, because the expectation was that it would not have to do this. Another important point is the increase of five flights a year through the region to 10 by the Royal Australian Air Force long range maritime patrol aircraft. We have a critical crew shortage with at best about seven crews per squadron. The Minister said in his statement in the other place that none of the present long range maritime patrol flights by No. 10 and No. 11 squadrons would be cut back to cope with this doubling of activity in the South Pacific region. Again, the relevance of time is very acute, because the training of long range maritime patrol crews takes about a year and a half to two years. If this has to be done this must be brought to the Government's attention today and it must take corrective action. As for the provision of survey crews, it is a good move to survey the islands in the South Pacific. But the Senate has been given evidence repeatedly by the Chief Cartographer of the Royal Australian Navy that there is over 50 years survey work to be done on the Australian coastline alone. Nothing in the report deals with the conditions of service in the Australian defence forces. People are leaving now at record rates because the conditions of service are so bad. If that matter is not addressed today we will not have any people to send into the South Pacific to implement these policies. I come back to the central point that we all started on: What is the Government trying to hide? Why can we not have debates on foreign affairs policies? Why is such a debate always swept out with the guillotine or the gag or buried down the list on the Notice Paper? We want these great issues of state to be debated here. There really is very little of more importance to Australia than the security of its people. This is the home of it and that is why we want to have this document debated today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator MacGibbon, I thank you for your latter remarks, which were well directed towards the motion we have before us. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.47) —Of all the things that the debate in the last hour or so has indicated, I think it has shown that under some circumstances we simply cannot trust members of the Opposition to honour agreements. We made an agreement-- Senator Durack —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I regard that as a most offensive remark that ought to be withdrawn on behalf not only of myself but also of my Whip, who has been in charge of this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I did not really find the remark offensive, but if Senator Durack finds it offensive, I ask Senator Haines whether she will consider withdrawing it. Senator HAINES —In deference to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will certainly-- Senator Durack —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I regard statements made by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, alleging breaches of agreements and that the Opposition leadership is not to be trusted, as highly offensive remarks under the Standing Orders, and I demand a complete withdrawal by the Leader. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I do not think the comment went quite as far as that but, Senator Haines, I ask you to withdraw. Senator HAINES —I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy President. However, I remind Opposition senators that on Friday the Australian Democrats agreed that we would support an Opposition motion to bring this paper before us for debate today. Senator Durack —It wasn't an Opposition motion at all. It was brought on by the Government. Senator HAINES —The Opposition wanted this paper brought on for debate today for reasons of its own, so that it would in fact disappear on Friday after being debated for a short space of time. That was the subject of the discussion on Friday in this chamber between Whips and Leaders. It was agreed that since there was not going to be sufficient time to debate this statement-which I would have thought nobody in here was arguing was not important for debate-given other ministerial statements on the Notice Paper, it should be given due deference and brought on for debate today for a specific period. Senator Kilgariff —Not true. Senator HAINES —My understanding, however limited the honourable senator's was, was that this paper would be coming on today for limited debate and not a free-for-all. Senator Kilgariff —Not true. Senator HAINES —Well, the honourable senator might not believe that, but everybody else in this chamber certainly believed that in exceeding-- Senator Puplick —Your Whip is not here. Senator HAINES —The information was given to me by my Whip, and I trust him over a whole lot of other people in this chamber. I think it is fair enough to say-- Senator Walters —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Evans said that there had been no agreement with the Opposition and therefore Senator Haines has no right to say that there has been. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is no point of order, and the honourable senator knows that. Senator HAINES —Even Senator Walters would know that changes cannot be made to the Notice Paper without agreement between majority groups in this place. It was at the request of the Opposition that this came on for debate. Had the Opposition not wanted this on for debate, we were quite prepared to have the defence paper treated in the normal fashion. Senator Hill —Why are you gagging the debate? Senator HAINES —The honourable senator should go back to high school and start an English course all over again. If he cannot tell the difference between an adjournment, a gag or a guillotine, I suggest there is something seriously wrong with his intellect. As Senator Sanders has said, the honourable senator has an extremely limited understanding of parliamentary procedures. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator HAINES —I suggest that there are some very sensitive people on the Opposition benches. They do not seem to want to acknowledge that it was at their request that this matter was debated today in the first place. That request was acceded to in what was intended to be a perfectly honourable sort of fashion. It might surprise some people to know that this is only a paper that we are having such an acrimonious debate about; it is not a piece of legislation that is urgent. We have something like 75 Bills to deal with this session. Perhaps the members of the Opposition do not think that those pieces of legislation are important. Perhaps they are quite happy to sit here all the way through to the Budget session to get these things off the Notice Paper. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator HAINES —I am rather surprised that we did not hear these protestations about how we should have extensive debate on important papers when debates in the past have been adjourned-as the motion would have adjourned this debate-on such things as the entry of suspected war criminals into Australia; the International Year of Peace, although I know that that is not particularly dear to the hearts of most members of the Opposition, who are far more interested in things other than peace; or the paper on counter-terrorism in Australia. Were those papers not as important to debate, or are we faced with the fact that those things came up for discussion on a non-broadcast day and so Opposition senators were not given the opportunity to grandstand to the electorate? Essentially, what has happened is that there has been a far longer debate on this paper than has been given to any other of the important issues that have been brought up by way of papers this year. More time has been given to this debate than to many-in fact I would suggest all-of the equally important papers that have come before this place. In fact, we have possibly given more attention to this paper than to some of the far-reaching legislation that has appeared before the Senate. I repeat that the intention last Friday was to bring this paper on for debate for a longer period of time than it would normally have been given. The fact that we were prepared to accede to the Opposition's desire that it be given a longer period for debate underscores the fact that we have no problem with debating this paper. In fact, my colleague made a perfectly good contribution to the debate. Why the Opposition is moving away from the understood arrangement on Friday-at least it seems to have been understood by everybody other than the Opposition-that the debate could come in today provided it was kept to a reasonable length of time, is a matter for speculation. I would have thought that we had plenty of pieces of legislation on the Notice Paper and plenty of other papers to debate not to require that this be given priority. I remind the Senate, and anybody who has managed to listen through the garbage that has been dished out by some of the Opposition senators, that it is not a guillotine, it is not a gag, it is a normal adjournment procedure. This could just have easily been adjourned on Friday as today. It was only from the goodwill on all sides that it was even brought on today. So we certainly will not support any moves to continue the debate today when there are other far more important things on the Notice Paper. We stay with our support for the motion to adjourn the debate. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.57) —The Opposition's anger at being gagged on this debate-I emphasise the word `gagged'-is because, when the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities was brought into this chamber on 3 June last, only four speakers were allowed by the Government, of which only one came from the Opposition. That report, on which this paper is based, was the most important paper on defence presented by this Government to this chamber. Not only was it brought on immediately for debate without honourable senators being giving the opportunity to read it first; but that debate lasted for 44 minutes before the matter was-I use the words of Senator Haines in one of her most extraordinary speeches-only adjourned. It was only adjourned on 3 June 1986 and has never been brought back to this chamber for debate. Senator MacGibbon —That is right. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —In fact, Senator MacGibbon, who has just quite properly interjected, was the only member of the Opposition who got the opportunity to speak. Many of us thought that defence was such an important issue, and that the Dibb report was such an important one, that we had not only a right but a duty to debate it before it was adjourned-as Senator Haines quite nonsensically says-into limbo. Senator Haines knows perfectly well that that is exactly the same technique that she is conspiring with the Government to bring about this time. Senator Haines's hypocrisy on this matter is incredible. We are talking about a major matter of defence. Apart from anything else, it represents 10 per cent of total Government expenditure. It is an issue that Senator Haines thinks can be properly disposed of by allowing four people, only one of whom was a member of the Opposition, to speak about the Dibb report. The Manager of Government Business (Senator Gareth Evans) says that four speakers are enough to speak on this report as well. From June of last year that makes a total of eight speeches that we have been allowed on defence. Apart from its basic significance, the fact is that defence represents 10 per cent of total Government spending and yet we are not allowed to talk about it. This Government will not give us the opportunity to do so. It gags us on the very odd occasions when it brings up the matter of defence. As Senator MacGibbon said, he had to use the device of speaking in the adjournment debate to make any worthwhile contribution to the question of defence in Australia because this Government did not want to allow-again it has demonstrated its unwillingness-the question of defence to be properly examined in this chamber. Yet look at the hypocrisy of the Government when it brought in the Dibb report, then adjourned it and refused to bring it back, just as it seeks to adjourn this issue and refuse to bring it back. Its track record shows its hypocrisy on this matter. What did the Minister say in his concluding remarks when introducing the Dibb report? He said: I now intend that there will be the opportunity for discussion and debate on Mr Dibb's work, both in the Parliament and outside. What an immense amount of discussion we have had-one member of the Opposition. The Minister who introduced the Dibb report was Senator Gareth Evans. The man who is gagging the debate right now, when introducing the Dibb report, said: I now intend that there will be the opportunity for discussion and debate on Mr Dibb's work, both in the Parliament and outside. He then set forth to deny that very debate and to refuse us the opportunity to participate in the debate. Senator Puplick —He misled us. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Puplick says, he misled us. He is now putting on some kind of childish tantrum because we demand the right to do what he offered us in the first place on 3 June last year. The hypocrisy of the man and of the Government in this matter is just indefensible. He further said on 3 June: Defence policy raises fundamental and serious issues for this country. Defence expenditure is now at the highest levels for peacetime, and constitutes a large financial burden for a nation facing some economic difficulties and many competing demands. It is a major and terribly significant issue, but we are not allowed to talk about it. We have to be gagged and only four people allowed to speak, and only one of them from the Opposition. That demonstrates the disgraceful behaviour and the reason for the genuine anger of the Opposition because of the Government's refusal, with the connivance of, and in conspiracy with the Australian Democrats, to prevent the issue of defence being properly and thoroughly examined in this Senate. If the Minister is strangely genuine and if he is not going to repeat his disgraceful activities of last June, let him demonstrate this integrity by giving a total unequivocal commitment- - Senator Puplick —In writing. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I think that is probably necessary, Senator Puplick-that this issue will be raised again on the next day of sitting and that a proper and full debate, along the lines that he said would be proper to be pursued, should be pursued. Let us have the full debate both inside and outside the Parliament that the Minister said should take place. Let us not hear any more from him about so-called adjournments unless he is genuine and is prepared to give that kind of unequivocal commitment. As Senator Haines said, not only is this matter to be adjourned using the technique that the Government is using in this case to commit the debate to limbo to prevent us speaking, but it is used over and over again. I noticed that order of the day No. 39 on the Notice Paper, Invalidity Retirement from Commonwealth Employment-Ministerial Statement, was adjourned to the next day of sitting on 17 April last year. Senator Puplick —Covering up a scandal, aren't they? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —On that matter, as Senator Puplick quite rightly says, that was simply to cover up the scandal of more Commonwealth public servants retiring from invalidity than from reaching retirement age. Particularly in Victoria-Senator Gareth Evans's State-twice as many retire from invalidity than from reaching retirement age. It is clearly a scandalous situation which the Government has been very reluctant to do anything about. So in that situation the Government used the technique of adjourning the matter to the next day of sitting, and the next day of sitting from 17 April 1986 still has not arrived and now we are getting towards the end of February 1987. That is not the only matter of importance to receive that kind of treatment from this Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Baume, would you just speak to the motion before the Chair. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am outlining the improper nature of the technique being used in seeking to defer this debate and I am saying that we need to amend this motion to say that it will be adjourned to a later hour this day, because if we accept the proposition that it should be until the next day of sitting it will never come up. I am underlining the reality and the truth of the point I am making by drawing attention to all those other very significant matters which this Government has claimed it was adjourning to the next day of sitting but which it not only has not brought back for debate but which it never intended would resume. That is exactly the situation here. As Senator Sir John Carrick pointed out, not only is there a clear and mischievous attempt to defer this debate until after the visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister, but also there is no doubt in my mind that this matter will never be fully debated. Senator Gareth Evans will say that another paper will be debated. Quite frankly, after his effort with the Dibb report where we required full and proper parliamentary discussion and only one member of the Opposition was allowed to speak, I would suggest that not many members of the Opposition would take Senator Gareth Evans's assurances terribly seriously. Let me dramatise the reason why the Opposition should not accept the proposition that the debate should be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. We should deal with it today otherwise the same sort of fate will befall this paper on defence as befell the ministerial statement on economic and rural policy that was adjourned from 16 April 1986. That was adjourned to sweep it under the carpet because Senator Collard had moved a lot of sensible amendments in regard to that statement which were highly critical of the Government. So when the Government is embarrassed, unnerved, worried about an issue or it does not want it debated, the technique it uses is to have it adjourned to the next day of sitting. We will not tolerate that with this vital paper on defence. The Minister and the Australian Democrats somehow suggest that `adjournment' really means what it says, that they are somehow trustworthy and that somehow the Government and the Australian Democrats together present a level of integrity. If `adjournment' does not mean gag, how come the ministerial statement on taxation system reform has not come back to this chamber, having been adjourned to the next day of sitting on 6 November 1985? One can understand why; there are many embarrassing matters relating to the Government's failure at that stage to proceed with the bulk of its so-called tax reform package. It was embarrassing. That is why exactly the same technique is being used now. Of course the Minister remembers the Taxation Summit. That was the occasion on which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, we are not debating the Notice Paper; we are debating an amendment before the Chair. You have made your point on this. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —In that case, I conclude by saying that the burden of the speech made by Senator Haines-that is really what I was replying to by pointing out these examples-was that somehow we in the Opposition did not understand what the word `adjourn' means. I am putting to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and to the Senate that the word `adjourn' can mean, as the Lewis Carroll characters would say, exactly what I choose it to mean. It means exactly what Senator Gareth Evans chooses it to mean. It means what Senator Haines, in conspiracy with Senator Gareth Evans, chooses it to mean. As a result, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am submitting to you that the point I am making about what the words `adjourned to the next day of sitting' really mean is totally different from the points made by the Australian Democrats in trying to justify their stifling and gagging of a debate on defence. You know, Mr Acting Deputy President, and the Opposition knows that at this stage the issue of defence is of major moment to Australia, particularly when there is clear disagreement between the Government and Mr Dibb on whether or not, for example, the Pacific area is an area where our defence efforts should be concentrated. It is vital that we discuss the defence initiatives paper. The technique the Government is using prevents us from discussing this issue because the Government, by pretending that it is adjourning the matter to the next day of sitting, is committing it to limbo, in the way that all the matters that I have outlined tonight have been committed to limbo. I am saying to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I wonder what the Government has to hide. I wonder what benefits there are for the Australian Democrats in going along with the Government in seeking to block this debate and to prevent these issues from being raised, to prevent the discussions that Senator Sir John Carrick was so properly keen to pursue and certainly to prevent discussion of all the defence issues that the Opposition regards as particularly significant, especially in the context of a clear disagreement between Mr Dibb and the Government on, for example, what the defence role in the Pacific really should be. I urge the Senate, and particularly the Australian Democrats, to support our amendment that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(10.12) —By now the Senate must have been reminded of a lesson it has obviously forgotten, which is that it serves no purpose to try to frustrate the Opposition by adjourning a debate in which it is particularly interested. If the Opposition has any nous at all, it will use the procedures that are available to it to take up the time that would have been taken up by the debate itself. I think the motion for adjournment of the debate was moved at about 8.15 p.m. It is now nearly 10.15 p.m. Two hours have been lost debating the adjournment motion when the debate itself could have taken place. Senator Gareth Evans —It would not have been over, though, with 12 or 13 speakers. Senator GEORGES —Nevertheless, after a debate which has a long list of speakers has gone on for about two hours everything that needs to be said has been said and the speakers start to fall off or to take less time. I suggest that Senator Evans, now that he is Manager of Government Business in the Senate, leave it to the Whips to determine the program. The Whips will possibly more easily understand the consequences of an adjournment motion being put in the face of a desire on the part of the Opposition to debate an issue. We have a strange situation, to which I have always objected. When I was Whip here-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Senator Georges, would you speak to the question before the Chair, which is that the words proposed to be left out be left out. Senator GEORGES —I am saying how futile it is to have such a proposition before us, which brings me right back into order. I commend, Mr Acting Deputy President, the fact that the cloak of impartiality seems to have dropped so easily upon your shoulders. I recall just a short time ago your defying the Chair. But that is to your credit. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, I ask you to speak to the motion. Senator GEORGES —I am endeavouring to prevent this situation from emerging again. We have a strange situation in this place. We have had it for quite some time, ever since the Whitlam Government decided that it should place some curb upon the late Senator Murphy and appointed a Manager of Government Business in the Senate. It is a strange appointment because there is no Manager of Opposition Business in this place. There is an uneven situation. The control of the Business is in the hands of the Opposition Whip, who does not deal with the Government Whip but is interfered with in some way by the Manager of Government Business. My view is that we ought to take that responsibility away from Senator Evans because obviously he has made a mess of it today. We do not need this debate. I should now move the gag. I should move that the motion be put. We would see exactly where the Democrats would stand in that situation. They are opposed to the use of the gag. What the Democrats have done today has been to impose a gag, quite futilely, by way of adjournment of a debate which should have taken two hours. What will happen now is that later we will spend another two hours on the debate itself. It is absolutely ridiculous. I suggest to the new Manager of Government Business that he accept my advice and leave the arrangement of the business to the Whips, who are a bit smarter than people who have had new responsibilities thrust upon them. They know the reality. The reality is: Try to frustrate the Opposition and it will use up all the time it has lost with a series of devious speeches and employ devious methods-- Senator Hill —Not devious. Senator GEORGES —What has the Opposition been engaged in, then, for the last two hours? It has been nothing but an attempt to take up the time-- Senator Walters —No; to teach Gareth a lesson. There is a big difference. Senator GEORGES —I think I have made my point. It is a waste of time trying to frustrate the Opposition when the Opposition has control of the Standing Orders which it will use to delay, to filibuster and to frustrate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.17) —It was Senator Haines who forced me to my feet. I have never heard a more illogical speech than the speech Senator Haines gave. Senator Haines and the Australian Democrats have now moved to the very left of the Left of the Australian Labor Party. They no longer believe in the ANZUS alliance. Senator Hill —Did you hear Senator Sanders the other day? Senator WALTERS —I have heard Senator Sanders on many occasions, both in this Senate and back home in my State. Senator Hill —The most vitriolic, anti-American rhetoric you have ever heard. Senator WALTERS —Absolutely vitriolic. He is so anti-American that he cannot even see his way clear to admit that the situation in Cam Ranh Bay exists. Senator Hill —He said that he is much more at home negotiating in the Kremlin. Senator WALTERS —He visited the Kremlin, he told us. Senator Hill —That is why Senator Haines wanted to gag this debate. Senator WALTERS —Senator Haines said that democracy would have been served by having two speakers from each side. Senator Evans and the Labor Party believe in the sort of democracy whereby two speakers from each side is seen as co-operation; no matter how important the debate is, two speakers from each side are quite sufficient. Senator Evans has gone on record as saying that the Senate is quite superfluous. It was part of the Labor Party's platform to do away with the Senate. But Senator Evans, when he first moved to the Senate, said that that was not too popular out there amongst the people, `so let us change our written word, although not our aim'. The Labor Party's aim still is to abolish the Senate. It is for that reason that Senator Evans says that we had 11 speakers on this matter in the House of Representatives, so we do not need a debate in the Senate. That is the reason the Minister gave for cutting short the debate in the Senate. He acknowledged that there was no agreement with the Opposition to cut short the debate, yet tonight Senator Haines told us that an agreement had been reached, which even Senator Evans acknowledged was not the situation. The Democrats' priorities obviously are not on defence. They are on issues such as the environment. Senator Sanders certainly makes his presence felt on that. I hope that Senator Evans has learnt from the debate that has occurred tonight. The matter of defence is seen by the Opposition as a No. 1 priority. It may not be Senator Evans's priority; it is the Opposition's priority. As Senator Georges said tonight so eloquently, it is no use the Minister trying to frustrate members of the Opposition if they want to speak fully on a subject, because the Standing Orders of this place allow them to do so. We can only ask that Senator Evans, who has just taken over the responsibility of Manager of Government Business, at least learns a lesson from tonight. I know that honourable senators on this side of the House wish to speak. Bearing in mind the time, I will not take up any more of the Senate's time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.21) —I want to support, briefly but very strongly, Senator Durack's amendment that the debate be postponed to a later hour this day. Many of the points I would have wanted to make have already been made. I think that they bear very careful consideration by the Senate and in particular by Senator Evans who is, admittedly, new to his position of Manager of Government Business in the Senate. However, he has been a member of the Senate for many years and one would have expected him, before moving a motion tonight to in effect gag the debate, to have had more understanding of what the result would be. In a democratic parliament, gags should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. The Government and the Australian Democrats have suggested that this debate should be gagged so that we can discuss other subjects that are on today's Notice Paper which they say are urgent matters. One of them has been around for a decade. The others relate to the conduct of the Senate. There is no way in the world that they could be regarded as extreme subjects. If the definition of an extreme matter is that the matter under debate is legislation rather than a government policy document, which Senator Haines tended to argue tonight, that seems to me to turn completely on its head the whole determination of priorities as to what is important for this nation. Surely there could be nothing more important for this nation than a proper and adequate debate at this time on the subject of defence, particularly defence arrangements in our region of the world. It is only next week that we are to have a visit from the Soviet Foreign Minister-a very important visit. A debate tonight would have given us an opportunity to raise issues that are of the highest importance in relation to that visit by the Soviet Foreign Minister. Why is that so important? It is vitally important because of the growing Soviet presence in our region of the world. The build-up at Cam Ranh Bay has been fully documented by aerial photographs published in the Australian Press a few days ago, despite claims by the Soviet Embassy in this country only a few weeks ago that the Soviets even had a military base at Cam Ranh Bay. Instead, the Soviet Embassy in Australia put it out that Cam Ranh Bay was, in fact, a marina. Those matters and the implications they have for the whole of the defence of this region, for the whole of Australia's security in the region, are of the utmost importance. The significance of tonight's debate, had it been permitted to take place tonight, surely cannot escape the notice of the Australian public and members of the Senate. Senator Haines made an extraordinary statement tonight. She said that what we were debating and what was being gagged did not really matter because it was only a piece of paper. If that is the definition of what is important and if she and the Democrats ignore the central issue of defence in Australia, it is a very sad day for this Parliament. It is a sad day if a group which holds the balance of power in this Parliament says that a major defence statement is not really an important issue because it is only a piece of paper. There are many other issues in respect of the statement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) which we had intended to debate tonight and which are of vital importance-for example, developments in New Zealand which echo the slow but steady Soviet successes in our own backyard. The consequences of that country's anti-American, anti-nuclear stance have resulted in a great deal of concern in this region of the world. Those are just some of the reasons why we in the Opposition wanted to continue the debate on the matter tonight, and why we regard it as of the utmost importance that the statement and the debate on it were not buried in the limbo of non-existent future history. We all know that it is a time-honoured device used by governments over the years to make an issue an order for the next day of sitting and thus gag any further consideration of that issue. It is hypocrisy in the extreme, particularly for the Democrats, for the Manager of Government Business to pretend otherwise. It is not just a matter of form or of minor consequence. What we are talking about tonight is a matter of very grave issue because we are seeing an attempt by the Government, with the support of the Democrats, to suppress debate on an issue which has no peer in Australia at this moment in terms of its importance. Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President-- Senator Hill —Are you closing the debate? Senator Gareth Evans —I do not think that there is much time to do anything else, with respect, Senator, is there? Senator Hill —Mr President, on a point of order, I and other senators wish to contribute to the debate tonight and I think that the Minister is seeking to end the debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! A point has been raised with me about whether this is a substantive motion and whether Senator Evans would close the debate. In the circumstances, I will allow Senator Hill to speak to it. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.29) —Thank you, Mr President. There does not seem to be a lot of time remaining tonight, but it is worth while to look at the subject matter of the debate. We are debating the reasons why it is necessary and urgent that the defence statement brought down by the Government be debated in the Senate today. One reason is that it deals with the subject matter of defence in the South Pacific. It is the view on this side of the chamber that there is probably no more important matter that the Senate could debate than the question of Australia's defence capacity and its defence obligations. Senator Vigor —What about plant variety rights? Senator HILL —The Australian Democrats say that they regard plant variety rights as more important than defence. That is typical of the priorities of the Democrats. It is the view on this side of the chamber that there is no more important subject that we could debate than what should be our role and responsibility in matters of defence in the South Pacific. Mr President, you will be aware of why it is urgent that this matter be debated on this occasion. You will be aware of the complexities of the subject of the Soviet Union's intentions in the South Pacific and of Mikhail Gorbachev's speech in Vladivostok last year in which he flagged the intention of the Soviet Union to play a new role in the South Pacific-to take a much greater role in affairs in the South Pacific, particularly through means of trade, aid, diplomatic measures, cultural exchanges, scientific exchanges, and so on, and through that to gain greater influence in the newly independent Pacific states. Mr President, you will be aware that what is to follow in the traditional Soviet way of doing things is the gradual projection of power- The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Census and Statistics Act-Proposal No. 1 of 1987-List of Names and Addresses of Plastics Manufacturing Establishments for Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act-Declaration under sub-section 9 (1), amending schedule 6, dated 29 January 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1533) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 19 November 1986: (1) What has been the export in steel by BHP in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86? (2) What are BHP's projections for steel exports in the current financial year? (3) How competitive is BHP in steel exportation compared with-(a) Brazil, (b) South Korea, and (c) Japan? (4) What measures are being taken by the Federal Government in conjunction with BHP to promote its products, and in particular steel, on the international market? Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) According to BHP sources, the figures for the above two years are as follows For 1984-85-1.103 million metric tonnes exported. For 1985-86-1.240 million metric tonnes exported. (2) Preliminary BHP estimates suggest that exports of steel will be in the vicinity of 1.3 million tonnes to 1.5 million tonnes in 1986-87. (3) The answer to this question is dependent upon the market destination and the particular product being exported. However, more generally, BHP can sell all that is available for export to ``preferred markets''. In future, the voluntary restraints applying on the US market may limit BHP export expansion in that market. Data compiled by the Steel Industry Authority (SIA) provide an indication of labour costs involved in steel production. The SIA estimated that in 1984 the cost per hour of labour in Australian steel works was around $A14, comparable to that in Japan (also around $A14) and considerably below that in North America ($A18-$A27). Labour costs in Korea, at less than $A4 per hour were considerably lower than those in Australia. No figures are available for Brazil. Given the estimated depreciation of the $A against the US$ and Yen since 1984, labour cost comparisons with Japan and North America are likely to have moved considerably in Australia's favour. Unfortunately, despite considerable improvements under the current Steel Industry Plan, Australia's labour productivity still lags behind that of most Japanese, Korean and North American producers (again figures are not available for Brazil). SIA figures show that in 1984, BHP's Port Kembla plant produced 294 tonnes of steel per man year. Most of the selection of overseas mills surveyed by the SIA recorded productivity figures of between 350 and 390 tonnes per man year. Taken together, this indicates that Australian labour costs per tonne are likely to be well below Japanese and North American levels but above that of Korea. However, the SIA cautions that the labour productivity figures quoted above are indicative only, although it feels they provide ``a good guide to the orders of magnitude involved''. The SIA report on Australian steel prices, published in June 1986, provides international comparisons of steel prices. It notes that in many countries actual steel prices differ from quoted ``list'' prices making price comparisons difficult. However, the SIA makes the general comment that while Australian steel prices were relatively high in the early 1980s the disparities between Australian and foreign steel prices have generally been reduced in recent years. In certain products (e.g. wire rod and hot rolled strip) Australia now has a price advantage over Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States. Furthermore, BHP's capital investment in new plant, processes and technology totalled $493 million for calendar 1985. This investment continues at more than $1 million a day and will amount to an investment of $1.4 billion for the duration of the steel plan, which will render the BHP steel operation amongst the most cost competitive in the world. (4) The government offers a range of support services to assist the steel industry in its efforts to market its products internationally. For example, Austrade is closely involved with China in the identification of areas of specific activity intended to enhance the prospects for the long term complimentary development of the iron and steel industries of Australia and China. This program was formalised under the Iron and Steel Initiative, formulated during the Prime Minister's visit to China in February 1984. Since the inception of the Initiative, purchases of Australian iron and steelmaking raw materials (including semi-finished product, pig iron, steel blooms and billets) have increased substantially. Austrade has assisted BHP in negotiations regarding a long term contract for the supply of pig iron from Kwinana and has supported a number of steel industry related missions to China which have included representatives from BHP. In addition Austrade is currently assisting BHP in its investigations into the potential for investment in China's downstream steel processing facilities and possible avenues for technology transfers. In this regard, Australia has canvassed major steel processing firms in Australia who may be interested in developing a closer relationship with China's steel industry. BHP has been actively developing existing and new markets for steel products, involving large investment programs overseas. It now has trading offices in Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Manila and the United States, and has made investments in complimentary processing facilities in the United States. (Question No. 1555) Senator Newman asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 1 December 1986: (1) Is it a fact that approximately 1000 surviving Returned Servicewomen from World War II currently are not eligible to receive hospital and medical treatment from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (2) Is it also a fact that approximately 2940 surviving Returned Ex-Servicewomen are currently not eligible to receive nursing home care from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. (3) Is it correct to say that nearly 70 per cent of these women are over 70 years of age, the majority live alone and have little family support, and have been on poorly paid nurses salaries all their working lives. (4) When is the Government intending to take action on the findings of the Study of Returned Servicewomen of World War II which was tabled in 1985. (5) What is the Government's estimation of the costs of extending medical and hospital treatment entitlements to those Returned Servicewomen. (6) Why is it that these benefits, although payable to returned Sisters of World War I, have not been extended to the Servicewomen of World War II. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. In October 1984, I initiated a study of Returned Servicewomen of the Second World War. The report of that study was tabled in Parliament on 12 September 1985 and indicated that approximately 1000 (30%) of surviving returned servicewomen from World War II were not eligible to receive medical and hospital care, including extended care, from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The report also noted that 70% of surviving returned servicewomen were in fact entitled to treatment for all acute conditions whether related to service or not. (2) Yes, unless nursing home care is necessary as a result of an accepted war-caused injury or disease. (3) No. the Study of Returned Servicewomen of the Second World War estimates that 38% of surviving returned servicewomen are 70 years of age or older and the majority of returned servicewomen live alone. My Department has no information on the degree of family support which they receive. While it is known that the majority served as nurses my Department has no information on their actual employment history since the end of hostilities. (4) The Government has considered this matter but because of the many competing demands on expenditure, the proposal could not be supported. The matter is still under review. (5) It is not possible to accurately forecast the cost of providing treatment to a particular group because the extent of usage of services is unknown. Based on average costing, net expenditure of about $1.5m p.a. could be involved. (6) Full medical and hospital treatment entitlements were first extended to returned nurses of World War I in September 1958. In October 1984, immediately after the matter was raised at the 69th National Congress of the Returned Services League of Australia, I announced that my Department would conduct a study of returned servicewomen of the Second World War. That study was completed and as I have indicated, my Department is keeping the matter under review. I would remind the honourable senator that the Medicare scheme introduced by this Government provides basic hospital and medical treatment for all Australians.