Thursday, 26 February 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and 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 received 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 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Richardson (from 213 citizens) and West (from 197 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the N.S.W. Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: That we wish to protest at the cutbacks announced in the Federal Budget of August 1986. Large numbers of people live in poverty and many more are now moving in that direction. Gains in education, multi-culturalism, welfare and in many other areas that have been important to the Australian people are being eroded and in some cases totally destroyed. Members of the ethnic community have been hit twice as hard by the August budget. They experience the hardship of general economic policies as well as the severe cutbacks that affect services essential to developing equal opportunity and the promotion of multi-culturalism. We therefore call upon the Federal Government to reconsider the economic direction which it is pursuing and develop economic policies that cater for the needs of all Australians. Specifically, such policies must include the following which are vital to the ethnic and general Australian community at large:- The Federal Government to undertake full responsibility to maintain and expand the ESL programme; Retain the Human Rights Commission; Retain the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs; Reinstate funding to the education centres programme; Maintain the autonomy of SBS Television and Ethnic Radio; Maintain the branches of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Albury, Wollongong, Newcastle in N.S.W., as well as the other branches in Victoria and Queensland; To not introduce Tertiary Education fees; To maintain the Bill of Rights legislation; To reinstate, maintain and expand the Multicultural Education Program. Your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever humbly pray. by Senator Richardson (from 176 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 the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Richardson (from eight citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by Senator Ryan on 25 February 1987, and that the Committee inquire into and report on its authorship, the sources from which the advice was obtained and the current status of the document. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 26 March 1987. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate for the period 17 to 26 March be varied as follows: (a) During the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-3.45 p.m.; and (b) During the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7.30 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement in relation to the motion. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —Simply by way of explanation to honourable senators: Discussion, as is well known, is still proceeding within the three party rooms and among the Independents as to various possible options for some further modification of the existing sitting hours. Those discussions are not yet complete. This motion is simply designed to preserve the current status quo until we can resolve this issue, as I hope we will in our first week back. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in accordance with the recommendation contained in item 2 of the 1st Report of the Standing Orders Committee for the 61st Session, the following proposed standing order 36aaa be agreed to: Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills 36aaa- (1) (a) At the commencement of each Parliament, a Standing Committee of the Senate, to be known as the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, shall be appointed to report, in respect of the clauses of Bills introduced into the Senate, and in respect of Acts of the Parliament, whether such Bills or Acts, by express words or otherwise- (i) trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties; (ii) make rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers; (iii) make such rights, liberties and/or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; (iv) inappropriately delegate legislative power; or (v) insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny. (b) The Committee, for the purpose of reporting upon the clauses of a Bill when the Bill has been introduced into the Senate, may consider any proposed law or other document or information available to it, notwithstanding that such proposed law, document or information has not been presented to the Senate. (2) The Committee shall have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and records of Standing Committees for the Scrutiny of Bills appointed during previous Sessions. (3) (a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall consist of six Senators, three being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators. (b) The nominations of the Opposition or any min- ority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators shall be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee shall be determined by the Senate. (4) The Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (5) The quorum of the Committee shall be three. (6) The Committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the Bills, Acts or other document or information which the committee is empowered to consider. The quorum of a sub-committee shall be two Senators. (7) The Committee shall elect a Government member as Chairman. (8) The Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman of the Committee at any time there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (9) In the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote. (10) The Committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in private session notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives. (11) The Committee shall be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. (12) The Committee shall be empowered to appoint with the approval of the President counsel to advise the Committee. (13) The Committee shall not meet while the Senate is actually sitting, unless by special order of the Senate. (14) The Committee shall have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit, and is expected to make regular reports as to the progress of the proceedings of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Richardson) agreed to: That the time for presentation of the Report of the Select Committee on Television Equalisation be extended to 23 March 1987. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the recovery of minerals from Moreton Island, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.05) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The aim of this Bill is to preserve Moreton Island and its invaluable conservation, recreational, archaeological and scientific qualities for current and future generations. In terms of the current controversy, therefore, the enactment of this Bill will put into place both the State and Federal environment policies of the Australian Democrats which have clauses seeking to prevent sand mining on Moreton Island. The Bill does not prohibit sand mining as such in Australia but only sand mining in nominated areas such as Moreton which environmentally are of international significance. It has been necessary to introduce this Bill at this time because of the Queensland Government's decision on 2 February 1987 to approve sand mining on Moreton Island. The State Government defended its decision by arguing that only limited areas were to be mined and that the proposed areas were already degraded and would be fully restored after mining. Apart from begging the question whether any restoration process can ever duplicate a natural process, the Australian Democrats do not believe we should have to wait around for 500 years to note the results of this type of experiment. Until the Queensland Government's February announcement, Moreton Island had been protected by Commonwealth export bans. Public comments from Associated Consolidated Minerals Ltd, the company presently involved in mineral exploration, indicating that it intends to mine and sell Moreton sand minerals within Australia means that the present export bans are no longer relevant in protecting Moreton. Moreton Island and probably Fraser Island will be mined unless the Commonwealth Government shows that it is prepared to exercise its constitutional powers and responsibilities. The Australian Democrats have often been presented as anti-mining. However, to argue that Moreton Island is an outstanding example of a remaining unspoiled coastal environment on the very doorstep of Australia's third major city is not to take an anti-mining stand. It is simply to state a fact. Moreton Island is of major scientific importance not only environmentally but also archaeologically and biologically. The environmental and aesthetic values of Moreton Island are comparable to those of Fraser Island with which the Commonwealth Parliament is well acquainted. However, Moreton Island has a particular importance that is worth mentioning. As the More- ton Island Protection Committee noted, it is a natural area of outstanding recreational value-an area made all the more valuable by its important landscape which would warrant consideration on a World Heritage List. It is important to realise that this unique sand island may still be regarded as a natural wilderness area. On this basis alone, the Australian Democrats believe Moreton Island should be preserved intact. Mining 6.4 per cent of Moreton Island will not leave many of its unique and varied attractions intact. The big and small sand- hills; nearly all of Ocean Beach, the rolling heathlands surrounding `Blue Lagoon', the West Coast and the spectacular high dunes north of `Mount Tempest' will be downgraded. Thousands of years of aboriginal history will be gone forever. According to Mr Brian Coghill, an Aboriginal Site Recorder with the Aboriginal Resource Unit at the University of Queensland, there are 199 Aboriginal sites located in the mining leases down to Eagers Creek, and a further 70 sites to the southern end of the mining lease. Mr Coghill points out that it is only reasonable to assume that there are many more sites buried underground. The best mining technology cannot restore such features. The Australian Democrats are not the only ones who believe this. One of the heartening aspects of the Moreton Island conservation campaign has been the tremendous public response it has had, particularly in Brisbane. Conservation groups, in particular the Moreton Island Protection Committee, have worked very effectively in sensitising members of the public to the many and varied features of Moreton which make it unique as a natural wilderness area. The Moreton Island Protection Committee has worked for over seven years to raise money to publicise the island and its features. Their work has encouraged the public to visit the island and so their task has become progressively easier as more people came to appreciate Moreton. It is estimated that 200,000 people visit the island each year to enjoy Moreton's unspoiled natural values. This is probably one reason why a poll undertaken by the Institute of Applied Social Research in 1981 revealed that 68.1 per cent of people within the Moreton region were opposed to sand mining. The Moreton Island Preservation Bill is only one way of halting mining. It is possible that the Government, in response to a request from Aboriginals, could use the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Act 1984. The Act enables the Minister to preserve and protect, through declaration, places and objects of particular significance to Aboriginals and Torres Strait heritage Islanders in accordance with their traditions. Such a declaration can, of course, be challenged in the Federal Court on a variety of grounds. The Australian Democrats have preferred to go down a separate route for four major reasons. The first reason is that my Party does not believe the initiative for protecting the environment and areas and objects of significance to the Aboriginals should be left solely to Aboriginals. In 1967, the Australian people voted to change the Constitution so that the Federal Government could pass laws to protect Aboriginal culture. This Parliament, therefore, has a moral and constitutional obligation to act to prevent damage or desecration to Aboriginal sites. A second reason is that declarations under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act are essentially at the discretion of the Minister. If one looks at the Government's record with respect to the above Act then the inevitable conclusion is that there is not a great likelihood of the Government invoking the Act. Of the 27 applications lodged under the Act the Government has acted on only two occasions. A third reason for the Democrats introducing specific legislation is that any administrative decision can easily be overturned by a future government. Granted the Liberal and National parties' apparent commitment to lifting the present export ban on mineral sands from Moreton, it is important from the standpoint of long term protection of Aboriginal sites that specific protection be enshrined in legislation. A fourth advantage of special legislation is, of course, the blanket protection afforded to Moreton by this Bill as opposed to declarations under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage Act. It would be possible for a company to mine those parts of Moreton not identified by a ministerial declaration. This Bill avoids that problem. This Bill relies on three constitutional powers, namely, the corporations power, the trade and commerce power and the Territories power. The Bill is drafted to deal only with acts done by corporations but the Territory power has been relied on to extend these provisions to corporations incorporated in a Territory. The Franklin Dam case is acknowledged as having considerably widened the scope for the Commonwealth Parliament to pass laws relying on the corporations powers. As Mr G. J. Lindell noted in the Federal Law Review: . . . a clear consequence of upholding the validity of section 10 (4) of the [World Heritage Properties Conservation] Act is that the Commonwealth Parliament can pass laws to prohibit acts done by a trading corporation for the purposes of carrying on its trading activities. Moreover, the prohibition can take effect to further purposes which are not relevant to the subject matter of the corporations power, e.g. in the case of the Franklin Dam case itself, the protection of the environment . . . There are other powers that could be used to expand the Bill. The banking power and the insurance power could probably be used to prohibit a bank carrying on banking business or an insurance company lending money to or covering by insurance activities of or connected with the carrying on of activities prohibited by clause 4. The postal powers and broadcasting powers could also be used to prevent those mediums being used to further prohibited activities. I doubt whether these powers are necessary, although I am happy to accept amendments from the Government if it feels this is necessary. Apart from setting out a series of unlawful acts in clause 4, which really cover mining and processing to the finished product, the Bill provides methods of enforcement, namely, injunctions and fines against the offending corporation and fines for officers and employees knowingly involved in contraventions of the Act. These follow established patterns. Clause 6 (3) sets out persons who can apply for injunctions and is based on section 14 (3) of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. I have also taken into consideration the possibility of the Queensland Government or a State instrumentality mining on Moreton Island for use within Australia. If a State mines, processes and sells all within the State, then the Bill will not prevent this. However, the Bill will prevent a corporation assisting with some of the steps, for example transport, processing and selling. The Australian Democrats are aware that legislation such as the Moreton Island Preservation Bill will provoke protest from the Queensland Government. But we firmly believe that issues relating to the quality of our environment are an integral part of the national interests which can only be realised and objectively assessed by a national government. We consider that it is wholly appropriate for the Commonwealth to use its constitutional powers to halt mining on Moreton Island. As Phillip Toyne of the Australian Conservation Foundation noted earlier this year in an address to the Australian Democrats Annual Conference in Sydney: The environment is simply too vital and too basic to our existence for it to be left in the hands of the States and it is now time for the national government to care for the nation which, since the arrival of white settlers, has been savaged environmentally. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Mr Brian Coghill and Dr Peter Lauer of the Anthropology Museum at the University of Queensland. Mr Coghill generously made available his detailed survey maps of Moreton Island which provide the precise locations of the Aboriginal sites. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, nominating Senator Hill to serve as a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, the Senate elect Senator Hill to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia from 2 March 1987 for a period up to, and including, 1 March 1990. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Haines, requesting a change in the membership of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator Mason be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing and that Senator Macklin, having been duly nominated in accordance with resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982, be appointed a member of the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(10.07) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration today pursuant to sessional order be as follows: (a) Consideration of Government Papers; and (b) General Business Order of the Day No. 366-Economic Management in Australia. There appears on the Notice Paper at the moment, as the first item in effect of General Business, the order of the day relating to the report of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. This is a small matter in respect of which it was desired to get the endorsement of the Senate for a change or an interpretation of the terms of reference of that Committee. It was thought that it might be possible for agreement to be reached for that to be dealt with in General Business. On that assumption, which proved ill-founded, the Notice Paper was drafted as it is. It will be possible for that item to be dealt with immediately after the cessation of the General Business period and we will put it into the Notice Paper then. I do not wish it to be thought that the Government was seeking to impose any priority of its own upon General Business, which is obviously for the Opposition to determine in accordance with existing arrangements. It was simply a misunderstanding as to the possibility of that matter being dealt with expeditiously in the environment that had it placed there in the first instance. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Gareth Evans-I formally table the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. I think Senator Collard has seen it. Senator Collard-Who gets the blame for that mistake? Senator Gareth Evans-It relates to a new clause in the Bill-but Senator Collard knows about that, does he not? Senator Collard-No, I don't. Senator Robertson-Of course you do. Senator Collard-No, I don't. Senator Gareth Evans-He does not know about much else that is going on, either. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate)(10.11) —We have a new explanatory memorandum for the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1987, which is to tidy up a mistake which came to light because the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) was not quite satisfied with the original Wheat Marketing Act 1984. For that reason - - Senator Robertson —You are always looking for something devious. You must be a rotten lot over there. Senator COLLARD —At least we do not try to duck for cover when a senior public servant makes an honest assessment of the interest rate structure in this country. Not only do we wish this legislation a speedy passage, but also we will assist its speedy passage. So our rhetoric will be matched by our action. We seem to have been waylaid at the start. This is urgent legislation and the Opposition is not opposing it. It is to correct an anomaly within systems of calculating payments by the Australian Wheat Board to growers for the 1986-87 harvest. Without this legislative action, the Government claims that growers could be disadvantaged by up to $1.25 per tonne in their final payments. The anomaly has come to light against the likelihood of a significant payment through the wheat underwriting arrangements. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that strict application of section 15 (2) of the Wheat Marketing Act 1984 would mean a shift away from the methodology used to calculate the guaranteed minimum price for growers. This would be contrary to the wishes of both the Australian Wheat Board and the industry. With a machinery provision such as this we have every wish to expedite its coming into law for the very simple reason that growers could be disadvantaged when they were not meant to be disadvantaged. We are all aware of the fact that, because of the policies of other nations, the wheat growers of this nation, through no fault of their own-they are still producing some of the best wheat in the world-are being seriously disadvantaged on international markets. On top of that, the wheat growers, as with all other rural producers in this nation, have had to run the gauntlet of this Government's normal policies. Dare I mention the interest rates which have raised their ugly heads in many ways and forms over the past few days, not least the rather honest assessment by a senior public servant. There have been many other actions by this Government in the last two or three years which have had a detrimental effect on this nation's wheat growers and grain growers generally. I will instance a few. This Government accepted the Industries Assistance Commission recommendation in August 1983 to impose a 15 per cent tariff on imported grain harvesters, despite strong calls from the industry to impose a bounty instead. Finally in August 1985 it realised that a bounty was better. In its May 1983 mini-Budget it wrecked the income equalisation deposits scheme and tax averaging-probably two of the best initiatives of the Fraser-Anthony Government to help the rural industry. Of course that has been basically gutted by this Government. Also in May 1983 it reduced the general depreciation allowance and abolished the special depreciation allowance for fuel storage. It prematurely scrapped the Commonwealth drought fodder subsidy in June 1983, and the interest payments to subsidy from December 1983, despite specific election undertakings to maintain them, at a time when wide areas of the country were still seriously drought stricken. It has progressively cut back the petroleum products fuel freight subsidy for country Australia to the point where in May 1985 the scheme was virtually abolished. It indexed fuel excise to the consumer price index in August 1983 but failed to index also the diesel fuel rebate. In August 1985 it finally recognised that the diesel rebate should also be indexed, and did so effective from November 1985. Of course there was the farce which we will all remember of the anti-dumping duty on diammonium phosphate and monoammonium phosphate fertilisers, with special exemptions being granted for Western Australia in January 1986 in light of the State election, and the subsequent extension of the duty to all Australians. We all remember the rightful backlash in the Western Australian election on 8 February. The Government's September 1985 tax package proposed to quarantine farm losses, but by April 1986 the Government had to concede in a rural policy statement that this was not a good idea, and dropped it. So the Government's record is a sorry lack of understanding of the difficulties facing rural Australia and a lot of those difficulties have applied to grain growers and wheat growers particularly; thus it is necessary that this legislation receive a speedy passage because if it is not enacted there could be a serious disadvantage of up to $1.25 per tonne in the final payments to wheat growers. As I indicated, the Opposition supports this measure. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.56) —The Australian Democrats also recognise the importance and urgency of the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, and I personally do as well. As one who grew up on a wheat farm I know very clearly the significance of 1 March. There was scarcely a decision made in my family that did not revolve around 1 March, the day when the wheat payments were due-even down to the date of the marriage of members of the family. Nothing could interfere with 1 March, and nor would we want to interfere at this point. The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill has a rather odd purpose, of course, but I do not think there is any benefit in rubbing salt into wounds. The original legislation, the wheat marketing Bills of 1984, was welcomed by the Australian Democrats as the culmination of a great deal of work, discussion and co-operation between all sectors on wheat marketing and as a rather radical breakthrough and radical change. It freed up the marketing operation which had been in place, and the legislation before us really just picks up an anomaly which has been discovered which would put at risk the payments due to wheat farmers from 1 March. The Australian Democrats share the concerns being expressed these days about the plight of the wheat industry. It is a fact that what happens in the wheat industry has an enormous impact on the total economy of this nation. Over the past decade, in one area alone beyond the farm gate-in the tractor and machinery industry-45,000 jobs have been lost because of the slump in sales as a result of the erosion of profitability in the wheat industry. That is a demonstration of the impact of reduced profitability in this one very important traditional Australian rural industry. Already Australia's wheat acreage has plunged by 1.7 million hectares in three years and many wheat farmers are now telling us that they are likely to be cutting their current plantings by up to 50 per cent. This must be of major concern to us all. It is in that context that we want to do everything we can to speed the passage of this legislation. I point out that one other aspect of the Australian Democrats' views came to light in the passage of the wheat marketing Bills in 1984 and the amending Bills in 1985 in regard to which we took a very strong stance on the issue of grower control of the Australian Wheat Board. I want to reiterate that not just in the case of the wheat industry but in terms of rural industry in general the Australian Democrats believe quite strongly that it should be people from the industry who have control over statutory marketing authorities and other authorities whose decisions do have a major impact on the industry. For that reason we have taken action in the past and have supported retention of that kind of power and control in the hands of growers. It is important to take this opportunity to put on the record some of the aspects of support of rural industry by the Australian Democrats. For instance, Senator Collard, in his contribution, related the stresses which have been placed on rural industry under the current Government but he neglected to say that in very many of those cases the Opposition had voted with the Government on the enabling legislation-for example, on income equalisation deposits-and only the Australian Democrats had opposed that legislation. Of course, that was Budget legislation. Again in the last Budget session the Opposition, although it complained and expressed its opposition to the imposition of taxes on juice, milk and wine, nevertheless voted with the Government for the imposition of those taxes which have had a marked effect in the rural sector. Again it was only the Australian Democrats which opposed it. The Australian Democrats in this Parliament have consistently opposed increases of export charges on a range of primary industry areas in the same way as we have consistently supported retention of grower control. In those sorts of areas people in rural Australia can continue to count on the support of the Australian Democrats. I reiterate that what this legislation is doing is amending the current legislation so that it conforms with the intention of the original legislation, the Government and the industry, and indeed the methodology which the Australian Wheat Board is currently using as the basis for its payments to farmers. It is the expectation of the industry that this is the methodology that will be used, and it is supported by the Australian Democrats. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.22) —To too many people this legislation is no longer of any significance because today they are no longer in the business of growing wheat. Conditions out in the country at the moment are such that many wheat farmers have got to the stage where they cannot even afford to plant wheat. There are a great deal of problems out there at the moment. In this last week there was a sale of machinery at Molong, where some 100 items of machinery were put up for auction by finance companies which had repossessed the machinery from farmers who could not meet the repayments. This means that many of the farmers have no equipment with which to earn a living or grow a crop this year. The Government is aware that things like this are happening every day but I wonder what it is doing about it. Instead of doing something about that, this Government is occupying its time in patching up legislation that was poorly drafted in the first place. Legislation has even been resubmitted to us this morning which is a redraft of what was presented yesterday. Similar patch-ups were needed in the parent legislation when last minute changes were made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the early hours of the morning last year. Australian farmers today are probably the most efficient in the world. With this efficiency has come a degree of professionalism and expertise in a wide range of areas. Yet, despite being the most efficient, it is still hard for them to make a living even when cash reserves and equity are high. Let me quote an example from my own returns for the last wheat harvest. The Australian standard white is $130.62 per tonne. Ninety per cent of that first payment that people receive is $117.56 per tonne. To give honourable senators an idea, 22.34 tonnes of HD1 at $112.06 per tonne comes to a gross amount of $2,726.82. The deductions for that amount of wheat are $891.37, and they include a freight charge of $449.03, carryover costs of $18.32, the Ceres House Development Fund of $2.23, a wheat research tax of $8.94, a bulk handling authority aggregate fee of $373.08 and a wharfage fee of $39.77. After the payment of that there is not a lot of money left for the wheat grower once the wheat crop is grown. The amount of up to $1.50 which this legislation will allow will be of some help. The incompetence of this legislation, which was poorly drafted in the first place, is matched only by that of the New South Wales Unsworth Labor Government, which has slugged the New South Wales wheat growers with the rail freight and handling charges. As I have said, I think this Government should take a lot more heed of the crisis in this country at the moment. If the farmers cannot afford to grow a wheat crop, they will not sow it. If they cannot afford to export that wheat, the standard of living for all Australians is going to fall because it is one of our biggest export industries. The farmers simply want a fair go. They want a fair go with interest rates and they want a fair go with a decent price for the products that are produced without too many of the government taxes and charges which are presently being foisted on them, especially on the New South Wales wheat growers by the State Labor Government. In the last year or two this Government has allowed inflation to rise four or five times the rate of our trading partners. The farmers have borne the constantly increasing fuel prices, and the cost of machinery in the last year has gone up by some 30-odd per cent. What with the extra taxes, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, the wheat farmers are in a great deal of trouble. I think in the other place yesterday, Mr Hunt, the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, instanced the fact that even suicides are occurring in the wheat growing areas because people have been put under so much stress and strain by the problems in the wheat growing industry. I think the calls from that industry as far as debt moratoriums are concerned, the fact that that industry has asked for concessional loans to tide it over the short term until things get better, and the calls for expansion of the rural adjustment scheme, should be heeded by this Government. I think this legislation, as I have said, was poorly drafted in the first place. It is another patch-up by this Go-vernment to fix something that should have been done properly in the first place. I support the quick passage of this Bill to help an industry that has never been under greater stress. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.29) —The Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1987, which is before the Senate, seeks to correct an anomaly between existing legislation and the way in which the guaranteed minimum price is currently calculated. The need for this legislation arose when the Attorney-General's Department advised the Australian Wheat Board that its calculations for the guaranteed minimum price did not comply with the legislation as it stands. The legislation which outlined the methodology, which came up as a result of negotiations in 1984 in relation to a guaranteed minimum price, did not allow in its calculations for the inclusion of such items as interest payments on credit sales and investment returns. Given that the inclusion of these factors was consistent with a prior agreement made between the Government, the Wheat Board and the growers as long ago as 1984, this is a grave reflection on the capacity of the Government to give accurate legislative form to agreements that it enters into. At the same time, the authorities cannot be absolved. It is also a reflection on the authorities that, while they accept in good faith at face value these respective agreements made with governments, they do not always immediately or subsequently scrutinise the supportive legislation to ensure that the legislation is identical with the agreement made with government. Given that many farmers are on the bread line, we do not wish to place any impediment to, or delay the passage of, this amendment. However, I ask why it has taken the Government so long to bring it in and why it is so close to this critical deadline of 1 March, given the predicaments of the wheat farmers at the moment. Furthermore, we all know that if this legislation were not passed-of course, it does have Opposition support; nevertheless we condemn the Government for the delay-it would mean a reduction in the guaranteed minimum price and therefore lower returns to growers. We would not wish to do that. But this is a reflection of the Government's incapacity to bring in proper legislative form to support an earlier agreement. The urgency of the Bill arises from the fact that, if it is not passed and gazetted by 1 March, the final payment to growers may be in doubt. This is so because the inclusion of interest payments on credit sales and investment returns would make the revenue side of the calculation less, and consequently the guaranteed minimum price given to growers would be correspondingly less. Regrettably, we must condemn the Government for its failure also to inform the industry adequately. In fact, the Grains Council of Australia had not been advised of the legislation until contacted by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Hunt, yesterday morning, I think. I say on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia that we support the legislation but we do not accept the views of the Australian Democrats, who said that we should not rub salt into the wounds of the Government for its failure to implement properly legislation giving effect to the agreement in the first place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.33) —in reply-I thank the Senate for its support for this measure. The character of the anomaly that is being rectified by this legislation was more than adequately explained in the second reading speech put down by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). I do not believe there is any justification for the criticism that Senator Watson in particular advanced in what he has just said. He was a little churlish in all the circumstances. When a technical anomaly is identified by the Attorney-General's Department, the Government reacts to that quickly and in a way designed to maintain the status quo, as it is perceived by the industry. For the Government to get a flick in the process seems to me to be a little less than totally fair, graceful and just and all the rest of the things that we want to be to each other in this place. There was a suggestion by a couple of speakers, just really by way of throw-away lines, that among the various acknowledged problems that the farm community has been having has been the problem of constantly rising fuel prices. I think I would be forgiven a small contribution from the perspective of my own portfolio in this respect if I said that that simply has not been the case. Although fuel prices have been rising again in recent months, as the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has shown signs of getting its act together, the overwhelming influence on costs over the last year has been one of declining fuel prices compared with what they were before. The Government has gone out of its way to cushion and exempt the farm community from the adverse impacts of fuel prices by the differential policy we have applied in respect of excise rebates. With the overall ups and downs that have occurred with fuel prices over the last year, as of mid-February farmers and miners will be paying about 7c a litre less for their diesel fuel than they did in early March 1986. That reflects the net decline in world oil prices between those two periods. Farmers will also benefit to the extent of fully $345m in the same period as a result of the full rebate of product excise which the Government has decided to give during all these ups and downs in respect of off-road use of diesel fuel. I acknowledge that the cost burden on the farm community in the situation of poor commodity prices is very acute indeed and I do not in any way want to be taken as undervaluing or not understanding that, but this familiar, routine sort of point that is made about rising fuel prices all being the fault of the terrible Government has to be corrected by me, by the Government, whenever that point is made. With those comments, I thank the Senate again for its support for this measure. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(10.39) —The Opposition supports the Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill. A number of matters are dealt with by the legislation and we find no fault with any of them. The essential purpose of the Bill is to provide legislative support for the reorganisation of stock exchanges in Australia into a single national stock exchange with each of the six capital city exchanges as subsidiaries. That will occur, and needs to occur, before 31 March this year as a result of the Trade Practices Commission having refused to authorise certain existing stock exchange practices beyond that time. The Bill will also create a National Guarantee Fund made up of the pooled assets of existing fidelity funds operated by the separate capital city exchanges to provide protection to investors in respect of the failure of contracting parties to meet their transaction obligations or in respect of dealer insolvency. There are a number of desirable aspects which deserve brief mention. The additional benefits and differences between existing arrangements mean that henceforth a person's right to make a claim on the Guarantee Fund will not depend on proof of defalcation or fraud by a broker; there will be one central fund rather than six separate funds, and a person will be able to claim directly against the Fund in respect of a dealer insolvency. In speaking to the Bill in the House, the shadow Attorney-General, Mr Spender, drew attention to the provision that places a limit on the amount that can be claimed in respect of defalcation. Certainly, the Australian stock exchanges would prefer increased investor protection by extending the limit of the cover to a maximum of 14 per cent of the minimum value of assets, whilst retaining the provision in respect of individual claims at $50,000. The Bill has been widely canvassed in the stock exchange community and it has the support of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges. The Exchanges took the matter before the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, under the co-operative scheme, in March 1986. So it is almost 12 months since the proposal was put before the Ministerial Council. I think that is indicative of the real problems that exist whilst we retain the co-operative scheme. It is certainly a great advance on the arrangements that existed prior to the co-operative scheme coming into effect. Nonetheless, there are still some very real impediments to change. A recent opinion of the former Solicitor- General, Sir Maurice Byers, on the corporations power and ability to extend national control over companies and securities legislation indicates that the time for such control is now. Because State Labor governments took a different view until recently, the Commonwealth probably will not be able to acquire that national jurisdiction. I regard that as unfortunate, but it seems to be a political fact of life. I think that in many ways the business community finds the current scheme workable, but it would prefer a national scheme and one that would not require the degree of extensive consultation that is presently necessary. I think it is fair to say that under the present arrangements the greatest need will be to provide for additional funding for the National Companies and Securities Commission to ensure that it is able to operate effectively. That will increase and maintain investor confidence, which is a very vital and necessary aspect of the operations of the stock market, and avoid a casino mentality developing which would frighten away many of the smaller investors. It is worth noting that the 1986 Australian share ownership survey conducted by the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges indicated that almost 90 per cent of adult Australians do not own shares. The United Kingdom Government has been doing its best to ensure that there are worker capitalists and it has encouraged many ordinary people to take a plunge into the stock market. That has not happened to date. In part that is because there has not been a sufficient feeling of confidence in the operation of the system. One of the aspects of guaranteeing confidence is to ensure that one has an efficient and effective national scheme. In many ways even that is inadequate in the present environment. It is fair to say that global transactions are the order of the day. The internationalisation of capital markets is irreversible. Australia to date has been left behind very quickly. It has been suggested by the former Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission, Mr Leigh Masel, that in future Australia will need to negotiate bilateral or multilateral treaties in relation to capital arrangements and certainly in relation to the operation of stock exchanges. That will certainly require the ability to move quickly and at a national level rather than at a ministerial council level. Mr Masel also estimates that as much as 40 per cent of trade in domestic securities is occurring in overseas markets in London and New York. That is a matter for considerable concern. Some members of the Australian stock exchanges have estimated that between 30 and 50 per cent of potential business is going overseas either in the trade of Australian securities or for investment in overseas securities. Whatever the exchanges or the private sector can do to recapture any part of the overseas market will be a net gain to Australia. Certainly one of the principal concerns of the stock exchanges is that they will, as a result of this legislation, be in a much better position to act quickly. Certainly we still seem to be a fair way away from having a 24-hour market. It is instructive to note that in the United Kingdom the London Stock Exchange and the International Securities Regulatory Organisation have recently merged to form a 24-hour global electronic share market. This has not happened overnight. It has been debated for several years. The ISRO is the self-regulatory body for about 200 firms in the Eurobond market and over the counter trading that takes place in leading and international securities, including more than 100 blue chip United States stocks. These two bodies will unite to form a single, self-regulatory organisation to be called the Securities Association. That means that the United Kingdom is moving in the wake of the so-called big bang, the deregulation of its capital markets and the ways in which the stock exchanges have operated there to ensure that London is very well placed to operate around the clock. It confidently expects that the United Kingdom will become the main centre for trading in international shares. That would clearly seem to be an area that is going to grow over the next decade. Prominent Australians, such as Sir Roderick Carnegie, have expressed the view that there is no reason why Australia could not become a regional centre of that type. If we had 24-hour trading our time zones are such that we would be well placed to capitalise on trading from Singapore, Japan and Malaysia. We know that there is no shortage of quick money in those areas. Again, to date we have missed the bus because we have not provided the sorts of facilities that are demanded by investors. There has been an explosion of investor-investment instruments in recent years. The world has been awash with credit in many ways, which is what has kept the markets moving. But it is of consider- able concern to us that the bulk of the money which seems to flow into Australia is very short term, speculative money. That is probably one of the reasons why there was a sudden dive of the Australian dollar in January. There was a return of short term Japanese money which had been parked here for a matter of weeks. Once that money was taken out of the country the Reserve Bank of Australia had to step in and underpin the dollar. One would hope that the Bank will not be in the business of managing a float in the way it used to do in years gone by. Given that we only have the equipment of about three months imports in foreign exchange reserve, I do no think we will be able to target the dollar for any length of time. Again one would have to be concerned that the only reason a lot of this money is coming into Australia is the record level of interest rates which we now know, thanks to Senator Ryan, is not going to fall over the next 12 months. That seems to be underpinning the current level of investment in the Australian stock market. But it is essentially speculative capital. It is not direct investment. Certainly to the extent that there is portfolio money in this country, we hope that it will be invested in longer term equities. That is very fragile. The inevitable downturn in the market will probably force a lot of that money to go back off-shore once again and Australia will be left lamenting. That makes it even more imperative for us to try to develop not only a national market but also a 24-hour market, a system which will enable us to take advantage of the very many types of investments and very great quantities of funds while Australia is still regarded as a relatively safe political haven. This Bill will go some way towards achieving those objectives. As a result of this Bill, the Australian Stock Exchange, or ASX as it will be known, will be responsible for listing, and all the listing agreements will be direct between ASX and the listed companies. State subsidiaries will continue to conduct stock markets and will exercise delegated powers. Those subsidiaries will remain responsible for the second board options and futures markets, so there will still be a significant role to be played by the States. Again, that would seem to be a necessary result of the present federal system, but it is certainly not a system which commends itself when one is talking about internationalisation of markets. The way in which the stock exchanges have approached the matter is that the Bill will provide a legislative basis for the national restructuring of stock exchanges. They see that as highly desirable because of international trends and the desire to attract back to Australia some of the trading in major listed companies. It is still fair comment that, whilst there will continue to be a high level of investment in the Australian market, it would be enhanced if we could have a more efficient system than even this Bill will provide. There are very many consequential amendments to other Acts, but I do not wish to touch on those in any detail. It is sufficient to say that the consequential amendments will not change the policy thrust of the Bill but will certainly provide many hours reading for interested lawyers. Whilst I do not think that others would want to read the provisions, one would have hoped that it would not have been necessary to have that quantity of detail. It seems to have come about because we have to provide for arrangements which will operate in the States, which will be reflected in State laws, which will result in amendments to both Federal and State legislation and which in many ways, provide unnecessary complications to a system that certainly should be truly national. I do not think there is anything further I wish to say, other than that the speedy passage of the Bill will go part of the way to providing what we hope will be a more efficient and effective national stock exchange. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(10.53) —in reply-I thank the Senate, particularly Senator Alston, for the support for the Australian Stock Exchange and National Guarantee Fund Bill. A couple of matters need some quick attention in reply. The first matter relates to the Executive Director of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges. It was the view of Senator Alston, and apparently also Mr Spender in the other place, during the course of this debate that there should be no limit on compensation for any one claim for loss of property in the event of a dealer insolvency. The Government's response to this expression of concern is as follows: The Executive Director of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges was invited to raise any matters of concern he had with the Bill in January 1987 and no comment was received from him on the aspect raised by the honourable senator. The Ministerial Council on Companies and Securities can see no reason in principle for different limits on compensation between clients who have lost money and clients who have lost property. To ensure that the insolvency of one broker does not prevent clients of another broker from missing out on being able to claim from the fund, there are two limits set. Each client can be paid only $50,000 and the most that can be paid in total to all clients of one insolvent broker is around $2m, that is to say, 14 per cent of the $15m in the fund. If a broker fails to deliver property and it is still in existence, it will be given to the client. If not, $50,000 can be paid to the client. This is clearly a sensible result. If money has to be found from the fund to replace property, a client should do no better than a client whose $50,000 in cash was not properly used to purchase shares. I hope that that is not only a sufficient explanation of procedural issues involved here, in terms of who made what representations to whom and when, but addresses the substantive concern raised. As to Senator Alston's references to the desirability of a national scheme and the support of the business community for that, I can only utter my usual heartfelt personal amen to that. I hope that this is one example of the difficulties of operating the federal system which can, sooner rather than later, be eventually overcome. In the meantime, we have a need, as Senator Alston acknowledged, for better funding of the National Companies and Securities Commission. I want to make a point or two about that. The Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, has recently publicly indicated that the States collect fully $137m in companies and securities fees but put back less than half of that-$65m-into companies and securities regulations. The Commonwealth Government, of all those participating in the scheme, is the only one which puts more back into companies and securities administration than it takes from the business community in revenue. The Attorney has recently publicly indicated that he is pursuing with the NCSC the question of why it does not appear to be using the 1,400 people who presently exist on the ground in the State corporate affairs commissions. Even if we cannot get the States to exercise a bit of responsibility and put some more funding into the NCSC, an alternative is for the NCSC to be able to utilise such skills as exist on the ground in the CACs. This issue is lively and current, but the Government has very much to heart the interests of ensuring the effectiveness and viability of the NCSC, hopefully by better co-operation in these respects from the States. Senator Alston —Do you have an objection to private sector funding of the NCSC? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is not a proposition on which I would wish to take a position in my representative capacity. Senator Alston —The Attorney seems to be well and truly against it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will seek his views on that subject and no doubt he will make them known in due course, if he has not already. With those short remarks, not being one of those lawyers who have devoted hours to reading this Bill, I commend the Bill accordingly to the Senate. Senator Sanders —You don't have trouble sleeping? It looks like it would be very soporific reading. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that is indeed the case. I do not have any difficulty at all in sleeping after dealing with you lot in here day after day, I can assure you. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 18 February, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(10.59) —The Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 1987 is a very brief Bill indeed. The effective content of the Bill is less than one line. The Bill seeks to repeal section 54 of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1983. Its objective is to take the sunset clause from the original Act. The antecedents of this need to be known in order that I can address some specific remarks. During the period of the Fraser Government and the period of the world energy crisis a committee was set up and very lengthy discussions took place between the Commonwealth and the States to deal with possible energy emergencies. Those discussions were very wide ranging and comprehensive and aimed to bring about mirror legislation, or complementary legislation, for the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. The aim was that that there should be parallel thoughts to deal with emergencies. There was never any intention that an emergency confined to a particular State should be in any way intruded upon by the Commonwealth. Equally, there was the need to have team-work should there be a national emergency. The Commonwealth and the States had not reached that specific agreement in 1983 and, properly, an Act was brought about to give the Commonwealth certain powers. So that there could be time in which the States and Territories could look at the problem and reach some commonality, a three-year sunset clause-section 54-was put into the original Act. The purpose of this Bill is to remove that sunset clause and to give an indefinite period of life to the Act. The coalition fully supports the removal of the sunset clause. I regret that a common approach has not been reached by all those involved. Nevertheless, it is vital that the Commonwealth should have these powers. These powers are necessary, not simply to handle a world energy crisis like that of the 1970s-which could happen again, and will-but also in the case of industrial turmoil and strikes. They are necessary in the case of major accidents to pipelines or to plant. There are a number of scenarios which would make absolutely necessary some orderly process by which to ration fuel in Australia. Therefore, I commend that principle. Of course, that relates to the sharing of the limited amount of fuel that is available. Fundamentally, my worry in speaking to this Bill is that the Government of the day is failing wholly to address itself to the long term adequate provision of fuel for Australia, whether the provision of that fuel is diverted by accident, strike or otherwise. The primary domestic task of Government in Australia is to ensure that there is an adequate supply of energy, be it automotive propulsion energy or electric power generation energy, in season and out of season. In a country such as Australia where the potential of energy resources is enormous, it is outrageous that there should be any kind of threat or peril in this regard. I remind the Senate that when the Fraser Government came to office in 1975 there was a real projection that within a few years the self-sufficiency of indigenous oil would fall vastly, to 40 per cent and below, and that Australia could be totally dependent on overseas oil supplies. That in itself would put Australia in very great peril. Apart from anything else it was quite impossible to envisage that Australia would have been able to import the fuel even if it were available. Here we are today with the most tragic adverse balance of trade that this country has ever had, and we are not doing anything to offset a huge peril that will occur within a few years. We need to bear in mind this simple formula: For every 10 per cent fall in the self-sufficiency of oil in Australia, the import bill will go up by at least another billion dollars. That is an outrageous thing to contemplate. When the Fraser Government left office there was a major oil self-sufficiency in Australia. Indeed, indigenous oil, the lighter end of the barrel, was supplying more than Australia's needs, and tremendous efforts were going on to ensure that more and more conservation, conversion, and exploration could take place. What had been a handful of exploration in 1975-almost non-existent-had become a record number of oil wells and explorations, a record number of discoveries and record on-shore development. What has happened now? The important thing for Australians to understand is this: The Bass Strait oil field, the Esso-BHP oil field which provides something like 90 per cent of our oil supply, has started to decline. It is projected to decline almost totally over the next five or six years. I doubt whether it will decline totally in that period as other techniques are found to upgrade the efficiency of recovery, but fundamentally it is declining, and declining severely, and no alternative supply has been found to take its place. It is incredible that this should be so, but something much worse is happening that greatly offends me and that is that at a time when the Bass Strait oil supply is declining this Government is exporting the oil. In other words, it is exporting oil which is surplus to our immediate domestic needs to the detriment of Australia in the next five to eight years. That in itself, in my judgment, is outrageous; it is quite tragic. When I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Estimates committee hearings `How much has this done to deplete our stocks?', he said that the total volume exported so far was only the equivalent of our future needs for six or seven months. Only six or seven months! Does anyone know what that converts to in tens of billions of dollars in the adverse balance of trade? Does anyone know what a situation Australia will be in in five or six years time if we are in peril and we have sold the oil out of the wells? My goodness, the Americans and others know something about this. They store their oil in the ground. They do not export their oil; they deliberately import oil and leave oil in the ground because of their security needs. What are we doing? Knowing that the Bass Strait supply is about to taper out, we are exporting that oil. Why? It is because we have an adverse balance of trade brought about by this Government and in the short term we are doing a quick trick. We are trying to earn some export earnings from oil against the fact that in the future, in the next decade, we will be in absolute peril. This is an outrageous situation. In the time since the Fraser Government went out of office, exploration in Australia has diminished enormously. All the Government will say is that this is because the incentive and rewards for exploration have diminished because of the fall in world prices. This is nonsense. Senator Gareth Evans —Ha, ha! Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I wish to record the cynical chuckles of the Minister. This is a Minister whose job it is to increase exploration in Australia. He has imposed prohibitive taxes and charges which inhibit exploration. So the chuckles are rather inappropriate at this moment. This is a Minister who has set up one of the most absolutely uneconomic and unfair systems-the front end bonus loading. In my time as Minister, when we wanted to decide who should get a lease for a field we called for tenders. We received submissions from people and we looked to see the background integrity of those people-their past performance, their financial ability, and their ability to do something immediately-because that is what was wanted. That is not what happens now. I recited Kipling to the Minister when he brought in this measure: `He that has the longest purse shall have the longest life'. That is the principle-I take it to be a corrupt principle-in giving a lease. The fellow who pays the most gets the most. He pays it in the short term and he can then sit on his lease; he can pretend and do all sorts of things. There is no proof at all that he will handle the situation properly. The only thing is that in quick trick he has some money, which he will not get at the end anyhow because in terms of profit and company tax it will be deleted as an ordinary working expense. In fact, exploration has fallen enormously. I love the way the Minister keeps talking about the fall in oil prices when over his four years in office he has consistently put up the price of oil and petrol in Australia, steadily, bit by bit. I remember that pleasant, gentle fellow-he of soft and whispered words-Paul Keating, who used to be my opposite number, who used to inveigh against import parity prices. He was going to win the 1980 election by opposing that policy, and indeed with the policy that it would be outrageous for anybody to pay beyond 34 cents. He went stamping around Australia, standing on a platform saying that import parity pricing was wrong. Who is the saviour of import parity pricing today? It is the Keating-Hawke-Evans Government, and where is the price of oil today? Senator Gareth Evans —That is a formidable trio. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I understand the embarrassment of Senator Evans, and if it will relieve his embarrassment I will withdraw his name from those of Mr Hawke and Mr Keating. Where, in real terms or otherwise, are oil prices in Australia today? This Government and this Minister have put up prices, they have nearly doubled, and the Minister takes some consolation in the fact that they will drop prices a cent. The fact is he has indexed excise on oil, so that happens all the time. This is the pattern of a government which should be promoting massive exploration throughout Australia, but in fact exploration has more than halved. The results are bad indeed, not due to the explorers themselves but due to the fact that the Government is giving no direction and no incentives to the explorers. At a time when we need more and more exploration the Government has a record like that of the Whitlam Government. At the end of the Whitlam Government only one oil rig was working in Australia. I enjoy Senator Button asking us to contrast the performance of Labor and Liberal; nothing gives me greater pleasure. If we are to make sure that in Australia we can put off an emergency, perhaps indefinitely, by having adequate oil or adequate alternatives to oil, whether from overseas or from Australia, not only will exploration have to be of major importance but also conservation and conversion. The outrageous situation is that conservation in Australia has fallen away. It is sad to say that when we examine the estimates of the Department of Resources and Energy we see that more and more it has fallen into lassitude under the inertia of the Minister and nothing is happening in terms of saving energy in Australia or indeed converting to other fuels. How outrageous it is that when this Government came to office Australia had a plan to convert commercial vehicles, including government vehicles, to liquefied petroleum gas-a conversion plan which would have saved 14 per cent of oil-based fuel in a country which is awash with LPG. The Government inherited a program whereby 3,000 government vehicles a year were going to be converted. There was no question of whether or not it would have been economic. Ninety per cent, if not 100 per cent, of Canberra taxis now use LPG, as well as 80 per cent of Melbourne taxis and something like 60 to 70 per cent of Sydney taxis. The efficiency and economy of this program would have been enormous. Yet what did the Government tell us in the last Estimates committee hearings? I think the Government said that some 300 vehicles were converted. That is an absolute outrage and a deliberate walking away from what is the greatest potential crisis facing Australia. Australia today is confronting one single problem which the Government will never identify, and that is that Australia is being out-competed by the world outside because its costs of production are lower than ours. It is not because its wages are lower than ours; indeed, in many cases its wages are as high or higher. It is simply because its productivity is greater. For the most part these countries import our minerals, take our energy resources, cart them over tens of thousands of miles of ocean and process them, generate electricity, process the minerals and sell the resultant products back to us cheaper than we can produce them ourselves. Why? Because we are not efficient and because the Government itself will not give the lead. Australia has everything in terms of minerals, it has everything in terms of potential energy and nothing in terms of Government initiative, a Government goal, or a perceived goal. The Government says the only thing wrong with this country is falling export prices. That is what it blames everything on, but that is nonsense. What is wrong with this country is that the costs of production are such that we cannot stop the flood of imports coming into Australia. We cannot employ the 600,000 Australians who are unemployed around this country, and that is a tragedy. Over seven years of the Fraser Government the average unemployment rate was something like 5 and a bit per cent. Under this Government the rate is running at about 8.8 per cent. What is the Government doing about this situation? The primary task of government is to ensure that families are employed, that youngsters coming on to the market have jobs; yet bit by bit the manufacturing industry in Australia falls away. Every year under Senator Button's administration the manufacturing industry shrinks and we lose more jobs. We have the energy sources; we have the mineral resources which we can extrude and process on the spot, yet we cannot do so as cheaply as countries that do not have these resources and have to cart them away. Yet they bring them back to us and sell their products at a lower price. The Government and the Minister concerned ought to be giving a lead, ought to be putting a fire in the bellies of Australians in terms of cutting down costs, in terms of increasing productivity. The Government is doing nothing about it. The lack of conservation is outrageous. Even the Minister admits that the simple program that we put in motion to put time switches on Canberra buildings, so that they would not all be floodlit like some extravaganza mardi gras every night, has failed. It was a simple program to conserve energy in buildings. The Government has not done anything about a program to fine tune air conditioning in order to save an enormous amount of energy. One can go to any major capital city in Australia and look at the Christmas tree scintillation of lights and realise that nothing has been done. Australians are wasting an enormous amount of energy. The Minister knows of the need to overcome the problem of the enormous debt incurred by governments in building power stations throughout Australia. The best way to overcome this record debt is to conserve energy and so eliminate the need to build another power station. When I sat as temporary Chairman of the International Energy Agency it was agreed that any country like Australia, America, Canada, France, Britain or Germany could save 30 per cent of its energy if only it had the will. Indeed, if it could save that 30 per cent not only would it waterproof itself against emergencies but also it would get right to the heart of the costs of production. Nothing is happening. The fact is that there are all sorts of lip service to these industry energy audits, to turning off the lights. Anybody who goes for a stroll in Canberra will see what I mean. There is nothing at all in terms of having consultations between the States and Canberra to achieve better, efficient use of energy. Indeed, the Zeidler Committee of Inquiry into the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, which at the end of the Fraser Government foreshadowed the link between Victoria and South Australia and a grid on south-eastern Australia, is still only talk within the Government. Nothing at all has been done of practical significance. I read this morning that Mr Wran is going to fix it. In case the Minister needs to be reminded, Mr Wran is going to fix it in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. He is going to have an investigation of alternative fuels. Ha! Four years into the show? I remind the Minister that over in New Zealand we used to have something of an informal co-partnership in terms of the Mobil experiment in Maui gas. Somebody ought to tell Mr Wran that that massive experiment has been going on. But no, because CSIRO is strong on public relations and poor on product, we learn today that one can take natural gas, turn it into methanol and then turn it into petrol. Mr Wran has discovered it-I read that today! What a nonsense situation. We were getting all the information that was coming out of the huge Mobil experiment in New Zealand. In fact, in Australia we had vehicles test running and test driving on methanol and on natural gas. We had all these things going but, if it comes to public relations, we can rely on the fact that CSIRO will be all up front in the shop window and nothing back in the storeroom. It is incredible that after all these years it should trot out a discovery that one can turn natural gas into methanol and then into petroleum. If the Minister had picked up from where we had left it and had gone on with the job, we might have had something going here now. We have now a lesser use of liquid petroleum gas altogether by commercial vehicles, and certainly almost no use by the Government, and this is outrageous. The pricing policy of liquid petroleum gas was such that a commercial vehicle doing long milage would save enormously-at least one-third in costs as well as 14 per cent in the use of fuel. It will not be very many years before saving one per cent of the light end of the barrel-that is, the kind of oil that Australia is producing-will be of enormous importance in terms of our adverse trade balance. Even though year after year at the estimates we pummel the Ministers-Senator Walsh and Senator Gareth Evans-on this, the Government has not moved on this. The judges of the Archibald Prize or the Wynne Prize would give them the natural monopoly of still life. They are totally inert when there is a crisis for Australia. One of the great dangers is that, because at the moment there appears to be a glut of oil at relatively low price, governments will do nothing. Let me just say one frightening thing to this Senate. It is estimated-and the Minister can refute it if he wishes-that by the mid-1990s or before, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will control 75 per cent of the exported fuel to this free world of ours. Is that a situation that the Minister wants? Is he going to commit Australia to a pricing situation similar to that of the 1970s? Let me just point to that terrible time of the 1970s when oil quadrupled in price in one year. Country after country that I visited had to use more and more of their money to buy oil and had less and less of their money to purchase consumer goods from overseas. The world recession of the 1970s, from which Australia suffered a very bad delayed reaction in 1982-83, was largely due to the fact that nations around the world had to spend more and more of their export earnings on oil and had less and less to buy other countries' goods. That is something that we must, above everything else, try to stop for the future in a country like Australia, which has an enormous capital debt now which is eating into our economic vitals, which has a balance of trade as bad as we have got and which has a dollar which has been judged and found wanting in the world so that it has tumbled 40 per cent. The heart of the thing is this: No government has the right to govern unless, in the first place in a country which is energy rich, it has discovered and made good the sources for a continuous supply of automotive, thermal and electricity generating power. It is outrageous that this should be falling away. No government should be able to claim to be government unless it has put up increased exploration at a time when our known resources are falling away; and it cannot claim any kind of authority unless it is conserving, which this Government is not, and converting, which this Government is not. The tragedy is that we have a bandaid Bill before us. I thoroughly approve the Bill. In fact, I was a part architect of it years ago. I am perfectly happy about the Bill, but it is a bandaid because the serious accident has happened. Nothing that the Government is doing is stopping the serious accident. Everything it is doing is aggravating Australia's debt, balance of trade and high costs, and the Government stands very seriously condemned on that. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.28) —The Australian Democrats will support the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 1987, but I must say that I agree almost wholeheartedly with the comments made by Senator Sir John Carrick. We have often disagreed on various aspects of fuel policy and such, but in this instance I find that his remarks were well thought out, cogent and very much to the point. He did bring up the fact that this Bill really is a result of the world energy crisis of the 1970s and he pointed out that a crisis will come again; and it will. A glut of oil on the world scene is a temporary situation. We have to take steps now. We have to lay the foundations now so that we can avoid future emergencies. We are basically now living in a fuels paradise. We have access to a great number of mineral fuels which have been laid down over geologic time. The oil is a result of forests and plant life which existed hundreds of millions of years ago. It has been laid down over long periods, it has gone through chemical change over long periods and we are using it all at once. This material is being created now, of course, but we cannot wait another 200 million years to extract it. Therefore, we are utilising a resource which is definitely finite. In fact, all of our mineral resources are finite, including uranium. The world is not made of uranium. The world is a finite entity. So we must look to the time when we cannot simply dig things out of the ground and use them for fuels. Exploration, therefore, will not solve the problem. I think this is the only area in which I differ from Senator Sir John Carrick. Exploration will not solve the problem simply because, even if we find fuel in more obscure and difficult to reach places, whatever we are looking for it simply will not do in the long run. Therefore, we must move to renewable resources. The easiest way to switch our reliance, or to alleviate some of our reliance, on fuels is conservation, as Senator Sir John Carrick mentioned. This was a very familiar buzz word during the 1970s, and all over the world people were talking about driving slower in their cars, and smaller cars ensued. People talked about turning off lights in buildings, and President Johnson went around turning off lights in the White House. It may have been carried to some extremes at the time, but the thought was there. This seems to have disappeared. We seem to have been lulled into a false sense of security. Conservation is the best and cheapest way to manage fuel supplies. Reliance in the future for energy will be based on the sun, in all of its forms. There are a number of ways that the sun furnishes fuel, and one is called biomass, which is simply a rather overblown term for growing things in the sun; trees, plants and those sorts of things. As far as fuel goes, we can get methanol from wood and plants. It can be made into petrol and burnt as methanol. We can obtain ethanol quite easily from plants. In fact, that would be a good thing to do with the Queensland sugar crop at this moment. If the farmers cannot sell sugar it could be used to make ethanol. In fact, there has been an ethanol plant at Sarina for some years. It can combine easily with petrol. An engine can be run on a 10 per cent ethanol mix with petrol at absolutely no disadvantage. It is interesting to note that ethanol was introduced into the automotive area very early on in the development of the motor car, as an anti-knock additive. Then the lead companies decided it would be more profitable to sell as lead. As I have said, a 10 per cent mix serves as an anti-knock property. The other way we could go in terms of transportation fuels is to eliminate the use of liquid fuels and turn to human power; and here I am referring to bicycles. I think bicycles are the finest development of the human brain in terms of inventiveness. Bicycles are a benign invention. They tone up the body that uses them. Senator Haines —Especially a bicycle built for two. Senator SANDERS —Yes, the bicycles built for two are very important to the development of our cultural attainment. Bicycles are used widely by most of the world's population for transportation. They are environmentally sound, they require very little material to build them and they have quite a long life expectancy. But of course they cannot be used without bikeways. Bikeways are necessary for bicycles. It is suicidal to ride a bicycle in a mix with automobiles. I think this is an area in which the Government can show the way. In the United States of America I was a member of a group called Bikeology and our major goal was to get the various governments of the United States-Federal and State-to include bikeways with any highway project, and we got it. Any highway which is now built in the United States requires a bikeway alongside it. This is something that the Government could do and should do. The other way of conserving fuel is, of course, to get people out of individual cars and into public transport. Frankly there is no way to do this except by making public transport free. It has to be free. Even then, it might be difficult but still there would be a better chance of getting people into buses if transportation is free. If we look at the cost of running most of the bus systems in Australia, the fixed costs are so high anyway that they are all running at a loss. The fares do not make them into profitable organisations. In fact the cost of collecting the fares increases the cost of running the bus services. A retired traffic supervisor for the Metropolitan Transport Trust in Hobart, Tasmania, came to me with figures which showed that it would be cheaper to run the buses free rather than to collect the fares. This is so when we consider the costs of printing the tickets, of putting them into the buses, of furnishing the protection for the bus drivers when they are carrying money, the fact that the bus has to sit at a signal while the bus driver collects the money and then, late in the day, the fact that he spends his time in accounting for it. According to this man's figures it works out that it is cheaper to run the buses free. We would certainly then get more people on them. Another thing we must look towards is better town planning. At the moment our towns, if they are planned at all, are planned around the needs of the automobile. We have developed because of the automobile. Our cities are functions of the automobile and that should be turned around. Our cities should be functions of the needs of the people. What about power production, because after all only 20 to 40 per cent of the fuel is used for transport? We will find increasingly the use of solar power in its various forms and hydro power, which is probably used on a small scale now. The massive dams have been built and the massive areas have been flooded, but there still is a great opportunity for small-scale developments. Here, as in other areas, there is an opportunity for Australian industry. A small firm in Tasmania, Tamar Designs Pty Ltd, builds small hydroelectric developments which are exported all over the world. That firm gets very little support from the Government. The owner is pretty much on his own but he is doing a good job. Throughout this debate I must stress that there are tremendous opportunities here for Australian industry. Australians used to have the reputation for being inventive, for giving it a go and for turning out devices which met needs. We seem to have lost that in recent years, but I think there are still people out there who could contribute. In terms of solar power, wind power is becoming more and more operational around the world. Wind, of course, is a function of the sun. The wind blows because of differential heating on the earth's surface, and wind power is a reality in many countries. Unfortunately in Australia it is not. This is a direct result of the lack of concentration on wind power by the Government and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. CSIRO was fortunate at one time in having one of the world's great experts on matching wind systems to existing power grids. However, because of policies within CSIRO it was found that wind power was not popular and other big hit technologies, such as liquefaction, shale oil and that sort of thing, had the Government's ear. Therefore the wind section has now all but disappeared. So Australia is once again lagging well behind in the world then in fact we could be pioneers. The privately owned utilities in California are very enthusiastic about wind. They have literally thousands of wind or aero-generators which have 800 megawatts of power under contract from wind. On the big island of Hawaii 10 per cent of the island's grid is powered by wind. It is a reality. It could solve many of our problems, but it is not politically popular. The future is going to include more and more renewable sources of energy. It has to. I have some figures here from the Worldwatch Institute which show that by the year 2000, 26 per cent of the world's energy use will be from renewable sources. At the moment it is 18 per cent, but it is increasing all the time. This includes such areas as the passive design of solar energy, residential collectors, industrial collectors, solar ponds and the use of wood. At the moment we are misusing our wood resources in the form of woodchips. We are just wasting our forests. Wood is a very good fuel for heating and biogas develops methane gas from small digesters. We can actually get energy from urban sewage and solid waste. We can use energy crops such as seed oils to furnish fuel for diesel tractors and that sort of thing. We can use solar voltaics. The development of solar cells is continuing so rapidly that experts have predicted that the cost of a solar electrical power producing unit will be limited by the cost of the material that it is put on. One could, for instance, put it on a garbage bag. It would be very cheap to produce electrical power directly from the sun. Geothermal energy is another area that has barely been tapped. The future looks very bright in these areas. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the tables from which I have been quoting. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 11. 1. WORLD USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, 1980, 2000, AND POTENTIAL Source 1980 2000 Long-term potential (exajoules) Solar energy: passive design... 0.1 3.5-7 20-30 Solar energy: residential collectors... 0.1 1.7 5-8 Solar energy: industrial collectors... 0.1 2.9 10-20 Solar energy: solar ponds... 0.1 2-4 10-30+ Wood... 35 48 100+ Crop residues... 6.5 7 - Animal dung... 2 2 - Biogas: small digesters... 0.1 2-3 4-8 Biogas: feedlots... 0.1 0.2 5+ Urban sewage and solid waste... 0.3 1.5 15+ Methanol from wood... 0.1 1.5-3.0 20-30+ Energy crops... 0.1 0.6-1.5 15-20+ Hydropower... 19.2 38-48 90+ Wind power... 0.1 1-2 10+ Solar photovoltaics... 0.1 0.1-0.4 20+ Geothermal energy... 0.3 1-3 10-20+ Total... 63.5 113-135 334-406+ + indicates that technical advances could allow the long-term potential to be much higher; similarly, a range is given where technical uncertainties make a single estimate impossible. means less than. Source: Worldwatch Institute Table 11. 2. WORLD ENERGY SUPPLIES, 1980 AND 2000 Sources 1980 Amount Share 2000 Amount Share Change 1980-2000 (exajoules) (per cent) (exajoules) (per cent) (per cent) Oil... 133 38 113 26 -15 Natural gas... 61 18 79 18 +30 Coal... 82 24 105 24 +28 Nuclear power... 8 2 23 5 +190 Renewable energy... 63 18 113 26 +75 Total... 347 100 433 100 +24 Source: Worldwatch Institute Senator SANDERS —I thank the Senate. I think they are important to the discussion at hand. There are ways of avoiding the emergencies that will face us. This Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill, as Senator Sir John Carrick has said, is a stop-gap measure. It meets one need in one area, but it will not save us from the oncoming world-wide emergency of the depletion of our liquid fuel resources. Therefore, I urge the Government to establish firm goals now, to instruct the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to make the development of renewable fuel sources a major priority and to establish a crash program to implement conservation and renewable energy systems. We support the legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.41) —in reply-Both Senator Sanders and Senator Sir John Carrick, neither of whom has any objections to this Bill, have used it as a vehicle for what in Senator Sir John Carrick's case can only be described as a generalised rave on his familiar set of prejudices about the future of Australia's liquid fuel supply. Senator Sanders —Fair go. It was a reasonable argument. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will come to how reasoned it was in just a moment. But let me say at the outset that I am pleased that there is no controversy about the substance of the Bill itself-this very lengthy Bill of less than one line! Would that the speeches had been kept as short! Let me say at the outset that it is perfectly true that Australia has a liquid fuel supply problem and that this is undoubtedly the central problem in energy policy management between now and the end of the century and beyond. It is certainly far and away the biggest single energy policy problem that I have on my plate as a Minister. Bass Strait is drying up. The rate at which that occurs is, as Senator Sir John Carrick acknowledged, still a matter for some conjecture, but there is no doubt that it is occurring. Current projections are that, if no further oil discoveries are made and no further development of existing fields takes place, our self-sufficiency will reduce to something just over 40 per cent by the early 1990s. Further, it is the estimate of the Bureau of Mineral Resources that, even on the assumption of a continuing substantial exploration program between now and the end of the century, by the year 2000 there is still only a 50 per cent chance that we will be as much as 50 per cent self-sufficient so far as liquid fuels are concerned. The truth of the matter is that, although there are certainly some still highly interesting areas for further exploration to occur, particularly off the North West Shelf and in the Timor Sea areas off-shore of Australia, the reality is that Australia generally speaking is not a highly prospective country so far as potential oil reserves are concerned. We have to look forward to a future in which it seems likely that we will not have the same kind of liquid fuel self-sufficiency that we enjoyed through so much of the late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. The options in dealing with this sort of problem boil down essentially to exploration activity, conservation activity and the development of alternatives, either by way of synthetics or alternative fuel sources of the kind that Senator Sanders concentrated on. In the course of this debate things were said about each of those areas that I believe need correction and certainly a reply from me. To canvass fully all the issues involved is, of course, a very much more major exercise than is appropriate for a speech in reply on this Bill. But such an exercise is fully in train. I remind the Senate of my Department's Energy 2000 exercise which got off to an excellent start last year with the production of discussion papers and the holding of a major conference and which is wending its way to conclusion over the next few months in the form of the production of a final policy document bringing all the threads together. Let me go quickly through some of the points made in each of these areas. First of all, so far as exploration activity is concerned, the reality is, however much Senator Sir John Carrick might fulminate to the contrary and describe it as nonsense, that exploration is market driven. Exploration activity in Australia, as everywhere else in the world, depends primarily and overwhelmingly on the prevailing price of oil and expectations about what that price will be in the short to medium term. However much one might leap up and down and expostulate and blame it all on Government policy, taxation policy and so on, the reason that exploration activity has fallen away dramatically over the last 12 months, as it has everywhere else in the world, is the price plunge which occurred from early 1986 onwards and which has simply created huge cash flow problems for explorers and just basic problems of the game not being worth the candle in terms of the anticipated returns. The point is that governments cannot by their own policy actions by way of tax regime manipulation overcome the realities of that kind of market situation. Some people are from time to time heard to suggest that Australia simply has to strike some kind of self-sufficiency target objective and throw money at that by way of tax exemptions and tax incentives to ensure that enough exploration activity takes place so that by hook or by crook-even if it involves hundreds of small puddles being explored and developed at very significant drilling costs and at no return to the revenue or the nation; by one means or another, however much economic sense it might on its face make or not make-that should occur. That is not the position that any sensible observer of this policy area would adopt. The point is that self-sufficiency is not something to be achieved at any cost. The costs involved, and the other values involved in terms of rational resource allocation for the community as a whole, have very much to be taken into account. The important thing so far as government is concerned when one talks about exploration is ensuring that government policy, in particular government taxation policy, does not constitute in itself a barrier to exploration taking place if market realities were such that it otherwise would. I simply say here that I, like my predecessor, Senator Walsh, have been acutely conscious of this. We have kept a very close eye on our tax regimes, particularly as they have applied to new developments and therefore are impacting directly on exploration, but also as they have applied to old oil production because that can affect the cash flow of the producers and explorers concerned. We made substantial modifications to those exercise regimes in the course of 1986 to encourage additional production when it became apparent that at the margin a lot of production was simply uneconomic for the producers. We have maintained those concessions in existence notwithstanding a significant improvement in oil prices since the latter part of last year. At the moment we are in the middle of yet another major systematic review of Government taxation policy as it affects the oil industry. So the basic reality remains the market. Government policy matters very much at the margin. Government policy under this Government has been very sensitive indeed to these considerations and I wholly reject what Senator Sir John Carrick has said on this topic. Similarly, but more quickly, I again reject, as I have on numerous occasions in the past, the suggestion that the introduction of a cash bidding regime was itself some sort of policy error, given what has been the situation in the oil industry. It is a long argument but, put very shortly, I strongly assert that, as it has been applied, this policy has not constituted any kind of disincentive to exploration activity. The policy will be applied to the allocation of leases only in areas of high prospectivity where a great deal of competition can be expected. It is a necessary sorting mechanism, as we have argued on numerous occasions, to pick rationally between competitors in that kind of environment. That mechanism has been applied only once to date-for Timor Sea acreage releases-and in that context it worked very well as a mechanism for allocating the acreage in question to the most appropriate and best equipped explorer. Senator Sanders —We agree fully with that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Sanders did agree with that and I appreciated the Australian Democrats support on that. So far as other possible Government policy in this area is concerned, I was fascinated that in the course of a speech as wide ranging as that of Senator Sir John Carrick I noticed no reference to resource rent taxation, which has been a familiar bogyman in Liberal and National Party rhetoric on the oil industry for the last few years. The reason this particular bogyman has stolen away quietly into the night not to make his appearance on this occasion is, of course, that it is now acknowledged by the oil industry, sotto voce certainly, that RRT can be a very useful tax regime in encouraging new exploration and development in the sort of environment of, for example, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd Jabiru development in the north-west where, if there had not been a RRT regime in place, if there had been a straight production-based tax regime, that project would not have got off the ground. For all sorts of reasons which I do not stop to debate now, this is another example of a quite sensitive Government tax policy which is highly pertinently directed towards achieving the exploration and development objectives that we as a nation and members of parliament, should all share. I turn to the subject of conservation. The first gun that was fired on this subject by Senator Sir John Carrick-I rather assume that Senator Sanders gave at least tacit support on this by his general endorsement of what Senator Sir John Carrick said-was on the subject of oil exports. I know that it is somewhat irreverent to contemplate the kind of potty training that Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Sanders might have had in their early childhood, but I can construe the sort of obsessive rejection of exports from Bass Strait articulated by Senator Sir John Carrick only as a familiar example of that freudian phenomenon of anal retentiveness which is allegedly attributable to early childhood experiences. Many people do feel more comfortable about keeping oil in the ground than about selling it at an apparently opportune time in the international market, just as a lot of people during the resource boom arguments of the 1960s and 1970s before Rex Connor was a Minister felt much more comfortable about keeping iron ore and a lot of other minerals in the ground, waiting for some alleged millenium to turn up when it would become justifiable to stop retaining the mineral or the commodity in question and to get it out on the market. Senator Sanders —If we were Saudi Arabia it might be different but we are not Saudi Arabia; we are Australia and we do not have all that much oil. Senator GARETH EVANS —The reality is that the amount of exports that has occurred since the Government policy change represents only six to seven months worth of actual production from Bass Strait. If exports continue at their present rate in the environment we will confront over the next few years the exports will make at best only the most marginal possible difference to our supply security in either the short run or the long run. It is not a matter of engaging in exports as a quick fix to the balance of payment problems, although it is of course the case that oil exports have made a significant contribution to our balance of trade in recent years. Very largely, it is a recognition, which is conspicuously lacking in this allegedly free enterprise loving Opposition, of the commercial realities of the market place; that we have to give the oil companies the incentive that is constituted by an ability to get additional production out of the fields and to get some of that production into exports in order to give them the kind of cash flow and profit return they need in turn to embark upon more development and exploration activity. There is a commercial market reality engine driving the decision to allow exports as well as a concern about shorter term revenue and balance of trade gains. For Senator Sir John Carrick to describe the Government's policy in this respect as outrageous is just another fairly grotesque example of his choking and being strangled by his own rhetoric in complete ignorance of the policy position of the oil companies concerned, all of which have continued to urge the Government to allow this policy to continue for reasons which are totally rational and compelling on our analysis of the situation. Moving away from exports to other aspects of the conservation question, I fully acknowledge, as one must, that in Australia as well as elsewhere there has been in the community as a whole and the commercial community in particular a serious falling away of interest in and enthusiasm for conservation effort. I remain as frustrated as I think Senator Sir John Carrick was when he was Minister about the Taj Mahal phenomenon in Canberra, as he described it, of lights in buildings being left on all night because of switch systems which were installed in the heady days of low oil prices, in which there is only one switch for a floor or for a building and no one bothers to turn the power off. These essentially small things are indicative of a larger problem, a problem of perception and of will. Since oil prices have gone down again such enthusiasm for conservation as there was in the latter part of the 1970s has fallen away. It is not the case that my Department, which is responsible for this matter at a national level, is at all apathetic about this situation. We have been putting considerable resources, both directly and through the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council program, to get sensible and coherent conservation strategies adopted and the technology transfer that goes with it accepted. In particular, we have endeavoured to get an attitude of enthusiastic willingness to tackle this problem going on the part of both the public and the private sectors. It is a long haul. I do not in any way understate the necessity of keeping our efforts up in this respect. I come finally to the category of alternative fuels and alternative ways of meeting the present liquid fuel supply problem. The first point I want to make concerns liquefied petroleum gas as an alternative to petroleum or as an alternative to ordinary gasoline for vehicles. Senator Sanders —Petrol. Gasoline is American. Senator GARETH EVANS —Nobody has ever got the terminology quite right. Oil is a subset of petroleum. Automotive motor spirit, AMS, is the approved term but nobody says that in the real world. Back in 1980-81 when the LPG program was started, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, the aim was to convert up to 3,000 Commonwealth vehicles to LPG and simultaneously to encourage conversion to occur in the private sector. Price factors and the incentive constituted by lower LPG prices which we have maintained in government have meant that in the private sector there has been a steady program of conversion to LPG by fleet operators, and taxis in particular. I think that program has gone as well over that whole period as anyone could reasonably have expected. But it is perfectly true that the program has petered out at a Commonwealth Government level. There are 200 or 300 vehicles converted, mostly in Australia Post, but there has not been much activity since those conversions. This is simply because of the economics of the situation in that Commonwealth departments do not have to pay excise duty to the Commonwealth, unlike private sector users. The combination of no excise and the sorts of milages that are involved in the pay back period for the investments concerned has meant that the economics have simply not been there to justify conversion. That realisation came upon people-that is, everyone except Senator Sir John Carrick-back in April 1982, a year after the program was introduced, when Senator Sir John Carrick was still the Minister. The program has not petered out under the life of the present Government, but in the last year of operation of the previous Government. It petered out for the reasons I have indicated. The only way we could have revitalised it was through major injection of government funds, which was not something that was seen then as making a hell of a lot of sense. In the context of the now rapidly deteriorating domestic automotive motor spirit situation, with the deterioration of Bass Strait, we may have to look again at the options and incentives that may be needed to encourage additional LPG conversion. That is the reason, and it is a complete misstatement to approach it in the way that Senator Carrick did. I acknowledge what Senator Sanders said about the desirability, in principle at least, of alternative fuel sources-wind, solar, biomass, and so on-as power sources. None of that will prove to be much help in the transport fuel area which essentially this debate has been about. Senator Sanders —Ultimately it is going to be the only fuel. Senator GARETH EVANS —Ultimately could be some considerable distance away, Senator. I think that the honourable senator would have to acknowledge that a lot of research effort has been devoted to that. A lot of government money has been poured into research in the wind area-I indicated in answer to a question the other day just what the sums were-similarly, in biomass and elsewhere. Insofar as hydro is concerned, despite what I think the honourable senator said in passing, there has been government support through the NERDDC grants for Tamar Designs Pty Ltd to help it develop the mini-hydro system. There has been a willingness to contribute in all those ways to the development of alternative sources. However, every hard-headed analysis that has been done in the past and currently suggests that the economics of those alternative systems in an Australian context in particular are simply not such as to sensibly justify resources being devoted to them at this stage. We retain some optimism about the future, but that is premature at this stage. We have to acknowledge that. The gas to gasoline research that is going on attracted a lot of lip curling indignation and cynicism from Senator Sir John Carrick about Mr Wran and the Commmonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and alleged beating up of a non-event. It is true that conversion of gas to gasoline via methanol has been with us for some time; as witness the Maui exercise in New Zealand. The economics of the gas field there are quite lousy at the moment, and certainly it is not transferable technology, in the present price environment, anywhere else, What is going on at CSIRO-with assistance from NERDDC and co-operation from some of the other Australian oil companies-is very exciting indeed; that is, direct conversion of gas to gasoline without going through the familiar tried and not successful, economically, methanol route. Some very exciting research is happening at CSIRO. I have seen it and I have talked to the people. I share Mr Wran's enthusiasm for it. I note the proper caution that the scientists are exercising at this stage, but the reality is that if Australia can get its nose ahead in direct gas to gasoline technology, and it proves up in the way that early experimental results are suggesting, we have before our eyes, potentially, the most dramatic and significant economic discovery of our time, and one that will change around this whole rather gloomy picture that we have been talking about in terms of our liquid fuel problems for the future. As we all know, we do have massive gas resources; we do not have massive crude oil and petroleum resources in that sense. The job for the future so far as alternative transport fuels are concerned is to see what we can do with gas. That is happening as a real consciousness of the priority that needs to be given to this research effort. For Senator Sir John Carrick to dismiss that as some sort of political grandstanding by Mr Wran and as something that is terribly old hat indicates graphically, more than everything else he said in his very long, very generalised and very raving speech, just how out of touch he is with the present energy policy needs of this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.05) —I will be very brief. I do not wish to allude to my potty training and former ties, but I would like to leave the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) with one thought, and that is: Waste not, want not. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 24 February, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.06) —The Opposition does not oppose the Australian Protective Service Bill. However, it would be fair to say that we find certain aspects of it quite extraordinary. Many areas have not been adequately covered in the debate in the other place nor in the speech by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). I hope that we will be able to get a little more information today. My first concern is fairly fundamental: I am not sure how many police forces or law enforcement agencies we need in Australia. To set up yet another one is, I find, quite perplexing. To form another law enforcement agency and to include it in a department which is outside the normal law enforcement area strikes me as even more difficult to understand. As a result, we are left in the situation of trying to establish what is the chain of command when it comes to law enforcement. The easiest way I can explain that is to refer to two particular areas-the two sides of the front steps of Parliament House. I went there one night a couple of weeks ago and saw an Australian Federal Police officer on one side of the steps and an Australian Protective Service officer on the other. I said to the police officer: `What happens here if something goes wrong? Do you give him orders or does he give you orders?' He replied: `As far as I am concerned, he does not exist'. So I went across to the Protective Service officer and said: `Do you take orders from the AFP or do they take orders from you?' He replied: `I haven't the faintest idea. As far as I am concerned, I am on my own'. If that is the case, it is time that we tidied things up. If it is not the case, I believe it is time we informed the officers of both services as to who is in charge or what happens if something goes wrong. I understand that the only reason we have these services is in case something goes wrong. It goes further than that. If one goes to an airport one may see State police on the front steps and Federal police, Protective Service people, or security guards, and Customs officers inside. I am not sure where any of those people fit or who takes orders from whom. I suggest that diversifying the lines of command and the lines of authority must weaken the system tremendously. This situation also leaves gaps in the jurisdiction as to where one starts and where one finishes. Criminals and people with criminal intent have the very happy knack of working out where those gaps are and starting there. It is also the place they go to if they want to organise a bit of corruption; they go right to the edge of the line. I would like to know: At what top level do we get some co-ordination? I would also like to know whether there is some sort of a user pays system for APS services. I would like to know whether the numbers of people who are appointed to various positions are decided upon by the Protective Service or by the department which would like to have protection. Accordingly, if this service is to be provided perhaps it would be a good idea if the customer department knew what the service cost so it could make adequate provision to pay for it. The former Special Minister of State, Mr Young, in his second reading speech in the other place made mention of training. He said that officers of the APS would be well trained in matters of the law and so on. However, `well trained in matters of the law' leaves a certain amount open. I would like to know what law the officers would be trained in, how long these education courses would take, who would conduct them, where they would be conducted and what level of proficiency would be achieved. I would also like to know what fire-arms training officers would have. I will come back to fire-arms later. I would also like to know a bit more about their training in apprehension and search and matters of that sort. The question of the carriage of arms is almost Keystone Cops stuff. We need to consider the question of inter-service transfers. What would be the position if an officer of the Australian Federal Police were able to secure a position of higher rank in the Australian Protective Service or the other way around, not that that is likely to be the case. We need some information on whether this situation is likely, how the rates of pay in the two services will be structured and so on. Concerns have been expressed to me about the powers of the Minister and what he can do. We need to be given more idea of the areas where ministerial discretion and direction will apply. That does not seem to be spelt out very clearly. I realise that the Bill contains a list of laws under clause 13 (2) (a) as to the areas where an offence within the meaning of this Bill can arise. I find quite extraordinary the limits to which the operations of the Protective Service can go. Difficulties will be created by people committing offences in one area and a Protective Service officer saying: `That is nothing to do with me. I am specifically banned from assisting a police officer who may be trying to achieve something if it is outside the realms of what is covered by the Protective Service Act'. Many loose ends seem to be causing concern to people involved in the law area in this respect. Wearing numbers and carrying identity cards is desirable, but it seems to go to quite ridiculous lengths and strengths. To charge a person within one's own organisation a fine of $500 for failing to have his number, unless he has lost it because of the act of another or an unintentional omission, is a sledge-hammer on a gnat. It is ridiculous. The obvious plea will be that it was an unintentional omission. To put a $500 penalty on something from which one could always escape on that ground is absolute nonsense. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has raised the question of the onus of proof in this area. I did not pick up where this matter was discussed in the House of Representatives. It may have been discussed. I would like to know more about it. The fact that arms can be used to protect an officer but are not to be used to make an arrest or to apprehend anybody is a ridiculous definition. I believe that anybody who is given authority to carry a weapon may use that weapon by automatic implication. It applies to criminals. It should apply to law enforcement officers. I cannot see any difference between saying `Yes, you can carry this weapon' and saying `but you cannot use it'. This is quite ridiculous, when one knows that the people one is dealing with may well be armed themselves. I trust that the definition as to what officers can do as far as the protection of property as distinct from people and various things like that are a means of regularising the situation. The statutory recognition that is being sought by the Bill is all right, but I would like the Government to give it a lot more thought and consider what it can do about the major and real operational problems surrounding interdisciplinary matters between services. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(12.13) —in reply-In the last decade several attempts have been made to regularise and legitimise the protective services that are required by the Commonwealth Government. There has been an evolution in this process. I thank the Opposition for its support of the legislation. However, Senator Archer has raised some red herrings. For example, it was Senator Archer's own Government which, some 7 or 8 years ago, moved down the path of distinguishing the roles of a police officer and a protective service officer. The designation of the Commonwealth Police was changed to the Australian Federal Police. There was a protective services component to the new force. So the previous Government-the present Opposition-recognised the need for defining more clearly the roles which need to be played. We live in times when the protection of persons and Commonwealth property is an important function of some public authority. The previous Government recognised that. We have a scarce resource in our police and their responsibilities. Therefore, in a period of violence and white collar crime there is a need for the Australian Federal Police to have their functions and responsibilities defined and any suggestion that the establishment of the Australian Protective Service is merely the establishment of another police force is to be refuted. It has no basis. The establishment of the APS is designed to make certain that the scarce resource of our police is applied in the areas where it is most needed. It was recognised by the previous Government, as it is recognised by this Government, that it is a misuse of a resource for fully trained officers with all the essential skills to be placed purely on guard duty. That does not take away the responsibility of having a specialist protective security service. The issues that have been raised by the Opposition ignore the fact that within the whole security area we have the private security organisations whose responsibilities are not distinctly different from the responsibilities we have here. So it has to be accepted that the APS will not be a law enforcement agency; it will be primarily a protective service agency. To that extent the skills will not be as essential as they are in the other areas of responsibility of the Australian Federal Police. The APS will have a limited law enforcement power, and that is set out very carefully. As the legislation indicates, the APS will not have a concept of rank or discipline to the extent that exists within the Australian Federal Police or, for that matter, all of the other police enforcement agencies. We believe that the existing Public Service disciplinary provisions and the way in which Customs officers and other public servants exercise their disciplinary powers are adequate. Therefore, they will exist in respect of the specialist protective service which is embodied in the proposed Act. So this is not something which is extraordinary or has been plucked out of the air, as it were, by the Government; it is something that has evolved. We believe that in those circumstances the Opposition was correct when it said that it supported the legislation with some reservations. In answer to some of the specific points that have been raised, we do not see that this group of men and women have a responsibility for what might take place outside of the Parliament. That special area still has its designation and responsibility. Consequently, there is a recognition of the need to define the areas in which this group of men and women will carry out their particular functions. Similarly, it is not suggested that the Australian Protective Service group will be involved at airports. We accept that that is a specific area of responsibility where we need a much more highly trained and specialist group. In respect of the matter of training raised by Senator Archer, it will be confined to the roles defined in the Bill, covering firearms, law and security. There is no distinct difference between what the Government envisages in the role to be carried out here and the role of the private security firms. If we accept that they have a defined role and play an important part in the functions of looking after private organisations, we do not believe that there is anything wrong with the Commonwealth adopting the same principles so far as our areas of responsibility are concerned. The Australian Protective Service will be part of the Public Service. Whilst there are obviously some misgivings, we have learnt from the period since 1984 and we will be keeping the matters that have been raised by the Opposition, both in the other place and here, under review. The legislation should be supported, recognising that there are always matters in which changes will take place and that we will keep those matters under review. Should it be necessary, the Government will accept its responsibility to take whatever action is necessary, even legislative action. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.26) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) proposes to put into effect three Government measures. First, for the 1987-88 and subsequent years of income, provisional tax is to be payable by quarterly instalments, rather than one lump sum as is the current practice. The second proposal is to treat as assessable income realised exchange gains, or to treat as an allowable deduction exchange losses, to the extent that these gains or losses are related to the production of assessable income or to the carrying on of a business. The third proposal is to effectively treat dividend distributions in the form of redeemable preference shares as interest rather than as dividend. The Opposition in this debate will rise to express its objection or concern about a number of provisions in relation to each of the three measures I have just mentioned. In relation to that part of the legislation which deals with exchange gains and losses, the Opposition would like to express its concern over the undue discretionary powers which will be vested in the Commissioner of Taxation. In relation to the date on which taxpayers will have to notify the Commissioner of Taxaton of exchange contracts for the purpose of claiming a loss against assessable income, the Commissioner will be given extra discretionary powers. Taxpayers will have to rely on the good grace of the Commissioner of Taxation yet again. We will elaborate on this point in the Committee stage. Another major concern we have with this legislation relates to the redeemable preference share provisions. This measure will ensure that dividends paid on redeemable preference shares and other shares issued as part of a short term financing arrangement for a period of two years or less will not be eligible for the intercorporate dividend rebate but will be tax deductible to the issuing company. This matter was apparently outlined by the Government in a Press release by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 7 April 1986, almost a year ago. It is clear that the terms of this legislation now do not coincide with the intention of that announcement almost a year ago. It is simply untrue, therefore, for the Government to pretend that this legislation simply puts into effect its April 1986 statement. The point I make strongly is that, in relation to redeemable preference share provisions, the legislation effectively seeks to enact measures beyond the scope and meaning of the Treasurer's early Press release. While the Press release stated that the future amendments to the income tax laws would apply to redeemable preference shares issued after 5 p.m. on the date of the Press release last April, the legislation in effect seeks to cover redeemable preference shares issued before that date; hence there is a very real form of retrospectivity. The Government is well aware of our views on retrospective legislation insofar as it relates to matters other than tax evasion measures. We will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage to this part of the Bill, seeking to deny the Government the benefit of this deliberate retrospective effect. We are also greatly concerned with the proposed changes to the provisional tax arrangements. Not only are we particularly concerned that this piece of legislation has been almost 18 months in appearing before this place since it was first proposed by the Government, but also it effectively imposes a $90m cost burden on the business sector-and that is a fairly conservative estimate. The Bills particularly impact on certain sectors of the community which are currently subject to the income averaging provisions in the income tax law which may clearly disadvantage cash flow positions of a number of businesses. The concerns of the business community about the matter we are debating today are best crystallised in a letter of February 1987 from the National Farmers Federation to the Treasurer. It reads in part: The proposed arrangements will result in many primary producers being required to make provisional tax instalments in advance of the accumulation of the taxable income to which the tax applies. This is contrary to the fundamentals of income tax and would be an unjustified imposition on the taxpayer. The provisions applying to primary producers in the proposed arrangements also make no allowance for the unpredictability of primary production income. Seasonal conditions affect both receipts and expenditure to the extent that taxable income cannot be estimated with any reasonable accuracy until the year is well advanced. For example summer storms or fires in a mature crop may totally alter income expectations from one day to the next. Similarly the temperature and rainfall patterns in late summer and autumn can substantially alter expenditure on stockfeed and, cultivation for crops. NFF considers that it is impractical to require primary producers to estimate taxable income any earlier than is currently required. Earlier estimation will necessarily result in substantial errors and over or under payment of tax instalments. The government has recognised through income averaging that separate arrangements are necessary to maintain equity for those taxpayers who have variable incomes. A large majority of those taxpayers using income averaging will also face problems under the proposed provisional tax requirements because of unevenness of income and unpredictability of income. The Opposition will be consequently moving an amendment in regard to these expressed concerns at the Committee stage. At this second reading stage, on behalf of the Opposition, I move: At the end of the motion, add ``, but the Senate- (1) expresses its concern over the excessive delay in the introduction of the legislation, relating as it does to measures announced as long ago as 19 September 1985; (2) deplores the creation of uncertainty and confusion among taxpayers and in the business community due to the failure of the Government to present these and other measures to the Parliament within a reasonable time after their announcement; (3) condemns the Government for imposing an excessive tax burden on business, thus inhibiting new investment in productive enterprises; and (4) further condemns the Government for its mismanagement of the Australian economy which has resulted in: (a) huge increases in food prices, which have increased by 8.6 per cent for the 12 months to December 1986; (b) large increases in the average home loan repayment as a proportion of medium family incomes which proportion, for the September quarter 1986, was 26.7 per cent; (c) falling disposable incomes for the majority of Australians caused by higher taxes as a consequence of taxpayers moving into higher Keating tax brackets; (d) low employment growth and continuing high levels of unemployment; (e) continuing high current account deficits, averaging in excess of $1 billion per month on our balance of payments; and (f) a record level of foreign debt, which has trebled since 1983, is currently approximately $100 billion, and is estimated to increase by a further 50 per cent over the next three years unless Government policies are changed''. One could also add to that motion that we have now been advised by a Minister in this place that interest rates will continue to be excessively high for home owners and home seekers until at least well into 1988. The Bills that this motion is aimed at amending are yet another of the tax reform measures originally announced on 19 September 1985 in the ministerial statement on the reform of the Australian taxation system. If one were not obliged to take this tax reform seriously one would think it was a joke, because taxation reform without taxation relief is not taxation reform at all. It could be easily described as taxation reform via higher tax imposts. The use of the word `reform' when the Government means `change' is simply a part of the propaganda effort by this Government aimed at deluding the Australian people that there has been genuine reform. These Bills could be added to the multitude of others that the Parliament has been required to debate over the last 18 months which, in the main, have increased-not decreased-the tax liability of the business community. A quick reading of these other imposts exposes the lack of seriousness on the part of the Government in its so-called tax reform program. The reality is that that tax reform program was sabotaged by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a deal in a hotel room behind the Treasurer's back in 1985. Other imposts include the imposition of a new fringe benefits tax, the introduction of a capital gains tax, the removal of legitimate entertainment expenses as a tax deductible item, the introduction of new substantiation requirements, the introduction of the foreign tax credit system, the abolition of certain negative gearing provisions in relation to rental property investments and, last but certainly not least, the increase of the company rate of tax from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. All these measures involve an increase in the tax liability of the business sector, not a decrease. Ultimately, however, it is the consumer who pays for these new tax imposts through higher prices for goods and services. Of course, this is the perverse logic of the Government which hopes that these measures will stimulate the business sector somehow to provide greater incentive in the economy. It is strange logic indeed. The plain truth of the matter is that all these new tax imposts are deteriorating the competitiveness of the Australian taxation system and the Australian corporate system. We pay high taxes to fund government expenditure. The end result is an uncompetitive tax system. Investment, employment and economic growth are the casualties. Let me elaborate on the effects of the competitiveness of our tax system on these previously introduced tax imposts. A major contributor to the growing uncompetitive nature of Australia's tax system has been our unacceptably high corporate rate structure. While a number of overseas countries are radically restructuring the corporate tax rate systems to allow a greater undertaking of productive investment in their respective economies, Australia institutes so-called reform in the opposite direction. The maximum corporate tax rate in the United States of America, for example, has been reduced from 46 per cent to 34 per cent, while Australia's has increased from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. The corporate tax regimes in Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also being restructured to provide significant reductions in their rate structures. For example, Canada's proposals call for a reduction in the standard combined federal and provincial tax rates from 46 per cent to 39 per cent; in the small business rate from 25 per cent to 21 per cent; in the rate for manufacturing and processing from 40 per cent to 33 per cent; and the rate for small manufacturing corporations from 20 per cent to 16 per cent. I reiterate for the benefit of all honourable senators sitting opposite-in particular, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who comes from Western Australia-that, while a number of overseas countries are providing for lower nominal rates of corporate tax, Australia is in the unenviable position of increasing its company tax rate from 46 per cent to 49 per cent. Honourable senators may recall the recent visitation to this country of a high level Japanese investment delegation. In discussions with various people around the country the most worrying problem that the leader of the delegation put forward was in relation to the recent corporate tax rate trends that I have just mentioned-of course, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance have been propagating that in a discussion of the competitiveness of Australia's tax system vis-a-vis overseas taxation systems-that there is a need to look beyond the corporate rates of tax. This cannot be denied, although this line of argument adopted by the Government merely shows that it is running scared over this particular element of the tax debate. Of course, the effective corporate rate of tax applying in any country is important. However, it is a mistruth for the Government to put forward spurious statistics and then say that on an effective rate of tax basis, Australia's tax system is just as competitive as those applying in a number of overseas countries such as the US, Japan and Canada. Senator Peter Baume —A mistruth. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —A mistruth; one is not allowed to say the other word in this place. This is simply not true and I suspect that the recent Japanese investment delegation that visited this country will not be fooled by the propaganda fed to it by the Treasurer, and by all indications it appears that this is the case. The argument, of course, can be reversed-that is, if the nominal rate of tax is unimportant in a discussion of tax competitiveness, why did the United States Government decide upon such a large reduction in its corporate rate, from 46 to 34 per cent? Using the Government's twisted logic one can only assume that the United States Government thought it would be nice to have a lower corporate rate structure but that it would not have any investment implications. Of course that is absurd. The United States Government did what it did because it will have a large beneficial impact on investment expectations and hence sustained long term economic growth. The reverse can only be true in Australia. The fringe benefits tax is also a significant contributor to the increasing uncompetitive nature of Australia's tax system. This impost is a tax on employers' cost structures and not on revenue or income derived from carrying on a business. This taxing arrangement is completely abhorrent and contrary to long-standing taxation principles, both here in Australia and overseas. Not only does this tax impost add a few percentage points to the already staggering corporate rate of tax; it also imposes enormous compliance and administrative costs on the business sector as a whole. This all adds up to an effective corporate rate of tax in Australia which in the case of some companies could be as high as 55 to 60 per cent. So much for the assertions of the Treasurer about the real competitiveness of our tax system. The introduction of the capital gains tax is also having a severe impact on the tax-competitive nature of this country. While a number of countries have a form of capital gains tax, it must be remembered that these countries are either traditional or emerging exporters of capital and as such the tax is not an impediment to growth in investment. However, Australia is a net importer of capital and as such we need to generate a tax and economic climate conducive to an inflow of capital investment. Further, these same countries do not have capital gains taxes as severe as Australia now has. While Australia imposes a tax liability on virtually every capital gain, with minimal exceptions, in the case of Canada, for example, there is a cumulative lifetime exemption of $500,000 of capital gains, that is $250,000 of taxable capital gains. In the case of the United States, although the Government recently increased the CGT maximum rate from 20 to 28 per cent, it is significantly lower than the rates applicable to most individuals and all companies in Australia. As an indication of the impact of capital gains tax on Australian corporations and particularly on management and investment companies, the annual report to the Government of its own Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board severely criticises the Government's capital gains tax. The Board's annual report, recently tabled in this place, states: The Board continues to hold a strong view that the development of a large and vital venture capital industry in Australia will be seriously jeopardised while such a high capital gains tax exists. This report, which I regret to say has received no media attention, is a slamming indictment of the Government's capital gains tax. It continues, on page 23: The capital gains tax diminishes the risk-reward ratio. The Board's strong view is that this tax will mitigate the success of the program. It goes on: A related matter of concern is the treatment to be accorded shares owned by MICs on sale. The Board believes these shares which are held for lengthy periods should be treated as capital items. Therefore, of course, they should not be subject to the same degree of tax. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(12.45) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes and provided further that should a division be called for, the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended forthwith till 2 p.m. and the division, if still desired, proceeded with at a later hour of the day. Might I just add, Mr Deputy President, that this motion is in a form which is somewhat different from the form that we have become accustomed to using at 12.45 p.m. in that it provides specifically for a division, should the Senate wish to proceed to one, being postponed until a later hour. We have been operating on the basis that the Chairman or the President controlling such a debate might, if the occasion arose, simply exercise his power to suspend the Senate. But it was felt that in order to institutionalise, as it were, our desire to keep these periods non-contentious we ought to make some specific provision for the lifting of the Senate and the adjournment of any matter that should arise until honourable senators could normally be expected to be present. This has been the subject of discussion between the party leaders and also, I presume, in the party rooms. Certainly it has been considered at the leadership level and the motion is offered by agreement. It is simply designed to formalise a situation which, at the moment, is somewhat unsatisfactory. The President's or the Chairman's power to suspend the Senate has only been exercised in circumstances where either the Senate has been disorderly or it has been desired to lift the sitting for some ceremonial reason-- Senator Colston —Or if there has been a blackout. Senator GARETH EVANS —Or if there has been a blackout, as I am reminded by Senator Colston. What is desired, of course, is a situation where if things blow up-if someone wants to move dissent from a ruling of the Chair, or some other procedural motion is sought to be avoided-rather than the presiding officer's having to exercise a power to suspend the proceeding, we will have institutionalised in the motion that is moved each day a rule whereby when anything occurs which requires a division of any kind that officer will exercise the power conferred by the motion to adjourn and have the division at a later hour. This is a prelude, I would hope, to an ever greater usage of this non-contentious business period than has been the case hitherto in order that, as the session proceeds, we might from time to time perhaps even deal with legislation of a totally non-contentious kind while reserving the right of anyone wishing to call a division to do so without that destroying the character of the period as one at which people need not be present. I hope that with that explanation of this new form of motion, we can proceed to the discussion. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.48) —Mr Deputy President, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) has been very reasonable in giving his explanation. However, I would observe that questions relating to sessional orders or standing orders are matters on which there is no party whip; that they are in the hands of honourable senators themselves. There may have been discussion-the honourable senator says that there has been-with other parties and I do not question that. I would like simply to say to him that I do not intend to suggest opposition to the motion, but intend to take it back to my colleagues to see whether they are happy with one that would come up regularly each week. It would be possible, for example-I take a worst case scenario-for someone who wished to stop this debate from occurring simply to move that a matter be adjourned, or to move some procedural motion that may require a division that would have the effect of requiring that the proceeding be lifted. I intend to support Senator Gareth Evans today but take the matter back to my colleagues and indicate to him that there may be a need for further negotiation later. What he is suggesting is obviously reasonable. I just need to look at it in case it contains any hidden hooks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.49) —Mr Deputy President, the matter that I intend to raise this afternoon has been mentioned before by me in this chamber. I refer honourable senators who may be interested to pages 2622-3 of the Senate Hansard of 8 May 1986. I am compelled to raise the matter once again because there are certain people working in the Queensland Department of Education who are perfectly content to defame me in order to further their career prospects. I stress that these people are few but that does not excuse their actions. If I may be permitted to digress I would like to mention that I spent about 11 enjoyable years with the Queensland Department of Education. I taught at the primary and secondary levels and later worked as a guidance officer. In these capacities I formed many friendships with teachers and educational administrators throughout the State. In my travels as a senator for Queensland I have often had the opportunity to renew these friendships. Because of this it pains me to mention the actions of a few in that Department but I would be remiss if I did not do so. The matter that I raise this afternoon had its source in some remarks that were made in Queensland about the wearing of school uniforms in state schools. Although there are no regulations which permit educational administrators to compel the wearing of school uniforms, many attempt to insist that students in their schools should do so. The fact that their actions are not lawful does not concern them. When I made comments to this effect the Minister for Education in Queensland, Mr Powell, took exception. I understand that the Queensland Parliament has a similar standing order to our standing order 418, which prohibits the use of offensive remarks against members of Australian parliaments. However, that provision of the Queensland Parliament seems to be breached with impunity. Therefore in criticising my comments Mr Powell accused me of, amongst other things, `attempting to mischievously ferment trouble and rebellion in Queensland's schools'. He also said that I had `engaged in a disgraceful display symptomatic of the Left Wing's trends to undermine traditional values of authority and responsibility'. Mr Powell's assertions are absolute rubbish. Far from inciting rebellion in Queensland schools, all I was attempting to do was to set out what was the legal position in relation to the wearing of uniforms in the State's government schools. Mr Powell's comments were made under parliamentary privilege and even though he abused that privilege I have no recourse to any legal remedy for his defamatory comments. It was my original intention to ignore his remarks for the idiotic vitriol that they are, but subsequent events have convinced me that I should make some comment myself. After speaking in the State Parliaments Mr Powell issued a media release repeating his remarks about me and going on to imply that, although there was no way to compel students to wear uniforms, if a particular uniform had been chosen for their school students should wear it. Apparently that media release was circulated to Queensland state schools. The first evidence I saw to suggest that was its reproduction in a secondary school newsletter which was distributed to parents of a large secondary school on the south side of Brisbane. I mentioned that matter in this chamber on the occasion referred to earlier. It has been brought to my notice that Mr Powell's media release was recently handed to a student in a near-Brisbane state high school. The message in the release was meant for the information of the student or the student's parents, or both. That particular student could not wear the school uniform for financial reasons but was being pressed by the school to obtain and wear it. Because it is official ministerial policy to ignore the regulations to the State Education Act and illegally insist on uniforms, some teachers apparently see their advancement prospects improved if they too insist on their students wearing a uniform. I am sure that the issue will blow up one day when a courageous parent takes on a school or officers of the Department of Education. An interesting case occurred recently in New South Wales, where a parent took a similar matter to the Ombudsman and won his case. But before that happens I would issue this warning to those who would like to hand out Mr Powell's media release together with its defamatory statements about me: Mr Powell can say what he likes under the privilege of Parliament but there are doubts whether that privilege still holds for an educational administrator who distributes defamatory material. If this material is again used in the way I have described I shall consider taking legal action. The vast majority of teachers in the Queensland Department of Education are far too decent to contemplate distributing Mr Powell's release. But those who are tempted to do so I invite to reflect that legal action may result. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(12.55) — Today I propose to speak about the anticipated movement of the Royal Australian Navy fleet base to Jervis Bay. Jervis Bay is a beautiful area which has somehow been spared the rampant development of the rest of the coast. Actually, it has been spared because of the Federal ownership, which has kept the area somewhat free of excessive development. But now, of course, the Navy itself is anticipated to move in and cause great changes in the area. There are two areas of concern to the local people of Jervis Bay. One is in the northern part, where the ammunition depot is going. The other is in the southern part, where the RAN fleet base will be located. The ammunition depot will be installed at a place called Green Point. Green Point is not only a beautiful area but also the most sacred of the sacred sites of the local Aboriginal people. It has great significance for their origins, their legends and their whole culture. To emplace an ammunition depot there would be like putting a sewerage works in the middle of St Paul's Cathedral. It would be an act of total desecration. The mere placement of an ammunition depot anywhere flies in the face of reality in terms of modern warfare. The Navy's planners must still be thinking in terms of World War II ships, which required massive stores of ammunition and shells for ballistic weapons. In fact, modern warships are equipped with smart weapons. They do not have as many munitions on board simply because the weapons that they do have are far more accurate and the guided missiles with which they are equipped carry far less explosive material and can, of course, do far more damage. The other thing, I have been informed by knowledgeable people in the Navy, is that these ships require munitioning approximately only every two years. In that case it would make perfectly good sense to be able to just load the munitions needed where the ships are. They could be hauled by rail, truck or even air to other ports such as Newcastle, even Wollongong which is quite close, or up and down the coast, for instance Cairns. The Western Australian area will be used for munitions loading. These things should be taken into account. There is probably no real reason at all to put an ammunition depot at Jervis Bay. The other consideration relates to the RAN fleet base. This will be put down near a stretch of beach called the Green Patch, which is in one of the most beautiful areas of the New South Wales coast. It is an area of coast which has great significance, fond memories, for many. The people of the area and visitors from as far away as Canberra have used the beach for years and yet it is now planned to put a $1 billion development there. That would, of course, massively affect not only the beach but also the ecology of the bay itself and the total development of the region. It would seem that the Government is running a major scam in relation to this project. I have it on good information that tomorrow a $1m contract for a project, one which does not yet exist, will be granted to a firm to conduct an environmental impact study. I say that the project does not exist because no plans have been drawn up for facilities upon which one could base an EIS. There are simply no plans in existence. As far as we can determine no staff resources are engaged in master planning work or investigation for either the fleet base relocation study or the armament depot project. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) has not, up to this time at least, given any formal notice, or tabled any papers, involving a notice of intention for the fleet base relocation project. Also he has not outlined any guidelines developed by his Department for the conduct of the EIS. No notice of intention has been given. Yet tomorrow, we are told, a firm will be awarded a $1m contract to conduct an EIS on this project. It would appear that the firm will conduct some sort of an EIS, will determine that Jervis Bay is indeed the place to put the ammunition depot and the fleet base relocation project and then, since $1m has already been spent by the Government on the EIS, the project will go ahead. It looks to me as if the EIS will be a sham. It will be merely an excuse for the Government to do what it wants to do anyway, which is to desecrate what is presently a relatively unspoiled patch of the environment. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.01) —Mr Deputy President, today I want to raise a serious case of sexual harassment, in this case related to unwanted and repeated remarks within employment-actually Commonwealth employment. The victim was an operator working in a community youth support scheme and was one of my constituents. She failed to obtain relief even though she sought it through all the mechanisms established by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) and the suggestions made were of a personal, aggressive, repeated and sexual nature. It was really quite a serious and upsetting situation. Such harassment is, of course, part of a pattern of behaviour that is seen too often, one that I think no one in this Parliament would condone. It is one that members of the Opposition, the Government, indeed all parties, would refuse to tolerate when visited on their constituents. It is one about which we will always speak out in the Parliament. The Government has made great play of the importance of the Sex Discrimination Act. Senator Ryan claimed quite recently that the Act does offer protection to victims of discrimination. Perhaps it offers some protection but it contains deficiencies and my constituent, Mrs Marie Wharton, who lives in the Illawarra and worked at the Warilla CYSS, has failed to obtain relief. I remind the Senate, Mr Deputy President, that in the final report of the Human Rights Commission, Commissioner Pamela O'Neill of the Sex Discrimination Commission claimed: Under the inspiring leadership of Dame Roma Mitchell, the Human Rights Commission has established the Sex Discrimination Act as an effective opponent of discrimination. But the sexual harassment and discrimination experienced by my constituent, Mrs Marie Wharton, makes these words sound so hollow. It is people like her who really have to be able to obtain protection and relief if the Act is to work properly and be something other than mere symbolism. Mrs Wharton first approached me on 17 December 1986. She came to ask for help because I was the Opposition spokesman on matters relating to the status of women. She claimed to have suffered sexual harassment and discrimination while working as an employee of Warilla CYSS which, I remind the Senate, is an agency funded by and part of the apparatus of government-at this stage, the Labor Government. After the events occurred and before Mrs Wharton came to me, she first quite properly raised the substance of the matter with the management committee of the Warilla CYSS. She raised it then with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and, finally, with the Human Rights Commission. She sought several things. She sought recognition that sexual harassment and discrimination had occurred. She sought an apology from a Mr Bill Kerr, the person against whom the complaint was made. She sought compensation for the time during which she had been off work without pay pending resolution of the matter. They are not unreasonable things to have sought. Senator Ryan —I have to leave the chamber now but I would just like to say by way of interjection that I will take the record of what Senator Peter Baume is saying and make sure that the Human Rights Commission looks at the matter again. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Minister for her interjection. The response of the management committee of Warilla CYSS to the complaint made by Mrs Wharton was, first, to play the matter down-to try to ignore it-and then when she insisted that there was a problem and action should be taken, to put her off without pay. She was laid off from her job for about a year. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner did attempt to conciliate the matter but failed because the person against whom the complaint was laid, Mr Kerr, was not prepared to sign any statement admitting that harassment or discrimination had occurred, and apologise for it. Therefore the matter went before the Human Rights Commission. Mrs Wharton was eventually pressured-a settlement was made by her legal representatives-into settling the matter because, she was told, the Commission was imminently to be wound up and that otherwise the matter would go round all over again and might never be determined. She was told that there was a lack of time in which to hear the matter. Honourable senators will recall that the Human Rights Commission was indeed wound up. The events before the Commission took place shortly before that happened. I want to make two points about the settlement. Firstly, I am advised that one of the main reasons why time was not available to hear the matter was that there was a deliberate strategy on the part of the Federal Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and its lawyers to take technical legal points repeatedly to prevent the substance of the matter being dealt with. It was delayed and delayed because of intervention by this Labor Government's own lawyers from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, intervention which made it almost impossible for Mrs Wharton to have her case dealt with. The length of time that it would have taken to resolve these points was a factor in preventing a hearing taking place when there was still time for the Commission to deal with it other than in a hurried way. So it is not good enough for Senator Ryan to put through the Parliament a Sex Discrimination Act to champion women's rights if her colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, administers a department whose lawyers do their best to frustrate and thwart the operation of the Act when people who have been harassed seek relief and the enforcement of the rights so provided. The second point that I want to make is that I can understand why Mrs Wharton finds the settlement unsatisfactory. The supposed admission and apology obtained were so weak as to be meaningless. I will not read the relevant part but it is a meaningless statement which does not in fact acknowledge that the harassment took place. That is the central point that she wants recognised. I am surprised that the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Dame Roma Mitchell, could say of the settlement: The mark of a good settlement often is that nobody is completely satisfied that right has been done. I have got no doubt this is a good settlement on that basis. I wonder about the usefulness of having a Human Rights Commission if this is how it performs-if it seeks, as a good settlement, one that leaves nobody completely satisfied that right has been done. I have looked as much as I have been able at the primary material available. It indicates that a Mr Kerr did repeatedly harass Mrs Wharton. In that case I cannot accept that the settlement reached is either reasonable, fair or adequate. In my view a good settlement should resolve a matter in favour of the person who is in the right. The Commission should have worked towards such a settlement. Instead Mr Kerr seems to have escaped without rebuke or loss of pay while Mrs Wharton has had a year off work and much stress, strain and pressure because of the harassment described. Her life has been greatly disturbed. I now want to detail the harassment involved to set on the public record what Mrs Wharton has had to endure and the inadequate way in which the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has responded-in fact, the way in which it has sought to frustrate any attempt to get relief. The information that I have obtained clearly shows that a Mr Kerr, who worked at the Warilla CYSS, did harass and discriminate against Mrs Wharton. If the Sex Discrimination Act is to mean anything at all Mr Kerr should have been made to admit this harassment and required to apologise for it. Mrs Wharton had to step down from her job in early 1985 after she complained about the harassment, which had intensified during the previous year, 1984. Although Mrs Wharton was not physically harassed, touched or worried in that way, she experienced the sort of oral harassment that some men still feel is fair play and believe that they can subject women to. It is very unpleasant; it is the sort of thing which should be stamped out if women are to get a fair go in the work place. I have a detailed statement from Mrs Wharton setting out the type of discrimination and harassment that she has experienced. I have supporting statements from several of her co-workers, Phyllis Jean King, Catherine Elizabeth Allen and Kathleen Lorraine Perry, which demonstrate the type of harassment that was undertaken by Bill Kerr. I have also obtained some very good character references concerning Mrs Wharton. I have met her on several occasions. I have no doubt that she is a person of good character and I must say that she is a very credible person. I believe that she is telling me the truth. In her statement Mrs Wharton alleges that Mr Kerr regularly, not once but regularly, made the following kinds of statements to her: `Do you have orgasms?'-I might interpolate that that is none of his business; `You are here on your own with two men; we could rape you'; `Was having a baby like having a giant orgasm?'; `Don't you fancy sex with someone else or don't you fancy a bit on the side?'. In addition, she refers to Mr Kerr's action in putting certain X-rated videos on in front of several of the employees. I will not set out the details of what some of those X-rated videos included. There are many other examples in her statement of the behaviour which took place in the Warilla CYSS. They do represent the form of harassment and discrimination that was directed towards the female workers of that organisation. In a statement of which I have a copy Mrs Phyllis Jean King said this about Bill Kerr: I think he was preoccupied by sex. He constantly talked about sex. I accept that some talk about sex can be inoffensive but most of what he said was offensive. Bill often said to me words to the following effect: `Do you play around, Jean?' Her statement goes on to corroborate many of the other accusations made by Mrs Wharton. The statement of Catherine Elizabeth Allen makes the following points about Mr Bill Kerr and his actions: Bill made a lot of offensive comments to me. He asked questions about sex that other people would not ask. I heard Bill make a few sexual remarks to Marie'- that is Mrs Wharton- but I cannot remember them. Kathleen Lorraine Perry says in her statement about Bill Kerr: Bill has asked me questions of a sexual nature on about six occasions since I have been at the centre. He said words of the following effect to me: `Do you get bored being with one fellow all these years?'. Having read these statements about Mrs Wharton's good character, my personal conclusion is that she was harassed, that she has been discriminated against by Mr Kerr in the way she claimed and that she has failed to obtain relief by following the procedures laid down under the Sex Discrimination Act; further, that this is due, at least in part, to the resistance and opposition which came from within the Federal department concerned, which did its best to thwart the investigation and resolution of this matter. I am disappointed that mechanisms such as those provided under the Act, mechanisms such as recourse to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission, have not given Mrs Wharton the relief to which I believe she is entitled. She has not received an apology; she has been offered but has not yet received compensation. Even so there has not been any adequate compensation for being put off work as a result of complaints that she made about what had happened to her. I am grateful to Senator Ryan for her interjection to the effect that she will look into this matter. I believe that this person has not been treated fairly. The Whartons have used their life savings to meet the legal expenses associated with having this matter heard. The nervous stress has been continuous and extreme. Mrs Wharton's employment has been jeopardised. There has been much publicity in the Illawarra region, a lot of it of a fairly adverse nature and not helpful to her. All she wants is that those people among whom she lives should know that her complaint was well based, was justified, that she was harassed and is entitled to an apology. I have given the Senate her account and that of several of her co-workers. I would say in conclusion that I have also met Mr Wharton. It is very good to see a couple offering mutual support as they have done. He has stood by her throughout. It is a pity that the Department did not see its way clear to do its duty in this matter as it should have done. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(1.16) —Much has been said over the last couple of weeks-sadly I suppose only by the Opposition and not the Government or the media-about the plight of the Australian economy. I wish to make it quite clear today that the plight of the farmer is not better, in fact, it is sadly worse, than that of many other sectors of the nation, in particular in my State of Western Australia. Just some brief facts: Farm terms of trade have fallen disastrously. The debt burden on broadacre farms remains horrific. In Western Australia such farms are in worse crisis, the figure being higher than that of the national average. Farm incomes continue to deteriorate, all thanks of course to the economic and industrial policies of this Hawke socialist Government. That is the sad thing about it. Nothing is being done at the moment to alleviate the plight of the farmer by way of this Government initiating further policies. Bureau of Agricultural Economics statistics provide some very sobering facts. The terms of trade declined by 8.1 per cent in 1985-86. In 1986-87 they are predicted to decline by a further 2 to 3 per cent. That might sound bad, but in Western Australia farmers are looking down the barrel at an 11 per cent figure. Overall crop prices declined 0.6 per cent nationally, but in Western Australia they declined 3.7 per cent. Livestock returns declined by less than one per cent nationally but in Western Australia they declined by more than 3 per cent. Total slaughterings were down nationally by 3.6 per cent but in Western Australia they were down by over 10 per cent. In respect of prices paid, the index for Western Australia was slightly above the appalling national average but in terms of prices received we were 3.4 per cent worse off. Western Australian farmers paid significantly more for fertilisers, for services and for overheads, each of these costing nearly 2 per cent above the national average. I just do not consider that good enough. It is not good enough for the Australian farmers but, as I say, more particularly the Western Australian farmers are really having a battle. In 1985-86 Australian farmers paid an extra 13.6 per cent for fertiliser, 11 per cent for machinery and over 10 per cent in rates and taxes. The biggest hike, of course, has been in interest payments-a massive 28 per cent increase. Twenty-eight per cent! As we now know, interest rates of any kind are not likely to be going down in the near future. If interest rates had not been kept so high by this Government in order to protect the dollar, the decline in farm terms of trade would have been less than 2 per cent. That, of course, equates to a cut of about a quarter. An extra 8 per cent cut in interest rates, taking them to the levels enjoyed by our major trading partners, would save each Australian farmer $6,400 per annum. Let us look at the total debt of Australia's 170,000 farmers. This totalled $8 billion in 1986, up from $7.2 billion in the previous year but, more drastically, $3.7 billion in 1980. That is a disgraceful record for this Government. How the farmers can ever hope to survive and earn a decent living, I am blowed if I know. No government should be proud of this achievement, least of all this Government and, as I have said, I wish that it would take some initiatives to reduce the total debt suffered by farmers at the moment. In 1984 the average farm paid $6,000 per annum in interest. In 1985 the figure was up to over $11,000. At the same time there was a drop of over 22 per cent in farm incomes. It should be a real concern to this Government, and to all of us, that the ratio between long term and short term debt has changed. In June 1984 26 per cent of borrowings was in such short-term areas as overdrafts. But the figure rose to 43 per cent in 1985, suggesting a shift away from borrowing for expansion, to purely and simply borrowing money for survival. That is a drastic situation for any business to be in. Some 15 months ago the general economics manager of the National Australia Bank stated that 35,000 farmers were caught in a spiral of rising debt and of falling, if not static, income level. How can they continue to cope with that? That gentleman went on to say that a quarter of those 35,000 were in deep trouble. Nothing has changed in that 15 months since, except that the number has grown. Western Australian producers carry a debt burden far above the national average as well. On 17 October 1986 in the West Australian it was stated that 20 per cent of Western Australian farmers were in crisis. According to a survey by the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, 3,000 producers had debts averaging over $200,000. In December the conference of the PGA was told that Western Australian farmers' debts were 70 per cent above the national average, the average debt carried by grain growers rising to $230,000 and the average interest bill being $41,000. A week later the President of the Western Australian branch of the Association of Agricultural Consultants stated that 1,500 Western Australian farmers were in serious financial trouble and would have to quit the industry within five years. The picture painted in the Weekend Australian on 14 February, describing the slow death of the wheat belt community of Mollerin, shows all too well what is happening to our farming communities throughout Australia. Many of the loans that the farmers are now confronted with were negotiated some time ago at rates below 9 per cent. These are vastly different from the rates of over 18 per cent now being experienced. These, in turn, should be compared to rates in Britain of around 11 per cent and in the United States of 7.5 per cent. Western Australian farmers, as I have been able to prove, are the foremost victims of Labor's policy of favouring high interest rates. Not enough Australians, I believe, are aware that many farmers' incomes are lower than those which prevailed during the 1982-83 drought; that during 1985-86 there was a 52 per cent decline in farm cash operating surplus. The average income for Australia's wheat farms in 1983-84, when this Government was busily taking credit for breaking the drought, was $41,000. The figure fell to $17,000 in 1984-85 and, according to last year's annual BAE farm surveys report, was projected to be minus $7,500 for 1985-86. More recent figures from the BAE that include crops other than wheat show a decline from $12,500 to minus $70 in 1985-86, and a projected rise to $2,200 in the current year. That is no thanks, of course, to the Government. It is simply the result of a better season. Again, the average income projected for Australia's 91,000 broad- acre farms was $4,300. That just happens to be less than the social security income of an unemployed 18-year-old who receives benefits for 12 months. A farmer working for a full year cannot earn as much as that young person receives. Again, the BAE report showed the relative disadvantage that is suffered by 11,700 Western Australian farmers producing crops and livestock in the same category. Their income was projected to be $10,000 less than the national average. It was the incredible figure of minus $5,900. The 3,200 wheat farms in Western Australia were said to be facing an average income of minus $31,000 in comparison with a national average of minus $7,500. Even if the final figures are less drastic, the hardship is clearly inescapable because the average interest bill on these same farms is $27,400 compared with a national figure of $15,300. If we bear in mind that the interest bill on wheat farms in Western Australia is now running at $41,000, the statistics reinforce the evidence of the destructiveness of the Australian Labor Party's interest rate policies. What a lot of people in Australia do not understand is that an Australian farm provides food and fibre for nearly 300 people, compared with a United States farm which supplies 200 people. That in itself is a very solid indication of the efficiency of our rural sector. As a Liberal senator, I believe that no responsible government can stand by and let market forces shake out all of the rural problems. I also recognise that there are limits to what governments can and should do, but we have here a sector of our economy that earns 37 per cent of export income, directly supports half a million Australians and, per farm, subsidises other sectors by, perhaps, $25,000 per year in return for public support that is worth $4,500 a year. It is not the fault of the Government that Australia suffers from world-wide overproduction and rural dumping long practised by the European Economic Community and now copied by the United States of America. But it is the fault of this Hawke Government in that it pursues policies that add to the problems of our rural economy and uses interest rates as a tool of economic policy in preference to enforcing real spending cuts. That is probably the prime example of its failure. The national wage rises that this Government insists on granting all the time are just crippling the rural sector, which simply cannot afford them. That is borne out by the 12 per cent level of unemployment among Australia's 119,000 farm wage workers. Unfortunately, many of those young people are simply vanishing from Western Australian farms because the operators cannot afford to pay them. Low-paid rural workers who are priced out of jobs are as much victims of our wages system as are farmers who suffer greater damage indirectly as wage costs pervade the economy and freight and import costs, which no farmer can possibly hope to escape continue to rise. Farm taxes and charges have risen by 87 per cent since 1980-87 per cent-compared with the 14 per cent rise in farm prices and the 131 per cent rise in interest rates. If anyone in the Government is really serious about making sure that the rural sector of our community in Australia survives, something obviously has to be done about interest rates. The rise in fuel excise which has occurred under this Government-from 6.1c to nearly 20c a litre-affects 40 per cent of fuel bills on farms where petrol is used instead of distillate. It also naturally increases road and rail transport costs. Government charges and labour costs have since 1981 caused an average rise of 51 per cent in the cost of hauling wheat. Increases in inspection costs of 200 per cent under the Hawke Government have added another unnecessary burden on our rural producers. Despite some moves by this Government to reduce protection, the indirect cost of protection can still be estimated at $9,000 per farmer. Late last year this Government again, in my opinion, showed its lack of concern for farmers by withdrawing subsidies for those important fertilisers that are essential for conditions in the eastern wheat belt of Western Australia, where farmers already face immense financial difficulties. A Liberal government cannot promise to create overseas export markets but it can and will lower interest rates, fight wage rises that destroy international competitiveness and stop taxing the rural sector to death. It will make an effort that the Hawke Government certainly is not attempting to make at the moment and has not attempted to make in the past. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.30) —I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a matter which affects certain members of the printing industry in the Australian Capital Territory. There are about 50 or 60 printing firms, small business firms in the Territory. Many work for the Government from time to time and have contracts with it. There is in existence a yearly contract for which printers tender. They are then ranked in order, according to the discount or quotes that they have given the Government and that have been accepted by it. Some give an additional discount for the payment of accounts within 30 days. That also can have an effect on the ranking of the printing firms which are awarded the contracts to which I have referred. This year I understand that seven printers have received notification that their tenders have been accepted and have been advised of their order of ranking. I have seen a copy of one such letter which reads: Your tender for quickprint document reproduction over a period commencing from the 1st March, 1987 and terminating on the 29th February 1988 has been accepted. It goes on to disclose the ranking of the particular firm and gives a number of other instructions to the printer, the successful tenderer, as to what is to occur from then on. But a few days ago the successful tenderers were advised by the Government Printing Office that the contract was to be retendered with the additional discount excluded; that this was to occur from 1 March. I understand that it has since been said that the contract will run for three months and then be retendered. That, I suggest, is even more curious. The seven printers who have the contracts are, of course, somewhat bemused and concerned. One might say, Mr Deputy President, that they could sue for breach of contract but I am sure that most honourable senators would have some idea of just how costly it is for a small business firm to attempt to take on the Commonwealth Government in this way. The matter would not be resolved for some considerable time and the procedure would be extremely costly. They could not afford it in any event, nor should they be required to when they already have contracts-where there has been an offer, it has been accepted, the contract has been put into writing and there is no reason for any of the firms to feel that they cannot continue for the next 12 months on the basis of that contract. I would like the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) to ascertain, if he will, what is going on at the Government Printing Office and to inform us why these contracts, which were properly let, are now to be retendered. I also have information from printers as to the problems they are having in being paid. Not all departments are as slow as others. I understand that the Department of Immigration is the best and pays accounts within 23 days but that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations takes from 73 to 83 days, the Department of Transport about 69, and the Department of Housing and Construction about 52. I wonder why that should be the case. Printers tender for work on a competitive basis and at the best possible price that they can offer. As I have said, a number offer additional discounts if, in fact, an account is paid within 30 days but more often than not that additional discount, which would represent a saving to the Government, is lost because the account is not paid within that time. I know that the matter has come up before, I have heard it mentioned in the Senate, but the practice seems to continue. Small businesses, which have tendered at competitive rates, expect to be paid within 30 days but are not being paid. They have to wait for their money and in these days of extremely high interest rates, when they have other commitments for mortgages and in general running their families, they cannot continue in that way. So there are two matters that I raise today as affecting a significant portion of small businesses in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask: What is going on with these contracts and why cannot the Government not only pay its accounts on time but also pay them frequently and thus pay at a lower rate than is being paid now? Sitting suspended from 1.35 to 2 p.m. Senator ARCHER —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction acknowledge the appalling current problems of housing Australians and the situation of both buyers and renters caused by record and rising interest rates, the consumer sell-off of rental housing following the introduction of the capital gains tax and other measures, rapidly rising waiting lists for government rental housing and inflationary new house costs caused by the drop in the value of the Australian dollar? What will be done about this? Senator RYAN —I do not acknowledge the claims made in Senator Archer's question. If Senator Archer or members of the Opposition want a full statement on the housing industry I would be very pleased to oblige and provide one at an appropriate time. But, in short, I do not agree with the allegations made in Senator Archer's question. Senator BOLKUS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I ask the Minister whether he has seen an article on the front page of today's Courier-Mail titled `Australia in big trouble, Sir Joh tells Japanese'. Is it a fact that this article reports Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as having authorised a statement which criticised the Australian Government and economy to be sent to an estimated 100 Japanese Press officers? Does the statement say that Australia has militant trade union leaders and high taxes, that there is little confidence in the Australian dollar and that, further, Australia has not yet begun to have a sustained economic recovery? Does it also state that the visit to Tokyo next week of Sir Joh, `Australian's best known politician', takes on added significance following Sir Joh's recent announcement that he will enter Federal politics and challenge for the position of Prime Minister? Does the Minister agree with Sir Joh's views? I also ask what, in his view, will be the likely effect of this statement on Australia's ability to secure productive investment from Japan? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the actual statement which was issued by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Japan. I have seen Press reports of it. This morning I heard a radio program in which the Premier articulated some of the views which he has expressed in the Press statement released in Japan. Incidentally, I also heard Mr Tom McVeigh of the National Party of Australia saying on the same program that he had done a telephone poll of his friends around Australia and that they all wanted Sir Joh to be leader of the National Party and to get rid of the coalition. But that is a different problem and one to which people other than I have to address their minds. Let me say that Sir Joh, in this statement issued in Japan, behaved scandalously for anybody who purports to be an Australian citizen. The statement was made with one thing in mind-the furtherance of the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. It was not made with the national interests of this country in mind and it was not made for the point of furthering the economic objectives of this country; it was made for the singularly selfish political interest of the Premier of Queensland. This sort of thing has not happened since last year when a Liberal member of parliament in Western Australia, Mr Ross Lightfoot, tendered similar advice to the United States of America Administration about subsidies for United States wheat farmers which would be terribly damaging to Australian farmers. We have not seen anything like this in Australia since that incident last year. Of course, Mr Ross Lightfoot is not a significant politician in Australia. Sir Joh, in his Press release, has described himself as `Australia's best known politician'. To be Australia's best known politician is not necessarily a commendation. To be Australia's best statesman might be a commendation but Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen nowhere aspires, one would hope, to be Australia's best statesman. He may be the best politician, but that is a totally different thing. This Government, I believe with bipartisan support from the Liberal Party, has placed a great deal of importance on investment in Australia from Japan and Europe. That is necessary in the process of restructuring Australian industries and it is very important to this country. When we had an investment mission from Japan last month and in the investment mission to Japan in November last year we emphasised a number of things which were changes in direction in Australian policy and improvement in a wide range of industry performances in Australia. We emphasised the industrial strength of this country and we emphasised political stability as being important in Australia in the context of international recognition of desirable improvements in the Australian economy. The remarks made by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen suggest to foreign governments an extraordinary degree of political instability, which we might be used to in Australia in the light of his recent utterances but which the Japanese and others are not used to. I identify Senator Boswell as one of the lieutenants of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in this place. He is somebody that the Liberal Party has to take notice of. He constitutes the new think tank in this Parliament for the Liberal Party as well as for the National Party. I say to Senator Boswell that two months ago Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was in Turkey trying to sell an Australian power station and Queensland coal to the Turkish Government. What was he saying in Turkey two months ago? He said that we would guarantee security of supply, we would guarantee delivery, that it would be the best power station that the Turks could ever imagine and that the performance of Australian industry in building this power station would be remarkable. Those are the sorts of things he was saying in Turkey in January. Yet now, in pursuit of his own political position and in his desire to make an international stunt as distinct from an Australian stunt, he is saying exactly the opposite. I find it extraordinary that anybody who calls himself an Australian could say things like this. He has undermined the efforts of numerous governments in this country to enhance the international reputation of Australia; again, I say, in pursuit of a singular political ambition. I wonder whether he will tell people in Japan about his record as a manager of the Queensland economy. I wonder whether he will tell them that last week he was criticised by a business community committee in Queensland and by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Sallyanne Atkinson, for strangling private enterprise in Queensland with red tape. That is what they said last week about him. I wonder whether he will tell them that Queensland has the highest job vacancy rate in Australia; the second lowest growth rate; the greatest fall in the number of residential buildings commenced; the highest fall in the number of motor vehicles registered; and a falling household income per capita. Senator Chaney —I am going to ask you to table that paper. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney wants me to table this paper because the contents of this paper will be very important to Senator Chaney as Sir Joh sets about wrecking the coalition and supplanting John Howard and Ian Sinclair-in one case the Mickey Mouse leader of the Liberal Party and in the other case the old bag of the National Party-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. I ask that those two references to Mr Howard and Mr Sinclair be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Senator Button, under standing order 418 I ask you to withdraw those two references. Senator BUTTON —I certainly withdraw them, Mr President. If I might come back to the central point-I do not want to cause undue anxiety on the Opposition benches about their new-found political partner-it is an extraordinary performance for a man who aspires to enter national politics in this country to denigrate this country publicly in Japan, a denigration which will go around the world as a contribution of, as he describes himself, `Australia's best known politician'. Senator Lewis —Is your Minister under attack? Is that your problem? Is that why you are going for 10 minutes? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis wants to ask some parochial question about housing interest rates which I concede is very important. The honourable senator's interjection just makes the point that it is not important compared with the major economic issues facing this country, which relate to the exchange rate and the trade balance. They will be with any government here for a long time. They are things that governments have to deal with as the prime issues facing this country. The point I want to make in conclusion is that this country is well served by steady governments following steady directions. Senator Walters —Downhill all the way. Senator BUTTON —There is Senator Walters, the noisy one. There is not one serious economic commentator in Australia who does not say that the road ahead is very difficult for any government, but the right directions are being followed in terms of these issues. Those directions should not be sabotaged by this performer from the northern State. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by saying that for a Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to describe the issue of interest rates as parochial and not related to the prime issues facing Australia shows an extraordinary lack of comprehension of the real problems that face investors in this country. I refer the Minister to claims by the Minister for Finance that the interest rate briefing note, prepared by Dr Hawkins of the Department of Housing and Construction, is out of date and written by an officer without access to the major sources of economic advice to the Government. I ask the Minister: Is the Government saying that it is receiving different advice on interest rates from other sections of the Public Service, such as Treasury and bodies such as the Reserve Bank of Australia? If so, will the Government table that advice and, in particular, any advice which supports the claim made by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives just over a week ago that `we look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987'? Senator BUTTON —I cannot give an answer as to whether that advice will be tabled or not, but I certainly take Senator Chaney's question on board. I think the point is that the officer who prepared the briefing note clearly has a view about interest rates. There are other views within the bureaucracy; there are other views within the joint economic forecasting group; there are other views within Treasury; and there are others within the economist community of Australia. For example, at the National Economics Conference, which was held in Victoria a week or so ago, the majority of the economists did not share the view expressed in that housing minute. I think they are important contributors to the debate about this issue. So there are a variety of views and the question of tabling all this advice or otherwise is a matter which we can consider. I go back to the initial part of Senator Chaney's question. I was talking about housing interest rates, in answer to an interjection from Senator Lewis-not interest rates generally but housing interest rates-and then Senator Chaney got up and asked a cheap political question about whether I conceded that that was a major problem facing Australia. He said: `Is it not extraordinary for a Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to say a thing like that?'. No, I do not think it is, because the interest rate problems of this country are directly related to the exchange rate and to the decline in national income in this country. The honourable senator is about popularising symptoms rather than looking at causes, and that is the difference between the two of us. It is very disappointing for the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question like that. I am reminded of that story: What did Mickey Mouse get for Christmas? The answer is: A Senator Chaney watch. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer him to the Treasurer's comments on the AM program on 16 February, in which he stated: The States really don't comprehend the problem Australia has. Australia's national income has been cut but the States believe that we can have a higher living standard by having better roads, better bridges, better ports, better public facilities at a time when the nation's income is going down . . . They've got to basically cut their cloth the same as the Commonwealth has cut its. I ask the Minister: First, is the Macquarie River dam an example of the kind of public expenditure by the States of which the Treasurer was critical? Secondly, what is the background to this project and how much Commonwealth money is involved in it? Senator WALSH —The history of the Mackenzie River dam-I think Senator Jones inadvertently said Macquarie-is that it was announced in the 1984 Queensland Budget-- Senator Boswell —How do you know whether it is the Macquarie River or the Mackenzie River? You can't even get the question right. Senator WALSH —I will give Ronnie some more shock treatment if he does not shut up. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. That was a most unparliamentary remark and it should be withdrawn. Senator Colston —It is factual. Senator Chaney —I would ask Senator Colston to withdraw also. He makes few if any contributions to this place and adding abuse to his repertoire is not going to help the running of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I would ask Senator Walsh to address honourable senators on the other side by their proper title. Senator WALSH —Certainly, I shall call him Senator Boswell in future. The history is that in the 1984 Queensland Budget it was announced that $4 1/2m would be spent constructing a dam on the Mackenzie River. Thirty five kilometres, or thereabouts, downstream from the dam is a very large farm of about 30,000 acres, owned by a company called Ciasom Pty Ltd, which is the Bjelke-Petersen family company and which is farmed by the Premier's son, John Bjelke-Petersen. Fortuitously a few weeks before that announcement John Bjelke-Petersen had made an application to install an 18-inch centrifugal pump on an anabranch of the Mackenzie River, which adjoins his farm. An 18-inch pump would have very quickly pumped the anabranch dry unless the river was continuously flowing. It does not flow continuously. After the dam is constructed it will be able to flow continuously and recharge the anabranch on which the 18 inch centrifugal pump was installed. For many years, at least for two decades I think, State governments have submitted to the Federal Government wish lists of irrigation projects to be funded by Commonwealth money. They gather dust in the present Department of Resources and Energy. They have gathered dust in other departments when functions were allocated differently from the present allocation. But at no stage had the Queensland Government on its wish list ever submitted an application for Federal funding for the construction of the Mackenzie River dam. In reference to the type of expenditures of which the Treasurer was critical, and to which Senator Jones referred in his question, it is regrettably a fact of life that governments in Australia have long squandered public capital on uneconomic irrigation schemes. But this is the first time, to my knowledge, that $4 1/2m of taxpayers' funds has been appropriated, or misappropriated, to provide a private irrigation scheme for a State Premier's son. Senator Jones —How much? Senator WALSH —Four and a half million dollars. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Ministers for Community Services and Health. Is it correct that disabled people in the paid work force in South Australia have been notified by the South Australian Department of Health that they are no longer eligible to receive personal aids, under the personal aids for disabled people scheme, unless they have a health benefit card? Will the Minister confirm that there has been no instruction from the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to stop providing PADP assistance to disabled people who do not have health benefit cards? Will the Minister confirm that the May statement on expenditure cuts will not reduce the PADP assistance given by the Commonwealth Government to the State governments? Does the Minister agree that the actions of the South Australian Department of Health will cost some people with disabilities thousands of dollars a year and will act as a disincentive to many disabled people being in the work force? Finally, will the Minister convey these opinions to the South Australian Minister for Health? Senator TATE —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The program of aids for disabled people is a Commonwealth scheme administered in South Australia by the State Health Commission. Similar arrangements apply in each State and Territory. An amount of $12.296m was allocated in 1986-87 for PADP, of which South Australia receives $1.171m. In October last year the Health Commission advised that, on its present rate of expenditure, PADP funds would be exhausted by mid-January 1987. As an interim measure it was agreed by the Commonwealth that from 24 October 1986 eligibility for PADP in South Australia would be restricted to persons in receipt of a pensioner health benefit card or a health care card or to persons to whom the handicapped children's allowance is payable. The Minister says in the brief that he is concerned that these arrangements may place an additional burden on people with disabilities who will no longer qualify for assistance under this scheme in 1986-87. However, it was necessary to introduce restrictions on expenditure in South Australia to avoid the scheme running out of funds before the end of the financial year. The Minister has asked his Department to examine other ways of ensuring that in the future limited funds for PADP are distributed equitably over a full year. In particular, obviously, it would be preferable to contain expenditure under PADP in preference to restricting eligibility. I am not, and I do not think anybody else is, in a position to confirm what may or may not be in the May expenditure statement. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Can the Minister confirm media stories today that the Government has received a report recommending that contaminated water at the Ranger uranium mine be released into the Kakadu National Park water system? Can the Minister also confirm that this proposal contradicts an earlier position of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region for the mine? Will the Government act to ensure that any action required will be at a cost to the mining company and not at a cost to the environment of the Kakadu National Park? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has received two reports-a draft one and a final one-on the Ranger mine's water management system. In November 1985 the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment established a technical working group comprising the Supervising Scientist, the Northern Territory Government and Ranger to facilitate agreement on the best water management system for the mine. The technical working group's draft report was considered by the Co-ordinating Committee for the Alligator Rivers Region last November. I received from Mr Cohen a copy of the working group's final report towards the end of January this year. Our departments are now preparing joint advice on it. The report referred to in today's media bears some resemblance to the draft report of last November, but it should not be assumed that the final report, now being considered by the Government, contains the same recommendations. As to the part of the question dealing with the attitudes and opinions of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region, the case as I understand it is that the Supervising Scientist has never expressly argued in favour of a completely no-release water management regime for the Ranger mine. I understand that the position of the Supervising Scientist has always been that the water management system should be kept under close review. As to the general thrust of the last part of the question, as I and other Government Ministers have said many times before, the Government fully recognises the significance of Kakadu as a world heritage area and any decision that we finally make on Ranger's water management strategy will be the best one from an environmental viewpoint. Senator JESSOP —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I ask: Is the Dr R. G. Hawkins who prepared the interest rates briefing note she so obligingly tabled yesterday the same Dr Hawkins who has a PhD in economics from the Australian National University and who is currently First Assistant Secretary, Industry Policy Division, in the Department of Housing and Construction, Chairman of the Construction Forecasting Committee, Secretary of the Construction Industry Council, a member of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry-which was the body responsible for the report referred to in the Minister's answer yesterday-a member of the joint venture for more affordable housing and one of the most highly regarded and experienced officials in the Department of Housing and Construction with responsibility for providing the sort of advice contained in the briefing note? Does he have the confidence of the Government in that task? Senator RYAN —This may come as a surprise, but I have not seen the curriculum vitae of the person whose name was on the briefing note yesterday. I do not know whether all of those distinctions claimed in the honourable senator's question are rightly attributed to that person. What I do know, and what I have said to the media since yesterday, is that the view put forward in that briefing note is not the view of the Government. The Government's view, as put forward by the Prime Minister, is that the Government is cautiously optimistic on the economic outlook, including the prospects for falls in the general level of interest rates in 1987. There is reason for this cautious optimism because of the Government's policy of fiscal and wages restraint. It is expected that those policies will enable us to rely progressively less on monetary policy, resulting in lower interest rates in time. The view of the Government on interest rates has been put by the Prime Minister in the other place and by my colleague the Minister for Finance on a major Australian Broadcasting Corporation program last night, and it is a view that I share. The view put forward yesterday was put forward, mistakenly, by me on the assumption that it reflected the Government's view. It did not, which is a regrettable fact. As to the distinctions and academic career of the author, I really cannot assist the Senate in that matter. Senator JESSOP —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the Government guarantee that Dr Hawkins will not be treated in the same way as were John Reid, Harry Butler and the Centre of Policy Studies, all of whom have been penalised for daring to disagree with the Government in statements that have been made? Also, can I ask the Minister to table the document from which she quoted? Senator RYAN —Mr President, as you will be very well aware, the remarks just made by the honourable senator do not constitute a supplementary question. Yes, I will table the document. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education. It relates to the higher education administration charge. Can the Minister confirm the accuracy or otherwise of a report in today's Australian that she has not replied to letters from three of her State colleagues concerning the application of the higher education administration charge to State-funded tertiary education courses? Senator RYAN —I can confirm that representations have been received from the New South Wales, South Australian and Victorian Ministers for education on this issue. But, contrary to the report in today's Australian, timely responses have been provided. I replied on 11 February this year to Mr Cavalier, and I discussed the issue with Mr Cathie at a meeting we had in Melbourne on 28 January. A telex from Mr Arnold from South Australia was received by me only last Friday, some six months after the announcement of the Government's decision on the charge. The central point at issue was dealt with by me in reply to a question from Senator Macklin last Friday. Honourable senators may recall that the essence of my answer was that there can be no differentiation between the administration costs incurred by institutions in enrolling State-funded students and those incurred in enrolling other students. In any event, since the implementation of the charge has enabled additional higher education places to be created in each State, it is the States that ultimately benefit. Of course, the charge has not added in any way to State charges. Senator COLLARD —I ask the Minister for Education whether she will confirm the advice in her interest rates briefing note that the report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to next month's meeting of the Australian Housing Council: . . . will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987 . . . and that- Whilst reductions in housing rates may occur in the first half of 1988, it is unlikely that such reductions would have any significant impact on building activity until the second half of 1988. In view of the Government's desperate attempts to discredit the briefing note, has any change been made or will any change be made to the report of the Indicative Planning Council? Senator RYAN —I do not need to discredit anything. Senator Collard has read extracts from the briefing note which I tabled yesterday. I do not know what point he is trying to make. I have made it clear and the Prime Minister has made it clear that we do not share the conclusions in that briefing note. Indeed, a number of events have overtaken that briefing note, in particular the decision by the Government to have a May economic statement. Senator GILES —Can the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women explain to the Senate the nature and purpose of the operational grants scheme conducted by the Office of the Status of Women? Is the Minister able to inform the Senate of the successful organisations under this scheme? Were any grants provided to rural women's groups? Senator RYAN —Operational grants are made under the national consultation and assistance program for women. They are made available to incorporated national women's organisations to fund operations and activities which advance the status of women and are in accordance with the spirit and articles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I believe that the Senate will be interested in hearing which applicants were successful in receiving those grants. There were eight successful organisations. The Country Women's Association was one. That answers the last part of Senator Giles's question. The others were the Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women of Australia, the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Young Women's Christian Association, the Union of Australian Women, the Penguin Club of Australia-which is a national women's club which encourages women's participation in the wider community through public speaking, meeting and chairing skills-and the Sportswomen's Association of Australia. The final one I know my colleague Senator Crowley is very interested in. We believe that by making these grants to these very important organisations we will be assisting them in carrying out their activities to improve opportunities for women throughout Australia. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. What process is followed in the preparation of ministerial briefing notes Ministers bring into parliamentary Question Times? Are these notes approved by the respective head of the department before they are sent to the Minister? Are they checked by ministerial staff before inclusion in the Question Time brief? Who approved the briefing note on interest rates tabled by the Minister in the Senate yesterday? Senator RYAN —It is the duty of Ministers-one which I think we carry out fairly conscientiously-to give as much information to the Senate as possible. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Short, I do not think holding up such signs is in accordance with the usual decorum we expect in this chamber and I would ask you to put the sign away. Senator RYAN —Senate Ministers go to great lengths to ensure that they have as much information as possible for the benefit of senators. The particular procedures by which we do this I think are not a matter for discussion at Question Time. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Should I take it that the Minister is refusing to answer specifically whether or not these notes were approved by the respective head of the department before they were sent to the Minister? Are they checked by ministerial staff? Is she refusing to tell the Senate who approved the briefing note on interest rates tabled by the Minister in the Senate yesterday? Senator RYAN —I am not refusing to tell the Senate anything; if I had yesterday I might be having a more pleasant day today. If Senator Michael Baume is so interested in these detailed processes he should put those questions on notice. Senator REYNOLDS —Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General outline the criteria used by State offices in determining eligibility for legal aid? Can the Minister explain why even pensioners have been refused legal aid? Will the Minister request the Attorney-General to investigate the uniformity of criteria so that all Australians have equal access to legal aid? Senator GARETH EVANS —Applicants for legal aid are required to satisfy a means test as well as a merit test, that there is merit in the applicant's case. The means test is designed to ascertain whether an applicant can afford to pay the fee that a private lawyer would charge for his particular legal problem. In determining this test, which is very rarely satisfied these days, both the income and the assets of the applicant and his or her spouse or partner are taken into account. I am informed by the Attorney that it would be most unusual for a recipient of a social security benefit not to be eligible under the income aspect of the means test applied by the various legal aid offices throughout Australia. However, it may well be that some particular beneficiary who had been denied legal aid has assets which take him or her outside the limits imposed. The Attorney is prepared to make available to the honourable senator or anyone else who is interested a booklet entitled `Who gets legal aid', which is produced by the Attorney-General's Department, setting out the various means tests and other eligibility criteria of the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Legal Aid Commissions throughout Australia. As to the practical administration of those criteria, whether there are in fact any differences in the way in which criteria are administered, I am not aware of any such differences but I will refer that part of Senator Reynolds's question to the Attorney for him to offer such advice as he is able to. Senator REYNOLDS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. What criteria are used in determining merit? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think all I can do for Senator Reynolds is give her now a copy of the booklet in question. It is a matter of lawyer's judgment as to whether there is enough merit in the case to justify the expenditure of public money in supporting the application to the court in question. It is not a matter of being absolutely certain that a particular case will succeed because one can never have that degree of certainty in this or any other court system but it is a matter of having some-- Senator Durack —What about Mr Flemming? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Durack may well ask about Mr Flemming. I will give him exactly the same answer I gave him yesterday. In fact, I will give him a more gentlemanly and extended answer than he deserves from the Attorney-General at the end of Question Time. The answer remains the same. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to her comment on the A.M. program this morning when she said: `In this particular case the brief drew the wrong conclusions. It was a mistake. It won't occur again'. Was the Minister at the recent Cabinet discussions which led to the decision by the Cabinet to have a mini-Budget in May this year? Did she at those discussions learn about the advice on interest rates that the Government had received? If so, when she was answering a question from Senator Archer yesterday, why did she not immediately realise that the briefing note was wrong? When and how did she, after Question Time yesterday, learn or realise that the briefing note was, in her words, `a mistake'? Senator RYAN —Senator Durack has been a Cabinet Minister and he knows full well that he is asking questions he is not going to get answers to. I am not going to discuss what took place at any particular Cabinet meeting, which discussions I participated in and which I did not. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I asked Senator Ryan in my question when and how she learned that the briefing note was wrong. Having learned that it was wrong, why did she not correct her answer to the Senate yesterday? Senator RYAN —When I concluded reading the brief that I used yesterday I had doubts about its content. When I had time afterwards I checked it with Mr West, and subsequently he put out a statement correcting it. The statement was widely available. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to a report in this morning's Age newspaper that the President of the National Farmers Federation, Ian McLachlan, has called on the Government to cut outlays by $10 billion in 1987-88 and has made demands for a flat tax, the repeal of the fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax, and the reintroduction of deductibility for entertainment expenses. I ask the Minister: What would be the effect of these measures on farmers if they were implemented? If the result would not be to the average farmer's advantage, would Mr McLachlan be advocating those measures for the benefit of the nation? Senator WALSH —In response to the second part of the question: What would be the effect of Mr McLachlan's-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: It is not for the Minister to deal with the motives of other people or what the effects of their actions might be. He can answer as to his own portfolio and not in the terms asked of him in the latter part of the question. The PRESIDENT —I have no power to direct a Minister on how to answer a question. However, I ask the Minister to answer only that part of the question that deals directly with the portfolio that he represents. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. The second part of the question asked: What would be the effect of the measures advocated by Mr McLachlan on farmers, if they were implemented? The effects would be from somewhat damaging to quite devastating in many cases. For example, it is well known that not too many cockies had the free boozy tax deductible lunch, which is one of the things on Mr McLachlan's wish list. Because land prices do not rise in real terms over a long period, farmers would not be affected by the capital gains tax, unless they had other assets-assets other than their farms. Fewer than 15 per cent of farmers would be liable to any fringe benefits tax at all. The great majority of those would be liable to a very limited amount of fringe benefits tax. If all of those things were done, revenue would fall short by more than $1 billion which would of course, in the absence of other measures, require offsetting taxes, raised somewhere else, which farmers probably would have to pay. Any flat tax proposal-it depends on the rate at which it is levied-which raises as much revenue as the present income tax rate scale does would require everybody on less than about $27,000 to pay more tax than they do now. Flat tax equals more tax for 85 per cent of the people and more than 85 per cent of farmers. That is one of the other policies which Mr McLachlan advocates. There is an alternative; that is, to massively cut government expenditure. Mr McLachlan has suggested that $10 billion would be an appropriate amount. I believe that he has nominated education and health as two areas where there could be a massive cut in government expenditure. It is a fact, even though some of the published figures are not particularly reliable, that farm incomes are extremely low by historical standards, and are significantly lower-even after all the appropriate adjustments are made-than average weekly earnings. Proposals to cut massive amounts off health expenditure-say we abolish Medicare and move back to private insurance-would inevitably cause people on lower incomes, and that includes the majority of farmers these days, to pay more for health services than they pay now. Likewise, if there were to be a massive withdrawal of public funding from education and some sort of private purchase of education services right across the board that would impact adversely on lower income groups. It happens to be, at this stage and for the near future, that the average farmer and the great majority of farmers are likely to be in that low income category. Mr McLachlan, who is an absentee rural land- lord, apparently has got well out of touch with the people he purports to represent. It might also be suggested that he is not running those campaigns for farmers; he is running them for himself. Mr McLachlan, as President of the NFF, has abused that position and has used the farmers he purports to represent as pawns in his political campaign, in his extraparliamentary challenge for the Liberal Party leadership. If that challenge fails, he will have the consolation prize-if he manages to get his policies accepted-of a massive income redistribution in favour of the rich; that is, people like him and his fellow Elders-IXL directors, and big landholders-members of the ruling class who were born with a gold spoon in their mouths and had somebody put it back in every time it fell out. That is the class that McLachlan comes from, and that is the class that he represents. He certainly does not represent the typical or the great majority of farmers for whom he purports to speak. The arrogance that he displays is typical of the arrogance of the self-ordained ruling class. Senator ALSTON —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer the Minister to the comments she made on the front steps of Parliament House this morning when she said that she had asked the Minister for Housing and Construction earlier this week to ensure that her briefing papers were updated and to her comment: Mr West is responsible for the brief that comes from him to me. Is the Minister saying that it was Mr West's fault that the brief did not agree with the Government's misleading line on interest rates? Why have the Minister and her colleagues attempted to shaft the hapless senior public servant who is unable to defend himself? Does she or does she not accept full responsibility for the information she provided to the Senate yesterday? Senator RYAN —Senator Alston appears to have read a transcript of what I said on the steps of Parliament House. Therefore, he would also have read that I said very clearly that I was not blaming a public servant. I then explained the principle of the Westminster system which is that Ministers take responsibility for matters within their portfolios. Senator ALSTON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister's non- answer referred only to that aspect of my question regarding Dr Hawkins. The first part of the question was whether she stood by her statement that Mr West was responsible for the brief. I ask again: Is she saying that it was his fault that the brief did not agree with the Government's misleading line on interest rates? Senator RYAN —I think that Senator Alston should seek some advice from his colleagues who have been Ministers and find out how this place operates. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. One of the recommendations of the submission by Professor Jackson Davis to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which investigated safety procedures relating to nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels in Australian waters was that issues of liability and indemnity should be clarified carefully, and in writing, with the respective governments; in particular, full indemnity for the multi-billion cost of decontamination in the event of a worst-case accident should be negotiated and codified at high government levels. I ask the Minister whether such arrangements in respect of possible nuclear warship accidents in an Australian port have been negotiated and codified. What provisions are there for indemnity claims 20 to 30 years after an accident's occurrence, bearing in mind the cancers that have now started to appear among people affected by United States nuclear weapon accidents in the 1960s, involving two United States allies-Denmark and Spain? Senator GARETH EVANS —In a changing and volatile universe there is always one rock of stability-Senator Vallentine's pre-occupation with nuclear warships in Australian ports. I did have a briefing note that dealt specifically with the subject matter of Senator Vallentine's question, but I seem to have mislaid it. Under the circumstances, I am not totally confident of the precise details of the answer I give, and anything I say is accordingly subject to correction. I believe that there is a United States public law-I cannot remember the actual number of it-which makes it absolutely and unequivocally clear that the United States Government accepts absolute liability for the demonstrable results of any damage that may flow from a nuclear explosion or from damage to a nuclear warship in a port, either at home or abroad, of the kind that Senator Vallentine keeps conjuring up for us. That is really a complete answer to the various aspects of her question, but I will certainly check to see that that is so. Senator COLEMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to an article which appeared in the West Australian recently and which reported a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Science held in the United States. When addressing that meeting, Professor Peter Raven asserted that over one million species of flora and fauna, or around a quarter of the world's total, may be extinct within 30 years. I ask the Minister what the Australian Government is doing, both within Australia and at an international level, to minimise the loss of our unique native species. Senator RYAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided me with the following information in relation to Senator Coleman's question: The Australian Government is concerned at the world-wide progressive depletion of species which arises primarily from habitat change. On the international scene Australia is working closely with responsible international organisations. Through the International Whaling Commission, Australia has promoted a moratorium on commercial whaling. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, Australia has taken a prominent role in protecting endangered plants and animals from the adverse effects of commercial trade. Bilateral agreements with Japan and the People's Republic of China provide an effective means to protect migratory birds in both their breeding and wintering ranges. Habitat protection is implemented through the Convention on Nature in the South Pacific and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Water Fowl Habitat. That treaty is known as Ramsar. Australia was the first nation to become a party to Ramsar. Senator NEWMAN —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that the Heritage Commission is refusing to remit fees on any application under the Freedom of Information Act for documents relating to the Tasmanian forestry industry on the ground that the matter is not `in the general public interest or the interest of a substantial section of the public'? In the light of the Press release of the Prime Minister and Ministers Kerin and Cohen on 15 December 1986 in which they recognised `the importance of the forestry industry to the State of Tasmania and of its important economic, social and employment implications' and further that `this is in the interests of all Australians', is he prepared to support his Cabinet colleagues and take action to correct the matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not aware that the Heritage Commission has been refusing to remit fees for Senator Newman's FOI application in this matter but, given the quality of her previous contributions to the public interest in this country, I find that an entirely plausible response. Senator COOK —Is the Minister for Education aware of statements by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen that among his flat tax and flat earth policies he would transfer the Commonwealth's education functions to the States? Is she also aware that, in an effort to outdo Joh, John Howard on the Carleton-Walsh Report on 18 February upped the ante by favouring the total abolition of the Commonwealth's education role when he said: `What you've got to do is abolish the function altogether'? Is it practical to abolish Commonwealth education functions? Would it create any savings for the taxpayer if it were done? What would be the effect on private schools, universities and colleges and students in low income families? Senator RYAN —I have not been surprised to hear Premier Bjelke-Petersen running around the country saying that he is going to abolish the Commonwealth's role in education, nor have I been surprised to hear him say that he wants the States to run education. He does not feel under any obligation to explain how he can give people more back in their wage packets and reduce taxation burdens on the general population while at the same time spend more money. But Mr Howard, the current Leader of the Opposition, has until recently tried to maintain some sort or rationality in the comments that he has made. He has tried to suggest, for example, that if the Opposition wishes to abolish the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax it will have to introduce a consumption tax to pay for it. I suppose that I must give him credit for trying to maintain some sort of rationality when he pointed out in an interview on the Carleton-Walsh Report on Tuesday, 18 February this year that it would be of no use to do what Joh Bjelke-Petersen says and simply transfer Commonwealth education functions to the States, that it would be necessary-- An incident having occurred in the gallery- Senator RYAN —I shall continue. I resumed my seat so that order could be established. I was saying that at least John Howard, the current Leader of the Opposition, was prepared to agree that the Commonwealth's education function would have to be abolished entirely. This means that the $825m which goes to private schools, for example, would disappear, that the $2.5 billion which goes directly from the Commonwealth to higher education would disappear and that the $500m which the Commonwealth spends on education allowances for young people would also disappear. So it is quite clear now that the implied abolition of the Commonwealth education programs by Mr John Howard would mean that parents of students in private-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. Making mistakes is one thing, but making deliberate misrepresentations of the Opposition's position is another. This Minister is now suggesting-I think she said `implied'-policies on behalf of the Opposition. It is a total abuse of this place for Ministers to claim that they can speak by implication for what the policies of my Party are. The Minister is not competent. She has claimed that she is not competent to give her own Party's policy on interest rates. I suggest that she should not try to give our policies on education. The PRESIDENT —Order! I was listening to the Minister's answer. I think she was getting away from the terms of her responsibility. I ask her to come back to that part of the question which dealt with her responsibilities. Senator RYAN —Mr President, I have here, and I am happy to table, a transcript in which Mr Howard says: Well, I'll tell you where I'd cut. I'd abolish a lot of departments . . . Even if you abolish the Federal Department of Education and Housing and Health and so on you wouldn't save money. It is no good shifting a function from the Federal Government to the States. What you've got to do is abolish the function altogether. Senator Cook was interested to know what would happen-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I am deeply grateful to the Minister for reading that quotation because to make what she said earlier consistent with what she has just read from Mr Howard one would have to say that Mr Howard was arguing that we should abolish education. It is an absolutely ludicrous proposition which this Minister has been putting forward. Mr President, I suggest that you should again call her to order and let us get on with the business of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I remind Senator Ryan, as I did before, to answer that part of the question which deals with her responsibilities. I ask you to do so as quickly as possible. Senator RYAN —Yes, Mr President. I point out again that this year the Commonwealth will be spending something like $852m on schools funding, something like $2.5 billion on higher education and in the vicinity of $500m on allowances to young people to continue their education. If that function were to be abolished and not transferred to the States, as was discussed by Mr Howard, the parents and the students would have to make up for that loss of some $5.2 billion of Commonwealth expenditure. Senator VANSTONE —I refer the Minister for Education to her answer to a question last week in which she indicated that to alleviate distress caused by delays in Austudy payments students in urgent need could have their application moved, colloquially speaking, `closer to the top of the pile'. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is she the Minister responsible for the blunder-one might call it a big blunder-of creating the situation which necessitated the introduction of this emergency relief measure? Secondly, how has the availability of this relief measure been made known to the applicants? Has it been made known to all applicants not yet in receipt of their Austudy payments? How many students have availed themselves of this measure? What number or proportion of applications remain outstanding? Last but not least, has the Minister received a letter from a constituent in the Australian Capital Territory pointing out that her son cannot pay any fees-it may be of interest to the Minister to know-until his Austudy payment comes through? Senator RYAN —I have said in the Senate on a number of occasions-obviously Senator Vanstone has not heard or understood-that students in receipt of Austudy will get the $250 administration charge in their first Austudy payment. Many already have it. Senator Chaney —If they do not starve to death in the meantime. Senator RYAN —The $250 is not meant to buy food; it is meant to pay the administration charge. It is given to students for that purpose. Institutions understand this and by and large have agreed that students will pay that $250 when they receive it from the Government via the Austudy payment. With regard to delays, I gave a very comprehensive answer pointing out that where there are delays in Austudy payments it is usually because the original information given by the students has not been accurate or complete and the Department has to go back to the students to get additional information. When that additional information is provided the forms are then assessed in the appropriate way. I pointed out also that, if a student is in extreme circumstances, he or she can explain this to an officer of the Department of Education and have the application accelerated. I am advised that that has happened in a number of cases. I will get the precise number for Senator Vanstone at the earliest opportunity. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-Given the presence a few minutes ago of a number of ladies in the gallery suggesting that rape is no laughing matter and suggesting that I ought to apologise, I think that perhaps some misunderstanding may be in order unless I put an explanation on the record. The reference, of course, is to a throw away line which I employed in the course of the debate on the placing of business a couple of days ago when, in response to being rolled over by the Opposition on the matter of a defence statement of recent memory, I said: . . . I so move on the principle that if rape is inevitable one might as well, if not enjoy it, at least succumb with such grace as one can muster in the circumstances. It will be perfectly apparent from what I said there that I was not repeating the standard chauvinist cliche; in fact, I was distancing myself from it and employing a totally different form of expression. I did not say, nor would I ever say, in jest or otherwise, that rape could ever possibly be enjoyed. I only say further, in the light of the-- Senator Vanstone —You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Put the dunce's cap on. Senator GARETH EVANS —Some things do frighten me, Mr President, and Senator Vanstone is one of them, along with the rest of the Opposition's half-back line of Senator Knowles and Senator Walters; but we will not pursue that further. If in the future I am in search of an appropriate metaphor to describe a situation, which I hope will not occur again-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. We are sitting here listening to the Minister make a somewhat ludicrous personal explanation, explaining that he is not sexist. He has just made what I can only regard as a sexist jibe against three senators on my side of the chamber. It is interesting that he did not mention any of the male senators sitting at the back of the chamber. I suggest that the Minister should use this point of order to gather his wits and think a little and to add to his personal explanation an apology for his obvious sexist comments to Opposition senators. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order, but I ask Senator Evans to restrict his remarks to the original personal explanation. Senator GARETH EVANS —Perhaps this gets further weight in the light of the comment Senator Chaney has just made. I say, finally, that if in future the situation again arises-I hope that it does not-that I am in search of some appropriate metaphor, I will be happy to use the expression, as I was requested to do by the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre people, that if castration is inevitable I would certainly succumb to it with such grace as I could muster in the circumstances. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-During Question Time, Senator Walsh suggested to Senator Boswell that he may give him some more shock treatment. Senator Chaney asked that certain of Senator Walsh's remarks be withdrawn. He then asked that I should withdraw the remark that it was factual. I was suggesting that Senator Walsh had in fact given Senator Boswell shock treatment in the past. I hold to my statement that this was indeed factual. In years past, and perhaps even today, it was not unusual for a practical joke to be played which resulted in the person on the receiving end of the practical joke receiving an electric shock. Three or four decades ago a young person by the name of Peter Walsh happened to invite a person a few years younger, by the name of Ronald Boswell, to hold a wire lead to a magneto from an old kerosene tractor. Young Ronald obliged and almost immediately received a shock when young Peter activated the magneto. I have not been able to confirm that young Ronald did not comprehend that the best way to reduce his discomfort was to drop the wire. Nevertheless, I hold to my belief that Senator Walsh has previously administered shock treatment to Senator Boswell. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Senator Gareth Evans, as is customary in this place, was one of the Ministers who put forward in the Senate an anti-discrimination Bill. Ever since that Bill was passed, which he supported thoroughly, he has made the most sexist remarks, interjections, et cetera, to members on this side of the chamber that any Minister could ever make. He has never retracted those statements that he has made. Indeed, he was the Minister who brought forward that legislation. I ask Government members whether they approve of the way their Minister behaves. I particularly ask Government lady senators whether they approve of the way their Minister behaves and his sexist comments about me and my colleagues on this side of the chamber, because if they do not I suggest that they take the Minister to task and prevent him from making them. It is up to them and they ought to hold the Minister responsible for any statement he makes that is in opposition to the legislation that they particularly supported in this chamber. I believe that it is incumbent on them to get up and tell Senator Evans that, according to the legislation that they upheld and put forward and all so eloquently spoke on, they will not put up with his sexist comments. Unless they do that, the legislation they put before the House is nothing but a sham. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I table a report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to new Parliament House cost savings. Honourable senators will be aware of recent Press articles and public comments regarding the expenditure cuts on the new Parliament House, and in particular the effect of cost saving decisions on the landscaping for the building. The Press articles have included a number of inaccuracies in respect of the role and responsibility of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House during the process which lead to the final decisions. The Committee has considered the Press reports and has authorised Madam Speaker and me, as Joint Chairmen, to table a statement clarifying these matters. It is clear to the Committee that many of the inaccuracies in the Press reports would not have occurred if the authors of the statements had been aware of the contents of the report of the Committee entitled `Report on Certain Aspects of the New Parliament House Project', which was tabled in the Senate on 28 November 1986. Three particular aspects of the Press article require some comment. It has been alleged that the Committee's mistakes were its failure to consult the architects, its selfishness, and the secrecy of some of its deliberations. These assertions have been refuted in the Committee's statement, which I have tabled. I urge honourable senators and others who are interested in the project to read the statement, together with the report of the Committee which was tabled in November last year. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY —(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)-I seek leave to move the motion of which I gave notice this morning. I will read the motion to the Senate so it knows what I am seeking leave to move. I gave notice this morning that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by Senator Ryan on 25 February 1987 and that the Committee inquire into and report on its authorship, the sources from which the advice was obtained and the current status of the document. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 26 March 1987. Leave not granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.13) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney moving forthwith the motion of which Senator Chaney gave notice earlier this day, relating to the reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations of the Paper on interest rates tabled by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on 25 February 1986. There has been a deal of hilarity in this chamber over the last 10 minutes or so. That has been a welcome break in the politics of the moment because the country is going down the tube and there are a great number of political issues around that are of great concern to both Government and Opposition senators. But I think the time for a little light relief has passed, and the Opposition believes that it is important that we should focus on the matter which has been before us since the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) tabled the paper from which she quoted in Question Time yesterday. I have moved this motion today because today is the first opportunity we have had to bring this matter forward, and the normal forms of the Senate are such that giving notice of motion today would result in something coming forward for consideration on our return in two weeks time. We believe that the issues which are raised here are too important to leave. Those issues will still be before us in two weeks time. We will, of course, come back to the matter if we do not succeed in getting a suspension of Standing Orders today and re-debate the matter on our return. It is quite clear that the issue of interest rates, which was so extensively canvassed in an urgency motion brought forward by Senator Archer yesterday, remains an issue which is of vital concern not just to home owners in Australia but to farmers who are being crippled by the cost of interest-that is a major part of their present difficulty. It is causing enormous difficulties to both small and large businesses in Australia. At all levels, whether one is looking at the economic recovery of this country or at the burdens being suffered by ordinary Australians, this is a matter of high importance. This week the Government announced that it was proposing to have a mini-Budget. After successive requests from this Senate which have been denied, Government senators all dutifully lined up with their Government and expressed the view that there was no need for such a measure. The Government has announced in the last few days that there is to be a mini-Budget. Quite clearly, an important element of the Government's thinking in bringing forward a mini-Budget is that it is one of the steps which need to be taken if we are to tackle the economic problems of Australia, including the excessive level of interest rates. What sort of a mini-Budget is required is really going to be affected by the sort of prospect we have for interest rates in this country. Is the position as it was outlined by Dr Hawkins in that minute which was tabled by the Minister for Education, representing the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), or is it the more optimistic assessment which was given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and parroted by the Minister in this place today? Honourable senators will note that when Senator Ryan was talking both on AM this morning and again in this chamber, she chose to use very carefully the precise words which were used by the Prime Minister to describe his cautious optimism about the future of interest rates. The reality is that this is of significance now. Having some inquiry into the truth or falsity of the situation with respect to interest rates and the real strength of opinion which lies behind this briefing paper is something which needs to be tackled by the Government and, since the Government will not tackle it, by this Senate forthwith. I seek to have the Standing Orders suspended so that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations can examine this paper, look at where it came from, and find out what advice was brought together to prepare it for the Minister and what its current status is. They are all matters which the present Government has tried to obscure in its reaction to the events of yesterday. What is being said by the Government is totally inconsistent with what is contained in the document that was tabled yesterday. What is now being said by the Government is that it is out of date. It has been said that this no longer represents policy. We are not looking for the Government's policy; we are looking for the facts. We want to know what is the future of interest rates in Australia so that we can be sure what remedial measures are required if we are to ease the misery of the men and women of Australia who are suffering these extraordinary high interest rates. The Government is saying that the information in this note is out of date, that it is not its view, and that it is something which does not take into account what is known to the Government and other sources of advice. Yet, what the Minister tabled is not just the opinion of a single public servant. I will talk about that public servant in a moment because I think in a very unpleasant way the inference has been drawn that this is a relatively junior chap and that he does not have access to advice, and all the rest of it. There has been a real attempt at a put-down here of a man who has, I think, an entitlement to better treatment from this Government. I will come back to that later. Let me look at what is in this briefing paper, because it discloses why the Opposition is so deeply concerned at the Government's claim now that this is something which is out of date. The note, in the last paragraph, says: The Report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to the March 1987 meeting of the Australian Housing Council-- The Australian Housing Council, as I understand it, comprises the Ministers for Housing of the States and the Commonwealth. This is no junior fest; this is a gathering of all of those Ministers who are responsible for housing around Australia. The Minister's note goes on: It will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. It goes on: whilst reductions in housing rates may occur in the first half of 1988, it is unlikely that such reductions would have any significant impact on building activity until the second half of 1988. Senator Archer —That is a view shared by every responsible body. Senator CHANEY —That, as Senator Archer says, is a view that is shared by every responsible body, but the point that I think warrants inquiry by the Senate and the Senate Committee at the moment is that on the one hand we have the Government telling us that this is non-operative. It has a President Nixon-like ability to say `That is something which is inoperative', yet what this note says is that the Indicative Planning Council will present this report-not that it presented it last week or last month-next month as a statement which is to be taken into account by the Housing Ministers of Australia. That is totally incompatible with any suggestion that this view, this opinion contained in this briefing note, is in any sense out of date. Who is on the Indicative Planning Council? What is it? Is it just another body of second ranking public servants who can be written off as people who do not have access to the facts? I point out to the Senate that the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, which operates within the purview of the Department of Housing and Construction, contains a whole series of people from private industry and elsewhere but it is chaired by Professor Fred Gruen. It happens that Dr Hawkins, the man who wrote this briefing note, is also a member of the Indicative Planning Council, and the view that he has expressed is the same view that we are told in the note itself has been adopted by the Council, which is chaired by Professor Gruen. It really does make the mind boggle to know that the body is chaired by one of the premier economists of this country, an economist, like any economist, with whom one might disagree from time to time but a man who I think is generally one of the most respected economists in this country. I am not sure whether he is the current President of the Australian professional body of economists-the Economic Society of Australia-but if he is not he was very recently. I last saw him at the annual meeting of that body. As I say, he has a very high economic reputation. It is a very large group and I will not go through all of the names. I have to say that many of the names do not mean much to me, but this happens to be the expert group put together to provide advice to the Minister for Housing and Construction of the Commonwealth and indeed to Ministers for housing around Australia. This is the body which is expressing the self same view as is expressed in the minute which was the subject of the answer from Senator Ryan. On an issue of absolutely major importance to the Australian people Senator Ryan came into this Senate yesterday and, without using any formula of words to dissociate herself from the answer-she did not say `I have a note which suggests this but I am not really sure and I'll have to check it'; she did not say `I am advised'-she simply repeated exactly the words which were prepared for her. This is a Minister who supposedly has been part of the economic deliberations of this Government, including the deliberations leading up to the decision to have a mini-Budget. Senator Ryan said yesterday: . . . the Government's economic strategy, including last year's Budget, is directed at providing an environment conducive to achieving lower interest rates. At this stage it appears that any reductions in market rates that may appear over the course of 1987 will not be sufficiently sustained or will not result in a reduction of loan interest rates in 1987. Accordingly it does appear unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. That is a vital piece of advice to the people of Australia, to the businesses of Australia and to the home buyers of Australia, and this Minister gave it without apology, without qualification, and in the opinion of the Opposition that view was given by her without qualification or apology because it was her honest view. We believe that this Minister is in trouble with her Prime Minister because she has been honest, and now she has been forced to adopt the weasel words of the Prime Minister to describe one of the critical economic factors which will influence what happens to the people of Australia. The urgency of this matter is that we have an opportunity, by using the normal mechanisms of this Senate, to check just how much weight should be given to this note which we believe represents the true position. We believe that it should be open to a committee of this Senate to inquire of Dr Hawkins, to inquire of other public servants and indeed to inquire of the Reserve Bank of Australia what is the outlook for interest rates in Australia today. Is this note, which was given so faithfully by the Minister, a true statement of the position-as the Opposition believes it is-or is it a mistake, something that is out of date, and are the poor old housing Ministers about to be given a bum steer by the Indicative Planning Council at their meeting in March? This is not an academic matter; it is a matter which goes squarely to the issues which this Senate and the people of Australia want to be considering at the moment. What are we going to do about, inter alia, the $101 billion external debt that is weighing this country down? The relevance of examining this matter now is that this is a real opportunity for the truth to be exposed in a way which will not only force the Government to move towards the sort of mini-Budget which is required, one which will bring about a substantial reduction in government expenditure, but also it will expedite and assist the Government to carry out the very difficult task it has. Senator Button said in the chamber today that the Government believed that for any government there was a difficult task ahead. I cannot remember a single speaker from the Opposition side of this Senate chamber ever claiming that the task we face at the moment is easy. We have been extremely careful not to engage in oversimplifications. We have set out in detail the whole range of interrelated things we believe the Government must do if it is to have some impact on the disastrous situation that we face. A mini-Budget is but an eighth, perhaps a quarter, of the task which has to be undertaken by the Government. It is a very important task and unless it is undertaken properly the interest rates problem will not be solved. There is another reason for examining this matter and examining it quickly, and that is the inference that has come from the reports that have flowed from the Minister's burst of honesty yesterday that in some way this Dr Hawkins is a man whose advice we do not have to worry about too much because he is not really in the field; he does not have access to the right sort of information. The Opposition does not believe that to be true, but let me say a few things about this man because I think it is important that his position be clarified, and the sort of inquiries we are promoting is the only way that it will be. Senator Watson —And his reputation. Senator CHANEY —My colleague Senator Watson refers to his reputation. I almost hesitate to raise it because I believe it is grossly unfair to make any suggestion against the reputation of Dr Hawkins. Senator Ryan —None has been made. Senator CHANEY —I am glad to hear the Minister say that. Let me say that from the remarks which have been made by various Ministers it would be hard to realise that this man occupies under this Government the position of First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Policy Division of the Department of Housing and Construction. That is not a junior position; it is a senior position. I do not think one would have divined from the comments that have been made since the Minister tabled the paper that this man holds a PhD in Economics from the Australian National University. I do not think one would have divined that he was a member of the Construction Industry Council, he has been appointed as a member of the Joint Venture for More Affordable Housing and he is a member of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry. I mention those things because they suggest to me quite clearly, along with his membership of the Construction Forecasting Committee, that until this paper was exposed Dr Hawkins was seen by this Government as a man who warranted having those very responsible positions and being in a position to give vitally important advice not just to this Government but to governments and to industry bodies around Australia. We have a situation, therefore, where the Government has not only muddied the water, it has not only obscured what the interest rate position is, but also it has set about obscuring the status, the stature, the standing and the reputation of this man. I for one believe that if we expose the sources of the advice which actually went into this note we will see a complete vindication not just of Dr Hawkins; we will see a complete vindication of Senator Ryan as of yesterday. The Senator Ryan of last night and this morning will not look so flash; the Senator Ryan of last night and this morning is a Minister who has been called to heel by an arrogant little man named Bob Hawke, who is taking this country to destruction-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, that language is unparliamentary. Senator CHANEY —I withdraw. She was called to heel by an arrogant Prime Minister who is taking this country down the drain. The sad element of this debate is that a Minister who spoke honestly and truthfully is now being put down and brought to heel. I believe that this inquiry would expose that to be the case. The further reason that I want to put forward for dealing with this matter now and for getting a proper inquiry under way is the response we have had from Ministers to questions on this subject today. When Senator Collard asked his question the answer was that that note was out of date. It was the President Nixon technique-that it was something that is now inoperative. We believe that to be untrue. In response to Senator Michael Baume's very proper inquiry about what procedures were followed to bring us to the point where we were given a note which Senator Ryan has said is supposed to reflect government policy, he was told that that was not a matter for Question Time. In fact, he was told to talk to his ex-ministerial colleagues. I can only say in response to that that there is not much point in talking to his ex-ministerial colleagues on this side of the chamber because we must follow very different procedures. I cannot remember a Minister in the Fraser Government who got up and tried to bag or blame a public servant for a crook reply that he may have been given. Senator Ryan —Nobody did. Senator CHANEY —It has been said that the advice was wrong and that it was made without access to adequate information. One of the real reasons for pursuing this matter further is that, when one looks at the comparison between the words used by Senator Ryan yesterday and the words she used once to my knowledge in the media and certainly in this chamber today, she picked up precisely what the Prime Minister said about interest rates in the House of Representatives on 17 February, which was this: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987 . . . Today we heard those words not once, but twice, from Senator Ryan. It was a classic but, I thought, very clumsy illustration of the extent to which she has been brought to heel. For a Minister of the Government to be in that position is little short of pathetic. On 18 February, last week, the Prime Minister also said: We acknowledge the difficulties and we have introduced policies which, as I have said and the Treasurer has said- I interpolate there that I think the Treasurer is being a mite more cautious than the Prime Minister- through 1987 will lead to a gradual lowering of the interest rate regimen. The Senate is in a position to make a contribution to getting the facts before the Australian people as well as before this Parliament. We have seen a very shabby situation-but not at Question Time yesterday. I thought at Question Time yesterday we saw a proper answer from a Minister using the sources that were properly made available to her and putting a view about interest rates that we in the Opposition sadly believe to be true. If it is not true, let the Government produce the contrary advice. Let it show that the Department of Housing and Construction did not have access to the information which the Department says is the basis of the Prime Minister's and this post-the Road to Damascus Minister's view of interest rates in Australia. It is the view of the Opposition that there is no more serious issue facing the Australian people and that it would be nice if we got off some of the more irrelevant matters that take up our time and devoted a few committee weeks to getting to this vital issue. We seek a report in March because that is in plenty of time for the Government to take it into account in its preparation of the mini-Budget in May. We may even be able to assist the Housing Ministers in their deliberations in that month, although I am not sure on what date they are sitting. I ask the Australian Democrats-who in the end will have a vote on this matter and who will be able to determine whether we can suspend Standing Orders-to consider the practical assistance which could be given to the Australian people in understanding this issue if this inquiry is undertaken, to consider the protection of the reputation of the public servant who is involved, and to enable the Committee to make what would be a quite limited, straightforward but very helpful inquiry on a matter of major public importance. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate)(3.35) —This Opposition motion is no more than a stunt and it deserves to be treated as such by this Senate. There is nothing that could conceivably justify the expenditure of taxpayers' money that would be involved in setting in train an inquiry of the kind that the Opposition is proposing. Accordingly, there is no conceivable justification for a motion to suspend Standing Orders in order to consider the merits of such an inquiry. The reality is that the substantive motion seeks an inquiry based on three issues. The first issue is the authorship of the document. The authorship of the document is manifestly not in doubt and there is nothing that an inquiry could establish there that is not already on the public record. Secondly, the inquiry seeks to go to the sources on which that document is based. Let me simply state the obvious; that the sources are described to a very significant extent in the statistics that are noted by the author on the document's own face. But in any event, whatever other sources the author might conceivably have relied upon, the sources of the document are irrelevant, given the status of the document, which is the third and major leg in the Opposition's proposed terms of reference. The reality is that the status of the document is manifestly not in doubt, and there is nothing to investigate about the status of the document. The status of the document has been described already on the public record in the Parliament and outside it by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) today in Question Time, by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and by other Ministers as well. The status of the document is as follows: It does not represent the judgment of the Government. It does not represent anything which has ever been endorsed by the Government. It is the opinion formulated by an officer in a department which is not responsible for macroeconomic management or forecasting. I interpolate there-and this will be my only reference to the public servant-that nobody is criticising, bagging or in any other way calumniating the reputation of the officer concerned. The judgment of the officer in question is a matter for that officer. It is a matter to be accepted or rejected by the Government. In this instance it has been rejected, for reasons which have been stated clearly enough by the Prime Minister and which I will put again on the public record in a moment. The final leg of the series of propositions I would advance as self-evident about the status of this document is that it represents an opinion, formed no doubt in good faith, but formed back on 13 February, nearly two weeks ago before a number of recent developments had occurred including, above all else, the decision to have and the announcement of a May economic statement and the recovery of the Australian dollar that has been associated with that particular announcement. That is a state of affairs that the officer in question who formulated this brief and opinion, no doubt in good faith, manifestly did not know about and could not have known about. So the status of the document is absolutely clear. It does not need the kind of excursion that is proposed by a Senate committee to establish that status and we do not need, as I have said, to suspend Standing Orders in order to debate that substantive issue. There is further evidence of the status of this document and why it should be regarded as not representing any policy judgment or any judgment about the likely state of affairs that the Government has either formulated or is likely to formulate. That evidence is before our eyes in the record of the policy strategies that the Government has adopted, the reasons why those strategies have been adopted and the way in which those strategies have been explained. All of those factors are utterly inconsistent with the tenor of the particular document from which Senator Ryan quoted in all good faith. The Government's expectation that interest rates can begin to fall this year, which is an expectation which has been reiterated by a number of Government Ministers, is based on a thorough and cautious assessment of all the factors which go to make up the macroeconomic picture. The Prime Minister stated the situation very well on 17 February when he said: It is the fact that high interest rates are an inevitable feature of adjustment to Australia's current account difficulties. As much as this Government obviously would welcome lower interest rates, it is quite clear that we are responsible economic managers who, unlike the Opposition, eschew politically expedient quick fixes. We have reduced the burden on monetary policy by pursuing appropriately restrained fiscal and wages policies. Back on 17 February, days ago, before this issue broke, the Prime Minister said: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy-- Senator Chaney sought to derive some debating nourishment from the expression `cautious optimism'. It is language that was used by the Prime Minister over a week ago, long before this particular matter was the subject of controversy. I repeat what the Prime Minister said: We look to 1987 with a cautious optimism about the economy including a fall in interest rates in 1987, though, as I have said on many occasions-and I repeat on this occasion-the timing of such a fall will be affected by external factors, including what happens to world commodity prices and what happens to international financial conditions and sentiment. It will also depend on the pace at which the current account deficit declines. He said all that as recorded at page 123 of Hansard on 17 February. On 18 February the Prime Minister again said: We acknowledge the difficulties and we have introduced policies which, as I have said and the Treasurer has said, through 1987 will lead to a gradual lowering of the interest rate regimen. That is what the Prime Minister has said and that is what he has said consistently throughout this period. It is manifestly obvious that the status of a document that states something completely contrary to that is self-evidently not something that is accepted by or regarded by the Government as constituting a credible statement. The Government is simply not in the snake oil business of trying to put precise dates, as the Prime Minister has said, or to nominate the precise order in which particular interest rates can come down. What we are in the business of doing is stating to the Australian people and to this Parliament some very plain facts, and the most fundamental of those facts is that unlike the snake oil merchants we do have the policies to achieve over time a lowering of interest rates. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I fail to see how the Minister's remarks are really related to the motion which is before the Chair. The motion before the Chair is for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable me to move a motion to send off, for examination by a Senate committee, a paper which has been introduced to this chamber by the Government and which says something about interest rates. I have been listening carefully to the Minister for feminism and what he is actually addressing is the substance of the matters which are contained in the motion. I personally would be delighted to debate him on that, because I do not think he knows what he is talking about for a start, but I also think the Government is wrong. Senator Gareth Evans —What an arrogant little man you are. Senator Chaney —Like the arrogant little Prime Minister. Mr Acting Deputy President, what I am suggesting to you is that he is debating the substance and he is arguing the case against the accuracy of the paper, which in a sense is the very matter which the Committee will examine to find out what the advice is to the Government from the Reserve Bank of Australia, Treasury and so on. So I ask you to call him to order and ask him to address the question as to why the Government is opposed to this matter being dealt with and going off to a committee. Senator Gareth Evans —Madam Acting Deputy President-- Honourable senators interjecting- Senator Gareth Evans —That is to be taken as an overreaction to the recent events. I apologise, not that that is to be taken as in any way a slight upon you to describe you as a woman. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Perhaps we should go back to the point of order. Senator Gareth Evans —There is a direct chain of reasoning that is involved here, and I have no doubt that it is very embarrassing to Senator Chaney to have these matters of our economic policy laid out, but the reality of the matter is that the motion before the Chair is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable us to debate the merits of sending off to a committee an investigation of, among other things, the status of this particular document. I am arguing that the status of this document is supremely self-evidently one of being a private opinion of a particular officer in a department and, as evidence in support of that proposition, I am wanting to sketch out, and am about to do so briefly, Mr Acting Deputy President, some of the considerations which make it self-evident why that document, with its forecasts and so on, is so utterly inconsistent with the policy course that this Government has adopted and the explanation of that policy that it cannot possibly be regarded as the true opinion of the Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold the point of order because I understand that the Minister would have to make some reference to the subject matter in developing an argument as to why this matter should not proceed. It is a very delicate line that has to be drawn, but I think the Minister is developing this sort of argument and I would ask him to continue. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The evidence then for the status of this document as not representing the Government's position is as follows: We have cut the Budget deficit from 5 per cent of gross domestic product, which we inherited, to about 1 1/2 per cent this year. We have cut the Budget deficit as a proportion of GDP in every one of our four Budgets. We remain committed to fiscal restraint. We have announced an intention to continue that expenditure restraint by bringing down an expenditure savings statement in May. That will be backed up, again, by an approach to the States at the forthcoming Premiers Conference, which will again of necessity be tough. The Australian Labor Party's wages policy, which is again self-evidently on the record, has enabled real unit labour costs to decline consistently over the past four years. The process of adjustment in our balance of payments, which is a product of all these things and which of course will, more than anything else, influence the course of interest rates, has begun. As I have said, that is the key to a sustained lowering of interest rates. The evidence is there on the balance of payments front. It is before our eyes. The evidence goes again to the status of this particular document. The value of manufacturing exports, even excluding the irregular export of aircraft, has increased by 30 per cent in the last seven months compared with the same months a year ago. Our deficit on services trade-that is for tourism, shipping, insurance and the like-has fallen 17 per cent over that period. Our deficit on merchandise trade, after allowing for seasonal factors, has fallen by 40 per cent in the past three months compared with the three months to October. So on the basis of those figures-- Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order-- Senator Robert Ray —I take a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, I am going to hear Senator Chaney's point of order. Senator Robert Ray —I am taking a point of order on the way he took a point of order, actually. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I will come back to that later. My point of order is that we are now being treated to a general economic debate of very great breadth which goes without doubt to the substance of, and well beyond, the issues which are contained in the briefing paper. If Senator Evans wants a general debate on the economic shambles that his Government has produced, that is a matter that would be welcomed by the Opposition. I have already spoken to him about the need for a debate on the Appropriation Bills so that honourable senators on this side will have a chance to say what they think are the solutions to this country's extraordinary economic woes. But, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you are saying that in debating this motion we can range as widely as the Minister has just done, that is fine by the Opposition. But I suggest to you that in that case we will have to have several days set aside for this debate because, as I say, he has raised virtually the whole gamut of the economic shambles with which we are afflicted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will just mention this in relation to the point of order: The previous speaker, who was Senator Chaney, ranged fairly widely and I think that he had to do so in order to put his point across. I think Senator Evans is not ranging so widely that he is not speaking to the particular motion. In fact, as he was interrupted I thought I heard him say `And for these reasons', and he was going on to develop that argument further. Senator Messner —Oh! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If you wish to disagree with my ruling, Senator, you know what to do. I ask the Minister to continue. Senator GARETH EVANS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will be only a couple more minutes, because the points can be very simply and quickly made in that kind of time frame. I have been indicating, as I said, the reasons why we are confident about our balance of payments figures turning around on the balance of current figuring. The final thing I want to say about that is that the Government is confident that the balance of payments deficit for 1986-87 as a whole will be somewhat lower than the $14.7 billion predicted at the time of the Budget, with a significant fall in prospect for 1987-88, both in nominal terms and as a proportion and a share of GDP. That, in turn, is the basis for our confidence about the future for interest rates. Senator Messner —Is this the briefing that you got the other day when you decided about the May economic statement? Senator GARETH EVANS —That is the basis of our confidence for what we have said. They are all matters that are on the public record. They are all matters which are self-evidently the case, so far as the nature of our economic strategy is concerned. They are all factors that are manifestly inconsistent with the kind of reasoning and conclusions involved in this document, and they are accordingly all matters which go to reinforce what I and others have asserted to be the status of that document-a status that does not require, because it is so self-evident, the kind of excursion and discursive inquiry contemplated by this motion that we are being asked to suspend Standing Orders to debate. To hear members of the Opposition talk, one would think that one could never expect interest rates to fall. The reality is that they have fallen already. Ninety-day bank bills are now some two percentage points lower than the 1986 peak in September. The maximum prime overdraft rate is some 0.75 percentage points lower. But even current interest rates pale into insignificance compared with the 22 per cent peak in the 90-day bill rate that was inflicted on this country by the Opposition when in government-a rate which is some two percentage points higher than the highest rate that has occurred under Labor. That is it in a nutshell. I do not want to embark, and I do not need to embark, on any more discursive a debate on these macroeconomic variables and these realities about the present state of our economy and the present character of the economic strategy that the Government is mobilising to deal with that very difficult state of the economy. That is why I repeat that the document is not to be taken as having any credibility on its face other than as an opinion, formed no doubt in good faith, by an officer in a department that is remote from the basic reality of macroeconomic forecasting and macroeconomic management. That is the reality of the situation. It is self-evidently the case. It does not need, except as a vehicle for political stunting of the kind represented by this motion, an inquiry by a Senate committee. It does not need the kind of expenditure of taxpayers' money that would be so involved. Neither the Senate nor its committees exist as vehicles for the particular whims, fancies, daily sallies and tactical battles that the Opposition may choose to engage in. This institution and its committee system are designed to engage in orderly and sensible debate and investigation of major public policy issues-not to track over things that are self-evident, which is what this motion is all about. Senator Chaney —Can I ask the Minister to table the paper from which he has been reading? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to table that. I claim confidentiality in respect of it. It is a practice that I will adopt almost universally in future. Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I just raised that because the Minister told us, as he read from that document, that all of these matters were on the public record and were matters that were well known. They were his very words. I ask him to reconsider that in light of his statement that all of this is before us and on the public record. What is he hiding? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —If the Minister claims confidentiality, he does not have to table the document. Senator GARETH EVANS —I read from only a small portion of the document. It is some briefing notes prepared in the Prime Minister's office. I have no idea of the status of some other parts of the document. I will check that status. If the view is taken that there is nothing confidential about it, I will be happy to recast my decision, but it is not one that I care to make on the run. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.53) —As Senator Chaney said yesterday in an almost identical debate, I do not intend to speak at length on this matter. In fact, I wish to speak only on the actual motion before us, which is the motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable the Senate to debate a motion of which, I mention, notice was given only this morning, to be brought on for debate now instead of at the normal time at which it would be brought on if normal procedures under Standing Orders were adhered to. I indicate that the Australian Democrats do not support the suspension of Standing Orders for that purpose. The position is that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), as is any other senator, is entitled to move a motion to refer a matter to a legislative and general purpose standing committee and to have that motion given precedence as business of the Senate on the day for which the motion is moved. In the case of the motion that Senator Chaney gave notice of this morning, the next day on which that could happen would be, of course, Tuesday, 17 March. Nothing will happen between now and that date that would warrant Standing Orders being suspended now so that the issue can be debated today. There is no urgency to this. We do not see the commencement of an inquiry at this point as being at all necessary. The Democrats will not support this motion. We do not see the need for urgency that has been raised by the Opposition. Of course, the only unfortunate thing is that we are now likely to spend the next hour or so at least hearing endless Opposition speakers trying to justify the course proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, in the interests of getting on with some of the business we have to deal with in this place, to bear in mind the relevance rule that operates in this place concerning debate and to keep speakers from all sides to the subject of the suspension of Standing Orders rather than the broader issue canvassed in the notice of motion. I say that because that was an instruction issued by Senator Chaney yesterday in the course of the debate on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders that we entered into yesterday afternoon. Frankly, I can think of a number of issues of greater importance than the one raised by Senator Chaney. The general state of the economic management of this country, as outlined in Senator Messner's notice of motion No. 366 listed for debate today, and of course not surprisingly the question of media ownership and control which we raised yesterday, as well as much of the legislation on the Notice Paper, would all be classified as far more urgent of the attention of this place than the motion of which Senator Chaney gave notice this morning. I suggest therefore that there is no justification for supporting the Opposition's motion for the suspension of Standing Orders, and for that reason the Democrats will not support it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.57) —I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Chaney to suspend Standing Orders. The urgency is abundantly apparent. Every day in this place Ministers come in with some hundreds of briefs prepared and speak from those briefs purporting to tell the Senate that those briefs are the statements, the facts, and the policies of the Government. There has never been any suggestion in this place before today that any brief read from in this chamber was other than the accepted statement, belief and policy of the Government. Suddenly, because something has gone wrong, one brief is picked out and said to be disregarded because it was done by some junior officer and should not be taken account of. If the Australian Democrats, who of course have left the chamber, have their way-and they say that there is no urgency-in future any reading from any brief by any Minister is likely to be simply discarded by the Government as simply the trivia of some junior officer. That is what is being said today. But that cannot be so. There is another important point. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, quite rightly and I think quite reasonably and ethically, said that she understood the Westminster principle. Many of us who have sat in that seat have understood that. But, as I understand it, out on the steps today she said that the brief came from the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West. Then the Westminster principle slips. It cannot be said that this brief can be explained away because a representative Minister got a second-hand brief here and made an accidental error. The Government cannot have it both ways. If Senator Ryan continues to say as she said on the steps, which I invite her to deny, that the brief originated from the Minister for Housing, Mr West, and that it is his responsibility-and everyone knows that Mr West would be fully cognisant of all the economic debate and up to date with the Government's most modern thinking on housing interest rates-quite clearly every card in the pack falls down. The Minister cannot hide behind the assertion that the information is stale. How can it be stale? This morning the Minister made it as fresh as a daisy. She said it came from the Minister himself, the Minister who of all people in the whole Cabinet has the most up to date knowledge. So let us reject straight away any suggestion that it cannot be true. All this stuff that Senator Evans has talked so garrulously bit by bit falls down. This material was not prepared by some junior officer. What a denigration! It was prepared by a very senior officer. What a denigration of the Westminster principle it is to hide behind the statement that an officer was responsible and not the Government. I know of nothing that is more corrupting of the Westminster system than to blame an officer, great or small, for an error. Senator Robert Ray —Fraser blamed a royal commissioner and what did you say about it? Nothing. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have never blamed a royal commissioner in my life. I can understand that Senator Ray is getting agitated now because we are getting to the very principle of this situation. Under the Westminster system ethical Ministers and governments do not come out behind the name of some public servant, great or small; they do not try to denigrate a public servant by saying that he is a junior. They say: `It is our paper and we stand by it'. Senator Ray cannot have it both ways. Either every one of those briefs read from every day is Government policy or every day the Opposition is receiving a lot of twaddle in what Ministers read out to us. The Government can hide behind the excuse that it is not true; some junior officer gave it the brief or it is a stale brief. But we cannot have it both ways. The Minister is in the hot seat. Yesterday she did what every other Minister has done. Her only mistake-I sympathise with her-was that she did not plead that it was a confidential document. I say in fairness to her that she could have done that and not tabled the document. That was her only mistake. There was no mistake on her part in reading from a brief from the responsible Minister, whom she represents, and stating that as Government policy. If we move from that situation we get to the ridiculous situation that never can we accept an answer at Question Time from representative Ministers. Either they speak purporting to give the words of the Government-as the Minister did yesterday quite rightly-or the whole thing becomes a charade and ought to be cast aside. We want to get behind the charade. The urgency is that this Parliament cannot go on with Ministers reading briefs if from now on we will never be able to believe and accept-and the public outside will not be able to accept-that those briefs give the views of the Government and not some stale thing that has gone wrong a few weeks ago. After all, if it were stale and went wrong that is not Senator Ryan's fault; that is Mr West's fault. It is not some officer's fault. The Australian Democrats, in their petulance because they did not get their toys, are not worrying about the merits of this situation. Because they did not win a trick some time ago they have left the chamber. Senator Vigor is here. Unless we approach this as a matter of urgency every brief that is read in this place can be downgraded as being from a junior officer and of no importance to anybody and not to be taken seriously. Is that what the Democrats are saying, that in future they will accept this rubbish that is being put to us? Senator Vigor —No, we are saying: `Do it at the right time'. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask, therefore, whether the Democrats will support us on 17 March when we move for this inquiry. Senator Vigor —We will discuss it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —This is again running away from the question. Senator Vigor has said that we should do it at the right time, meaning to imply: `Yes, we will support you then'. I ask the Democrats whether they will stand up and be counted. They have the evidence now. Will they support us on 17 March? Senator Childs —Address the Chair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will be very happy to address the Chair. I am asking questions rhetorically through the Chair, as Senator Childs should know. Every day in the history of this Parliament, in its 86 years, Ministers have brought briefs into this chamber as representative Ministers. They have told this chamber that views they have read from those briefs represent the views of the Government. Today, sadly, the poor Minister for Education is being forced to say that that is not the case. The Government has been caught in a trap and it is pretending that there has been some kind of accident which it is trying to blame on some junior public servant. It is saying that what was in the brief is not Government policy. The urgency is that in future we do not know whether we should take for granted that a brief read out by a Minister represents Government policy or is some excuse or escape route for the future. Senator Ryan has blown the gaff. She said the brief came from Mr West, the responsible Minister-- Senator Watson —An honest reply. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —A perfectly honest reply. He is responsible. It is no good saying that the brief is stale stuff and that because the dollar has gone up it does not apply. I wonder what the Government would say on this kind of nonsense tomorrow if the dollar goes down. It is not stale stuff. It cannot be claimed that the officer did not know or that the Government has altered its policies, the situation has changed and there will be a mini-Budget. The Government did not know that until we chivvied it day after day to get the mini-Budget. There is no question of talking about stale stuff. Everything falls down now except the examination of the credit of that document. Is the Government going to leave a senior public servant isolated? It is saying that the brief represents his views alone and that other representative people, highly equipped academics, would not hold that view. Will the Government let the Senate do the right thing today to find out whether the brief contained the true view? Does the Indicative Planning Council hold that view? The Democrats are holding up that investigation. Hundreds of thousands of Australian families are paying more in interest rates because of the crazy policies of this Government. We are trying to probe into this situation, to get interest rates down, and the Democrats will take a holiday for a fortnight, think about it and look at their philosophical navel. After all, Senator Haines said there is no urgency in this. The Democrats should tell the hundreds of thousands of people who are paying $40 to $50 a month extra because of the interest rate policies of the Government that there is no urgency, that the Democrats are entitled to their fortnight's holiday while they liaise with the Labor Party to see what type of treaty they can now get, as Senator Haines did. This is an absolute nonsense. The situation is very serious. The Minister for Education has done what every Minister in 86 years has done; she has properly relied upon a brief given to her by the responsible Minister. She has read it in this place as Government policy. The Government has now said: `Oh, it has grown stale'. But that cannot hold because the responsible Minister has the most up to date knowledge of the policy. The only test now is what is the truth of this situation because the Prime Minister in another place-I am not allowed to call him a little man-- Senator Chaney —Yes, you can; you cannot call him Bob Hawke. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Prime Minister has said that his style and title is Bob Hawke. I am allowed to say that he is arrogant; I am allowed to say that he is a little man, and I am allowed to say that he says that his style and title is Bob Hawke. My goodness, what nit-picking goes on in this place when the great issue is that the people of Australia are paying huge interest rates. Honourable senators opposite grin at that. We must test what is correct. Is it the evidence given and incorporated in the document or is it what the Prime Minister, who is running scared, says? Is there no urgency-- Senator Vigor —That is not what your motion says. That is not what you seek to do. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —For the benefit of Senator Vigor, let me say this: If he had been in here and had listened to Senator Chaney as to what we seek to do, he would have found that that is exactly what we want to do. We want to find out, through a Senate committee, what all those people who put the document together-members of the Indicative Planning Council, officers from the Reserve Bank, and others-think now in terms of interest rates. We know what they thought then; we want to know what they think now. That is a vital matter. That is what the Democrats are running away from, because they have made another bargain. I plead with the Senate. This is a matter of enormous urgency. Unless we can accept, in Question Time, the authority, if not the accuracy, of ministerial briefs, Question Time becomes a charade. We must test the authority of the Westminster system, which passes through the Minister. She has been left, quite wrongly, to carry the baby in this. If the Westminster system means anything, it means that the Minister in another place is the person to carry this. If the Minister feels mea culpa, let me simply say that that applies to the fact that she did not read the top of the document. If she had seen that the document was marked `in confidence', she could have resisted tabling it. If she had been a little more garrulous and a little more active, as Senator Evans was today, she could have pleaded that the document was confidential, and put it away. That is her only sin in this. The sin that runs through the alibi invented by the Prime Minister and others is something that the Senate has an absolute responsibility to investigate urgently. I commend the motion. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(4.13) —I rise simply to express my opposition to the motion to suspend Standing Orders because I do not believe that the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) should be proceeded with. My reasons are similar to those given at some length by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), so I will not take up the time of the Senate by repeating them. It is a unique experience for me to sit here and listen to the state of my soul being discussed by honourable senators opposite. Senator Chaney has taken the line that I am poor but honest. Senator Sir John Carrick has referred to sins that I have committed. I will not be making my confession to Senator Sir John Carrick; I do not think that that would be appropriate. I have confessed to an error and, having confessed to that error, I now put to the Senate that there is no basis at all for the motion that Senator Chaney seeks to bring on via his motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. As Senator Evans has pointed out, the terms of Senator Chaney's motion are spurious. There is no need to inquire into the authorship of the document under discussion, the sources from which the advice was obtained, nor its current status, because all those matters have been clarified. They have been clarified by me in public statements to the media; they have been clarified by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and by Senator Evans. The authorship of the document has been amplified in discussions and comments in Question Time today. Until Question Time today I was aware only of the name and the position of the officer in the Department of Housing and Construction. Now I am aware of his academic record, other activities, and so forth. So we do not need any further information on the author of the document; we have received a great deal of information on the author of the document. It is most unusual for the Senate to have such lengthy information available concerning the background and academic attainments, and so on, of public servants who give advice. So the authorship of the document is not in any doubt at all. Senator Archer —His reputation is. Senator RYAN —I will get to that in a moment, Senator. That is the most distressing aspect of the whole performance that the Opposition is putting on. The status of the document is not in any doubt. The status of the document can be revealed by anyone who cares to look at it, since I did respond to Senator Chaney's request to table a document yesterday. I believe that the Senate ought to have been able to see from where the document came and judge its status for itself. Its status was clearly a piece of advice offered to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) by an officer in his Department. As Senator Chaney and all honourable senators know, public servants regularly offer advice. Their advice is informed as a result of the data available to them. Senator Chaney —It is a Question Time brief. Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney knows that Question Time briefs are not prepared personally by Ministers; they are prepared by public servants. So the status of the advice is that it was advice offered as part of the Question Time brief. Senator Archer —It was accepted by the Minister. Senator RYAN —It was not accepted as Government policy. My error-I have made it clear that there was an error on my part-was that I assumed that, since it did appear in the Question Time brief, it did in fact reflect current Government policy; it did not. I should have been alert to that prior to reading it. I was not: Hence the confusion arose. That error does not call into any doubt the status of the document. The status of the document is clear. It has been pointed out by Senator Evans and other Government spokespersons that the advice was formulated prior to a number of decisions taken by the Government, in particular the decision to have a May economic statement. There is no suggestion that the officer could possibly have known about that when he formulated that advice. There is no suggestion from the other side of the chamber that the decision to have a May economic statement would be irrelevant to the kind of advice being put forward. Of course the decision will affect interest rates and the Government's capacity to bring them down. There can be no sensible argument about the status of the document. The reason I rose to speak-I guess I have said nothing that is not already on the public record by me-was to say that it is most spurious of Senator Chaney, Senator Sir John Carrick and other honourable senators to suggest that there is a matter that needs to be treated urgently because the Government is in some way denigrating a public servant. That has never happened. It has not been done by me; it has not been done by any other Minister, and it has not been done by the Prime Minister. What has been done is that attention has been drawn to the position of that public servant and to the fact that he is not in one of the main economic departments. No one can say that it is denigratory to say that; of course, it is not. It is simply appropriate to draw attention to the fact that the advice was formulated by an officer who is not an officer of the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance or the major co-ordinating department; namely, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In drawing the attention of journalists, who are inherently sloppy about these matters, to that fact there was no attempt to denigrate that officer and no attempt has been made to do so. It is entirely the action of setting up a hollow man to be knocked down in a subsequent debate to make those claims. Neither Senator Chaney nor Senator Sir John Carrick can point to anything that I have said or that any other Minister has said which is denigratory of that officer. Senator Archer —You inferred that he was a mug. Senator RYAN —That is the wrong use of the word `inferred', Senator. There is no need to carry on in this fashion. It is quite clear who was the author of the document. The date of its being written is also quite clear. Its status has been clarified by me. An error has been admitted by me in that I read out the document on the assumption that it represented current Government policy. It does not. That matter has been corrected. There is no need for the Senate's time or the taxpayers' money to be wasted in the totally unnecessary inquiry which would follow the successful passage of Senator Chaney's motion. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.20) —I rise to support Senator Chaney's motion to suspend Standing Orders. The matter at issue is whether to refer to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the briefing note on interest rates which was tabled by Senator Susan Ryan on 25 February. It is quite obvious from what we have heard in this chamber today that the Government is rather concerned that the matter could be put to more open debate and scrutiny by a committee of this chamber. The Government does not want public servants brought before the Committee to tell the truth. It does not want information tabled before the Committee. That is the issue at present. The Government wants closed government. Government members talk about open government but when they are put to the test, as they have been today, they fold up, as Senator Evans folded up. He claimed confidentiality of a document which he read to this chamber today. The Government does not want scrutiny of public servants. It does not want witnesses called from the private sector. What would the private sector tell the Government? It would say that business is taking a beating from high interest rates. It would tell the Government about the effect of high interest rates on profits and the results of low economic activity. The Government would be told about the devaluation benefits that are lost because of high interest rates and inflation-all factors of which Dr Hawkins is very cognisant. The Government says that Dr Hawkins is not from one of the top departments, but he is from an operating department, from the grass roots level. He knows what he is talking about. Senator Ryan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Nobody as far as I know on our side of the chamber has referred to `top departments'. What has been said is that Dr Hawkins is not from one of the main economic departments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WATSON —Again, the sensitivity of this matter is coming through. The eminent doctor is from an operating department. What is the problem? The real problem is that Senator Susan Ryan has been carpeted by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and by her Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for her actions. Surely this is not in keeping with the high ideals of the Parliament. To censure a senior Minister, one of the most senior Ministers, for presenting information which underlines and underscores the true state of the economy is, I believe, quite offensive and repugnant. I ask the Senate: Where is our Westminster tradition? Ministers are walking away nowadays from the concept of ministerial responsibility. They are blaming other people. They are not taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions, for their own mistakes, and sometimes for their own honesty. That is one of the tragedies of this place. One of the spin-offs of this matter is the belittling of a senior public servant, which is dreadful. In this place we are not allowed to refer to the Prime Minister as a little man, but we are allowed to refer to one of the most senior Government advisers, who is academically trained and who has occupied a high post in government and in the outside world, as a `junior officer'. What could be more belittling? What could be more humiliating? But the tragedy is far wider than that because we are starting to blame other people. We are getting to a Yes Minister situation. Senator Ryan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator Watson is not speaking to the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There has been a very wide-ranging debate on this motion. Latitude has been allowed to both sides. However, it is almost time for the honourable senator to return to the motion which is for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator WATSON —The question at issue is whether the Standing Orders should be suspended to enable this matter to go before the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, a Senate committee. But the Government does not want this information exposed. It does not want the officers involved presented to the Committee. The unfortunate feature that will result will be the naming of senior public officials, senior government advisers, in this place. That would be a new thing. It will result in a dangerous situation because public servants in future will be loath to put their names to documents. The heavy hand of government will be imposed on senior officials to tell the Government on a piece of paper exactly what the Government wants to know. This man told the truth from his background, from his professional reputation and from his experience in the real world. But the Government did not want to know. The status of the document is that it came through the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr West, the relevant Minister. It was passed on. We are now told that it is out of date. The only difference between now and a few days ago, or a fortnight ago when it was prepared, is that the Prime Minister has tried to put up a smokescreen. The smokescreen is to try to allay our fears that things are not going to improve. We are going to have a May economic statement but we do not know what is going to be in it. Senator Ryan —No, you don't know. You won't know until it comes out. Senator WATSON —Yes. But the Government is trying to maintain that the situation has changed from the situation which prevailed when the paper was prepared. I would like to submit that the position today is exactly what it was when the document was written and presented. I would like to challenge Senator Ryan to present a more up to date statement from this officer which brings the situation up to date following the Prime Minister's announcement regarding a May economic statement. I challenge the Minister to table that up to date statement. In so doing she might also help to restore the integrity of the Minister-- Senator Ryan —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator Watson has challenged the integrity of a Minister. I do not know which Minister but I ask him to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If he named the particular Minister would that be satisfactory or would you like him to withdraw? Senator Ryan —I would like him to withdraw the reflection on whichever Minister he is attacking. I am not prepared to sit here and listen to my ministerial colleagues being accused of a lack of integrity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Watson to withdraw. Senator WATSON —As the honourable senator well knows, I was referring to the integrity of the officer. I am not criticising Senator Ryan. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Have you withdrawn? Senator WATSON —It is an effective withdrawal because I have said that I was referring to the officer. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You did say `Minister', Senator Watson. Senator WATSON —I withdraw if the implication was taken to refer to the Minister. However, I was referring to the officer, and the Minister well knows that. I am not criticising Senator Ryan for tabling the document. She has done the right thing. She might not do the right thing in not answering her correspondence to people but she has confirmed what all the commentators around Australia have been telling us. There have been problems in relation to housing interest rates. The housing bodies have been telling us what has been happening. Let us consider the interest rate on Bankcard, the interest rates on savings banks home loans, prime interest rates and small overdraft rates. These interest rates are embarrassing to the Government. They are driving young couples out of their homes. As Minister Walsh has told us, bankruptcies are rising at an alarming rate because of interest rates. The Government is trying to mislead us on this question. It is trying to stop Senator Chaney getting a more open examination of the matter by referring it to a Senate committee. I support Senator Chaney's motion and I believe that in the interests of open government this issue should go to a Senate committee for open inquiry. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.29) —We have had a very excited Senator Watson trying to match the performance of his Leader. We started this debate with Senator Chaney stacking on a real performance to impress his colleagues. He put on his angry head and played to the gallery on his side with a performance to help bolster his leadership. I suppose that there must be a general feeling in the Opposition, the so-called coalition, that one of its leaders had to do something to help his image. Obviously, the Liberal Party, in particular, is scared stiff of being supplanted by the National Party in this place so it has pulled on a time-wasting stunt like this. One of the things Senator Watson had to say was that the document tabled yesterday contained a true statement. It may be a statement with which the Opposition might or might not agree, but it happens to suit the Opposition's political purpose. It cannot be described as a true statement when it is one person's opinion. There was no denigration of the officer concerned by the Government. To say that the Government's view on such a matter as interest rates is different from the view of one officer in one department is not a surprising thing to do and should not be objected to. Perhaps the most amazing thing Senator Watson had to say was that the May economic statement is to occur only because the Opposition has pressed so hard for it. If I had been asked several months ago to bet on whether there would be an economic statement in May, I would have willingly bet large amounts that there would be. I knew that such a statement would be a very likely event. For the Opposition to suggest that it was its pressure that brought on this announcement is nothing more than rubbish. The main point as far as the Finance and Government Operations Committee is concerned-and I am the Chairman of that Committee-is that it is hardly appropriate for it to investigate every paper tabled by a Minister at Question Time. There are probably several documents tabled every day by Ministers as a regular occurrence. They have not been in the habit of claiming confidentiality, as the other side was prone to in the past. There are usually several documents tabled every day and the Senate committee system would be totally bogged down with business, even more than it is already, if there were references every time such a document was tabled. I regret very much that the courtesy that used to exist in this place, of a senator consulting with the chairman of a committee before proposing a reference to the committee, has been thrown out of the window by the Opposition. Not only was there no attempt by Senator Chaney to consult me about this matter, but he did not even advise me of it, either before or after giving notice. It is about time that the Opposition stopped hijacking the Senate's program of business. This week alone we have had the hijacking of the program on Monday, by stacking on an extended and unnecessary debate about suspending Standing Orders to prolong the defence debate; then on Tuesday we had that extended debate where the Opposition went on and on ad nauseam about the defence statement. Today we have the Opposition stacking on a turn to attempt to suspend Standing Orders for this reference to a committee. Hardly any Bills are being dealt with at the moment. The legislative program is falling further and further behind. The Opposition just wants to take control of this chamber for self-indulgent debates such as this. I turn to the question of this document which the Opposition is claiming is of such enormous urgency that it should be referred to a committee. I think that Senator Chaney even went as far as suggesting that the Committee should come back with a determination of what will happen to interest rates this year and next year. He seemed to want the Finance and Government Operations Committee to hold an economic seminar. Senator Robert Ray —Get Doug Anthony as a consultant; he is an expert. Senator COATES —A name from the past, who has been around these corridors recently trying to help the Opposition with its problems. Senator Chaney wants an economic seminar to receive the opinions-they would be only opinions-of every economist or politician who wants to spout about interest rates. What a waste of time that would be for the Committee and for those economists concerned. In case Senator Chaney has not noticed, there is not unanimity about interest rates. The fact that the Opposition is performing as it is proves that point. It is hardly a matter on which the Committee could come back with a report about the facts, because we are talking about what interest rates will be in six months or 12 months. It is a matter not of fact but of prediction. If it were a matter of fact, there would not be the range of answers, opinions and advice which the Government has been given and which the Opposition wants to give us as well. Obviously there is a range of opinion which the Government receives on a matter such as future interest rates, and those opinions depend upon a whole lot of other economic factors and past and future decisions which the Committee cannot go into. The Opposition ought to make up its mind whether it is attacking or praising Senator Ryan. Honourable senators opposite have been totally contradictory about the matter. Senator Ryan —I would rather be attacked. Senator COATES —I am sure she would feel that her honour was higher if she were attacked, but Senator Sir John Carrick said that she was being terribly honest and then other Opposition speakers told her that she had sinned. I think they said that she had sinned because she tabled the document and because she has been, as this Government has tried to be, open and honest. We have an open and honest Minister amongst an incredibly open, honest and competent Ministry, the best and most stable Ministry there has ever been, leaving former coalition governments for dead. This issue is not one that is appropriate for reference to the Finance and Government Operations Committee. I wish that the debate could be concluded and we could get on with the program that was intended for today, but obviously the Opposition wants to prolong the debate and, as I say, stack on a turn about the whole matter for its own political purpose. I oppose the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.37) —On 5 November 1985 Senator Peter Walsh gave a very prescient answer to a question asked about free lunches. He said: I do not dispute that a great deal of alcohol is consumed at these so-called business lunches and, to the extent that indulgence in the business lunch is reduced, instead of tycoons coming back to the office at 4 o'clock on a Friday afternoon half full, they might come back at 2 o'clock . . . and do some work. Yesterday at 2 o'clock Senator Ryan came back from a lunch, which was well recorded in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald as a celebratory lunch, and she came back to do some work. The work she did was to answer honestly and straightforwardly a question which was asked of her about housing interest rates. The point that needs to be emphasised is that we are not dealing simply with the question of general interest rates. The question she was asked was about housing interest rates and the brief from which she read was from the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), supplied to the Minister for Housing and Construction by the First Assistant Secretary in the Industry Policy Division of that ministry. It is not possible to put up the canard that this man is not close to the centre of the debate-that he is not part of a major economic portfolio-when in fact the issue which was raised with Senator Ryan and to which she replied was the question of housing interest rates. How can anybody say that there is somebody better qualified to deal with advice to Ministers about housing interest rates than a person in the Department of Housing and Construction who is responsible for industry policy and for advice on that matter? The officer concerned, Dr Hawkins, has worked as an Assistant Secretary in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and, I understand, has worked in the Reserve Bank of Australia. He is not a junior officer but, as my colleague Senator Watson identified, a very senior officer. Indeed, he is probably being paid about the same salary as the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, the Minister who has sought to denigrate and to demean Dr Hawkins and his status by saying that he is really a junior officer, that he is not part of a major economic department and that he is not close to the debate on things. Is this an admission that a First Assistant Secretary in the Department of Housing and Construction is not close to the major economic debate about housing interest rates? If it is, it means one of two things: Either he is reflecting on the competence of the officer to give advice or he is deliberately misleading and covering up the truth of the matter by trying to say that this is an officer not well placed to know the facts in this matter. The question that was directed to Senator Ryan appears in the Hansard under the heading `Housing'. It was asked by the shadow Minister who carries the responsibility for matters of housing policy. It was directed not to the Minister representing the Treasurer (Mr Keating), not to the Minister for Finance, but to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. It was a question about housing interest rates. She answered it, and she answered it accurately. She answered it by quoting from the document headed `Question Time Brief' from which she read the first three paragraphs, which are basically reproduced in her answer which appears in the Hansard. When she was asked to table this document she is recorded as saying `Happily'. I do not know whether it is quite happily that she addresses the debate today. It is a matter which is of concern to a very large number of people. Senator Ryan —I am not very happy listening to your rubbish-foul little man. Senator PUPLICK —I am not in the least bit upset if Senator Ryan finds that the only way she can respond to these matters is by the use of personal invective. I do not mind that. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! In view of the fact that Senator Puplick has now taken note of Senator Ryan's remarks, I ask her to withdraw them. Senator Ryan —I withdraw. Senator PUPLICK —I was saying that this was a matter which related specifically to the question of housing interest rates and that the Minister tabled a document which dealt precisely with that. The brief says, in part: At this stage it appears that any reductions in market rates that may occur over the course of 1987 will not be sufficiently sustained or pronounced to result in reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. That is clearly the issue on which we are focus- ing, the issue of housing interest rates. This whole attempt to say that Dr Hawkins is not qualified to give advice on that matter falls to the ground. When I first started working in Canberra, back in 1969-70, I was on the staff of a Minister and I had the responsibility, as I am sure many other members of ministerial staff have had, of preparing and transferring from the House of Representatives Ministers to Senate Ministers the briefing notes which are provided to them for Question Time in this chamber. There has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a situation in which material has been sent from Ministers in the House of Representatives to Ministers in the Senate to assist them with handling matters at Question Time which did not, in effect, state the position of government as government understood it, or which was not transferred by Minister to Minister for the purpose of reflecting the Minister's view and the Government's view. If anything of that nature had occurred in this case one would expect the qualification to have been attached by the Minister for Housing and Construction that this was some sort of personal opinion on the part of a senior officer in his Department but somehow did not reflect Government policy. That has never occurred within that framework, as I understand the procedures that are followed in this regard. This document has now been attacked for being out of date. If it was out of date, what responsibility does the Minister bear for coming into this chamber and providing the Senate with information which was not accurate, up to the minute information, about the question which was being addressed to her? Her responsibility is to have accurate, up to date information. That is her responsibility in this place, and she has failed to discharge that responsibility, if her feeble excuse now is that the document represented something that was somehow out of date and therefore can no longer be taken as current. If that excuse were to be used, presumably every Minister would get up in this place and retreat-as the Minister is now retreating from the chamber-behind the wall and say: `This is no longer operative. It is no longer current. It is no longer valid because it is out of date'. Yet her responsibility as a Minister is to provide this chamber with up to date information in response to questions which are addressed to her. I will now comment on the defence put up by Senator Coates. He said that we were not getting on with the business of the day. I think there are five Bills listed for passage through this chamber today, four of which the chamber has disposed of. Four of the Bills listed on today's Notice Paper have been passed. At the moment we are taking the time which would otherwise be spent debating Senator Messner's motion. There is no excuse possible out of Senator Coates's mouth to say that this is in any way interfering with the Government's program or, indeed, that the reference of this matter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations would interfere with the Government's program. The interesting thing about Senator Coates's intervention is that he said that a couple of weeks ago he would have bet large sums of money on there being a May economic statement. Senator Robert Ray —It is not legal to bet on that. Senator PUPLICK —Yes, it is. It is perfectly legal to bet on that. Senator Coates, I am sure, could have picked up the phone and spoken to an SP bookie at home, where it probably is legal. He said that he was prepared to bet on there being a May economic statement when all of the senior members of the Government were telling us that there was no need for such a May economic statement; no need for a mini-Budget. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) told us, the Treasurer told us, the Minister for Finance told us, the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) told us and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) told us that there was no need for a May economic statement. But Senator Coates, in all his wisdom, said that he was prepared to bet money on there being a May economic statement. He knew, when the Ministers were attempting to conceal it, that there would be a May economic statement, because the Government's policy was in ruin, was a shambles, and clearly needed a major financial statement midway through the year to correct the failures and the damages that were being done. We have said that this matter should be referred to the Senate Committee to investigate the authorship of the advice and the sources from which it was obtained. That seems to me to be a most important part of Senator Chaney's motion. We want to know whether this document represents the best available evidence that the Government had before it when it came to make a series of decisions, a series of announcements, about the future of housing interest rates. Was this the information, for instance, upon which the decision was made that the ceiling on housing interest rates would be maintained? When this matter was debated in Caucus, in Cabinet, in the Ministry or anywhere else, was this the information upon which that decision was made? If it was, are those decisions open to be re-examined on the basis that this is now out of date, irrelevant, or no longer to be taken as having any particular value or any particular status? It therefore seems to me that the case which Senator Chaney has made out is a very formidable one and that there is in fact plenty of justification for this inquiry. It will allow everybody to establish that, in terms of the document's authorship, there are very few people, if any, better placed than Dr Hawkins to give advice to the Government and through the Government to give public advice on the future of housing interest rates. Who indeed is better placed? Let the Minister and speakers for the Australian Labor Party indicate who is better placed. What are the implications in terms of the forthcoming meeting of the Indicative Planning Council? Is Dr Hawkins to be lent on to retract or withdraw the advice which he will be giving to that body, which that body will then give to State Ministers and to Commonwealth Ministers, on the future of housing interest rates, on the future of the housing industry and on the impact of housing interest rates on the construction industry, which is also dealt with in the minute. All of those matters, it seems to me, need to be addressed. We need to address the question of why it was that the Minister used this document if in fact it was not a current and up to date document which should have been produced to keep the Senate in possession of current and up to date information. Does it reflect upon the whole status of these briefing documents? Are we to be told that ministerial briefing documents are no longer statements of government policy but simply the personal opinions of advisers who write them and send them to their primary Ministers who then, presumably without any input of their own, forward them on to their representing Ministers to be trotted out at Senate Question Time? That matter can be examined. The question of the sources from which this advice was drawn can also be examined. The spurious comments made by Senator Coates are matters with which I have already dealt, in exactly the same way as I dealt with the comments made by Senator Ryan in self- defence. Indeed it is a shame, I suppose, that Ministers in this Government feel that they have to defend themselves against the charge that they told the truth. This is probably a pretty low ebb when what the Ministers have to do is say: `I made a mistake; I told the truth.' Senator Gareth Evans was not going to be caught in that trap because when asked to table a document from which he quoted he, for the first time in my recollection since this Government has been in office, declined to table the document on the basis that it was confidential. He was a little too smart on this occasion; he did not want to be caught telling the truth. To that extent we shall undoubtedly watch the Government's record with a great degree of fascination in the weeks and months ahead as this Government struggles through, as it attempts to answer questions in this place and tell us that the answers which Ministers give to the questions we ask are not to be taken as statements of government policy but simply the personal scribblings of officers who will then be traduced by Ministers such as Senator Walsh in an attempt to prevent the people of Australia knowing what Senator Coates knew when he was prepared to make the bet that there would be a May economic statement-that the Government's economic policies are in ruin and a shambles; they need correction. Something urgent has to be done. That message is already out and about in the community and everybody paying off their homes, everybody struggling to get homes and everybody being oppressed by the interest rates for which this Government and this Government alone is responsible knows the truth of this matter. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.54) —I oppose this motion, and if one goes to the motion itself one can see why. Senator Chaney, who I take it prepared his motion very carefully, gave his notice of the motion as follows: I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Governments Operations- so the first thing is that he wants this matter referred to a particular committee outside this chamber- the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by Senator Ryan on 25 February 1987- all he wants referred to the Committee is the briefing note, nothing beyond that- and that the Committee inquire and report on its authorship, the sources from which the advice was obtained and the current status of the document . . . So Senator Chaney is saying: `Look, refer this document to the Committee so it can then undertake the exercise of cross-examining at will those who can be called before it'. In other words, it is nothing more than a fishing expedition to get evidence. Senator Chaney shakes his head but the way the motion is framed must lead us to that inevitable conclusion. He says nothing about the policy that might be behind the document, of a program that might have prompted it or the philosophy that has developed it; all he wants to know is the authorship. He knows the authorship because he accepts that it is R. G. Hawkins. Senator Chaney —No, that is his name which is there. Senator COONEY —Senator Chaney cannot have it both ways. Senator Chaney has said: `Look, we are upset that you have condemned Hawkins in the way you have. Hawkins is the man who did it and we accept that he is obviously the author of the document.' Senator Chaney is talking about the briefing note; he has not gone beyond that, to the research papers that might have existed. He has just asked for the authorship of the briefing note, the sources and the advice. If he wants to amend his motion, he may go ahead and do that but if he is going to leave it as it is that is really what it amounts to. It seems extraordinary that we should send off to a particular committee a document in respect of which the Opposition wants to carry out an exercise which really would be better carried out in the star chamber, because what it really wants is to have people cross-examined very closely about this particular document and about what is behind it. How can it be that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is any better placed than any other committee to go into what is in effect an examination of this document of almost star chamber proportions? Should not the motion say that we should send it off to a body of cross-examiners comprising, for example, Senator Alston and Senator Puplick? I was almost going to say Senator Newman, but she has such grace that she would not be vicious enough to cross-examine-- Senator Puplick —You are being sexist, like Evans. Be careful. Senator COONEY —No, I am not being sexist; I am simply talking in terms of her nature as I know it. People talk about the Westminster system, but this seems to be an extraordinary exercise. What is the Westminster system? Certainly star chambers have not been around since the Westminster system has been in existence. Finding out exactly what the Opposition wants to do is very difficult. It seems to want to have a debate on economic policy, and it says that that is urgent. Of course it is urgent but we have a debate on economic policy every day. The Opposition wants to discover evidence with which it can embarrass the Government. Perhaps that is a perfectly legitimate exercise, but is it a matter of urgency? Does it want to hold up the whole parliamentary process so it can go on a fishing expedition, so it can get some evidence with which it can embarrass various Ministers in Question Time? Certainly it might want to embarrass the Government and Ministers in Question Time-that is quite proper-but is it proper to hold up the business of the chamber so that it can go on a fishing expedition? Senator Kilgariff —This is General Business time. Senator COONEY —That is right, but it is an exercise in fishing because the Opposition wants to get material that it can put to this side to embarrass it in some way. `Look', the Opposition will say, `You say that; didn't Mr Smith say this and didn't your research paper say that?'. If the Opposition wants to go into an exercise of interrogation or discovery, it should do so through the various channels open to it. I am not telling members of the Opposition how to run their business but I would have thought the proper use of Question Time would be the way to do that. They can ask questions then and use the material they get from that in debate. They can go to their own sources if they like, their own economists, and get this material that they want, but why do they want to hold up Parliament? This is what I want to hear from Opposition speakers. They are doing it so they can get evidence that they can then introduce into a debate on the economic state of the country. This is not a debate about the economy; it ought to be a debate about the sources on which the Government relies for its economic statements. Senator Chaney —That is what we asked for-the sources. Senator COONEY —Of course Senator Chaney wants the sources, but he wants to obtain them by way of a particular exercise. He wants to go on a fishing expedition. The logic of his position is this: Each side of the chamber merely exchanges all the material it has on economic matters and we go through it all and debate it that way. That might well be an exercise that he wants to go through, but I cannot quite understand why he wants to suspend Standing Orders to do so. It is not a matter of suspending Standing Orders to debate the economy, to debate whether housing interest rates ought to be 13.5 per cent or something else, to debate whether the current account is too great or to talk about prices or wages. It is not a matter of suspending Standing Orders to debate any of those things. None of those things would be the subject of a debate which would follow the suspension of Standing Orders to determine whether this matter ought to be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Finance and Government Operations Committee is a creature of this Senate. I would have thought that it would be almost a dereliction of our duty to send these sorts of things off to that Committee when economic policy is the sort of thing that we ought to debate in this chamber. As to the evidence that Senator Chaney wants, he wants to go on a fishing expedition to get it. He said that it is an urgent matter but he does not want the Committee to report back until 26 March. If the examination of this document is so urgent, why is it that, in the terms of his own motion, he does not want the Committee to report back before 26 March? It seems to me to be a quite extraordinary exercise to go through to call for the suspension of the consideration of the business of this House so that he can get some sort of fishing expedition going to bring something back here by 26 March. Would he want an extension of that time if he did not get the sort of material that he wanted? Would he want it to go off to some other committee if this Committee's report was not satisfactory? It seems to be a most extraordinary exercise. For example, it has not been explained why he wants it to go to the Finance and Government Operations Committee rather than to some other committee. I suppose another committee it could go to is the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. There are some lawyers on that Committee who might be able to cross-examine witnesses for him. The more one looks at the whole thing, the more it becomes a quite irrelevant proposition to suspend Standing Orders to take up this motion. It seems to me that the motion is quite misdirected. It tries to send off to the Finance and Government Operations Committee an exercise which should be conducted in this chamber through Question Time or in debate and which should not be hidden away amongst the few honourable senators who constitute the particular committee referred to, namely, the Finance and Government Operations Committee. On the other hand, the moving of the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders can lead to the very healthy political debate that has taken place. That may well have been the reason why Senator Chaney introduced this motion-simply to get a debate going and simply to make a political point. I think that a political point has been made, and made very well; but I think that should be the end of it. If there is something more to it than trying to make political capital out of it-political debate is what this is all about and political debate is very important-it certainly has not come out in the sorts of suggestions that have been made on the other side. It has been alleged that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tried to get Senator Ryan to change her stance. That is not a matter that should be sent off to a committee; it is a matter that should be brought out here. There has been debate about whether a public servant has been insulted. If he has been insulted, that point ought to be made in this chamber in the public arena, not before some hidden away committee. The more one goes through the various points that have been raised in the debate, the more it becomes apparent that the sorts of things that have been raised ought to be raised in the House in the course of the various debates that take place again and again on the economy. It could be debated as a matter of public importance on a day set aside for that to take place. That is an instrument that can be used by the Leader of the Opposition to make any point that he wants to make. But how this matter can be said to be urgent is quite difficult to follow. Senator Sir John Carrick said that the Minister is in the hot seat. If she is, should that lead to the suspension of Standing Orders so that this matter can be debated? I hardly think so. It is simply a matter of making that point. Senator Sir John Carrick said quite correctly that the Minister could have claimed privilege on this. She did not do that. She was praised for that and in being praised it was not denied that the authorship of the document is as it appears. The document speaks very much for itself and nobody seems to have suggested for one minute that it does not. It has been said that it is significant to find out whether what is in the document is the Minister's view. She can be asked in Question Time: `Is that still your view?' The Leader of the Opposition could get his friends in the other place to ask the Treasurer (Mr Keating) whether that is his view. It is very difficult to see why this is urgent. It is said that the question of the economy is an enormous question. Of course it is an enormous question. That is why we debate it in this chamber again and again. I would be very interested to learn from the very eloquent speakers who will follow why the subject of this motion-its terms were written by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, quite advisedly I take it-should be a matter of urgency. The question of the economy can be debated at any time, so how can this be urgent? The Leader of the Opposition wants to go on a fishing expedition in the hope that he will find out all sorts of other things which he might be able to use in Question Time or to debate an MPI. If he wants some sort of policing committee formed to investigate the material that both sides of the House have, so be it; but that is very dangerous. We might get to the stage where the committee has to get the rack out to make sure that a person examined before the committee is telling the truth. It is a matter of the examination of witnesses in a situation of awe. If the committee wanted to take the awe a bit further, it could get round to the rack as well to make sure that it got to the truth of the matter. That seems to be very much what this sort of motion would lead to. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.08) —I rise to support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders moved by Senator Chaney. I do not wish to reiterate many of the points that have been made by both sides of the chamber but perhaps I could be of assistance to Senator Cooney by explaining to him that the interest of the Senate in this document is that it is the property of the Senate. It was tabled in the Senate, but it was repudiated by the Government that tabled it. Therefore, we have a motion before the Senate to determine the status of that document, the authorship of it and the sources of advice which is quoted in that document. The reason that I wanted to speak earlier in the debate was to point out that there seems to be some confusion in the minds of all those who have spoken for the Government about the brief that was prepared and tabled today with regard to Government policy and the document that was tabled yesterday. It is said in the `talking points' to the answer to the question today that was tabled: Document tabled in the Senate was not an accurate statement of government policy. It seems to me that there is great confusion in the minds of those who are putting forward this information as to the difference between Government policy and the outcomes of Government policy. That is why there is the interest of the Senate in this particular document. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), before tabling it yesterday, read from the earlier part of the document that the Government's policy and economic strategy `is directed at providing an environment conducive to achieving lower interest rates'. This document, which was written by the public servant concerned, quoted within it: The Report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented to the March 1987 meeting of the Australian Housing Council will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. That is not in any way in conflict with government policy, which of course is seeking lower interest rates, but it is pointing out that government policy is not going to achieve lower interest rates. So the Government is disclaiming the document that was tabled yesterday, and may be reasserting that its policy, particularly in an election year, is to achieve, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, prospects for falls in the general level of interest rates in 1987. That might be the policy, but we have, as the property of the Senate, a document that says that will not be the outcome. That is the interest of putting that before a Senate committee, to determine the way in which those matters, that will be put by the Indicative Planning Council before the State Ministers in March, were achieved and the basis of that information. It is said by the Government that this was written prior to the Government's announcement of a mini-Budget in May. I can only suggest that the statements of Senator Evans today foreshadow that there must be very substantial changes of direction in this statement that is to be produced in May by the Government, if it is to uphold its policy and to allow the Prime Minister to continue to say that there will be falls in interest rates in 1987. The advice of the Indicative Planning Council-I think we have today traversed the number of committees that this public servant sits on and works with-shows that this is not the outcome that will be achieved. I feel that when the Government says that that which was tabled yesterday was in error, it is confusing what might be its own policy objective and what will be the outcome from the best advice that can be given by those who are planning housing during the forthcoming year. It was said somewhere, I think by one of my colleagues, that the learned doctor has given advice to the Indicative Planning Council. I would rather put it that he receives advice from the Council, because those who sit on that Council represent the industry; they represent all sorts of people in the community who are involved in the provision of housing, in the financing of housing and all of those matters. So it is not the personal view of a particular public servant that was put in the Senate yesterday and which has now become a document of the Senate, it is the advice of the Indicative Planning Council that will go before the Government. Whilst the Government might find it uncomfortable to have advice in a document or a report of that kind that obviously will come forward in March, governments have to live with that. In a matter as important as housing policy and interest rate policy I think the Government ought to be prepared to subject itself to an examination of the way in which the Council came to that view: That although the Government might have that policy to reduce interest rates this year, that will not be achieved. So I think our interest in the status of the document does raise that difference between what might be a government policy and what might be the outcome of it. I do not want to make any comment at all about the reputations of public servants or about any of the matters that, during yesterday and today, have been matters of public comment. I do not think that is the point. I think the point of it is that the Government really cannot manage the news by saying that what was put down yesterday as an authoritative comment by an indicative planning council on housing is not government policy and therefore is in error. That is just managing the news, and it is probably the worst time of all to start managing the news when there are such grave matters of concern about the economy. So it would not hurt if expert advice were different from what the Government's objectives might be. But I think it would be fair enough for the Senate, now that the document is its property, to examine it to see what the basis of that advice was and how that can assist us to understand the concern that there is in the Australian community about housing matters. As I understand it, from public report, that was a matter that was also expressed in the Government Caucus this week. The Government Caucus itself, being interested in the matter of housing, took a recommendation that I assume it will work upon, and that is to retain the interest rate ceiling for those existing loans. I wonder what advice was given to Caucus about the likely outcome of interest rates this year to lead Caucus, as I read it, unanimously to decide that that ceiling ought to remain. Was it that the Government or the Prime Minister was able to say to it: `Don't worry about it. Housing rates are going to fall this year'? Or was it that Caucus had a proper review of the seriousness of the situation and the many economic indicators that really do make it almost impossible to suggest that there will be a fall in interest rates in this forthcoming year? I know there are other speakers, but I rose simply to make those two points: Firstly, to explain to Senator Cooney that it is not unusual for the Senate to determine the status, the accuracy or the content of a document that comes within its own purview and which has been tabled in the Senate. Our particular interest in this document is that it was tabled and then disclaimed as being in error. So there is a special interest in that document and not just as a document that could be tabled at any other Question Time. The second matter that I think is of interest is that there has been this confusion through all the public statements of government policy and what I believe ought to be addressed, and that is, the outcome of government policy and the likelihood that government policy will be achieved in this election year. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.16) —I am moved to think what a difference a few years makes, because I have listened today to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle telling us how much extra information she would like and how enthusiastic she is for this extra information to come to light. It was only five years ago that I served on Estimates Committee C, on which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was a very gracious Minister who used to give us information provided we badgered her for something like 30 hours. I instance, of course, the 1982 post-Budget survey. The one we first asked questions about did not exist and it gradually emerged that it may have existed. I think at the ninth meeting of Estimates Committee C it miraculously appeared. So it seems to me that we have a slight conversion here. That is an understandable conversion, from being a Minister to being in the Opposition. Maybe I have had a conversion the other way, I am not sure. But I at least now acknowledge the enthusiasm with which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle seeks information. It only goes to prove that the longer we are in politics, the more we learn. This is the second such motion in two days. It is a pity that I threw away my very brief notes from yesterday as I could have just regurgitated them. Yesterday we heard that it was of utmost urgency to suspend Standing Orders so that we could refer something to a committee. On that occasion the Liberal Party was not quite so susceptible to democratic principles or anything else and threw it out, and I think with good reason. I do not say that the Opposition is acting cynically. Today it has suddenly come in with a renewed burst of enthusiasm, but unfortunately in the meantime the Australian Democrats have lost theirs, so apparently we are not going to get a reference to either committee. We on the Government side at least have the consistency of a stone wall. We have opposed the references of both to a committee. I said yesterday and I say again: It is a legitimate political tactic of the Opposition or the Democrats, when a sensitive issue comes up, to have it referred to a committee-totally legitimate of course. It is not legitimate for the Government of this chamber if that succeeds on every occasion, because senators will not be able to deal with all those sorts of references. There are many references before existing committees that we simply do not deal with. I am sure we have all had experience of this Parliament saying to the members of this or that committee that there are about six or seven items to be dealt with. We cannot deal with them all at the one time and it is very difficult then to set priorities. What will happen if this is referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations? It has many existing inquiries-unless it has dramatically changed in the last few years-and which one does it give priority to? The fact that the Government or the casting vote of the Chairman has priority puts the committee in the position of having to ask: Does it shuffle it down to the bottom of its references or does it give it priority? How is that determined-just by a democratic vote or consensus? Usually, I would add, consensus has a lot to do with this on those committees, but as Senator Coates noted before, if something is referred to a Senate committee the normal courtesy is to see the chairman and to ask as to his or her timetable to see whether he or she can fit the reference in. That was not done on this occasion. One has to ask why this is so urgent. The Opposition has a little merit in saying that it is urgent. The only alternative for the Opposition, other than to refer it to a committee, is to let it go on the Notice Paper, let it come up under General Business in the Senate and have it put through. Why is that not a particularly attractive course? I can tell honourable senators why. It is because the Senate is anarchy personified. It has no discipline. It has no control over its business. What we do in this chamber, and what we have done in the last two weeks, is to waste an interminable amount of time on all sorts of issues so that the Government will be left in the situation in early June of being accused of trying to rush legislation through, with all of the inhibitions that that brings on the rights of back benchers and the Opposition. We have had one Bill go through in two weeks. Senator Alston —Four today. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I have had news of a late swing, so I must acknowledge that we got some through today. It has to be acknowledged that, if this subject came up under General Business for 2 1/2 hours, it would probably be talked out and never acted upon unless the Opposition wanted to bring it up repeatedly. That is not a condemnation of us on the Government side; it is a condemnation of the aimless way in which this chamber meanders under the guise of all sorts of democratic rights. In the end we become the victims of a tyranny of filibuster. We become the victims of mindless speeches and delaying and frustrating tactics. If this does not go through today, the Opposition will be the victim of part of the system that we have all helped to create. I suppose that is why there is at least some validity in this, as the only way these days to get a reference to a committee is to suspend Standing Orders and go through an urgency debate. What then evolves, I suppose with the compliance of us all, is that we have a debate to try to suspend Standing Orders. That never actually happens. What I am trying to argue is that we debate the subject then and try to embarrass the Presiding Officers of this chamber by wandering off into the distance and debating the substantive issue. The substantive issues in this case have been well and truly canvassed here this afternoon. Out of respect for you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will not do so. I come back to the issue of ministerial briefs. We really have a couple of choices here. They do not exist only to support Ministers. They are also available so that, when one asks a question without notice-especially in this chamber, where the Ministers represent 21 other Ministers-one can get some sort of an answer. That is why they exist. If Opposition senators want to do away with that system, they are welcome to do so. That would turn Question Time into an even more sterile event than it is at the moment. Question Time is supposed to be an innovative and combative time when information flows out, where the Opposition can impress and where Ministers can impress. But what do we have in this chamber? We have a rather convoluted Question Time. If the Opposition wants to stop Ministers using briefs, or wants to hold Ministers to absolutely everything contained in a ministerial brief, we will have an even more sterile Question Time. We might as well not have it. We might as well go to a 20-minute Question Time because we would not get any information at all. Whilst Ministers may often stonewall on some policy issues, I am very impressed by their eagerness-sometimes I am almost depressed by their eagerness-to try to answer seriously the silly questions that come from opposite. I want to mention a couple of other points. Senator Sir John Carrick, in his usual style, went on about the Westminster system, never accurately defining what it is. We have an implied theory of what it is to suit the particular circumstances. But, if we look back to the reality of the previous Liberal Government, we see that none of the criteria that he put forward today ever applied to any of its Ministers. Of course, on many occasions he used ministerial briefs, except, I suppose, when he was talking about cosmic mix and related matters. But, on the whole, he tended to use ministerial briefs when he was a Minister. He also knows and realises very strongly that everything in a ministerial brief is not always included in an answer to the Senate; that is, a whole variety of information appears in a ministerial brief and the Minister uses part of it to respond to a particular question. It is not absolute Government policy that is contained in those briefs; it never could be and never should be. There is no way that everything that appears in a brief will be the view of the Minister or of the Minister representing a Minister. We saw last night an example of the Public Service at work. A Senate committee sat until 2 a.m. investigating equalisation. In the row of witnesses, the Department of Communications was at one end and Telecom Australia at the other; Senator Giles will confirm this. They did not put forward exactly one common view and one common truth. They put to our committee their view of the truth and their judgment. It is then up to us to make a judgment as to who is correct. We do not expect one single view to come from the Government. After all, this is not the Soviet Union. Public servants' views are very valued, but in the end it is the Minister who makes policy. It is the Government that expresses policy-not a ministerial brief, on which many public servants work very hard and very effectively in the service of this chamber or the other chamber to assist the Government. This is really a bit of a storm in a teacup. If this motion is not carried today, that will not block off all opportunity to raise the issue again. There are many ways that one can raise this issue. As, I think, Senator Cooney indicated, it can be raised by way of an urgency motion or a matter of public importance. Also, the Opposition could try to go through the due process of bringing it up on a General Business day and asking for a bit of discipline so that it comes to a vote. The Opposition could do that, but it never does. Opposition senators, instead of waffling on for half an hour, could cut their speeches down and ask, through the Whip system, that this matter be brought to a vote and referred to a committee in the appropriate way. If that fails, they still have the Estimates committees that will be meeting probably in April or May and in which this matter can be pursued even further. I encourage that-primarily because I am not a member of the Estimates committee that would deal with this area. I summarise by saying that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) came in here today and admitted that she made an error on one or two points. I think that is very commendable. That is in the Westminster tradition. I do not think anyone here seriously suggests that that constitutes such an error as to imperil her ministerial future. It clearly does not do that. From time to time Ministers are error prone. Have honourable senators ever asked themselves why? Have they looked at the hours that they work? Very often one does not think of these things when in opposition. When we sat on that side I am sure that we did not give much credence to the hours put in by Ministers, especially when we called quorums when special meetings were being held with the then Prime Minister in 1982 to consider whether to have a special election. I am sure we all remember that. The then Government members and senators kept rushing over from the oval office backwards and forwards. I do not know whether Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was one of those. But there is a lot of pressure on Ministers and they do make occasional errors. On the scale of things, this is an extremely minor error. Let us say that this was to be sent to a committee. What would the Opposition senators intend to do at that committee? Do they seriously suggest, as I thought Senator Chaney implied, that members of that committee would make an assessment of where interest rates will go in the next 12 months? Perhaps we could ask them to tip the Melbourne Cup winner at the same time. We may as well do that because it would involve one person's judgment. That is what stock markets, et cetera, are about. The best thing that a government can do is to indicate the direction in which it thinks interest rates should be going and the direction in which economic indicators point towards them going. That is all that a government can do. It cannot guarantee them. We all remember the classic example of a Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Anthony, who said that he would eat his hat if interest rates did not go down by 2 per cent in the next year. We all know, of course, that they went up. None of us saw him eat his hat. Where was Senator Sir John Carrick's Westminster tradition? I demanded that Doug Anthony eat a hat some time. But he never has. Predicting the level of interest rates is a foolish thing to do. Very few Government Ministers predict the level that interest rates will reach. By the way, they are willing to predict the trend, and so they should. But they do not actually predict the level to which interest rates will go. What the Opposition really wanted-why do Opposition senators not admit this?-was this issue debated in General Business time. It had no other device, so it moved this motion to try to debate it now. But do any Opposition senators realistically think that anything productive will come out of a reference to a committee? Senator Alston —Let us try. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Alston may like to try. But I bet the Opposition gets nowhere if it goes there. It will get absolutely nowhere. It will be a waste of time. Senator Walters —Let us try it. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Walters whines on: `Let us try'. She was not saying `Let us try' yesterday. Where was the democrat or the libertine in Senator Walters who wanted an inquiry then? She voted against it, or is her name not in the division record? Let us not go on with the sanctimoniousness of all this. It is a legitimate tactic for an opposition to do this but let us cut out the pompousness and the sanctimoniousness of this issue. In summary, we have been consistent in not having every item referred to a committee. Government does not run by every item being referred to committees; it comes out of decisions in this chamber. The sooner this chamber is willing to make more mature decisions and organise its procedures to achieve those decisions the better. I finish with this warning: If the Opposition does not do it now and it happens to come into government it should not come pleading to us to help it out. This chamber can be made into a chamber of anarchy-I suspect at times bordering on nihilism-by an opposition that wants to bog down a government. All right, that is the Opposition's tactic, but it is a tactic that always boomerangs, as we probably find now it has boomeranged on us because of our tactics, at least from 1981 to 1983 when I was here. We should change the procedures in this chamber so that we can bring issues such as this to a sensible vote instead of going through all the charade of an urgency motion, canvassing the issues when we should not be canvassing issues, putting it to a vote and failing at that point. If we had the proper procedures in this chamber it would be far less likely. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.32) —I would like to read Senator Chaney's notice of motion, which I certainly support, because both Senator Coates and Senator Robert Ray, who has just sat down, did not indicate the truth of this motion or even speak to the words of it. It reads: I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the briefing note on interest rates tabled in the Senate by Senator Ryan on 25 February 1987 and that the Committee inquire into and report on its authorship, the resources from which the advice was obtained and the current status of the document- not interest rates generally but just the authorship, the sources from which the advice was obtained and the current status of the document- (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 26 March 1987. Of course, that was not what Senator Robert Ray said the motion was in any of his speech. In answer to Senator Vigor, who spoke earlier and who said that he did not understand the urgency of this motion, I say that the urgency is that the Committee should report to the Senate on or before 26 March. If we put off this inquiry until we come back in another fortnight that would be an unreasonable date to expect the Committee to report by. So of course there is an urgency for that to be done. I come back to the briefing notes which the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, read at Question Time yesterday. They read: The report of the Indicative Planning Council to be presented in March 1987- that has not yet been presented; it is to be presented next month, so it cannot possibly be considered old hat, old news, an old report- meeting of the Australian Housing Council will contain an assumption that any reductions in market rates that occur this year will not be sufficient to allow reductions in housing loan interest rates in 1987. Whilst reductions in housing rates may occur in the first half of 1988, it is unlikely that any such reductions would have any significant impact on building activity until the second half of 1988. That was said by the Government's chief advisory body on the housing industry. It is not some ratbag little group. It is not, as Senator Walsh tried to say, some small department. It is not an opinion of one man, as Senator Robert Ray tried to claim just a few moments ago when he said that we would never get anything out in the Committee because it is all the opinion of one man. This is not the opinion of one man. Indeed, it is the opinion of Dr R. G. Hawkins. Let me give honourable senators a little information about this particular officer. Senator Walsh said that he was a junior officer. Let us hear how junior Dr R. G. Hawkins is. To begin with, he is the First Assistant Secretary of the Industry Policy Division of the Department of Housing and Construction. As he is the First Assistant Secretary of that Division, that would keep him completely up to date on information coming to the Department. He is also secretary of the Construction Industry Council. He is on the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry and, as I said, that is the main advisory body to the Government on housing. He is also a member of the Joint Venture for More Affordable Housing. Some junior officer! He is also Chairman of the Construction Forecasting Committee. That being so, surely he is up with all the latest information that the Government can possibly have. He has a PhD in economics. He can hardly be referred to, as Senator Walsh did, as a junior officer. It was claimed that he was a junior officer and that the brief was one man's opinion. That is not true and Senator Walsh, in his typical way, tried to distort the facts for his own convenience. Senator Ryan, in an interview she gave some time this morning, said that that particular officer or that brief drew conclusions that were different from the conclusions of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That is really a wonderful statement! I do not doubt that the officer drew conclusions different from the conclusions of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister was making a political statement while the officer was giving advice to the Prime Minister, and of course they are very different. One is factual and the other, from a Prime Minister who is noted for his arrogance, is just a political statement which we have no way of trusting. Senator Robert Ray said that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle had to be questioned a tremendous amount during the Estimates committee hearings to get information from her. He spoke at length on and made quite a play about the Estimates committees. He said that when he was on Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's Estimates committee there was something like 30 hours of questioning. Mr Acting Deputy President, may I tell you what happened when Senator Gareth Evans was dealing with the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill and the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill before an Estimates committee? Senator Kilgariff asked the departmental officer a question which he was not able to answer. Senator Kilgariff, in his very polite way, said that perhaps he could get the information and bring it to him at some later time. When the officer said that he would get the information Senator Evans, who was sitting at the head of the table in this chamber, whispered to the officer beside him: `Don't try too hard'. The Committee did not hear that direction from the Minister because it was a whispered one. However, unfortunately for Senator Evans it came over the intercom system into all our rooms, loudly and clearly. I happened to be sitting in my room when I heard Senator Evans whisper that instruction to the officer beside him. When I came upstairs and told Senator Evans that he was not acting in accordance with the tradition of the Senate, that information gathered at Estimates committees should be freely available, he remonstrated with me. But, of course, there was no denying that he had instructed his officer not to get the information for the honourable senator. Senator Evans, who has just walked into the chamber, will know that that was one of his other big gaffs in the Senate. Honourable senators opposite should not talk to me about open government, about accuracy and about information given by the present Government; they are absolutely non-existent. Senator Cooney said that we ought to be able to get information at Question Time. I agree with him; it would be very nice if we could get it at Question Time. It would indeed be very nice if Ministers would answer our questions. It would have been very nice if, in answer to the question today, Senator Ryan had been able to say that she did not know the author of the document from which she quoted. Indeed, what she said was: `I don't know a thing about him'. In 24 hours, she had not sought any information on the curriculum vitae of the officer who had written the information she gave us. She had decided not to tell the Senate anything about it. Senator Cooney knows as well as I do that there is no use the Opposition trying to get the truth of a matter in Question Time; we so rarely get it that it is not worth it. There is tremendous concern in the community about interest rates. Many houses are for sale because people are unable to meet their mortgage repayments. The Government has wreaked havoc on the housing industry. There is a need for this inquiry. I support Senator Chaney's motion and ask honourable senators to pass it. Senator Vigor has just entered the chamber. Earlier he asked: `What is the reason for the urgency?' As he was not present when I explained it, I will do so again. If Senator Vigor looks at the motion he will see that the Committee is asked to report by 26 March. That is the reason for the urgency. If it is left for a fortnight until after we come back, the Committee will be unable to report by 26 March. Senator Vigor —What is the significance of 26 March? Senator WALTERS —Let me explain the urgency. Senator Vigor says that there is no urgency. If there is no urgency, in every Question Time we have in this place everyone will be wondering whether the information given to us by Ministers is accurate or whether it is just the opinion of one officer of a department who has presented something that is not government policy but just his own opinion. That is what Senator Ryan has told us today. It is not government policy; it is just the opinion of one officer, and it really has nothing to do with her. If the honourable senator wants that situation to continue past 26 March, I would be very surprised. That is the reason for the urgency motion. We do not want that situation to continue. We are not asking for open slather on interest rates. The motion is very clear. It asks for the authorship, the source from which the advice was obtained, and the current status of the document. It asks whether briefing notes given to Ministers are government policy or whether they are just the opinion of one person, as stated by the Minister. If Senator Vigor does not think that that is urgent, if he does not think that our answers in Question Time deserve better than just one person's opinion-we deserve to hear the policy of the Government-I would be most surprised. That is why the motion needs to be passed today-so that by 26 March we can have a proper opinion on what is coming to us in Question Time. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.46) —This motion raises fundamental issues of both procedure and substance. I listened with interest to Senator Robert Ray, who skilfully avoided analysing the merits of the issue. I think that in many ways he looked back in sorrow and gave us a political science analysis of the failings of the parliamentary process. The reason for that approach is clear. What we are confronted with in the motion are questions that go to the very root of the parliamentary system. Unless Question Time can proceed on the basis that information given in answer to questions is accurate, unless it can proceed on the basis that Ministers are obtaining accurate and up to date information, the process becomes meaningless. One would have thought up until now that Ministers do act competently, that they do ensure that they have up to date briefing documents and that they are aware of what is going on in their field of responsibility. It is an absolute disgrace in these circumstances to have seen the running for cover that has taken place in the past 24 hours. A poor senior public servant has been left standing naked at centre stage. All sorts of people have disowned responsibility and have attempted to blame others. Therefore, the authorship and status of that briefing note becomes critically important. If we look at some of the shabby put-downs we find that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) describes it merely as `a piece of advice'. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) describes it as `a personal opinion'. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, talked about being `cautiously optimistic'. Those statements fly in the face of the comments of that briefing document. We have not been provided with one skerrick of evidence that contradicts that briefing note. We know of nothing that would demonstrate in any way that it is not accurate; that it is not the work of a public servant employed to do the job that he should do as a senior policy adviser to the Government. In those circumstances, it is shameful that Senator Ryan should apologise in the way that she has for getting government policy wrong, when she patently got it right. What she did yesterday was not simply provide someone's view of the world; she gave the Senate the most accurate and up to date assessment of the critical state of housing interest rates in this country. The facts are plain. Investment in housing has fallen by 11.4 per cent over the year to the September quarter of last year. The number of new housing starts fell in six of the past eight quarters. If one wants to look for evidence of the accuracy of the document one needs to look no further than at the Hansard of today's House of Representatives. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) reduced the expected number of housing starts set out not so many days ago by the report of the Indicative Planning Council. So once again housing starts are moving downwards. Why is that? It is simply because the status of the document is that it is a very accurate reflection and assessment of the economic situation-of the current decline of the economy and the high housing interest rates. It does not need terribly much understanding of the way in which the process operates to come to the same conclusion Dr Hawkins came to, which is that there is no prospect of a reduction in housing interest rates for the rest of this calendar year. Indeed, he said that it is unlikely that reductions in housing loan interest rates will occur until the first half of 1988 at the earliest. That is an accurate assessment, yet it is being disowned by senior Government Ministers. One would have thought that it is absolutely imperative that we investigate the way in which that sort of information can be put before a Minister. It is simply a canard of the highest order for Senator Evans somehow to suggest that the document is out of date by pointing to 13 February. One does not expect that these matters are revised on a daily basis, although that is perhaps the way in which the Government needs to operate at present. What we know is that nothing has happened since that time to provide any more optimism. If we look at the environment in which Dr Hawkins would have provided that briefing note it is quite clear that the suggestion of a May expenditure statement or mini-Budget has been on the agenda for quite some time. It has certainly been vigorously disowned by the Government as a possibility. Senator Walsh was at great pains in this chamber in September last year to state categorically that there would be no May mini-Budget. The fact is that Dr Hawkins could have taken that into account as a possibility. He could have recommended that it might be a means of somehow turning the situation around. He clearly regarded it as unlikely and not capable of achieving any significant reduction in housing interest rates. Therefore, on the basis of the known information at that time what he gave was an accurate assessment. If we look at the recent consumer price index figure of 2.9 per cent for the last quarter and at the gross foreign debt figure of $101 billion we can see that two very significant economic indicators came out at that time which Dr Hawkins clearly took into account and which led to his state of pessimism. Therefore, it is critical that this document should be examined at length and that we should be able to assess not only its status but the status of all such documents which come into the possession of Ministers to ensure that the system operates in the way it ought to operate. There is no point in having Question Time if we cannot rely on the accuracy of information. I suggest not only that it is disgraceful to blame a public servant who has done his best and who has provided accurate advice but also that it is dishonest in the extreme to pretend that somehow it does not represent Government policy. If policy is not based on the latest available evidence, what is the basis for policy formulation? Is it simply pulling something out of the hat, is it wishful thinking, or is it simply dishonest obfuscation? If there is any evidence to the contrary or any evidence which Dr Hawkins did not take into account, the Committee deserves to know about it and this chamber deserves to hear about it in due course. If there is not, the status of the document should be confirmed for what it clearly is, and that is an accurate and reliable piece of information. Until we get to that point of time we are simply going to have the sort of nonsense that has gone on in this place and outside it in the last 24 hours. In relation to the expenditure statement changing the whole position, I regard that as the Richard Nixon defence by a Philadelphia academic lawyer under the guise of the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is simply not good enough. It is an excuse of the rankest possible kind. It is transparently dishonest. It is an attempt to deny the reality of the facts contained in the briefing document. Therefore, I urge that this document be referred as quickly as possible to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations so that the Committee will have the opportunity to investigate not only the accuracy of the document but also the whole basis on which policy is formulated, the whole range of economic indicators which point inexorably in favour of its accuracy and authenticity. Ultimately, out of that process I hope will come documents upon which we can rely and to which Ministers will be prepared to adhere. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.55) —I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Chaney so that the status of the document tabled yesterday can be independently assessed in the light of the conflicting statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Why should Standing Orders be suspended over this document? They should be suspended so that an inquiry can take place because the subject matter of this document is so important. The statements by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer conflict so much with what is clearly, in our belief, the truth of the document tabled by Senator Ryan. This is a matter of the gravest importance for Australians. It is of the gravest importance because, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said earlier, this matter has raised in our minds queries concerning the management of the news. Firstly, it has raised queries in our minds about the honesty of our Government leaders. It is an extremely important matter which we cannot afford to ignore. Those aspects are obviously vital and must be investigated. Secondly, there is the important matter of the future behaviour of interest rates. In an article which appeared in the Age in January Terry McCrann said: There is an unbreakable chain linking our high interest rates to our high inflation rate, to our crazily destructive wages and industrial relations systems, to our lotus-land living beyond our means, and on to the fundamental problem of government. I concur with that absolutely and so do Australians outside this chamber. We must not forget how interest rates impact on small business, on an investment-led recovery which we so desperately need and on the well-being of the housing industry which employs so many people directly and indirectly. In all those ways the subject matter of this document is of the gravest importance to all Australians. The home interest rates which are referred to in the document are critical to all Australian families. We have to consider the present situation of Australian families and their home repayments. They have to pay at least 15.5 per cent on their home loans, 22.5 per cent interest on their Bankcards and 20.5 per cent on their small overdrafts. About 25 per cent of an average family's monthly gross income is absorbed by its mortgage payments this year. That is an estimate by the Real Estate Institute of Australia. Obviously, the subject of this document is of grave importance. We cannot ignore it. There were to be 135,000 housing starts as a result of the April housing package last year. This figure was supported by the Treasurer as recently as September. Now the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry has revised that figure to 122,000. I understand that it is more likely to be in the region of 120,000. So houses are not being built and families cannot afford to meet the repayments. There are 700,000 families which are below the poverty line in Australia after they have met their housing repayments. Let us consider also the situation of those who have taken out mortgages and who are trying to cope with the present interest rates. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has said that the number of people defaulting on mortgage repayments in 1985-86 reached its highest level and rose by 50 per cent over the four months from about 1,100 to a record 1,700 during the twelve months to 30 June. The report from the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation said that high interest rates were largely to blame for the dramatic increase. Clearly, once again the subject matter of this document is of vital importance and its authenticity or accuracy is vital for us to investigate. I turn now to the people who cannot afford any more to have mortgage repayments taken out of their incomes. They are turning to the public housing lists, which are growing at a dramatic rate. In Victoria to June 1985 there were 27,288 people waiting for housing and to June 1986 there were 32,644 people waiting for housing. In my own State at the end of December last year 4,500 people were waiting to be housed. They are on those waiting lists because they cannot afford to buy a house. What has happened to the young people? We know clearly what has happened to the young people. Only $50m out of the $100m allocated to the first home owners scheme was allocated to home buyers. That is because those young people cannot afford the interest rates on the balance of the money they need for their houses, so they are dropping out of the housing market and adding to the public housing lists; and we have great difficulties there. State governments are having to go to the commercial markets to borrow at commercial rates in order to allow for the rebates that welfare tenants are having to claim. In those ways the interest rates the subject of this document which was tabled yesterday are of fundamental importance to a wide range of Australians-I say to all Australians. I quote Bishop Hollingworth, the Chairman of the National Committee of Non-Government Organisations for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. He attributed last year's dramatic increase in applications for public housing to higher unemployment, higher interest rates and ever increasing private rental rates. Mr Walter demonstrated the importance to the Australian Labor Party of interest rates when he said that the Federal Government, unless it changes course on interest rates, would lose government. Clearly this is a subject which is of importance to the nation and to the Labor Party. Therefore, it is clear that the subject of this document will have a major impact on the national economy and on Australian families. The future of interest rates is of such critical importance to this country that the status of the document tabled yesterday, contrasted with the public utterances of the author's political masters, must be assessed in depth. I therefore support the motion. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.03) —At this stage it is worthwhile, as the Australian Democrats will be in a critical situation in the vote on this motion, making some comment on the debate which we have heard today. I believe, from what I have heard today, that the Senate does have a right to know what represents a Government view and what does not. If a Minister's answers cannot be taken at face value, when do we know that a Government view is being put forward and when do we not know? If the Government is claiming that an error has been made, it has a duty to explain why up to date information was not available to the Minister, to put forward relevant factual information about how that information has been superseded, and to let the Parliament know as soon as possible that that information has been superseded. This is at the heart of ministerial responsibility within the Westminster system. The Opposition has put that view very strongly and I support it thoroughly. However, I do not believe that there is any reason whatsoever for the urgency motion which Senator Chaney has put forward. That motion is weak. I make no apology at all to this Senate for putting that view. The Finance and Government Operations Committee, on which I am the Australian Democrats' representative, would be able to look at some real and substantial reference of how we could solve this problem in the long term. Senator Chaney's motion is quite unsatisfactory in that it is a backward looking motion which wants the Committee to inquire into and report on the authorship of the document. I am quite convinced by the Government's statement, which has been repeated many times, that the author is Dr R. G. Hawkins, whose curriculum vitae has been extolled to us by the Opposition and whose juniority has been expressed to us trenchantly by Senator Walsh. We have learnt enough about that and I do not believe that there is anything to be gained from that. The sources from which the advice was obtained are fairly obvious from the document itself. If we are to look at this information in an effective way, we need to look into the alternative information which might have been available to the Minister and which might have been better information, had it been conveyed, on what the Government's position was. If the Committee is to do its job properly it should have much broader terms of reference in that sense. Secondly, the current status of the document is quite obvious. It is a Question Time briefing note and its status is that the Government is basically denying that it relates to its policy. It brings into question why it was presented to us in this Senate as a ministerial answer. I believe that is something that we have a right to know. The Opposition has made a lot of noise about the present high interest rates, particularly high housing loan rates, and wishes the problem to be examined urgently by a Senate or parliamentary committee. This reference does not do that. I believe that it might be useful if a multipartisan agreement on urgent action in this area were able to be drawn up. However, no such attempt was made before this urgency motion was brought up, as far as I know. I share the concerns of the Opposition on this matter. High interest rates are crippling Australian industry, bankrupting Australian farmers and eroding the incomes of wage earners and home buyers to the extent that recent home buyers are poverty stricken and young people can no longer afford to buy their own homes. Overall, the whole economy is afflicted by a drop in demand as take-home pay slumps. These are all real problems, but Senator Chaney's motion to refer to a committee a minor slip, as I see it, by Senator Ryan which may have revealed a whole can of worms does not go to the substantial point which this Senate should spend its time on. Yesterday the Australian Democrats sought leave to refer the urgent problem of media ownership and control to a Senate committee. The Australian Democrats believe that media ownership is an even more urgent problem that this. The current domination of the print media ownership by one major foreign owner, Mr Murdoch, whose borrowings exceed $5 billion, is of enormous concern to the economy because of the vested interest in inflation, high growth and high interest rates in Australia as a consequence of that high borrowing. The Senate should be considering these things. In place of this matter, the Opposition had intended to debate General Business Order of the Day No. 366 in the name of Senator Messner, which deals with some of these economic problems. The Democrats had prepared an amendment to that motion proposing solutions to the problems. I believe that had more urgency than the type of weak motion which Senator Chaney wanted to suspend the operations of the Senate to consider. That is why the Democrats are not in favour of allowing this type of thing to come in, on the hop, on the spur of the moment, without proper consultation with the parties. It is important, if possible, to have tripartite approaches to solving these problems. If we can get that type of approach the Opposition will get its references to committees, and the committees will be proud to follow them through. As a member of this Committee I feel that this particular reference would be somewhat of a waste of time and would need to be redrafted. We will be looking at this matter at our next party meeting. A tripartite approach is needed to get to the bottom of this problem, to enable the Senate to work better than it has this week and to allow real business that will help Australians to come forward. Then we will achieve something from the type of debate that is going on now. It is vital that Australians preserve an open parliamentary system and governments provide this Parliament with information that can be relied upon. My trust in the information we are given in Question Time has been severely shaken by this debate and I will be raising this matter in my party room for consideration. I hope that we can come up with a constructive solution so that this Parliament can work effectively. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.12) —in reply-It is a pity, given the final words that were uttered by Senator Vigor, that he is not taking his courage in his hands and determined to support this motion. In fact, the narrow point which he made about the faith that we can place in Question Time is a very good reason for pursuing this relatively narrow inquiry. What Senator Vigor was suggesting was that we should set about writing the text and have an enormously wide inquiry, which I would respectfully suggest would take a great deal of time and would not do the good that could be done by a rapid inquiry, which could be undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations now, into the status of this report. By status we mean: Does it represent a current view, or is it a view which has been outmoded by the change of circumstances that Government Ministers referred to in this debate? We have a relatively narrow task to assign to the Committee. It is a task that could have been done in a limited time. We are seeking in this motion the chance to move now that the Committee inquire into and report on the authorship of the information-whether it was the sole work of the particular person whose name it bears-and the sources from which the advice was obtained. I believe that an examination of the sources would very likely show that the author was able to draw on the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance, the Indicative Planning Council and all of those bodies to which one would expect a senior public servant working in this area to be able to obtain access. That, I think, would give the lie to the suggestion from the Government that this is an answer which has been prepared on the basis of inadequate access to the broader advice which is available to government. I thank honourable senators for the contributions they have made to the debate. I thought that Senator Sir John Carrick in particular brought out very well the point, which was not a part of my own presentation when I moved the motion on behalf of the Opposition, that the whole practice of Question Time, and the extent to which we can rely on answers given in Question Time, has been thrown into doubt. I thank Senator Sir John Carrick for that. I note that Senator Vigor expressed the same sorts of concerns as were expressed by Senator Sir John Carrick in his contribution. I also want to acknowledge Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's contribution because she very correctly pointed out that the Government has become terribly confused about policy and outcomes, between policy and facts. The Prime Minister's briefing note that the Government tabled today starts as follows: The document tabled in the Senate was not an accurate statement of Government policy. Among other things the document said that the Indicative Planning Council was going to tell the Ministers for housing that the prognosis for interest rates was as set out in that briefing note. In other words, there is little prospect of a reduction in 1987; perhaps some reduction in 1988, but even so, there would be no benign effect on housing until the latter half of 1988. That is an outcome of policy. It is quite absurd to say that a fact is not a fact because `we choose as a government not to have that fact as our policy'. The incredible confusion in the Government's defence was very well exposed by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and I thank her for her contribution. I do not intend to go through the contributions of all speakers but I acknowledge the contributions of all honourable senators from this side of the chamber in support of the motion. The importance of this matter and why it is a matter of urgency is that we face an enormous problem in the field of interest rates. We face a problem in our economy which is so great that the Government will bring down a mini-Budget that it said it would not bring down. It resisted motions by the Opposition saying that that should occur. Now it is trying to fudge on the economic circumstances which give rise to the mini-Budget and it is trying, in my view, to confuse the debate. Senator Ryan, we believe, told the truth yesterday and we believe that she has been prevented from telling the truth today. We believe that she has been forced to substitute the Prime Minister's views for her own, and her careful use of the Prime Minister's words, as I said, both inside and outside this place, is the clearest possible indication that she is speaking under the instruction of the Prime Minister and is terrified to put her own words into this chamber. A Senate committee now could quickly determine whether this paper was prepared as a result of the advice of the Department of the Treasury, the Reserve Bank of Australia and all those other bodies that properly give advice to government. We do not accept the Government's view that this is a document that has in some way been prepared in isolation in some corner of government. We do not accept as a matter of principle that a government can come in here, having given an answer from a briefing note, and by putting the view `We do not accept that that briefing note is accurate any more', in some way exculpate itself. The reason we have not moved a censure on the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) for misleading the Senate is that quite clearly she believed what she was saying yesterday and accepted that that was the proper answer to give to the Senate. It would be impossible for us to censure her for misleading the Senate because we do not believe she did. If she misled the Senate it would have been today when she departed from the words she used yesterday and used the words which had been used by the Prime Minister last week, words which, quite frankly, we do not believe to be true. I commend the motion to the Senate and I ask for the support of honourable senators so that we can commence an inquiry to get to the truth of this unfortunate matter. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— 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. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Withers, R. G. Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Morris, J. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. West, S. M. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Walsh, P. A. Collard, S. J. Tate, M. C. Vanstone, A. E. Button, J. N. Boswell, R. L. D. Reynolds, M. Sheil, G. Aulich, T. Reid, M. E. Maguire, G. R. Hamer, D. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —Mr President, I present the twentieth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —Mr President, I present the second report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill 1986, theCollective Agreements (Corporations) Bill 1986 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2, dated 25 February 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CROWLEY —by leave-I am pleased to inform the Senate that at this morning's meeting of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills I was elected to chair the Committee in succession to Senator Tate. On behalf of the Committee I should like to take this opportunity to place on record the Committee's appreciation of the valuable service rendered by Senator Tate as the foundation Deputy Chairman of the Committee and its Chairman between 1983 and 1986. The late Senator Missen and Senator Tate have set a high standard as chairmen of the Committee, and as the first non-lawyer to chair the Committee I hope to follow in the path they have charted for the Committee. There is a further statement relating to matters raised in the report but in view of the time I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- In that role I wish to draw the attention of the Senate particularly to the comments of the Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 in the report which I have just presented. Two clauses of that Bill make changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which are retrospective to the dates on which the respective proposals to make those changes to the law were announced. In neither case was the announcement made to the Parliament but presumably by way of a Press conference or Press release. The Committee has stated in the past that it recognises the special conventions associated with the backdating of certain changes to the taxation laws to the date of the announcement of the proposal to make the relevant change, for example in the Budget statement. However the Committee has repeatedly drawn attention to cases where changes to the taxation laws have been made retrospective to the date of some ministerial announcement, not made to the Parliament, but made by way of a Press release or a Press statement. So far as the Committee has been able to ascertain, this practice of announcing a prospective change to the law to the Press with the promise that the subsequent legislation will be retrospective to the date of the announcement was first used in 1974 by the then Treasurer, Mr Crean. On that occasion the legislation to implement the proposal was not in fact introduced before the change of government in November 1975. At the time the justification advanced for the making of such retrospective legislation was the need to close loopholes in the taxation law, a justification which was also used for such legislation by Mr Lynch and Mr Howard as Treasurers under the previous Government. However from the time when the Committee first noted this practice in its First Report of 1984 in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1983 it has become increasingly prevalent to the point where it now seems to be the almost invariable practice of the Taxation Office to announce changes to the law in this way with the promise of retrospective legislation introduced many months after the original announcement. In the past year the Committee drew attention to examples of such `legislation by Press release' in its Eighth Report of 1986 in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill 1986, in its Ninth Report of 1986 in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and in its Eighteenth Report of 1986 in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986. It now appears that the practice is being extended to fields other than taxation law, most obviously in the case of the Government's announced proposal to change the television station ownership rules in the Broadcasting Act 1942 but also in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1986 on which the Committee commented in its First Report of 1987, presented last week. The practice of `legislation by Press release' is something to which the Committee takes objection on a number of grounds. In the first place it carries with it the assumption that citizens should arrange their affairs in accordance with announcements made by the executive rather than in accordance with the laws made by Parliament. The practice treats the passage by the Parliament of the necessary retrospective legislation `ratifying' the announcement as a pure formality. It places the Parliament in the invidious position of either agreeing to the legislation without significant amendment or bearing the odium of overturning the arrangements which many people may have made in reliance on the ministerial announcement. Secondly, quite apart from the debilitating effect of the practice on the Parliament, it leaves the law in a state of uncertainty. Those such as lawyers and accountants who must attempt to advise their clients on the law are compelled to study ministerial announcements to ascertain what the law is. As the Committee noted in relation to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 in its Ninth Report of 1986, one announcement may be modified by a subsequent announcement. The legislation when introduced may differ in significant details from the terms of the announcement. Finally there is always the possibility, as occurred with Mr Crean's 1974 announcement, that the Government will lose office before it can implement the announcement and that the new Government will not proceed with the proposed change to the law. The Committee is aware that the Law Council of Australia and various chartered accountants have expressed similar concerns in relation to the increasing practice of `legislation by press release'. The Committee concedes that the making of an announcement of a proposal to change the law with the promise of retrospective legislation to follow may be justified where swift action is necessary to close a loophole which would otherwise lead to a significant loss of revenue. Even then the Committee would suggest that any such announcement should be made to the Parliament so that it may be the subject of debate, and that the period of retrospectivity should be kept to the absolute minimum. However the Committee condemns in the strongest terms the practice of `Legislating by Press release' as a matter of routine. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I seek leave to table a submission made to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and to make a statement about it. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I table a document entitled `Second submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations concerning changes in the presentation of the appropriations and departmental explanatory notes and related issues', from the Department of Finance. In view of the hour I seek leave to incorporate my statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Committee has presented two reports to the Senate on changes in the presentation of the appropriations and departmental explanatory notes, the first in April 1985 and the second in December 1985. In its second report the Committee commented that a worthwhile assessment of program budgeting, and its implications for parliamentary scrutiny, would need to await the development of sufficient parliamentary experience with the new format, especially that of Senate Estimates Committees. Nine departments presented estimates for 1986-87 in the program budgeting format. In their subsequent reports to the Senate, the relevant Estimates Committees commented on issues arising from the changes to explanatory notes. The Department of Finance has now made a second major submission to the Committee which addresses, amongst other points, the Estimates Committees' comments. The Committee has no comment to make on the submission at this stage, but has decided to table it now so that it may be disseminated as widely as possible. The Committee recommends the submission to Estimates Committees and other parliamentary committees involved in the scrutiny of expenditure. The Committee also recommends it to those who are interested in this important area of financial administration, or who are responsible for implementing the changes in the format of explanatory notes for departments and other agencies. I have arranged to send copies of the submission to the Chairs of all Estimates Committees. Copies have also been made available to the Senate Records Office for those interested in the subject. The following papers were tabled: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 23. Bankruptcy Act-Rule-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 21. Census and Statistics Act-Proposal No. 2 of 1987-List of Names and Addresses of Agricultural Establishments for Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 24. Defence Act-Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination No. 1, dated 20 February 1987. Federal Court of Australia Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 22. Public Service Act- Determinations 1987 Nos 3, 6. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 25. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1987- No. 4-Credit (Amendment). No. 5-Electricity (Amendment). GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS- COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Act 1986-Provisions other than those specified in sections 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37-1 February 1987 (Gazette No. S 13, 27 January 1987). Bankruptcy Act 1966-Amendment made by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986-2 March 1987 (Gazette No. S 32, 24 February 1987). Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984-Section 37-1 March 1987 (Gazette, No. S 32, 24 February 1987). Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1980-Sections 24 and 34-1 March 1987 (Gazette No. S 32, 24 February 1987). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1986-See-Bankruptcy Act 1966. Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 4) 1986-Section 55-1 March 1987 (Gazette No. S 32, 24 February 1987). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1330) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Would the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment provide details of the numbers, and species of Australian animals transferred between Australian zoos and overseas zoos since the introduction of the Wildlife Protection Act up to July 1986. (2) Would the Minister provide the names of the zoos which are the recipients of Australian animals since the introduction of the Wildlife Protection Act up to July 1986. (3) Would the Minister provide details of species and numbers of Australian animals exported for the purposes of prescribed scientific research since the introduction of the Wildlife Protection Act up to July 1986 including names of the recipient organisations. (4) Would the Minister provide details of the source of 34 koalas exported overseas since 1980 and explain how the proper documented records of New South Wales koalas are obtained since no management program for koalas exists in that State. (5) Will the Minister advise who inspects overseas zoos and prescribed scientific institutions to ascertain their suitability. (6) If the Minister relies on officers of Foreign Affairs or the Australian Customs Service, would he advise what training these officers have in assessing the suitability of recipient zoos and prescribed scientific institutions. (7) Will the Minister advise how many Australian animals have died in overseas zoos and prescribed scientific institutions since the proclamation of the Wildlife Protection Act in 1984. (8) If these records are not available, would the Minister agree that this information is required in the public interest and will he take steps to ascertain the number of animals who have died since May 1984. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) See Table 1. (2) Africa-Parc Zoologique National, Morocco. National Zoological Gardens of South Africa, Pretoria. Canada-Metro Toronto Zoo, Ontario. Assiniboine Park Zoo, Winnipeg. China-Nanjing Zoo, Jiangsu Province. Europe-Antwerp Zoo, Belgium. Zoo Lowetsch, Bulgaria. Tierpark Berlin, East Germany. Zoologischer Garten und Aquarium Berlin, West Germany. Aktiengesellschaft Zoologischer Garten Koln, West Germany. Zoologischer Garten der Stadt Frankfurt am Main, West Germany. Munchener Tierpark Hellabrunn Ag, West Germany. Wilhelma Zoologisch-Botanischer Garten, Stuttgart, West Germany. Zoologischer Garten der Stadt Wuppertal, West Germany. Stichting Koninklijk Zoologisch Genootschap, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Royal Rotterdam Zoological and Botanical Gardens, Netherlands. Municipal Zoological Garden, Warsaw, Poland. Skansen Zoo, Stockholm, Sweden. Zurich Zoo, Switzerland. India-Nandankanan Biological Park, Bhubaneswar. M.C. Zoological Park, Chandigarah. Trivandrum Zoological Garden, Trivandrum. Japan-Himeji City Aquarium. Himeji City Zoo. Hirakawa Zoological Park, Kagoshima. Nagoya Higashiyama Zoo, Nagoya. Osaka Municipal Tennoji Zoological Garden. Saitama Prefectural Children's Zoological and Natural Park. Tama Zoological Park, Tokyo. New Zealand-Auckland Zoological Park. Hawke's Bay Marineland and Aquarium, Napier. Nocturnal Wildlife Centre, Napier. Wellington Zoological Gardens. South America-Parque Metropolitano De Santiago, Chile. South East Asia-Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens. Zoo Negara, Selangor, Malaysia. Singapore Zoological Gardens. Lopburi Zoo, Lopburi Province, Thailand. United Kingdom-The Zoological Society of London, Whipsnade Park, Bedfordshire, England. The Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London, England. Scottish National Zoological Park, Edinburgh, Scotland. United States of America-Rio Grande Zoological Park, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Chicago Zoological Park, Brookfield, Illinois. Cincinnati Zoo, Ohio. Dallas Zoo, Texas. Detroit Zoological Park, Michigan. Los Angeles Zoo, California. Zoological Society of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Phoenix Zoo, Arizona. San Antonio Zoological Garden and Aquarium, Texas. Zoological Society of San Diego, California. San Francisco Zoological Gardens, California. Woodland Park Zoological Gardens, Seattle, Washington. (3) See Table 2. (4)- Exporter Recipient No of koalas 1981 Queensland National Parks & Wildlife Service (QNPWS) San Diego Zoo 1 male 6 female 1982 Royal Melbourne Zoo Los Angeles Zoo 2 male 4 female 1984 Taronga Zoo Tama Zoo (Tokyo) 2 male Taronga Zoo Higashiyama Zoo (Nagoya) 2 male 1984 QNPWS Hirakawa Zoo (Kagoshima) 2 male 1985 Taronga Zoo Higashiyama Zoo 1 female Taronga Zoo Tama Zoo 2 female QNPWS San Francisco Zoo 2 male QNPWS Hirakawa Zoo 4 female 1986 QNPWS Saitama Children's Zoo 2 male Taronga Zoo Higashiyama Zoo 2 female Taronga Zoo Tama Zoo 2 female The applications to export koalas lodged by Taronga Zoo were in respect of inter-zoological gardens transfers under s. 31 (a) (i) of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. Under that provision there is no requirement for an approved program for the management of koalas in New South Wales to be in existence before a permit to export may be granted. (5) and (6) Overseas zoos seeking approval under the Act are inspected by Commonwealth officers in Australian embassies, consulates and high commissions. The officers are assisted in this task by a questionnaire produced by ANPWS. Such officers are required to provide a description of relevant aspects of zoo management, operations and facilities. In assessing the suitability of the zoo, ANPWS also has access to information provided by that zoo and the major Australian zoos, and information contained in the International Zoo Yearbook. Prescribed scientific organisations are generally not inspected, but provide direct evidence of their standing in the scientific community, abilities to undertake the research proposed and facilities available. Here again, ANPWS is able to draw on the knowledge and expertise of Australian scientific institutions in ascertaining the suitability of the overseas institution. (7) and (8) In the course of assessing the suitability of overseas zoos and scientific institutions, ANPWS ensures that they have adequate procedures for accounting for the acquisition, disposal, birth and death of animals kept by them. There is no standing requirement for deaths or births to be notified to the ANPWS. However, in some instances, such information has been provided. Before approval is granted to overseas zoos and scientific institutions, ANPWS seeks to ensure that the animals sought will be provided with a high standard of accommodation and care. Where these organisations make application to receive further animals of the same or different species, ANPWS seeks information on the conditions of animals previously sent to the organisation. If animals have died or are in poor condition, a report on the case is sought. I consider that these procedures are adequate to ensure sufficient protection for native animals sent overseas and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources required to ascertain and verify the total number of animals which may have died since the Act was proclaimed. Table 1 EXPORT OF ANIMALS TO APPROVED OVERSEAS ZOOS 1 May 1984-31 July 1986 Scientific name Quantity Acanthophis antarcticus... 4 Acrochordus arafurae... 2 Aepyprymnus rufescens... 1 Ailurus f. fulgens... 1 Aix galericulata... 2 Alectura lathami... 2 Alectura l. lathami... 2 Alisterus scapularis... 4 Ammotragus lervia... 2 Anseranas semipalmata... 4 Ardae novaehollandiae... 6 Ardea picata... 8 Aspidites melanocephalus... 2 Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi... 4 Bothrochilus childreni... 2 Cacatua galerita... 10 C. leadbeateri... 24 C. roseicapilla... 20 C. sanguinea... 1 C. tenuirostris... 6 Callithrix jacchus... 4 Callocephalon fimbriatum... 22 Calyptorhynchus baudinii... 4 C. funereus... 4 Cercopithecus aethiops... 3 Cereopsis novaehollandiae... 3 Chalcophaps indica chrysochlora... 6 Chelodina longicollis... 10 Chenonatta jubata... 4 Constrictor constrictor... 30 Cyclura cornuta... 61 Dacelo leachii... 5 D. novaeguineae... 8 Dasycercus cristicauda... 2 Dasyuroides byrnei... 12 Dasyurus maculatus... 4 D. viverrinus... 8 Diplodactylus ciliaris... 1 Dromaius novaehollandiae... 10 Ducala spilorrhoa... 4 Emydura macquarii... 4 Epicrates cenchria... 4 Eudyptula minor... 15 Felis pardalis... 2 F. serval... 1 Gallicolumba jobiensis... 38 Gerrhosaurus validus... 3 Glossopsitta concinna... 8 Grus rubicunda... 1 Halcyon sancta... 4 Hylobates agilis... 4 Iguana iguana... 36 Isoodon macrourus... 9 Lampropeltis mexicana alterna... 8 L. triangulum annulata... 9 Lasiorhinus latifrons... 4 Leucosarcia melanoleuca... 18 Liasis childreni... 3 L. fuscus... 2 Macaca nemestrina... 5 Macropus agilis... 6 M. antilopinus... 9 M. fuliginosus... 8 M. f. melanops... 4 M. giganteus... 35 M. parryi... 1 M. robustus... 14 M. r. cervinus... 5 M. r. erubescens... 2 M. rufogriseus... 9 M. rufus... 23 Macropygia amboinensis... 2 Morelia amethistina... 2 M. spilota... 3 M. s. spilota... 5 M. s. variegata... 10 Notechis scutatus... 3 Nycticorax caledonicus... 2 Oxyuranus scutellatus... 3 Pan troglodytes... 2 Panthera pardus saxicolor... 1 P. tigris... 2 Papio (Mandrillus) sphinx... 2 Pavo muticus... 2 Pelecanus conspicillatus... 3 Petaurus breviceps... 4 P. b. breviceps... 8 P. b. ariel... 6 Petaurus norfolcensis... 6 Petrogale xanthopus... 2 Petrophassa scripta... 4 Phalacrocorax sulcirostris... 3 Phascolarctos cinereus... 21 Phyllurus platurus... 6 Physignathus lesueurii... 6 P. l. lesueurii... 12 Platycercus adelaidae... 1 Podargus strigoides... 14 Pongo pygmaeus... 10 Potorous tridactylus... 5 Psephotus chrysopterygius dissimilis... 2 Pseudocheirus peregrinus... 5 P. p. laniginosus... 3 Psophodes olivaceus... 4 Pteropus poliocephalus... 6 Ptilonorhyncus violaceus... 1 Rhea americana albescens... 3 Sarcophilus harrisii... 25 Sphenomorphus quoyii... 4 Tachyglossus aculeatus... 11 T. a. setosus... 4 Theropithecus gelada... 3 Tiliqua nigrolutea... 9 T. scincoides... 8 Trachydosaurus rugosus... 18 Trichoglossus haematodus rubritorquis... 4 Trichosurus vulpecula... 10 Tyto alba... 4 Ursus maritimus... 1 Vanellus miles... 4 Varecia v. variegata... 1 Vombatus ursinus... 15 Wallabia b. bicolor... 1 Total... 902 Table 2 EXPORT OF ANIMALS FOR PRESCRIBED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 1 May 1984-31 July 1986 Recipient organisation Scientific name Quantity Plant Protection Research Institute, South Africa... Brucjophagus spp... 33,800 Coturnix pectoralis... 6 Dasyuroides byrnei... 12 Hymenoptera... 800 Melanterius spp... 35,300 M. Ventralis... 500 Musca domestica... 800 Neoceratodus forsteri... 2 Panesthia cribrata... 20 Peipatus spp... 30 Puffinus tenuirostris... 80 Sminthopsis macroura... 12 Spalangia endius... 800 Stictonetta naevosa... 4 Trichilogaster spp... 31,800 T. Acaciaelongifoliae... 2,000 Department of Zoology, University of Massachusetts, USA... Neoceratodus forsteri... 10 Zahlong Nature Reserve, Beijing, China... Grus rubicundus... 2 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, USA Crenadactylus ocellatus... 8 Diplodactylus polyopthatmus... 1 D. williamsi... 2 Heteronotia binoei... 2 Oedura rhombifer... 4 Underwoodisaurus milii... 4 Varanus timorensis... 2 Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada... Acanthophis pyrrhus... 3 Amphibolurus spp... 35 A. isolepsis... 2 Aspidites spp... 1 Carlia spp... 5 Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus... 3 Ctenotus spp... 25 Cyclorana spp... 10 Delma spp... 13 Demansia spp... 1 Desansia sp... 1 Diplodactylus spp... 35 Diporiphora spp... 12 Egernia spp... 8 Eremiascincus spp... 7 Furina ornata... 1 Gehyra spp... 10 Heteronotia spp... 10 Lerista spp... 13 Lialis burtonis... 5 Liasis childreni... 3 Limnodynastes spenceri... 5 Litoria gilleni... 5 L. rubella... 5 Lophognathus spp... 10 Lucasium damaeum... 7 Menetia greyii... 5 Moloch horridus... 5 Morelia bredli... 1 Morethia ruficauda... 3 Neobatrachus centralis... 8 Nephrurus spp... 15 Notaden nichollsi... 8 Notoscincus ornatus... 3 Oedura spp... 10 O. marmorata... 1 Proablepharus reginae... 3 Pseudechis australis... 1 Pseudonaja spp... 1 P. Nuchalis... 2 P. textilis... 1 Pygopus nigriceps... 7 Ramphotyphlops spp... 3 Rhynchoedura ornata... 5 Simoselaps spp... 4 Suta suta... 1 Tiliqua spp... 10 Tympanocryptis spp... 13 Underwoodisaurus milii... 1 Unechis monachus... 1 Varanus acanthurus... 2 V. brevicauda... 1 V. gilleni... 2 V. gouldii... 3 V. tristis... 2 Vermicella annulata... 2 Department of Wildlife Ecology, Sueriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Sweden Litoria pernoii... Uperoleia rugosa... 10 30 Department of Mammalogy, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada Chalinolobus gouldii (skins)... C. morio (skins)... 2 2 C. nigrogriseus (skin)... 1 Eptesicus pumilus (skin)... 1 Mormopterus beccarii (skin)... 1 M. planiceps (skins)... 8 Institute of Zoology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat, West Germany Chalinolobus gouldii... Nyctophilus geoffroyi... 2 2 Institute fur Zoologie, Universitat Erlangen-Nuremburg, West Germany Aepyprymnus rufescens... Dasyuroides byrnei... Thylogale billardierii... 2 6 3 Dept of Entomology, Oregon State University, USA... Macrocheles glaber... M. perglaber... 20 20 Wye College, Kent, England... Paropsis utomaria... 100 Biological Control Research Institute, Turkey... Cryptolaemus... Montrouzieri... 2,000 2,000 Dept of Zoology, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Araneae spp... 100 Dept of Zoology, University of Cardiff, Wales... Nilaparvata lugens... 2,000 Psychology Dept, Vanderbuilt University, Nashville, USA... Macropus eugenii (pouch young)... M. Eugenii (microscope slides)... 4 500 M. eugenii (brains)... 20 Tachyglossus aculeatus (brain)... 1 Trachydosaurus rugosus (brains)... 3 Trichosurus vulpecula (brain)... 1 Nagoya Higashiyama Zoo, Japan... Phascolarctos cinereus (skeleton)... 1 Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, USA... Isoodon marcrourus (larynx)... Macropus giganteus (larynx)... 1 1 Ornithorhynchus anatinus (larynx)... 1 Pseudocheirus peregrinus (larynx)... 1 Trichosurus vulpecula (larynx)... 1 Dept of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada... Dugong dugon (skull)... 1 Tulane University school of Medicine, New Orleans, USA Varanus gouldii (tissue samples)... 3 Dept of Ichthyology, Zool Forschungsinstitut und Museum, Alexander Koenig, West Germany Amniataba percoides... Chlamydogobius eremius... Edelia obscura... 2 6 4 Galazias maculatus... 6 Galaziella pusilla... 6 Glossolepis maculosa... 12 Hephaestus carbo... 1 H. fuliginosus... 1 H. jenkinsi... 1 Melanotaenia exquisita... 4 M. herbert axelrodi... 12 M. trifasciata... 6 Nannoperca australis... 6 Neosilurus ater... 2 N. glencoensis... 6 Syncomistes kimberleyensis... 1 Biology Dept, State University of New York, USA... Anisops doris... A. stali... 120 120 Gyrinus spp... 30 Rhagadotarsus kraepelini... 220 The University of Michigan, USA... Heteronotia binoei... 10 Zoologisches Institute Der Universitat, Kiel, W. Germany Chrysomya rufifaces... 200 Dept of Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium... Trachydosaurus rugosus... 6 Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa... Diplodactylus ciliaris... 5 Tiliqua gerrardii... 2 Trachydosaurus rugosus... 3 Veterinary Entomology Research Laboratories, Hertfordshire, England Lucilia cuprina... 100 Dept of Zoology, University of Newcastle, England... Chloebia gouldiae... 40 Section of Ecology and Systematics, Corson Hall, Ithaca, USA Cressida cressida... Pachliopta polydorus... 50 40 Dept of Biology, University of Frankfurt, West Germany Peripatidae... 15 Dept of Zoology, University of Bristol, England... Tiliqua nigrolutae... T. scincoides... 4 4 Trachydosaurus rugosus... 4 Zoologisches Institut, Universitat Baltzerstr, Switzerland... Aquarius spp... 40 Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Japan... Neoceratodus forsteri... 1 Dept of Zoology, Oxford University, England... Anthene seltuttus... Iridomyrmex asscepts... 200 2,000 I. purpureus... 1,000 I. refoniger... 3,000 Jalmenus daemeli... 200 J. evagoras... 200 J. pseudictinus... 200 Inst. and Museum of Zoology, University of Bologna, Bologna Acrophilla titan... Amphibolurus barbatus... Myrmecia pilosula... 20 1 100 2nd University Clinic of Internal Medicine, Kommune Hospital, Denmark Macropus eugenii (kidneys)... 4 Dept of Neurochemistry, Max-Planck-Institut Fur Experimentelle Medizin, West Germany Neoceratodus forsteri (brains)... 3 Dept of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool, England Melopsittacus undulatus (adrenal glands)... 24 Pacific Institution of Geographical Far East Science Centre, Vladivostok, USSR Amblyomma (t) ornatissimum... A. australiense... Aponomma auruginans... 2 7 12 A. undatum... 15 Argas lagenoplastis... 3 A. robertsi... 3 Boophilus microplus... 11 Haemphysalis bancrofti... 18 H. longicornis... 51 Ixodes cornuatus... 1 I. holocyclus... 41 I. tasmani... 1 I. uriae... 32 Ornithodoros gurneyi... 2 Rhipicephalis sanguineus... 22 Dept of Biology, University of Calgary, Canada... Holthuisana transverzsa... 30 (Question No. 1493) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 13 November 1986: (1) How many films have been shown by Qantas on its international service in each of the last 3 financial years. (2) How many of these films were made in Australia. (3) Is it a fact that for the month of October 1986 no Australian films were shown. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Qantas has screened 72 feature films since November 1982. Four different movies are shown on the various routes at any one time, each for a period of two months, making a total of 24 films shown each year. (2) Four of these films have been Australian made, namely: Phar Lap (screened for four months), Careful He Might Hear You, Undercover and Coolangatta Gold. However, a further seven Australian made films, including Gallipoli and The Man from Snowy River were shown between 1980-1983. (3) No Australian films were shown during October 1986. Qantas has advised that it is Company policy to give preference to Australian films, provided they meet its normal selection criteria with respect to subject matter, quality and passenger acceptance. In this respect the Company will be screening ``Crocodile Dundee'' and ``Malcolm'' during the first half of this year. The Company has advised that a major problem with the screening of Australian made movies is that present inflight film screening facilities are not always compatible with the format of Australian movies. To overcome this the company is installing new video equipment throughout the fleet and it is expected that once completed in April this year, the Company will be able to greatly increase the number of Australian films shown on its flights. In addition, the Company is proposing to hold a ``Selling to the Airlines'' seminar in October this year to acquaint local film makers with the needs of the airline market in general, and Qantas in particular. The Company has noted a marked unwillingness on the part of Australian producers to accept airline bookings and it is hoped that the forthcoming seminar will help overcome most of the problems in this area. (Question No. 1554) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 December 1986: (1) Which member countries of the United Nations have fully paid up their assessments for 1986, and what amount was paid by each country. (2) Which member countries have unpaid assessments for 1986, and what are the amounts owed by each such country. (3) Of those countries which have not paid their assessments for 1986, how many years in arrears are their payments, and for what total amount. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The answers to these questions are enumerated in the following table ``Status of Contributions to the United Nations Budget as at 31 December 1986'', which was issued by the United Nations Secretariat on 16 January 1987 as Annex II to the document ST/ADM/SER B/288. Annex II STATUS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS REGULAR BUDGET AS AT 31 DECEMBER 1986 (United States Dollars) Member States 1986 Scale of assess- ments Contributions payable as at 1 January 1986 Prior years Current year Total Collections in 1986 Contributions outstanding as at 31 December 1986 Prior years Current year Total Afghanistan... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70.043 . . . . . . Albania... .01 617 70,043 70,660 70,660 . . . . . . Algeria... .14 . . 980,608 980,608 980,608 . . . . . . Angola... .01 138,588 70,043 208,631 154,880 . . 53,751 53,751 Antingua and Barbuda... .01 36,414 70,043 106,457 . . 36,414 70,043 106,457 Argentina... .62 8,943,964 4,342,694 113,286,658 9,923,160 . . 3,363,498 3,363,498 Australia... 1.66 . . 11,627,212 11,627,212 11,627,212 . . . . . . Austria... .74 . . 5,183,216 5,183,216 5,183,216 . . . . . . Bahamas... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Bahrain... .02 . . 140,087 140,087 140,087 . . . . . . Bangladesh... .02 . . 140,087 140,087 140,087 . . . . . . Barbados... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Belgium... 1.18 . . 8,265,126 8,265,126 8,265,126 . . . . . . Blize... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 135,857 . . . . . . Benin... .01 130,783 70,043 200,826 . . 130,783 70,043 1,200,826 Bhutan... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 65,814 . . 70,043 70,043 Bolivia... .01 112,600 70,043 182,643 112,600 . . 70,043 70,043 Botswana... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Brazil... 1.40 15,977,892 9,806,082 25,783,974 17,615,253 . . 8,168,721 8,168,721 Brunei Darussalam... .04 . . 280,174 280,174 280,174 . . . . . . Bulgaria... .16 745,894 1,120,695 1,866,589 1,093,881 . . 772,708 772,708 Burkina Faso... .01 58,849 70,043 128,892 42,111 16,738 70,043 86,781 Burma... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Burundi... .01 66,600 70,043 136,643 66,600 . . 70,043 70,043 Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic... .34 1,837,674 2,381,477 4,219,151 3,452,813 . . 766,338 766,338 Cameroon... .01 153,639 70,043 223,682 223,682 . . . . . . Canada... 3.06 . . 21,433,292 21,433,292 21,433,292 . . . . . . Cape Verde... .01 130,783 70,043 200,826 100,000 30,783 70,043 100,286 Central African Republic... .01 128,992 70,043 199,035 74,349 54,643 70,043 124,686 Chad... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 . . . . 70,043 70,043 Chile... .07 . . 490,304 490,304 490,304 . . . . . . China... .79 4,326,660 5,533,432 9,860,092 9,860,092 . . . . . . Colombia... .13 723,958 910,565 1,634,523 1,253,681 . . 380,842 380,842 Comoros... .01 148,469 70,043 218,512 79,199 69,270 70,043 139,313 Congo... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 9,081 . . 602,422 139,313 Costa Rica... .02 43,050 140,087 183,137 116,155 . . 66,982 66,982 Cote D'Ivoire... .02 . . 140,087 140,087 92,309 . . 47,778 47,778 Cuba... .09 505,853 630,390 1,136,243 259,877 245,976 630,390 876,366 Cyprus... .02 . . 140,087 140,087 140,087 . . . . . . Czechoslovakia... .70 2,482,681 4,903,041 7,385,722 6,561,000 . . 824,722 824,722 Democratic Kampuchea... .01 176,896 70,043 246,939 58,500 118,396 70,043 188,439 Democratic Yemen... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Denmark... .72 . . 5,043,128 5,043,128 5,043,128 . . . . . . Djibouti... .01 205,723 70,043 275,766 275,766 . . . . . . Dominica... .01 161,454 70,043 231,497 66,167 95,287 70,043 165,330 Dominican Republic... .03 332,967 210,130 543,097 67,591 265,376 210,130 475,506 Ecuador... .03 28,060 210,130 238,190 149,445 . . 88,745 88,745 Egypt... .07 460,701 490,304 951,005 951,005 . . . . . . El Salvador... .01 192,590 70,043 262,633 71,200 121,390 70,043 191,433 Equatorial Guinea... .01 183,129 70,043 253,172 61,597 121,532 70,043 191,575 Ethiopia... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Fiji... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Finland... .50 . . 3,502,173 3,502,173 3,502,173 . . . . . . France... 6.37 4,357,157 44,617,669 48,974,826 44,617,669 . . 4,357.157 4,357,157 Gabon... .03 129,327 210,130 339,457 297,693 . . 41,764 41,764 Gambia... .01 198,932 70,043 268,975 58,200 140,732 70,043 210,775 German Democratic Republic... 1.33 3,805,423 9,315,778 13,121,201 9,320,000 . . 3,801,201 3,801,201 Germany, Federal Republic of... 8.26 . . 57,855,878 57,855,878 57,855,878 . . . . . . Ghana... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Greece... .44 . . 3,081,912 3,081,912 3,081,912 . . . . . . Grenada... .01 61,431 70,043 131,474 21,133 40,298 70,043 110,341 Guatemala... .02 261,566 140,087 401,653 126,769 134,797 140,087 274,884 Guinea... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 135,857 . . . . . . Guinea-Bissau... .01 206,964 70,043 277,007 56,800 150,164 70,043 220,207 Guyana... .01 82,823 70,043 152,866 . . 82,823 70,043 152,866 Haiti... .01 29,314 70,043 99,357 99,357 . . . . . . Honduras... .01 32,011 70,043 102,054 65,814 . . 36,240 36,240 Hungary... .22 1,219,574 1,540,957 2,760,531 1,540,957 . . 1,219,574 1,219,574 Iceland... .03 . . 210,130 210,130 210,130 . . . . . . India... .35 46,152 2,451,521 2,497,673 2,446,206 . . 51,467 51,467 Indonesia... .14 . . 980,608 980,608 845,595 . . 135,013 135,013 Iran (Islamic Republic of)... .63 7,475,520 4,412,737 11,888,257 3,975,465 3,500,055 4,412,737 7,912,792 Iraq... .12 . . 840,521 840,521 840,521 . . . . . . Ireland... .18 . . 1,260,781 1,260,781 1,260,781 . . . . . . Israel... .22 3,008,007 1,540,957 4,548,964 1,497,300 1,510,707 1,540,957 3,051,664 Italy... 3.79 . . 26,546,463 26,546,463 26,546,463 . . . . . . Jamaica... .02 65,814 140,087 205,901 175,857 . . 30,044 30,044 Japan... 10.84 . . 75,927,084 75,927,084 75,927,084 . . . . . . Jordan... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Kenya... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Kuwait... .29 . . 2,031,261 2,031,261 2,031,261 . . . . . . Lao People's Democratic Republic... .01 123,803 70,043 193,846 117,698 6,105 70,043 76,148 Lebanon... .01 131,629 70,043 201,672 10,000 121,629 70,043 191,672 Lesotho... .01 17,724 70,043 87,767 87,767 . . . . . . Liberia... .01 101,178 70,043 171,221 10,180 90,998 70,043 161,041 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya... .26 2,430,355 1,821,130 4,251,485 1,574,768 855,587 1,821,130 2,676,717 Luxembourg... .05 . . 350,217 350,217 350,217 . . . . . . Madagascar... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 25,023 . . 45,020 45,020 Malawi... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Malaysia... .10 . . 700,434 700,434 700,434 . . . . . . Maldives... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 65,814 . . 70,043 70,043 Mali... .01 127,217 70,043 197,260 133,914 . . 63,346 63,346 Malta... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Mauritania... .01 114,818 70,043 184,861 120,048 . . 64,813 64,813 Mauritius... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 65,814 . . 70,043 70,043 Mexico... .89 11,757 6,233,867 6,245,624 6,213,649 . . 31,975 31,975 Mongolia... .01 60,188 70,043 130,231 68,367 . . 61,864 61,864 Morocco... .05 . . 350,217 350,217 350,217 . . . . . . Mozambique... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Nepal... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Netherlands... 1.74 . . 12,187,559 12,187,559 12,187,559 . . . . . . New Zealand... .24 . . 1,681,044 1,681,044 1,681,044 . . . . . . Nicaragua... .01 207,066 70,043 277,109 57,300 149,766 70,043 219,809 Niger... .01 145,821 70,043 215,864 80,007 65,814 70,043 135,857 Nigeria... .19 422,015 1,330,826 1,752,841 1,036,148 . . 716,693 716,693 Norway... .54 . . 3,782,346 3,782,746 3,782,346 . . . . . . Oman... .02 . . 140,087 140,087 140,087 . . . . . . Pakistan... .06 . . 420,261 420,261 420,261 . . . . . . Panama... .02 . . 140,087 140,087 40,000 . . 100,087 100,087 Papua New Guinea... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Paraguay... .02 176,896 140,087 316,983 103,500 73,396 140,087 213,483 Peru... .07 1,167,403 490,304 1,657,707 500,000 667,403 490,304 1,157,707 Philippines... .10 579,035 700,434 1,279,469 1,049,749 . . 229,720 229,720 Poland... .64 7,070,037 4,482,781 11,552,818 5,080,000 1,990,037 4,482,781 6,472,818 Portugal... .18 . . 1,260,781 1,260,781 1,260,781 . . . . . . Qatar... .04 197,443 280,174 477,617 . . 197,443 280,174 477,617 Romania... .19 3,645,456 1,330,826 4,976,282 1,108,600 2,536,856 1,330,826 3,867,682 Rwanda... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Saint Christopher and Nevis... .01 63,901 70,043 133,944 . . 63,901 70,043 133,944 Saint Lucia... .01 206,539 70,043 276,582 64,240 142,299 70,043 212,342 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines... 0.1 16,454 70,043 86,497 51,475 . . 35,022 35,022 Samoa... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 135,857 . . . . . . Sao Tome and Principe... .01 65,824 70,043 135,867 19,993 45,831 70,043 115,874 Saudi Arabia... .97 . . 6,794,214 6,794,214 6,794,214 . . . . . . Senegal... .01 64,872 70,043 134,915 134,915 . . . . . . Seychelles... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Sierra Leone... .01 147,639 70,043 217,682 60,000 87,639 70,043 157,682 Singapore... .10 . . 700,434 700,434 700,434 . . . . . . Solomon Islands... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 65,814 . . 70,043 70,043 Somalia... .01 65,814 70,043 135,857 60,000 5,814 70,043 75,857 South Africa... .44 24,484,504 3,081,912 27,566,416 . . 24,484,504 3,081,912 27,566,416 Spain... 2.03 . . 14,218,818 14,218,818 14,218,818 . . . . . . Sri Lanka... .01 . . 70,043 70,43 70,043 . . . . . . Sudan... .01 65,844 70,043 135,887 135,000 . . 887 887 Suriname... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Swaziland... .01 34,984 70,043 105,027 105,027 . . . . . . Sweden... 1.25 . . 8,755,431 8,755,431 8,755,431 . . . . . . Syrian Arab Republic... .04 . . 280,174 280,174 . . . . 280,174 280,174 Thailand... .09 . . 630,390 630,390 630,390 . . . . . . Togo... .01 86,222 70,043 156,265 91,916 . . 64,349 64,349 Trinidad and Tobago... .04 10 280,174 280,184 135,087 . . 145,097 145,097 Tunisia... .03 . . 210,130 210,130 210,130 . . . . . . Turkey... .34 4,687,213 2,385,563 7,072,776 4,045,941 641,272 2,385,563 3,026,835 Uganda... .01 130,783 70,043 200,826 200,826 . . . . . . Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic... 1.28 5,858,844 8,965,560 14,824,404 11,234,122 . . 3,590,282 3,590,282 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics... 10.20 40,783,134 71,444,305 112,227,439 95,584,407 . . 16,643,032 16,643,032 United Arab Emirates... .18 . . 1,260,781 1,260,781 1,260,781 . . . . . . United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland... 4.86 . . 34,041,110 34,041,110 34,041,110 . . . . . . United Republic of Tanzania... .01 67,907 71,909 139,816 90,776 . . 49,040 49,040 United States of America... 25.00 85,515,049 210,277,200 295,792,249 148,788,717 . . 147,003,532 147,003,532 Uruguay... .04 . . 280,174 280,174 . . . . 280,174 280,174 Vanuatu... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 65,814 . . 4,229 4,229 Venezuela... .60 . . 4,202,607 4,202,607 4,202,607 . . . . . . Viet Nam... .01 239,236 70,043 309,279 145,000 94,236 70,043 164,279 Yemen... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Yugoslavia... .46 3,027,591 3,221,999 6,249,590 4,610,196 . . 1,639,394 1,639,394 Zaire... .01 58,237 70,043 128,280 58,237 . . 70,043 70,043 Zambia... .01 . . 70,043 70,043 70,043 . . . . . . Zimbabwe... .02 158,631 140,087 298,718 213,096 . . 85,622 85,622 Total... 100.00 242,435,266 735,608,914 978,044,180 720,197,850 39,186,694 218,659,636 257,846,330 (3) Information about the number of years countries have been in arrears is not available. The foregoing table does show the amount of accumulated arrears for years prior to calendar year 1986. (Question No. 1593) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) During the protest by a group of women outside Parliament House during October, was Commonwealth Car Transport provided to any of the protesters at any time? (2) If so, on each occasion, what were their names and how many passengers travelled in each car? (3) If so, on each occasion, at whose request? (4) If so, on each occasion, at what cost? (5) If so, on each occasion, what was the: (a) Origin (b) Destination (c) Date (d) Approximate Departure Time (e) Approximate Arrival Time? (6) If so, on each occasion, was the car scheduled or requested on-the-spot from the car pool? (7) Who authorised any such use? Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) There are no identifiable records within my Department of any bookings having been made with its ACT Regional Office for Commonwealth vehicles to transport protesters associated with the `Women for Survival Camp' from Parliament House or its vicinity to overnight accommodation on either 22 or 23 October 1986. (6) and (7) Individual bookings for Commonwealth vehicles, specifically allocated in bulk by my Department, to service the requirements of Senators and Members are the responsibility of the Presiding Officers in the respective Chambers.