Wednesday, 25 March 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 members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: (1) The Agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap can be terminated from 19 October 1986. (2) In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable Nuclear target. (3) Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contri-bute to world peace and security. (4) The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted, through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the Agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. And your petitioners humbly pray that: (1) Notice be given by 19 October 1986 that the agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap be terminated by October 1987. (2) Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verification facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. (3) Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 120 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 Senators Robertson (from 26 citizens) and West (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: that the Hawke Government should: 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; 3. Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the import parity pricing policy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully brings to your attention: that there are individuals who have a conscientious objection to war because of their religious or general moral principles and that the Parliament of this country has already recognised the right of such individuals not to have to participate in military service in time of war and that all Australian taxpayers are required to contribute to military expenditure, regardless of their beliefs, through that part of their tax that is used for the Defence budget and that while we acknowledge the right of the Government to levy taxes and to decide on the expenditure of monies so collected we cannot accept that those with a conscientious objection to war should be forced to contribute to military expenditure. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will acknowledge the right of those who have a conscientious objection to war to withhold their taxes from military allocations and enable the military related proportion of their taxes to be used for peaceful purposes only and, as we note that taxes are collected or disbursed for specific purposes (such as for Medicare), that the Commissioner of Taxation be directed that the military-related proportion of taxes collected from conscientious objectors to war be set aside in a separate fund, the Peace Tax Fund, to be used only for peaceful purposes, such purposes to be determined by the Government. by Senator Sanders (from 2,985 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 140 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Senate should: completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Australia Card legislation on the following grounds: 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians and is a grave interference in the civil liberties of Australian citizens; 2. That it will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud; 3. That it will create unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy; and calls on the Senate to reject the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian Legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) That the Government's proposed Identity Card is the greatest threat to civil liberties in the history of this country: (2) That the I.D. card will be a costly and unnecessary method of attacking tax evasion and social security fraud; and (3) That the proposal will impose yet another bureaucratic burden on the business sector Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Government's legislation to introduce the Australia Card or any other identity card system. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Parer (from 69 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's proposal for an Australian Identity Card is the greatest intrusion into individual privacy ever contemplated by any Government in the history of Australia. Your petitioners humbly pray the Government withdraws the Australia Card legislation without delay. by Senator Short (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the programme, the ``Country Hour'', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; that even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and in view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programmes such as the Country Hour. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the ALP parliamentary Party has announced that uranium sales to France will be allowed, even though this is against the policy of the ALP recently endorsed at the ALP 1986 National conference which states that uranium shall not be sold to France whilst France continues nuclear testing in the Pacific. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Support legislation to be introduced by the Australian democrats which would ban uranium sales to France in accordance with ALP policy And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Vigor (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax Legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray by Senator Brownhill (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the ACT or to their sale in the ACT. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and honourable members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, based on a 4 zonal weighted system, is an affront to democracy. The National Party under the leadership of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is always returned to Government with no opportunity for the voting public to bring about change. Your petitioners point out that under the Queensland voting system the National Party at the State Elections on 1 November 1986 managed to achieve 55 per cent of the seats with only 39 per cent of the votes. This demonstrates that 61 per cent of Queenslanders do not want a National Party Government yet 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 105 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 headquarters 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 Senator Brownhill (from 172 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That State Branches of some Federally registered Unions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the Australian Labor Party, are holding up to contempt (a) Statute laws and decisions of Courts of Law (b) Sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904; (c) Sections of the International Labour Organisation Agreement; (d) Sections of the Magna Carta; (e) Sections of the Trade Practices Act, 1974; (f) Sections of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Specific actions of the A.C.T.U. affiliated unions in particular, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which is a communist controlled union, has a history of involvement with the worldwide Mafia organisation, and, is a member of an international Transport organisation whose aim is to gain control of transport operations so that they are able to cripple countries, as it suits them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should totally reject any attempt that may be made by the A.L.P. Federal Government to deem any small business entrepreneur in the road transport industry, whether he or she be an employer, self-employed, contractor or sub-contractor, to be an employee. History shows that the transport industry is being ruled and controlled by a few power brokers, and that individuals and their families are being destroyed and denied natural justice. This can only be corrected in the Federal Parliament, and must be for the long term recovery of Australia, and its citizens. God save the Queen! And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The ever expanding exorbitant interest rates are casting farmers and city dwellers along with their wives and toddlers into dust and mud stricken roads, as they plod along without success, for alternative accommodation. Your petitioners therefore pray that your House eliminate this outrageous and unjust castigation of our population which is leading to the downfall of this country. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; and (2) Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134, to be used to irradiate food products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: (1) limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and (2) consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 65 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled-This petition of concerned citizens respectfully requests that your Honourable House will: Ensure that, as well as continuing, at every opportunity, to protest to the Government of France against the testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, most urgent protest is made against the proposed testing in French possessions to the south and west of Australia from which any escaped radioactive material would be carried over this continent by prevailing winds. by Senator Sanders (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers, about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia; (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. (3) Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray, etc.); (4) Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament the petition of the undersigned shows: That the Australian Democrats were the only party to vote against tertiary fees in the Federal Parliament in 1986; the Students' Association at the Canberra College of Advanced Education resolved on 11 November 1986 to encourage students to vote against candidates from parties which have voted for fees (unless they give a commitment to vote against tertiary fees), and for candidates from parties which have voted against fees in the next Federal election; and that at present candidates from the Australian Democrats could be universally supported in accordance with this motion, unlike those from the ALP, Liberal and National Parties. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Note that many students will vote against candidates who support tertiary fees, and request any legislation imposing fees on tertiary students be rescinded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 136 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament the petition of the undersigned shows: Many hens are subjected to inhumane treatment as a result of being kept in extremely small battery cages. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Ensure that the current ACT Animal Ordinance of 1959 which requires that animals kept in close confinement be exercised daily is enforced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 27 citizens). Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 122 citizens of Alice Springs: Praying that attempts to close the joint USA-Australian defence bases at Pine Gap and elsewhere be opposed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, from 111 citizens of Alice Springs: Praying that the process of food irradiation be banned. Petitions received. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 3 of 1987, relating to Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council fees and allowances, and made under the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, be disallowed. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with interest the proposal of the President of the National Farmers Federation (Mr Ian McLachlan) for Australia to promote nuclear-free food on the world market; (b) notes also his call for the `canning' of the Lucas Heights nuclear facility; (c) commends both these proposals to give Australia a nuclear free status in a world deeply worried about the risks of nuclear contamination and which would greatly benefit our hard-hit agricultural sector; and (d) calls for the closure of the Lucas Heights nuclear facility and the prohibition of the irradiation of food products in Australia. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting (a) the Governor of Victoria, (Dr Davis McCaughey) deliberately chose as the subject for the 23rd Tracey Maud Memorial Lecture the title, `Medical Ethics . . . Who decides what and how?', which in his speech he describes as `one of public controversy'; (b) when referring to the question of human embryo experimentation, the Governor in his speech, said: `Even if legislation of a restrictive kind were to receive a majority vote, say in the Senate, or were to reflect public opinion as expressed in a public opinion poll, it would still be questionable whether it would be good democracy to impose it'; (c) Dr Davis McCaughey, in conjunction with another member of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Medical Research Ethics Committee (Dr Robert Jansen, now a director of an IVF clinic in New South Wales) drew up the pro-experimentation guidelines in 1982 which have given rise to so much public concern; and (d) these guidelines were subjected to the scrutiny of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, which found that the marker event contained in the guidelines before which experimentations on human embryos could take place lacked inherent ethical validity, and that the concept contained in those guidelines that the human embryo could be regarded as property should be rejected, Declares that: (i) the statement by the appointed Governor of Victoria, His Excellency Dr Davis McCaughey, which questioned whether it would be good for democracy in effect for Executive governments to enforce laws passed by elected parliaments restricting experimentation on human embryos strikes at the heart of our system of parliamentary democracy and brings discredit on the office of Governor, (ii) the question of experiments on human embryos is a major matter of public importance which cannot be confined to and determined by selected scientists and ethics committees, (iii) insofar as the Governor's statement seeks to undermine the Act of the Victorian Parliament which restricts experiments on human embryos that is a question for the people of Victoria to determine; and (iv) insofar as the Governor's statements relate to proposals by a Senate Select Committee and the Family Law Council for federal legislation to restrict experiments on human embryos-proposals which are now being considered by the Federal Government-the statement of the Governor of Victoria is a reflection upon and an improper attempt to unduly influence the demo-cratic processes of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Senator Gareth Evans-Mr President, I draw your attention to that part of Senator Harradine's notice of motion which describes the statement of the Governor of Victoria, His Excellency Dr Davis McCaughey, in quite adverse terms. In particular, he says that it will bring discredit on the office of Governor. I draw your attention, Mr President, to standing order 417-also, I suppose, 418 to the extent that the Governor of Victoria is a part of the Parliament of Victoria-and ask you to consider whether it may not be out of order to express a motion in these terms, which appear to me to be manifestly disrespectful to the person concerned and to his office. Senator Chaney-On the point of order, Mr President: I must say that as the honourable senator was reading his notice of motion it occurred to me that there might be some question of the sort which has been raised by Senator Evans. I have not had a chance to study the matter but I wish to say that there seems to me to be quite a difference between making a disrespectful reference to Her Majesty or a representative in debate and having a substantive motion which goes to what seems to me to be a most unusual act by the Governor of Victoria, which is to enter into a debate on policy issues which are very difficult and to cast doubts upon the rights of the legislature to legislate with respect to matters which I would have thought were clearly within the legislature's competence. So I ask you, Mr President, in considering this matter to bear in mind very carefully that this is not a debate but a substantive motion which raises what seems to me to be a very proper question of public interest and one on which I would have thought the previous Attorney- General, Senator Evans, might have had very strong feelings in terms of the limits of the royal prerogative and the role of the Crown in dealing with matters which are properly the concern of government and the Parliament and which have perhaps not a high degree of party political content but a very high degree of policy content which will have to be considered by legislatures at both State and Federal levels. So my point on the point of order is to suggest that it would be a very strange set of Standing Orders which precluded a senator from raising the issue which is raised by Senator Harradine in his motion in the way in which he has, which seems to me to be respectful in its address and terms but very critical of the entry of the Queen's representative into a matter which has been the subject of some debate here. I do not wish to use this point of order as an opportunity to get into the substance of that. Senator Gareth Evans-You are not doing a bad job. Senator Chaney-This is a matter of very considerable importance. I would have thought that the point of order taken by Senator Evans sits very oddly with some of his stated attitudes with respect to the role of the Parliament as against the role of the Crown. Therefore, Mr President, I ask you to consider the matter bearing in mind that it should be the prerogative of any senator to bring into this place a motion which goes to the role of the Crown in this matter and the role of the Governor of Victoria in this area of controversy. Senator Sir John Carrick-On the point of order: This is a very difficult matter but I want to support Senator Chaney. First of all I want to point out that the issue that Senator Harradine has raised is of enormous human importance. Secondly, if one were to rule out of order the substance of Senator Harradine's intended notice of motion, it would be virtually impossible for this Senate to bring forward a notice of motion should a vice-regal personage, or person of such status, say something that is controversial or of a critical nature. The fact of the matter is-I mean no disrespect at all to any vice-regal person when I say this-that what has been reported as being a statement by the Governor of Victoria is highly controversial and it touches upon a series of matters on which the Victorian Parliament has already legislated, including legislation establishing the Waller Committee to consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues arising from In Vitro Fertilisation. It touches upon a report of a select committee of the Senate which is now before the Government for legislative action and, as I understand it, it suggests that all these matters should be put aside when making a decision. It ought to be possible to criticise the substance of what a vice-regal person, a Crown's representative, says. If we could not criticise the substance of it, that would be a very serious situation. One might be the strongest monarchist on earth and yet surely one could criticise in the Parliament the substance of what a member of the monarchy said. Senator Gareth Evans-I am delighted to have you on record about all this. When next Sir John Kerr-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Sir John Carrick-I am always grateful when Senator Evans adds his piece because on the one hand he is chameleon-like, as Senator Chaney says, in standing up for freedom of speech but on the other hand when it suits him to take a point of order he does so. Mr President, I put to you in deadly seriousness that this is the very heart of the challenge of the freedom of the parliaments. Parliaments have the absolute right to legislate and to make decisions on human embryo experimentation or any matters of genetic engineering and they must have that right. If somebody outside this Parliament, whether it happens to be a governor or anybody else, criticises that right, it must be the right of the Parliament to reply. I put it to you, Mr President, that however difficult that may be, Senator Harradine has not implied any disrespect at all and his notice of motion does not offend the Standing Orders. Senator Harradine —Mr President, very briefly on the point of order-- Senator Gareth Evans-And just on the point of order. Senator Harradine —I will speak just on the point of order that the Minister raised which, I understand, was standing order 417. He questioned at least part of the notice of motion; I do not suggest that he questioned the whole notice of motion. Standing order 417 states: No Senator shall use the name of Her Majesty or of Her representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully in Debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations. Without canvassing all of the questions involved if the point of order were upheld, including the question of royal prerogative versus executive government and the rights of Parliament, I simply point out that I gave mature consideration to raising this question in the first place and careful consideration to the framing of the motion which accurately expresses what the Governor said. I also point out that standing order 417 states that no senator shall use the name of Her Majesty or Her representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully in debate. I do not want to canvass this matter as it has been adequately dealt with by both Senator Chaney and Senator Sir John Carrick. However, I raise the question as to whether Standing Orders refer to the governor of a State. The standing order is worded in the singular and I assume that it refers to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth. Insofar as the Governor-General of the Commonwealth is concerned, I am advised that a notice of this nature should be put in the form of an address. Is the Minister following this? Senator Gareth Evans-Yes. Senator Harradine —It should be put in the form of an address if it is directed to the Governor-General of Australia rather than in the form of a notice of motion. But I am also informed that there is no way that the Senate can have before it an address to a Governor of a State. Therefore, the only proper recourse for any senator, or indeed the Senate, is by way of the notice of motion which I have given. I must emphasise that I have done so because the Governor himself has really questioned the role of the Senate, in so many words. It was he who raised the question about whether it would be good democracy to impose a law which was passed by the Senate. Mr President, I ask you: If you are going to rule this notice of motion out of order on a technicality under the Standing Orders, how else can this Senate maintain its integrity against a privileged attack by a Governor of a State of Australia? That is the question that we as a Senate must consider if this notice of motion is ruled out of order. Again, I say finally that Senator Gareth Evans had best be careful about this. If he is suggesting that this notice of motion is out of order, then all sorts of other things can be said with impunity, by Governors of various States, reflecting not only upon the Parliament of Australia but upon the executive government. The PRESIDENT —I will not uphold the point of order, and I will seek advice before I put Senator Harradine's notice of motion on the Notice Paper. It was not the subject matter that concerned me and it probably was not the subject matter that concerned Senator Gareth Evans. But the use of words and language such as `brings discredit on the office of Governor' certainly has me in some doubt. As I said, I will seek advice to make sure that the notice of motion is in order; and when I see the full text, which I have not seen because it is an extremely long statement, I will advise Senator Harradine and the Senate accordingly as to whether it will go on to the Notice Paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Advisory Council (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 2 of 1987, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 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- (1) The Senate at its rising on Thursday, 26 March 1987, adjourn till Monday, 30 March 1987 at 2 p.m. (2) The days and hours of meeting of the Senate for the week 30 March-2 April 1987 be as follows: (a) Monday, 30 March 1987- 2.00 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8.00 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (b) Tuesday, 31 March 1987- 2.00 p.m.-3.15 p.m.: (c) Wednesday, 1 April 1987- 10.00 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2.00 p.m.-7.30 p.m.; and (d) Thursday, 2 April 1987- 10.00 a.m.-11.15 a.m. (3) On Monday, 30 March 1987 and Wednesday, 1 April 1987, the Sessional Order relating to the Routine of Business for Week 2 apply. (4) The Order of Business for Tuesday, 31 March 1987 and Thursday, 2 April 1987 be as follows: (a) Petitions, (b) Notices of Motion; (c) Questions; (d) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business: (e) Ministerial Statements, by leave; (f) Presentation of Papers; and (g) Adjournment. (5) The hours of meeting of the Senate from 28 April 1987 and for the remainder of the Autumn Sittings 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 that notice of motion. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —For the information of honourable senators, I indicate that that notice of motion seeks to do two things: Firstly, to put our house in order in an entirely routine way for the rather complicated sitting next week when Estimates committees will sit, and to adjust our normal hours simply to the exigencies of those Estimates committees; and, secondly, to confirm as the sitting times for the remainder of this session those that we have been used to since the latter part of last year. There has been a good deal of discussion between the various party leaders and within the party rooms as to possible variations of those sitting hours that have operated, I think, since late November last year, or since the latter part of last session. It has not been possible to reach consensus about any particular variation, although a number of models have been circulated. The general view seems to be that discretion is the better part of valour, and, accordingly, we will simply move to confirm the status quo for the remainder of this session and think some more about the possibility of changes to hours at some unspecified later stage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority-Annual Report 1985-86-pursuant to section 41 of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. 2. Treaties-(a) Four treaties which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force; (b) one treaty which has been signed for and ratified by Australia; (c) seven treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature; (d) three treaties which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded; and (e) one treaty which has been ratified by Australia. Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Collard had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Senate declines to give this Bill a second reading, condemns the Government for seeking to delay the making of a decision on the forest industries of Tasmania, and calls on the Government to make a decision on that matter forthwith'. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(10.27) —Last night, prior to the adjournment of the Senate, we were debating the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. I drew attention then to this forced inquiry imposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a ban aimed at domestic logging operations in Tasmania. I told the Senate that it showed the Prime Minister's ruthless disregard for Tasmania, because it was the Prime Minister who ordered the Tasmanian Premier to halt logging in this area. He ignored the advice of the Department of Primary Industry and did not even consult his Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. In so doing, he threw out the window the memorandum of understanding which was signed by the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments only five months previously. In fact, this Bill will fracture certain sections of the Tasmanian economy and will condemn many to unemployment. It will also condemn many in ancillary industries to unemployment. The Hawke Government has not attempted to justify this Bill, nor have any of the Government senators who have spoken in the debate so far. The Government only wants the votes, and dismisses the long term effects of the consequences of this Bill on the Tasmanian economy. The Federal Department of Primary Industry has been severely embarrassed. In fact, it looked at the alternatives which were proposed by the Forest Action Network. This Forest Action Network was set up and financed by the Commonwealth Government, yet not even the Minister or the Federal Department of Primary Industry could endorse its report. They said that it was economically and scientifically unsound. So the Government's own Department and advisers said that this report was commercially unsound. In fact, the Forest Action Network is a thinly disguised arm of the conservationists' slick propaganda machine that manipulates the media and does great damage to Tasmania. I would like to draw attention to the fact that it was a Federal government department which rejected this report. What has changed since that report was presented? The only thing that has changed, I submit, is the Federal Government's desire to pander to the manifestly ill-informed armchair environmentalists who live in the marginally sensitive electorates around the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney. One of Senator Button's own advisory industry councils stated that Australia's forest based industries are capable of increasing their market share against imports provided the timber resources can be made available. But the Federal Government is trying to make sure that these resources are not available. Senator Button's advisers went on to say that economic development is essential to Tasmania and can be achieved in Tasmania's forest industries while at the same time ensuring that the natural environment is fully respected to ensure sustainable economic growth. It is vital that the Senate understand that the Minister's own advisers have said this. The advisers said: A sensible balance between development and protection of the forest environment is in place, and it will ensure both forests and jobs survive for the future. Here is a commitment by the Government's own advisers, but what is needed is a commitment to multiple land use. The options presented by the Government and the environmental lobby are all too often seen as a choice of extremes. We live in a democracy and I believe that the public should be presented with reasonable options, not with extreme options as presented by this Government. Multiple land use, correctly implemented and managed, can properly preserve and protect the environment while simultaneously earning income for Australia and creating employment opportunities. I turn to the real reasons behind this Bill. In his Australian Broadcasting Corporation Boyer lectures in 1979 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) suggested that we should do away with the States, but in this Bill he is doing the next best thing to doing away with them. He is taking away the constitutional rights of the States to regulate industry, land use and land management. He is ignoring his express promise in the memorandum of understanding that the Tasmanian Government could regulate domestic logging operations. He is ignoring the views of the Tasmanian Government, of the Tasmanian Labor Opposition, and of industry not only in logging but in wider resources and in manufacturing sectors. Even the trade unions are against the proposal as also are a range of community groups. In short, the Prime Minister is ignoring the rights of the States within the Federation of Australia. What will happen if this Bill is passed? The Australian Constitution, I submit, will be subverted. Thousands of Tasmanians in logging and ancillary industries will lose their jobs. Sections of the Tasmanian economy will fracture. This Bill will set a precedent for Federal intervention in domestic issues-- Senator Sanders —It's about time, too. Senator WATSON —Not only in land use management, Senator Sanders, but in resource use in mining, agriculture, town planning, the siting of heavy and light industry and a host of other matters which were deliberately and correctly left to the States when the Constitution of Australia was drawn up. Prior to the renewal of Tasmania's three export woodchip licences, the Tasmanian forest industry was grilled by a long and searching investigation that was part of the environmental impact statement required by the Federal Government. That statement considered all aspects of forest management and, at the Hawke Government's insistence, considerable attention was paid to the aesthetic and resource balance of that part of the State's forests to be entered in the National Estate Register. The environmental impact inquiry took public submissions, heard expert evidence and made rigorous examination of data for two years and in December 1985, the Hawke Government decided that logging should be allowed in National Estate areas provided the particular values of these areas were taken into account in management plans. In fact, the Minister for Primary Industry then signed a memorandum of understanding, for and on behalf of the Commonwealth, which agreed on the consultative process to be applied in planning the National Estate forests. I quote from clause 25 of that agreement, which said: The Minister for Primary Industry acknowledges that it will be for the State to decide the extent to which it will implement Commonwealth views on the protection of National Estate values- That is, in relation to domestic operations. But this Bill seeks to take over additional areas of State Crown land. There is no new evidence for a commission of inquiry to address. The only evidence that concerns the Prime Minister is Labor's polling in certain Melbourne and Sydney electorates. This Bill also proposes to extend the right of injunction to a dangerous extent and thereby it creates new precedents in the use of injunctions. In fact, clause 17 (3) of the Bill says that an injunction or interim injunction may be granted: whether or not the person has . . . done an act of that kind. An `act of that kind' is described in clause 16 as: . . . any other act . . . capable of adversely affecting the protected area. Thus, regardless of whether one intends to do something which, in the opinion of the Minister, could adversely affect the area, one could have an injunction thrown against one through the High Court of Australia. My colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has drawn our attention to his concerns about the dangerous precedent that is implicit in this Bill. We are also both concerned that under clause 14(c) the Commission of Inquiry can authorise any person to gain forced entry to private property, if that person considers that the private property contains forest resources. This is an intrusion on private rights. With all the Government's promises about consultation, lowering unemployment, restoring our international and domestic trade and lifting industry profiles generally, this Bill is a threat to jobs, to sensible land use management, to the Tasmanian and Australian economies and to the Federation of Australia. I fervently urge all senators who genuinely care about workers and about the prudent development of our resources to vote against the Bill. Unlike this Government, the Opposition wants a balance of development, of sensible land use management and of non-intervention in areas that are rightly the province of the State. I believe that we are united against this Bill, and we condemn it. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.38) —Tasmania is a little island with a big problem. The big problem is that its forests are disappearing, more and more every year. A total of 6.5 million cubic metres of wood is destroyed every year. That is a number which is very difficult to understand. It is a huge amount. The woodchip export industry takes about 60 per cent of the total forest cut every year. The pulp and paper operations take about one million cubic metres, as does sawmilling. It is unfortunate to note that 2.5 million cubic metres-more than a third of all the timber cut in Tasmania-is wasted. That is a result of the wasteful practices of the Forestry Commission and the forest companies themselves. We have heard much said in this chamber and in Tasmania about the vast areas that the greenies want to lock up in the State so that it is unavailable. Unavailable! Let us look at what the forestry industry has locked up. It has two-thirds of the State in various concessions. In the north-west we have the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd Burnie concession and the APPM Wesley Vale concession. In the north-east we have the APPM Wesley Vale reserve. In the central area we have the Tasmanian Pulp and Forest Holdings reserve and the Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd concession. On the east coast we have the TPFH concession and in the Southern Forests the southern concession and the southern reserve. Thus, two-thirds of the State of Tasmania is already locked up by the woodchippers and the sawmillers. What do these numbers mean? I will try to put them in terms that we can understand. More than 22,000 hectares of Tasmania is clear felled every year. For those who follow the Victorian type of football, that is about 132 VFL Parks per week, or about 20 per day, clear felled. That is a vast amount of clear cutting; a vast amount of destruction in that State. Of course, the Gray Government is committed to the continuation of this cutting. It must be stopped because it is not only destroying Tasmania's future economy but also it is destroying a national treasure. The Premier's attitude is that if it moves, shoot it; if it flows, dam it; and if it grows, chop it down. It is a bit like having the manager of a public art gallery, entrusted with the preservation of a number of art treasures, slashing a Picasso every day. People will come in and say; `Look, you can't slash a Picasso every day. Stop doing that'. The manager will say: `Look, I am running this gallery. It is up to me. Nobody can tell me what I can do with this Picasso'. Senator Mason —`It's my Picasso. I'll cut it down if I want to.' Senator SANDERS —As Senator Mason says, the manager will say it is his Picasso and he can do with it what he wants. But it is not his any more than the trees of Tasmania are Premier Gray's. These trees belong to the people of the nation. They are a public treasure. Why does the Premier take on the conservation movement? It is to divert attention away from his own failures. He is an inept Premier, an inadequate Premier, and he knows it. Therefore he creates confrontations. He created a confrontation over the Franklin, which actually got him elected, and he now knows that the only way he can stay in power is to create another confrontation, this time over the forests. By doing so he is causing great stresses in the Tasmanian community and is threatening the very basis of democracy. He is forcing people- - Senator Townley —Rent-a-crowd. Senator SANDERS —Senator Townley calls them rent-a-crowds. They are not rent-a-crowds; they are sincere, frightened citizens who worry about what is happening to their State. They have to take personal action, putting themselves in physical danger from the forces which have been raised against them by demagogues such as the Premier and others. These forces of violence have been raised against the citizens who are trying to save their State. By doing this they risk arrest. But for what? Why do they do this? They do it because the politicians will not act in the best interests of the people of Tasmania. It causes great stresses, including the politicisation of the police force. The police are put in a position where they have to enforce political decisions. We saw this happen during the Franklin Dam blockade, where the police actually cut telephone wires. This is a Federal offence. They cut wires to the environmentalists' office and they cut wires to public phone booths in the town of Strachan. They also illegally jammed radio transmissions. The police have been brought into the situation more and more in Tasmania to do the will of the politicians. This is not in the tradition of the Australian democratic way of life or indeed of democracy anywhere. We have recently seen bans on the Press covering situations where the police were actively removing the protesters who were against what the Government was doing. I suppose Premier Gray will be tempted to burn down Parliament House next and blame it on the greenies. It goes that far. These are diversionary tactics to cover up the failures of the Tasmanian Government. Who really runs Tasmania? Is it Robin Gray? No, it is not; it is a bunch of multinational companies or mainland companies. They run it for their own financial benefit, not for the benefit of the people of Tasmania who are traditionally kept under-employed while the resources are being continually destroyed. What about the unions? Unfortunately, the unions in Tasmania do the bidding of the bosses. They are not doing anything worthwhile for the workers. The concentration in Tasmania is on big energy intensive businesses, not on labour intensive businesses. These businesses concentrate on massive profits and they keep their people permanently underemployed. The resources are there if anyone really wanted to manage Tasmania properly. Although vastly depleted now, the forests still have some potential. There are some mineral resources which could be tapped without environmental destruction. We have a well-trained and willing work force. But the Tasmanian Government is too inept to harness these forces. Tasmania would be the richest country on earth within two years if the Israelis, with their knowledge of how to use a resource without destroying it and with their managerial skill, were given it. Furthermore, if Israel were given to Robin Gray, Yasser Arafat would be in Tel Aviv in a week. I think that is a measure of the inept nature of the management of Tasmania. What about the unions? What is the union involvement? We find that the unions, both federally and in the States, are being unduly influenced by big business. A man called Bob Richardson has been employed since late 1986 by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on a grant from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, to work on industrial democracy. He gets something like $28,000 a year to do this. Industrial democracy is something that the Australian Democrats have been pushing for a very long time. We are very much in favour of it. However, this Bob Richardson, who is being employed by the ACTU on a government grant, has been touring around stirring up anti-greenie feelings. He has been conducting tours in Tasmania for the media to foster the interests of the forest industries. In general, he has been working as a biased supporter of big business over the interests of workers. The unions, the companies and the politicians are all ignoring the facts of life. The facts of life are that more trees are being cut down than are being regenerated. Professor Jackson of the University of Tasmania points out that 30 per cent more trees are cut than are regenerated. If this were not the case, why then do the bleating companies continually want to get into virgin areas? Why do they wish to get into virgin areas all the time if the areas they now use are regenerating? The fact is that they are mining the trees. Senator Mason —I take a point or order, Mr President. I cannot hear Senator Sanders's excellent speech for the chirping of the Tasmanian sparrows on my right. I wonder whether you would try to control them. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Thank you, Senator Mason. There is no point of order, but I would indicate that Senator Sanders allowed Senator Watson to be heard in peace. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for your wisdom. It is obvious, because of the fact that the forestry industries want to get into new areas all the time, that they are simply not regenerating the trees as they say they are doing. What do we find in terms of the people's opinion about all of the operations of the forestry industries? A poll on woodchipping was conducted in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne by Spectrum Research Pty Ltd. Senator Newman —It has nothing to do with this. Senator SANDERS —It certainly does have something to do with this because it is the woodchipping operations being conducted by these companies which are putting the ultimate strain on these forests. This is the reason the companies have to get into the National Estate areas. The poll asked: Do you approve of Australia's native forests being felled and exported as woodchips to Japan? Out of a total sample of 806, 82 per cent said no and 10 per cent said yes. It is interesting to note that of females, 87 per cent said no. Females traditionally have more concern for the future than do males. It is the females who bear the children. They feel that they want their children to have a future. So, whatever way one cuts it, the vast majority of people are against this use-or misuse-of the forests. This really shows that common sense prevails in the community even if it does not in this Senate chamber or in the State of Tasmania. What about the Forestry Commission itself? We heard earlier that an environmental impact statement was prepared on woodchipping. We now know-we always did know-that this statement was prepared by the Forestry Commission and the woodchip companies themselves. This is like letting the fox draw up plans for a chicken coop. The Forestry Commission of Tasmania, by its own admission, operates solely for the enhancement of the forest industries. An article in the Australian Forest Industries Journal, headed `Forestry Protects Sawmillers in Tasmania', contains an interview of the then Commissioner of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, Paul Unwin, by the Managing Director of the publication. Basically the article is a glowing tribute to the Forestry Commission in Tasmania. The interview shows how well it supports the forest industries. Mr Unwin was asked: So, if you have a Minister or a Cabinet not deeply interested in forestry this could cause a lot of trouble for the industry? Mr Unwin answered: Exactly so, the Commission could be forced to accept the amendments. So, to overcome this problem we have introduced into the Bill a clause which says that the Minister cannot-quite categorically-cannot make an alteration to a Forest Management Plan unless he has received a certificate from the Forestry Commission stating that the proposed amendment will not in any way affect the rights of the forest industries . . . This means if our proposal is accepted, the strength and decision is retained in the Commission's hands and not in the hands of the Minister. He also said: To achieve acceptance of an amendment the industry has to approve it in writing. The industry, and not the Government, has to approve an amendment in writing. This is still going on. Very recently we found, much to the Forestry Commission's dismay, that a man was appointed to be the Commissioner for Private Forests without the position even having been advertised. This man was Evan Rowley, who was a very enthusiastic pro-Gray public relations man on the Forestry Commission. He got his reward and he is now the Commissioner for Private Forests. This caused a lot of disquiet and a lowering of morale in the Forestry Commission. It shows another disadvantage in the Gray Government in Tasmania in that public servants are no longer really able to act for the public. If they say anything at all against what the-- Senator Watson —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: The honourable senator is attacking an eminent public servant who has no opportunity to defend his own position. This is a scurrilous attack on the integrity and the professionalism of a public servant by a senator in this place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This shows that there is no room for an honest difference of opinion in Tasmania any more. Anyone in the Public Service who disagrees with the Government is demoted or not promoted. Anyone who does agree with the Government gets very rapid promotion. This is another disadvantage of the present situation in Tasmania. Something which has not been mentioned to the degree it should have is the impact on animals of forestry operations in Tasmania. Most of the animals are nocturnal and it is really unfortunate for them that they are. People do not realise that these forests have large populations of animals. In the short term the animals suffer the worst from forestry operations. Most of these animals live in the hollows of dead trees, where they rest during the daytime. The trees are cut down and the animals are maybe crushed as the trees fall to the forest floor. If they are not crushed by the trees then, they can be crushed by the heavy machinery. If they are not crushed by the heavy machinery they may be burned in the regeneration burns. If they somehow survive that and if regeneration takes place, they will be poisoned by 1080 poison or shot by hunters. It is difficult to estimate, but some 250,000 native animals are killed every year in Tasmania by forestry operations. This is laid at the door of the forestry industry. We have heard about the spectre of mainland interference in the affairs of Tasmania. The biggest interferers on the Tasmanian scene are the forest companies themselves, because they are not owned in Tasmania. North Broken Hill Ltd owns APPM-Associated Pulp and Paper Mills-which in turn controls Tasmanian Pulp and Forest Holdings, a woodchip company. The Adelaide Steamship Company Ltd owns a part of Petersville-Sleigh, which owns in turn Northern Wood Chips which is now called Forest Resources. So when we talk about mainland interference, it comes from the industries which in fact control Tasmania's destiny. It does not come from any Federal intervention. The Japanese benefit greatly from our woodchip industry and they think we are nuts, absolutely crazy. The Japanese revere their forests. Sixty-six per cent of Japan is covered by forests. In Australia at the time of Captain Cook some 15 per cent of the land mass was covered by trees, and now it is down to 5 per cent. The Japanese would simply not consider doing to their forests what we are doing to ours. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that 9,000 jobs have been created in Japan for the processing of Tasmanian woodchips. This once again shows that our governments in Tasmania, both Labor and Liberal, over and over again have not for- Senator Watson —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point or order. I point out that this Bill is not in relation to the woodchip export operation. The honourable senator's entire speech has been directed to this type of operation. I would ask that in accordance with Standing Orders you ask the honourable senator to direct his comments to the Bill before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Senator Sanders, I ask you to direct your remarks to the Bill. Senator SANDERS —I am, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I think you understand that we cannot discuss the forestry industry in Tasmania without discussing woodchips. They take 60 per cent of the wood. If they were not taking 60 per cent of the wood there would be plenty of sawlogs and plenty of wood for the small sawmillers. But at the moment, because of the distortions of the woodchip industry, we do have this problem, and I think it is important to discuss it. What about the analysis from outside Tasmania of what is happening in that State? A reputable consultant was called in from Canada in the 1970s to look at Tasmania's forest resources and at what was happening with them. This man was not an environmentalist or a wild-eyed greenie; he was a respected economist. He came down with what was called `An Appraisal of the Prospects for Tasmania's Economic Future'. His name was David A. Young, and he was absolutely appalled by what he found in Tasmania. He was so appalled that in fact he wrote a very scathing report. Senator Townley —Who paid for him? Senator SANDERS —Senator Townley asks who paid his fare. The State Labor Government paid his fare and a commission for him to prepare this statement, which was for the State government of the day. One of the things he proposed was: . . . certain goals and objectives of a strategic economic plan, such as `Repair through reafforestation and afforestation of 750,000 hectares of derelict forest at an estimated cost of $100,000,000 be spread over 10 years. At the time he looked at it he identified 750,000 hectares of derelict forest. Another of his goals was: . . . the `achievement of full processing of all forest outputs in Tasmania by 1986; Well, it did not happen, did it? He called for: full processing to be defined as sawn and dressed timber, or finished particle board, or fibre board, or wood pulp or paper or like products, with export of unsawn timber, roundwood (other than preserved poles) pulpwood and pulpwood chips to be prohibited by law. He is an economist and he claimed: . . . that the achievement of this goal `would add some $350,000,000 to the gross product of Tasmania each year. I quote him further: To a foreign observer, the waste, seen as a biological loss, is deplorable-the adjective `obscene' suggests itself. From an economic point of view, the policy of leaving lands desert and derelict seems, to say the least, imprudent and improvident. Here is an economist who identifies the problem. What happened? The Labor Government of the day submerged this report and we had to retrieve it and get it put in the libraries because the Government did not want to know about it. If it had only listened then we would not be having these discussions now. What about jobs? In the last 10 years or so 4,000 jobs have been lost in the forest industry in Tasmania. The reason they have been lost has nothing to do with any actions of the environmentalists. The reason is that the thrust is now for capital and energy intensive operations. The small sawmillers have been frozen out. They cannot get their quotas of logs any more. They were labour intensive operations and operated out of the small country centres. Things are now centralised in the big cities and mechanised. Honourable senators will find that the bush workers and the small sawmillers are now coming to realise that it is the conservationists, not the timber companies, who actually have their bests interests at heart. We were taken to the ANM concession near Ellendale by a small sawmiller who is now out of business because he could not get any logs. With tears in his eyes he showed us the wastage left behind by ANM logging not for woodchips but for its pulp operations. He showed us log after log, each some six feet in diameter, that could have been used in his sawmill, but he could not get them because ANM got them and would not release them. ANM then burned them to try to destroy the evidence, but it is still there if anyone wishes to go and look. Of course to do so one would have to go through locked gates. This is Crown land but ANM controls it. The bush workers know what is happening in Tasmania. They realise that their livelihood is on the line, not because of the conservationists but because of the wasteful practices of the forest companies themselves. The Bill before the House, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, to examine the Lemonthyme area and the Southern Forests, is a step in the right direction but is actually no solution to the problem. What we really need is a complete moratorium on all logging in all National Estate areas. I am foreshadowing an amendment to the Bill which will not ban all logging in all National Estate areas but which will include two other areas. These other areas are the Douglas-Apsley area and the Quamby Bluff-Jackeys Marsh area. My amendment comes in two basic sections. The first is the section to constitute these areas as protected areas; and the second is to restore an area which was excised by the House of Representatives. It turns out that ANM, Australian Newsprint Mills, lobbied very effectively and had this Bill modified in the House of Representatives to give it some very beautiful stands of timber. My amendment will serve to protect those stands and to save them from the ANM scorched earth operation which will surely follow its entry into these areas. These ANM amendments would allow clearfelling right down to the flats of the world famous Gordon River in its pristine upper reaches. This would be a hideous eyesore from the Vale of Rasselas, one of the most popular walking areas in the whole of Tasmania. We are also adding a 4,000-hectare section of forest near Wayatinah which was left out due to bureaucratic oversight. The Jackeys Marsh area has received much attention in recent times. I think people realise that it is an area of scenic beauty and that it has great value in terms of the national heritage. It is under great threat at the moment. APPM destroyed a rare fern listed by the Australian Heritage Commission as having biogeographical significance. In spite of the fact that logging operator, Andy Padgett, knew that it was there, he destroyed it. Incidentally, this Andy Padgett operation in the Jackeys Marsh area has not cleaned up the timber as required, and there are 700 to 1,000 tonnes of pulpwood still left lying around. But he can get away with it because the Tasmanian Forestry Commission really does not care. Senator Watson —The conservationists would not tell them where the plant was, and you know it. Be truthful. Senator SANDERS —The conservationists did tell him where the plant was. He disregarded that. Senator Watson —The conservationists are at fault, and you know it. Senator SANDERS —We hear over and over again that the conservationists are at fault. Here we have one of the Tasmanian troglodyte senators saying that the conservationists are at fault. Recently the conservationists were accused by the Gray Government of causing the loss of 940 jobs in Tasmania because of a shortage of veneer logs. We now see the following article in the Hobart Mercury: A shortage of veneer logs has caused tensions in the three-way relationship between the State Government and the two biggest forestry companies in Tasmania, Australian Newsprint Mills . . . and Associated Pulp and Paper Mills . . . Both ANM and APPM have veneer mills but the supply of veneer-quality logs currently is falling short of expectations. ANM says: We are doing our best to supply the volume required but we don't feel APPM is playing the game . . . Here are two timber companies falling out. It is not the greenies who have caused this problem; it is the timber companies' greed. The ANM person said: It is constantly asking for better quality logs- that is, APPM- Sometimes the logs it rejects we find to be quite suitable. We've had meetings galore on the issue but they've had no effect. The general manager of APPM forest products, Mr David Bills, yesterday said that ANM was meeting about 70 per cent of the 3,610 cubic metre requirement. However, he said the State Government was meeting only 30 per cent of its own commitment to provide another 1,200 cubic metres of veneer logs for APPM this year. That is a squabble between the Government and two greedy forest companies. It has absolutely nothing to do with the environmentalists who were blamed for it in the first place. But now the facts have come out. The bottom line is something I mentioned earlier. If the logging companies are regenerating the forests, why do they have to continue their move into virgin forests? The forestry companies have not been able to manage the forests in the past. They are in a mining operation in conjunction with and aided by the Forestry Commission. It is not a forestry operation; it is a mining operation and it should be controlled. I grieve for my dying island. I moved to Tasmania because of its beauty, its more or less intact resource. In the 17 years I have lived there I have watched it go from a viable economic unit to an underemployed mendicant State. I wonder whether the politicians in this place and in Tasmania actually take what they are saying seriously. They must see what is going on in Tasmania. It is all around them. They must see the destruction and the economic displacement. It is time for them to stop their political manoeuvring and take some action for the future because at the moment this whole issue is being treated like a local council discussion of where to put the local tip. It is treated as a minor issue. This is a major issue. We are talking about the future of Tasmania, not only the environmental future but the economic future. It behoves us to abandon the abusive rhetoric that is adopted, especially on my right, and think in terms of what is actually best for Tasmania; and what is best for Tasmania is to grasp gratefully the opportunity to sit back and rethink the logging operations in Tasmania-this opportunity given by the Hawke Government and this Bill. I support the Bill. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.08) —I do not suppose that we can really ever satisfy the demands of the wild-eyed greenies, as Senator Sanders calls his crowd. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 is a gross interference in the operations and management of Tasmania by its own State Government. I suppose that if we look at the history of the Commonwealth Government in Australia we will see that we have come through four stages. The first one was a period of colonial government when we were run from Great Britain. The second stage was a system of co-operative federalism. The third, once the taxing powers were handed to the Federal Government, was a system of coercive Federal government where the Federal government put financial constraints on States to encourage them to do things. Fourth, we are now moving to a system of Federal control. The way things have developed, the States are largely irrelevant. This has been brought about by the Commonwealth's use of the treaty power; that is, the ability to sign a treaty with another nation or group of nations and then assume that it has obligations under that treaty to make laws which apply to the States. This power has been ratified in the High Court of Australia. Under our Constitution, if Federal and State laws are in conflict, the Federal law is to prevail. We must rectify that situation-I am not sure of the mechanisms available to us but I know that it is an area worthy of study-to see that we get back to the intention and meaning of our own Constitution. What is happening now is against the whole spirit, intention and meaning of our Constitution. Senator Coleman —Rubbish! Senator SHEIL —It is. The Federal Government is assuming momentous powers and making laws to control industry and government in the States. That is what is happening here, to interfere with the Tasmanian Government's administration of its own State. I think that it was Mr Whitlam who first articulated the proposition that the only thing standing in the way of the implementation of his socialist policies was the Australian Constitution. This is how it should be. It is why we have a constitution and why we had federation-to stop people being able to implement radical policies and then force them on the States. Senator Walters —Look at Bob Hawke's Boyer lectures. Senator SHEIL —That is a very precise and good example. The reason the Constitution exists and we have a federation is that the States would be protected. It is the reason we have this Senate. We would not have a Commonwealth unless the States had been so protected. But now successive Federal governments over many years have been taking measures to draw more and more power to themselves, largely through referenda. But recently this has been done using the treaty power, the foreign trade power or passing legislation and having it tested in the High Court. If the High Court ratifies it as legal, it becomes the law in the land. The High Court, incidentally, does not test how good or bad a law is. All it tests is whether the law was passed legally. The Federal Government is gradually overshadowing the States. We have, actually, a constitutional monarchy in an attempt to try to stop all this Federal growth. Senator Button —If you look at State government expenditure, that is the greatest lot of hogwash you have ever said. Senator SHEIL —No, it is not. The Queen is the head of all our great institutions-the judiciary, the Parliament, the government, the defence forces; the whole lot-but the importance of her being the head is that, while she is the head, nobody else can be. We cannot have this grab for power that is happening now by the Federal Government. Senator Walters —Bob said in his Boyer lectures that he did not want the States to exist. He wanted to get rid of the States. Senator SHEIL —That is right. Queensland, my own State, is even more aware of this Federal Government's actions. I just cite a few examples of how the Federal Government has really made great attempts to attack Queensland. Honourable senators will recall the Aurukun and Mornington Island affairs, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, the Torres Strait border issue, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Fraser Island decision, the threatened interference with Daintree and the threatened interference with Shelburne Bay. In other words, the Federal Government is acting like a foreign power. Not only that, it is acting like an unfriendly foreign power in our own country. We have a grave distrust of it at the moment. The reason-and we have heard it explained in the debate earlier-why the Bill has been brought in is that Mr Hawke, the `Chlorophyll Kid' as he is now being called, has found that his support amongst younger people and the environmentalists has been failing. So he has to make what I would call an unprincipled political trade-off. This Bill is an unprincipled political trade-off to improve his image with the greenie element and younger people. He is blocking the development of a perfectly reasonable and rational timber industry in Australia. It is a direct intervention in States' industries and land use. Land use is one of the things that States have never ceded to the Commonwealth Government. We have had many inquiries over the years. They have been cited in the debate earlier. They have all recommended the balanced and rational development of the forests in Tasmania, including a committee in which I participated when I was Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce. We visited Tasmania and looked at these areas. It could never be said that logging is a rape of Tasmania's forests. It is a balanced development. I know the arguments that were put up before, that natural forests have trees of different types and ages-there are old knotted trees with holes in them for nesting birds, possums and other animals-and that when one looks at man-made forests one is lucky to see an animal or a bird. However, when one gets to a man-made forest the trees are all the one type, they are usually all the same age and the noise is unbelievable. Animals are everywhere, birds are everywhere and it is obvious that the animals prefer a garden of paradise to a garden of Eden. I lend my support to Senator Collard's amendment in regard to this Bill which, I think, is a gross invasion of the State's rights. I will do all within my power now and in the future to see that the Federal Government keeps its nose out of States' business according to the meaning and intent of our Constitution. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(11.16) —I rise today to give my support to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Senator Walters —Oh, you are speaking on this Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order, Senator Walters! Senator Walters —What a change. You were not on the list. Senator AULICH —Once again, as I rise to speak on a particularly important Bill, to discuss an issue relating to Tasmania, I hear the dulcet tones of Senator Walters, who is attempting to talk me down. She is interjecting at the top of her voice. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order, Senator Walters! If you intrude once more I will deal with you. Senator Coleman —Severely I hope. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will deal with you, too, Senator Coleman. Senator AULICH —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I welcome protection from the thunderbolt that always comes from the other side. If I can speak without Senator Walters interrupting me, without her rudeness showing across this chamber as it usually does, I shall begin by reiterating my support for the Bill. Everyone in this place knows that I have spoken in my Party room about this issue. The Government has taken a decision and I believe that value has come out of it. There will be value for Tasmania; there will be value for those people who are prepared to take seriously this whole inquiry and to ensure that in the long term Tasmania gets the benefit from an examination of one of its major resources. We are not talking about any old State; we are talking about one of the most beautiful States in Australia; we are talking about one of the most beautiful areas in the world. We are also talking about a State that is lucky enough to have an indigenous product that will sustain an industry without the sort of artificial incentives that occasionally have had to be given by State governments elsewhere in Australia. One of the major problems that economists in this country and elsewhere have noted about Australia is the fact that we have had, because of the various policies of State governments over the last decade or so, a policy in this country of promoting, supporting and aiding in all sorts of ways, through various artificial incentives, the development of non-indigenous industries right around this country. For example, we have to look only at the aluminium industry to see just how much money has been spent by State governments, through loans, guarantees or other arrangements in terms of providing discounted electricity and so on, to allow non-indigenous industries, non-sustainable industries, to be set up. In the long term they will have to continue to be sustained by tariff protection, discounted electricity tariffs or other artificial incentives. Tasmania is not in that situation. It has an industry which is sustainable; it has a resource which, if it is used properly, can be to the advantage of not only Tasmania but also the Australian economy as a whole. So it is particularly important that people take advantage of this inquiry to look at not only the environmental future of Tasmania and the whole ecosystem that exists there but also an industry which is rooted deeply in the natural products of that State, which does not have to be sustained by artificial incentives-whether, as I have said, they be tariff barriers, discounted energy or other forms of assistance which have traditionally been given by State governments in this country and which I think have been responsible to a large extent for the economic difficulties that this country has been experiencing over the last 10 to 15 years. It is obvious that Tasmania has a number of very real problems and at the head of those very real problems I must put our political standing, that is, our political standing in the rest of the Australian community. We have lost a great deal of our credibility; we have lost a great deal of our goodwill; we have lost a great deal of potential support that we could have got from this Federal Parliament, from other State governments and from the Federal Government simply because we have not played the game politically in the most intelligent way. I think it is about time that somebody said this frankly. The sort of representation we have had in this chamber from the other side-from the Liberals-has been absolutely appalling. Some have done their best, some have been sincere, but most have been regarded, both in this chamber and in the other House, as caricatures of politicians. For example, the other day Senator Newman mentioned the fact that every time a Tasmanian, particularly from the Opposition, talks about particular issues in this chamber there is a general feeling of merriment around the chamber; there is a tendency for honourable senators to ignore what is being said. In many cases when I look across the chamber and at the way the Opposition has approached the issue-an issue that is very important to Tasmania-I have to agree with Senator Newman. Tasmanians in this chamber have not been taken seriously. The unfortunate thing is that a similar situation exists in the House of Representatives. The Goodlucks, the Hodgmans and others have been regarded as very good figures of fun, good theatre, the sorts of people one might pay to see perform but not the sorts of people to which one would entrust the future of one's State. That has been the problem. Tasmania has had no one with a degree of intelligence and credibility to represent it in the House of Representatives. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order, Senator Aulich! You cannot reflect on your colleagues in another place in a derogatory manner. Senator AULICH —If they take umbrage at that comment, of course I will withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not a matter of their taking umbrage; it is a matter of the Chair taking umbrage. Senator AULICH —If the Chair has taken umbrage, of course I withdraw. There is now a feeling in the community, particularly in Tasmania but certainly on the mainland, that Tasmania has difficulties as a State with getting its viewpoints put, with being listened to with the sort of awareness that some other States are being listened to, simply because its representation in this area has not been what it should have been. Premier Robin Gray has again exhausted all the credibility that he could have had in this place, all the good will that is essential for a Premier of any State to have in order that that Premier can deliver the bacon for his constituency. I refer to the whole question of development versus conservation which has been the way the agenda has been written in Tasmania. We have to look only at the way in which Premier Robin Gray has taken every issue relating to the development-conservation debate and used it for his own political purposes. Every man and his dog in Tasmania knows that what the Premier is aiming to do is to try to win the so-called blue collar vote of the Labor Party in that State. First he tried it on the dams and now he is trying it on forestry and questions of the National Estate in relation to buildings and so on. In other words, he has a strategy that is very much geared towards preserving the Liberal Party in power in that State for a very long period to come. That is why he likes Joh Bjelke-Petersen. He likes the idea of dynasties. I presume that he wants to hand over the State to his son. Thank heavens his son is not old enough to take over as is John in Queensland. The point is that Robin Gray is planning to be Premier for a long time. He knows that the interests of the Liberal Party must come before the interests of Tasmanians as a whole. He is interested only in 51 per cent of Tasmanians, that is, those Tasmanians who are prepared to vote for him. So he will seize on every opportunity, whether it is this debate or the dam debate, to take advantage of the divisions which may occur within the community in order to preserve his ascendancy in that State. As I have mentioned before, the trouble is that in the long term that damages Tasmania's representation here and its credibility in the eyes of the rest of Australia. Coupled with the fact that the Labor Party-the Government-has no House of Representatives members in this Parliament representing Tasmania, Tasmania has a problem. It has a problem because it has been shown statistically since 1983 that it is possible for a government to be elected in this country without any Tasmanian House of Representatives members. That is the first time for many years that that situation has been proved. That means that, along the line, if the Liberal Party does not put the interests of Tasmania first but continues to put the interests of the Liberal Party first, Tasmania will consistently be pushed to one side. Premier Robin Gray, as I have said, has exhausted the goodwill that normally exists between Premiers and Prime Ministers of various political persuasions. I well remember the relationship that existed, for example, between Malcolm Fraser, the previous Prime Minister, and the then Premier of Tasmania, Doug Lowe. There were times when they had their public disagreements, but I was present on a few occasions when, for example, arrangements and agreements were made in private in respect of which there was a degree of goodwill and trust which worked to the benefit of all Tasmanians ultimately. Many people in this chamber will recognise that privately-that it is necessary to agree in private in the interests of one's State. There are times when one has to get off one's own political party's band-wagon and ensure that the interests of one's State are put first. Senator Walters —Well, cross the floor. Senator AULICH —That is the whole point about this debate. Senator Walters says: `Cross the floor'. Is that not typical of what I am talking about? The question of conservation and development is seen in terms of either/or alternatives. It is seen as black and white. It is seen in terms of simplistic solutions and options. That is the way the Liberal Party has been organising this debate in Tasmania. It is because of the publicity surrounding these so-called simplistic options that Tasmania is fast becoming a political laughing-stock of the rest of Australia. This is because of the representation that is coming from the other side and the way that debate has been organised by the Opposition members. We are told: `Cross the floor; it is as simple as that'. It is either/or. As I indicated before, I am quite clear in my viewpoint that this inquiry is a chance for all of us in Tasmania to bury the divisions surrounding this issue once and for all, to ensure that, firstly, we have a resource that we can be sure of-not only for this generation but for the next-and, secondly, the unique environment that makes Tasmania so different is preserved. Those two views are not incompatible. That is the whole point that I wish to make here today. Senator Walters and other honourable senators on the other side and Robin Gray have deliberately attempted to divide all of us, not only in Tasmania but also the general Australian community. They are dividing it, I believe, at the cost of future generations. They are dividing it on the basis of cheap political votes and not in the interests of what Tasmanians need. What we need above all else is a plan that we can stick to that will preserve one of our major industries, an industry which employs something like one in seven of the Tasmanian population. I am talking as someone whose family for years was in the forestry industry, and I am not all that proud of some of the work my family did in the forestry industry. Mistakes have been made in the forestry industry. There has been, to some extent, a certain raping of certain areas. There have been weaknesses in the way we have planned for the future in our forestry industry. No one denies that. Even the industry itself says that it has to lift its game. On the other hand, I am not prepared to go along with radical conservationists who are looking for issues, who are devising issues, in order to keep themselves employed emotionally, intellectually and financially. I am not interested in their view point and I have spoken out on those special interest groups whose raison d'etre is obviously just to be a political party in their own right. They do not interest me in the least. My interest is in this generation and the next generation, to see that it has a unique environment and a natural resource that can be used in the most positive way. Let us look then at the matter of Premier Gray. In 1981, I think it was, the Liberal Party decided that it would oppose what our Government in that State, the Labor Government, intended to do about the Franklin Dam. It said: `We will build the dam'. It said it before any inquiry had reported, before any investigation had actually brought all the figures before it. It simply made up its mind, almost as an article of religious faith, that it would build that dam. A Labor government went out of office in that State because it refused to build the dam. The dam was not built because of the action-the brave and, I think, intelligent action-of the Hawke Government in stopping that dam in 1983, and I support it. I was one who lost his seat in an electorate where there were 17 hydro-electricity towns-and I am still glad that I supported the Government's view; that is, that that dam should not be built. When we look at what happened-when we look at the Hydro-Electric Commission's figures, for example, that have been released in the last year-we realise that the HEC, the Liberal Party and all those short-sighted rednecks who supported that dam per se as an article of religious faith have now been proved to be wrong, because, for a $1,000m investment, that dam would have ruined a unique piece of the Tasmanian environment; and what would we have got for it? We would have got hydro-electric energy for which there would have been no users-no takers and a $1,000m debt that this country would have had to pay for and that possibly would have sent the Tasmanian Government spiralling close to bankruptcy. That decision that the Hawke Government made in 1983 was intelligent and courageous and in the best interests of Tasmania, and there are not too many Tasmanians around now who would deny that that decision was the right one. There are a few neanderthals sitting around here, for example, who would like to raise a few meek replies to that point, but they know in their hearts, and in their heads, of course, that that decision was a correct one. The point I am making here is that, with regard to the forests, the environment, the rivers and so on, there is a national interest. A national overview has to be taken by the national Government. That national Government has a right, through discussion with the States-and it has certain powers in its own right-to ensure that the environment is protected and that the best economic advantage is taken of a natural resource. The two things are combined in this Bill, and they are combined in the approach being taken by the Federal Government. I shall read to the Senate from the Economist, a reputable, conservative magazine which analysed Australia in a survey quite recently. I think it is worth reading to the Senate just one paragraph of its summary on economic matters. It is dealing with the fact that Australians are basically big spenders, that we assume, for example, that somehow or other money grows on trees-if honourable senators will pardon the pun in this particular debate. The Economist says: The problem, however, is that State governments incur no opprobrium by reckless spending because they do not levy the taxes to pay for it. They are now spending much more than they used to, getting more from the Federal Government-that is, about 10 per cent of GDP today, compared with 6 per cent in the mid-1970s-and at the same time borrowing more. The Federal Government then reduced its Budget deficit from 4.3 per cent of GDP in 1983-84 to some 2.1 per cent in 1985-86. But State and local governments kept theirs at about 3 per cent. They are today chiefly responsible for the public sector borrowing requirements. Senator Button —Four hundred million in Queensland announced a couple of weeks ago. Senator AULICH —That is right. So, as I said, we have State governments borrowing heavily in areas of infrastructure development to support non-indigenous industries which possibly would never have got off the ground in those particular States if those heavy borrowings had not in some way or other assisted, through artificial incentives, the development of those particular industries. If one goes right round Australia one will find that. In Tasmania we have an indigenous industry which, of course, needs to be developed. The Federal Government has no problems with assisting that industry. The Federal Government wants to assist that industry in the long term, to ensure, for example, that jobs are created, not lost. We have heard here today that 4,000 jobs have been lost in Tasmania's forest industry over the last decade, primarily though technological change; but I think also because we have not developed that resource in the way that we could have over the long term with employment benefits. Do people know why that is so? It is because honourable senators opposite and their friend Robin Gray on the whole have done nothing about making sure that employment in that industry has increased, because they like the status quo and because they see political value in the status quo. If one talks to people in the industry and people in what I call the new Forestry Commission-not the one that existed 15 years ago, which had some pretty conservative viewpoints-one will see that those people in the industry and in the Forestry Commission want something better. They do not want to be in charge of an industry in which employment is going out the back door. They want to make sure that that industry is utilised in the best possible way, in the interests not only of the workers in that industry but also of the Australian economy as a whole. We as a government are interested in doing that. We are not here to do the bidding of armchair greenies sitting in front of television sets in New South Wales or Victoria who say how nice that bush is. We are not doing their bidding. I am certainly not, and I do not believe that this Government is. At the same time, we are not taking the simplistic solutions or options that have been proposed by honourable senators opposite who have been very happy to sit back and watch employment decrease in that industry over the last decade. Do people know why they have been happy to do that? It is because they do not care about the workers in the industry; they never have. Workers in any industry in this country have been regarded as pretty well irrelevant and very expendable. One only has to look at Malcolm Fraser's period in office to see just how important workers were. He propounded and put into effect economic policies which relied for their effectiveness on high unemployment in this country. That was part of the discipline that he wanted to inflict on the work force-that is, a high level of unemployment. That is not our viewpoint. It is not our viewpoint about the forestry industry or about most industries in this country. I am saying today that we have a unique opportunity to take advantage of this inquiry to ensure that we do two things: Firstly, preserve that resource to ensure that it is used in the best possible way for the benefit of workers in Tasmania and investment in the industry in this country; and, secondly, ensure that that unique environment which keeps me in Tasmania is preserved. I support the Bill. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(11.37) —Senator Aulich has made an amazing contribution. Most of his speech was-- Senator Button —Hear, hear! I agree. Senator BOSWELL —I did not say a good contribution; I said an amazing contribution. There is a difference. For most of the 20-odd minutes that he spoke on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill he attacked the Gray Liberal Government in Tasmania. It was only in his last two or three sentences that he actually addressed the Bill. I oppose this legislation on a number of counts. The Australian Labor Party came to government four years ago by attacking the Gray Government about the Franklin dam. Four years later, in its dying stages, the Australian Labor Party Government is again attacking the Gray Government. In between, the ALP has tried to centralise the power of the States in Canberra. Sex discrimination legislation, equal opportunity legislation and a Bill of Rights all involved the taking away of the rights of the smaller States and the centralising of power in Canberra. Tasmania has borne the brunt of the Government's attack. It has bullied Tasmania, the smallest State, in regard to the Franklin dam and Badger Creek, and now the proposed commission of inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. The Government has tried to usurp the power of the Tasmanian Government. Tasmanians can feel that they have been badly treated. They wisely voted the Gray Government into office, only to find that its decisions are overriden by a centralised government in Canberra which uses the powers in an external treaty signed by overseas governments which do not understand the needs of the Taswegian people. What would a government in Turkey understand about the economic problems of Tasmania? Yet this Government is using an external treaty signed by countries such as Turkey to make decisions on what will happen in Tasmania. This Government was not elected to meddle in the affairs of Tasmania or Queensland, but it continually does so. Every three years Tasmanians go to the polls. They decide their own fate at an election. They vote for a government and give that government a mandate to administer the internal affairs of Tasmania. One cannot complain about the Hare-Clark system. It has many faults, but it is certainly a one vote, one value system. Yet this Federal Government sells out the Tasmanian Government every time. It sacrifices the needs of Tasmania at the altar of the conservation vote. That is what this Bill is about when all is said and done. This is an election year. We are approaching a Federal election. There are strong rumours floating around this place that a double dissolution will be called and an election will be held on 9 May. The Government is trying to lock up the conservation vote in Melbourne and Sydney. It is putting that conservation vote before the most important interests of this nation. The Labor Government knows that the six Liberal Party senators and the five Liberal Party members of the House of Representatives from Tasmania cannot be beaten. They have given excellent representation to the island State. The Government has written off Tasmania. It cannot do any worse there. It has said: `We will not remove any Liberal Tasmanian members of parliament'. Senator Coates —You would not want to bet on it. Senator BOSWELL —I would take any amount of money on that. I tell Senator Coates that there is no chance of removing any of the excellent representation that the Liberal Party offers the people of Tasmania. A number of jobs will be lost. I do not think that the Labor Party is particularly worried about that. Senator Button —Hodgman will be one of them. Senator BOSWELL —In Queensland last Friday I asked Senator Button a question. Unfortunately, he was unable to answer it. He said he did not know anything about it. I do not know why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) treats him like a mushroom. He holds a very significant position in the Labor Party, yet every time I ask him a question that is of importance to Australia he does not seem to know the answer. Last Friday the Government rejected a silica mining project at Shelburne Bay for exactly the same reason-that is, it wanted to win a few votes in Melbourne and Sydney at the expense of the needs of the people of Queensland. We have seen this week a cynical and hypocritical operation. The silica mining facility at Shelburne Bay was thrown into the wastepaper bin by the Government. Now about 12,000 jobs in Tasmania over 20 years are being thrown away. The legislation that is before the Senate will deprive Tasmanians of jobs and job prospects. Similar legislation which the Government will probably introduce in regard to the Shelburne Bay mining facility will cost Queensland, and ultimately Australia, $20m a year in export income. Some people are already employed in the area by the mining companies and carrying out economic impact surveys. Forty people who are there at present will lose their jobs. Eighty permanent jobs will be lost in the construction and mining phase. A capital infrastructure of $30m-most of that money would have been spent in north Queensland-will disappear. It will be sacrificed at the altar of the votes of a few conservationists who do not really understand the problems of Australia. With that silica mining plant in Shelburne Bay, there would ultimately have been sufficient grading plant in time which would have given Australia a facility to make silicon chips, fibre optics and photovoltaic cells. All these types of things have been sacrificed. Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, does not even know about these things. Senator Button —Stop picking on me. Senator BOSWELL —Senator Button should be condemned. He should understand these things as he is the Minister responsible. He should be making every effort to make sure that Australia moves into the high technology area so that we can exploit some of these items such as silicon chips, fibre optics and photovoltaic cells which will give Australia a future. Yet the Minister will close down the Lemonthyme forest, if the commission of inquiry ultimately has its way. I am disgusted at the Government's hypocritical attitude. Australia is in debt to the tune of $1,000 billion. We are running up a debt of $3.4 billion a month, our farmers are financially haemorrhaging, our small business people are going out of business, our children cannot get jobs and we shall never have the standard of living that the Minister and I have enjoyed in the past. Our children will never have that standard of living unless the Minister faces some of the consequences that he is putting before this nation. Our credit rating is down and if he cared about Australia instead of political expediency, he would make every post a winner. I am glad Senator Button is present because this is his responsibility. He should try to create real and lasting jobs instead of phoney community employment program jobs that last for only three months after which most people return to the dole queue. He should fight for every export dollar this country can earn to reduce our overseas debt and, ultimately, our interest rates, so that small business and farmers can exist instead of going bankrupt. The Minister is not addressing the real problem of this nation. The Minister will not allow Tasmania and Queensland to create real jobs or earn export dollars, yet at Question Time he receives questions-Dorothy Dix after Dorothy Dix-attacking the two conservative governments in Australia, asking why their unemployment rates are high. I will tell the Minister why they are high. They are high because the Minister will not let those States create real and lasting jobs and attract overseas funds. Senator Button —That is unfair. Senator BOSWELL —It might not be fair, but it is true. If it offends the Minister I am sorry, but he had better wear it. He is in government. We are no doubt told by Senator Button and others in this Government that if we leave our country in its natural, pristine condition we will attract the tourist industry and that it will play an important role. I concede that the tourist industry plays a very important role, but Australia must be able to export to provide other jobs, otherwise all our children will be carrying drinks for wealthy Japanese and American tourists. That will be the future for our children. We will be the poor white trash of South East Asia, and our children will be mopping up floors and carrying drinks for Japanese and American tourists. That is not what I want for the future of the nation and our children. I want them to have real and lasting jobs and the Minister is not providing them because he is worshipping and kneeling at the altar of the conservation vote, which happens to be 3 or 4 per cent. The other 93 per cent of Australians want their children to have lasting jobs that are created by mining and farming, and the Minister will not acknowledge that. If the Bill goes ahead, we could see 12,000 jobs lost in 20 years and valuable export revenue would also be lost in Tasmania. In the Shelburne Bay case, ASP Resources (Queensland) Pty Ltd, the company that was formed to extract the silica from Shelburne Bay, negotiated leases and honoured every requirement that the Federal Government asked it to meet. It cost that company $5m to meet all the requirements the Federal Government asked it to meet. It commissioned environmental impact studies, met the requirements of the Foreign Investment Review Board, and it has been given the green light by the Greater Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Never at any time in the 12 to 18 months was it told other than that it would be able to proceed-until the company received a letter from the Treasurer on 19 March stating that it could not proceed. The company spent $5m over 12 to 18 months and this Government never at any time acknowledged that it would not receive the leases and permits to export. If this is the Government's attitude on foreign investments, I suggest that overseas investors would not put even confederate money into Australia at the moment. They will not trust this Government again. This overseas company has done all the right things, has met all the requirements, has been told it can go ahead and extract silica from Shelburne Bay, but because an election is imminent, because a double dissolution is coming up, because this Government is terrified to face the people without the greenie vote, it pulls the rug out from under this company. This Government has misled the company into spending $5m. Let me point to the irony of the situation. I have a letter signed by Mr Keating which, after pulling the rug right out from under the company, says: You may be assured that Toyomenko and ASP Resources are most welcome to invest in Australia either by way of an acceptable alternative silica project or in some other project that would be consistent with your commercial interests. I suggest to Senator Button that this company would rather trust the Government of Upper Chad than the Federal Government. That is how much credibility the Minister has left with people who come out here and take his word. I think the Minister should offer some form of compensation, except that it would be paid for by the taxpayer. Every State in Australia deserves the right to plan its own economy. This Government is denying the rights of citizens of sovereign States. The Australian Constitution gives the people the right to elect a government of their choice and that government can make the economic choice in the best interests of its State. This is what this Federal Government is denying the citizens of Tasmania and the citizens of Queensland. The Government cannot win a ballot in Tasmania or in Queensland. It cannot legitimately control those States by having a Labor government there. The citizens of Queensland and of Tasmania are too smart for that. Yet the Government tries to centralise or to usurp the power of those democratically elected governments by some foreign treaty, signed by some country like Turkey, that would have no understanding of the needs of Queensland or Tasmania and the Government usurps it by some back-door phrase in the Constitution. The Government is ripping up the Constitution; that is what this Government is all about. The Shelburne Bay decision also denies the Queensland Government the right to make those economic choices. The hypocrisy of the Government has to be seen to be believed. We are told that the decision not to mine Shelburne Bay was made under the Government's foreign investment policy, despite the fact that ASP Resources met every criterion set down by the Government. The Japanese company, Pacific Mining, was formed and had 51 per cent Australian equity and 49 per cent Japanese equity. That is what the Foreign Investment Review Board asked for, and that is what it got. The company honoured every commitment asked of it by the Hawke Government. It was then told that if it formed a company with a 100 per cent Australian equity the silica mined at Shelburne Bay would then be put on a prohibited export list under the regulations. I tell the Senate, and particularly the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), that if the Shelburne Bay silica is placed on a prohibited export list by regulation I will move for the disallowance of that regulation at the appropriate time. Then we will go through this debate again. I have not been to the Lemonthyme Forest, but I am sure it is a beautiful spot. However, I have flown over the Shelburne Bay sand deposits on a number of occasions. Shelburne Bay is 311 miles from Cairns. It is inaccessible except by sea and helicopter. There is no airport. If people want to go there the only other choice they have is to back-pack in, and this can take up to two or three days. I acknowledge that if Australia has an asset which people can enjoy then possibly, under certain circumstances, that asset should be left as it is. But for the life of me I cannot understand why, when there is a facility existing which can create jobs, export earnings and infrastructure and which is not accessible to anyone except those who own private helicopters-I suggest that there are very few of those-we should not be able to use these assets in the national interest. We cannot afford to sit on our assets. We cannot afford to sit back and say that these assets can be used for some future generation, because Australia has no future unless we export and create jobs. It is up to the government of the day to address those problems. We have no future unless we can create jobs and export earnings to reduce our interest rates so that our farmers and small business people can exist. To deny the use of assets that can generate those jobs is to deny the future of Australia. In the Prime Minister's Press release of 20 March we were told that the development of Shelburne Bay would affect the Aboriginal community. As one Aboriginal from Bamaga community told me-honourable senators should remember that Bamaga is about 150 kilometres away from Shelburne Bay-a goanna would have to carry a cut lunch before he could cross the sand dunes. The Shelburne Bay deposits are about 200 kilometres away from the Edward River Aboriginal community and about 150 kilometres away from the Bamaga Aboriginal community. I have made inquiries from people up there, and I do not think that the sand dunes at Shelburne Bay have any Aboriginal significance. Therefore, the Prime Minister's Press release is not telling the truth. Yet Cape Flattery, the site of another silica mine, is only 20 kilometres away from the Hopevale Aboriginal community. Therefore, according to the Prime Minister's Press release, sand dunes have Aboriginal significance if they are 200 kilometres away from an Aboriginal community but they do not have the same significance if they are 15 kilometres away from another Aboriginal community. The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill and the Shelburne Bay decision reek of political hypocrisy and pragmatism. This Government could have given Australia more genuine jobs. It could have improved Australia's balance of trade figures. But it has sacrificed the best interests of this nation on the altar of the greenie vote. North Queensland and Tasmania will suffer and, overall, Australia will suffer. This Government will stand condemned by the Australian people for not putting Australia first and politics second. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(12.01) —I rise to speak on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, not as a Tasmanian who has real concern and local interest in this matter, which I might add, I share, but because of many of the implications arising from such a proposal. Yet again this Government is seeking to override a State and to inflict its views and opinions on the Government and people of that State in the typical jack-booted way that we have seen in the past. This Government is also clearly reneging on its memorandum of understanding with the Tasmanian Government which was signed on 12 June 1986, not even 12 months ago. This memorandum of understanding was seen by the forestry industries as a watershed in the ongoing debate on the future of Tasmania's forests, and the veil of uncertainty that had hung over the industries had at least been lifted at last. However, as is so often the case with this Government, the agreement meant nothing. Only five months later the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reneged on his Government's commitments in the memorandum of understanding and ordered a halt to the logging operations at Jackeys Marsh in northern Tasmania. This was particularly significant, given that this specific National Estate area had never really been an issue. Indeed, there is considerable doubt as to whether the values contained in the area justify inclusion on the register of the National Estate at all. The forest in that part of the Western Tiers has been logged successively for generations and contains few natural features that would justify its classification as an area of national importance. The Prime Minister, with his Messiah hat on yet again, decided autonomously, without any reference to his appropriate ministerial colleagues, to take action in this respect. Unfortunately for him, he and his colleagues have since acknowledged privately that Federal intervention on that particular issue was ill-advised and in fact in breach of the terms of the memorandum of understanding. The Prime Minister's cavalier approach to this issue has now reached an all-time high, given that his decision to be the saviour of Tasmanian forests was taken despite the unanimous State Australian Labor Party opposition to his actions. Senator Coates —It is not unanimous. Senator KNOWLES —Sadly, the senators who represent the ALP in this place-Senator Coates is one of them-and supposedly represent the people of Tasmania will not even stand up for them. We all know that they are caucused and even those who wish to vote against this particular Bill cannot do so. They do not even have the luxury of crossing the floor. They are directed by their Party as to how they will vote and that is that. We all know that they will not stand up for the people of their own State of Tasmania. The real danger of this Bill is that it will establish a commission of inquiry with powers even greater than those of a royal commission to inquire into whether certain areas have world heritage significance and to look at whether there are economically and environmentally prudent and feasible alternatives to logging in those areas which may be nominated for world heritage listing. It also provides that the area under review should be the subject of a ban on logging operations pending the conclusion of the inquiry and for compensation to be paid in respect of losses sustained by some parts of the industry-I emphasise the words `some parts of the industry'-in respect of the moratorium. It is an absolute fallacy for the Prime Minister to say that there is no possibility of job losses following the decision handed down from this inquiry. It is quite clear that, if the inquiry finds that there are no alternatives, then jobs are at risk. Let us make no mistake about that. However, the most alarming clause of this Bill is clause 19, dealing with compensation. It demonstrates either an abysmal ignorance of the ways in which Tasmania's forest industries operate or a positive intent on the part of the Commonwealth to deny the right of compensation to people who are likely to be affected. I now wish to move to another area which concerns me as a Western Australian, knowing full well that socialist governments would dearly love to get their hands on as much Western Australian land as they can by whatever means they can. When the Australian Heritage Commission Act was passed in 1975 it received support from all sides of the political spectrum. The Act established an independent commission made up of experts in conservation matters and required it to keep a register of the National Estate-in effect, a list of places around Australia which were worth keeping for their historical, aesthetic, cultural, archaeological and natural values to future generations and the present community. The idea was that when the Commonwealth made decisions, such as whether to bulldoze an old country post office or to grant an export licence, the value of what might be adversely affected by such decisions could be flagged and properly considered. It was argued that in most cases the economic aspects of such decisions should be balanced against the environmental values affected. Nobody could really argue against the concept of a national estate and indeed there are a number of examples where the fact of a place being on the register has resulted in better and more balanced decisions. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the system needs review, because the basic problem is that those charged with keeping the register are generally committed to conservation and have chosen to compile an all-encompassing list of places it might be nice if we could keep, rather than a selective record of special places of national significance. In some ways we in the Parliament have to take responsibility for this development and I believe that we have not devoted the resources the Australian Heritage Commission needs to clarify its role effectively. Naturally, the Commission has chosen to play it safe by listing most places suggested to it, even though it is frequently unable to find the time or the staff to dig up all the relevant information required for a proper assessment. As a result there are huge areas of Australia on the National Estate Register about which the Australian Heritage Commission itself knows very little. Of course, when some kind of development is proposed in such areas all sorts of arguments can be found to the effect that they must be protected in the national interest. The best-or maybe the worst-example of this was seen in relation to the Quamby Bluff-Jackeys Marsh incident last year. When the heat of the issue dies down most people will recognise that the national significance of an area that has been cleared, farmed and logged for generations is very low indeed. Not surprisingly, the conservation movement has been quick to take advantage of the paucity of resources and the play it safe attitude of the Commission. It is clear that the first step in any conservation campaign is to get the area one wants to save on the National Estate Register. In virtually every case the Commission is quite happy to oblige. Once on the register, a place has status. The very name `national estate' can be and frequently is used to confuse the public into thinking that the area in question is a national park. I am told that when the fracas at Farmhouse Creek occurred last year, it took about two days for most interstate journalists to realise that the area was not a World Heritage area, was not a national park and was not wilderness. There can be no doubt that that confusion has been effectively used by the conservation movement in a number of issues. Australians have quite rightly high regard for national parks and would generally oppose mining and logging within park boundaries. The National Estate system has created `Federal shadow national parks' outside the parks that State parliaments have declared. Let us not forget that-this Government is trying to override yet again the powers of State governments. It has given them a status which is a recipe for constitutional conflict. In some ways this Bill can be seen as the first major shot in the inevitable war between the Commonwealth and the States over land use decisions in National Estate areas. Until recently the Heritage Commission used to write to private landowners whose land and buildings had been placed on the register, congratulating them on having such an asset and assuring them that the listing of their property would not prevent them from managing it as they wished. I do not know whether the Commission still writes to landowners. I believe it should, but if it does it will need to change that assurance because it is quite clear that that assurance can no longer be granted under this Government. In Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia landowners are finding that the listing of their land on the National Estate Register means that the Federal Minister for Primary Industry, at present Mr Kerin, must personally approve the logging of that land if any of the wood so pronounced is to be exported as woodchips. It is an absolute and utter disgrace that a Federal Minister can dictate to States and landholders in such a manner. No doubt we will hear more of this because, as far as I can ascertain, since this requirement was placed on woodchip export licences three months ago no such approvals have been granted by the Minister and a number of private landowners are losing out financially as a result. This Government would not care, once again. The people involved are mainly small businessmen and we all know how small businessmen have been hit in the last three or four years. I might add that no compensation is payable under the Australian Heritage Commission Act or any other provision for such losses. I return to the Bill. It could be said that the only reason this measure is before us today is that the areas in question are listed on the National Estate Register. They are not on the World Heritage List, as was the Gordon below Franklin Dam area. I understand that Senator Sanders intends to attempt, by amendment under the scope of Part III of the Bill, to impose a moratorium on logging in all Tasmanian National Estate areas. At present that would cover 31 per cent of Tasmania's land mass. One has come to expect such things, I suppose, from Senator Sanders-the champion of the lunatic fringe. However, I was most concerned to hear that the Director of the Wilderness Society, Mr West, has announced that the Prime Minister has given the conservation movement an assurance that the Bill will be widened to cover other National Estate areas in the Douglas-Apsley region and Jackeys Marsh if the Tasmanian Government has the temerity to exercise its constitutional right to allow any forestry operations in these areas over the period of the inquiry. It is an absolute and utter disgrace that this Government is yet again giving the Tasmanian State Government the real treatment in an area in which is has no right to do so. It was interesting to hear from Senator Coates last night. I am rather glad that he is here at the moment. He is the only Labor senator from Tasmania with the nerve to state his position on this Bill. I repeat: He is the only Labor senator who has the nerve to have his say on this. Senator Coates is not afraid to admit that he is a keen conservationist who would not mind if his constituents were put out of work by the mindless and unbalanced acceptance of the conservationists' land claims. He does not care about that; he could not give a continental how his constituents and their jobs are affected. The most concerning part of his address last night was his suggestion that Federal Ministers have a total responsibility to protect National Estate areas. It was a very fascinating statement. If he had bothered to read the Australian Heritage Commission Act, which he obviously has not, he would be aware that the requirement of Federal Ministers to protect National Estate values is limited to situations where they are exercising their legitimate constitutional role. It is absolutely wrong for him to suggest, as he did last night, that the Heritage Commission Act justifies or requires this Bill. Certainly it applies to the Commonwealth decisions regarding woodchip exports from National Estate areas. When, in December 1985, the Hawke Government decided not to place an arbitrary ban on exports from Tasmania's National Estate forests the Minister was required to satisfy himself that there were no prudent or feasible alternatives to the export of wood from those areas. This Bill is not about woodchip exports; it is not aimed at stopping woodchipping in these areas-that has already been done through amendments to export licences. The only logging that will be stopped by this Bill is logging for domestic sawmilling, veneer and paper production. The Commonwealth has no constitutional right, as Senator Coates asserts, or responsibility to interfere in these matters. In fact, this is clearly spelt out in the memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of the Government last June which it is now tearing up and throwing out the window, as it so often does with any agreement made with a State government. Every Australian who supports the maintenance of an effective federal system should be alarmed at Senator Coates's claim that once an area is listed on the National Estate Register it immediately becomes Federal land. Senator Coates —I did not say that, and don't misrepresent me. Senator KNOWLES —It is very interesting that Senator Coates is now denying it. I wish he had denied it last night when he had the opportunity. He should say what he means in the Parliament. He meant it last night and he still means it today. In the space of four short years we have moved from Commonwealth intervention in world heritage areas, such as in the dam case, to Federal takeovers of areas that might possibly be of outstanding universal value. With the passage of this Bill, or even perhaps during it, we will have seen the greatest extension of Federal power since the income tax Act. While the focus has been on Tasmania, which of course to the Hawke Government is totally expendable politically and generally hostile, this trend threatens the constitutional powers of all States. I understand that the Western Australian Premier, Brian Burke, has been to see the Prime Minister on the issue and that Premiers Unsworth and Cain have also pressured the Hawke Government about this Bill. Of course, that does not matter. Once again, they are only State Premiers and State governments do not matter. The Federal Government can just override those States. It wants to abolish the States. As we heard earlier this morning, the now Prime Minister gave a commitment in 1979 that he wanted to abolish the States. The way he is acting at the moment, it is quite clear that he is wanting to bring that about even now. When we think about it, the consequences are enormous. If this Bill is enacted it will mean that the Commonwealth can take control over any area of private or crown land in Australia on the say so of an unelected understaffed group of committed conservationists called the Australian Heritage Commission. When the Australian Heritage Commission Act was passed 12 years ago it was intended to help provide some balance in government decision making. The wheel has turned full circle and it is clear that the Act, when combined with an unhealthy dose of political cynicism and the chance of an early election, can make environmental matters more significant considerations than economic facts and the Constitution itself. The Constitution means nothing to this Government. We should all remember that this Government just treats it with absolute and utter disdain. In some ways this is a crunch time for the National Estate system. We certainly need it but we need to redefine what its implications are and how it should work within the federation as we know it today. I am certainly vehemently opposed to this Bill. I would have hoped that Tasmanian Labor senators would have had the nerve to oppose it as well for the sake of their own State, for the sake of the people in their own State, for the sake of jobs and for the sake of export income. But, no, they will not. It will be up to the coalition once again to try to defeat this Bill. Of course, the Australian Democrats are anxious as well to pander to the conservationists to try to get the greenie vote leading up to a possible early and cynical election. Therefore, as I say, it is left up to us to try to fight this matter and to let the States get on with managing themselves and not be overriden by Federal governments in their typical interventionist way. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(12.18) —I support my colleague Senator Knowles. I especially support the shadow Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, Senator Collard, in his total opposition to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Supporters of this Government appear to have become latter day greenies. I think they are running dead scared that the conservation vote might be the turning point in whether they win or lose the next election. Of course, right thinking Australians know full well that whatever this Government tries to do to shore up electoral support the facts still remain that the country is in a terrific economic and financial morass. Interest rates are high and are sending thousands of business people broke. The Government has obviously lost complete direction and I believe that is shown by the legislation before us. This latter day Australian Labor Party conversion by the conservation issue seems to have also taken hold in my own State of New South Wales. Recently New South Wales newspapers ran a picture of Premier Unsworth strol-ling through national parks in a back to nature pose. Senator Puplick —Not a pretty sight. Senator BROWNHILL —It was not a pretty sight, as Senator Puplick says. I believe the issue on national parks and wilderness areas has reached an absurd level with seemingly every second week someone somewhere screaming that development cannot take place because of unique wilderness characteristics of that area. I am certainly not one to ignore the environment. As a farmer, I have a passionate interest in conservation and I am only too well aware of the dangers of the uncontrolled development of any area at all. I believe, though, that any development that affects the land should be carefully monitored, but I am not concerned about this to the extent that some conservationists are. At present some 30 million hectares of Australia is designated national parks or wilderness areas. Translated to percentages of land, in New South Wales, for example, nearly 11 per cent of the whole of the State has been declared national park. Yet, according to the Federal and New South Wales governments that is not nearly enough and they are seeking more land. Already the National Party in New South Wales has announced that it will not accept any more wilderness legislation and when in government will review all existing wilderness legislation. I think it is ridiculous to claim that some 200 years after the first settlers came to New South Wales there are any original wilderness areas left. There are not, and no amount of wishing it or otherwise will change that fact. Land that has already been developed in New South Wales can never again be regarded as original. Those who already own supposedly freehold land should not be put under any threat of resumption. Those who advocate that more land should be allocated to national park or included in the National Estate seem to forget that if land cannot be used for productive purposes we will have less land with which to produce income for this country. Without our crops, livestock and timber industries we would not have the quality of life, the quality of food and our present standard of living which are the result of the success of our rural products on our export markets. The mere mention of the word `logging' seems to so offend some people that they forget the facts. They ignore the realities and they seem to keep rabbiting on about virgin country, about unspoiled God's country. But like the animal welfare debate, the environment debate is equally weak in fact and overly burdened with emotion. In the eyes of some people, if one is not a total greenie one must be in favour of development at any cost. There is never any half-way compromise. This is a pity because people get painted into corners which they often do not wish to be painted into. The timber industry, for example, has become accustomed to being abused and considered criminal. The industry is only too aware that its source of income-that is, timber-must be carefully managed in order to provide a continuing source of employment and revenue. I do not think anyone in the community wants to forget either that most of the buildings in which we live have some timber characteristics. We would not be able to live in the way we do if timber were not used in those places. In the same way, farmers must cultivate their soil carefully if they are not to lose it through erosion and leaching. They must look after their stock carefully. Obviously the people in the timber industry have to look after their areas as well. Yet farmers also are subject to the emotionally based abuse of greenies and libbers, as are the loggers and other people who use timber for houses or whatever. The shadow Minister has outlined the amendments that the Opposition would like moved to this legislation. I support those amendments. In so doing I call for less emotion and more reality on issues such as conservation. The environment is too precious to be bandied about by politicians and others who use cheap emotional rhetoric to score points. Development and conservation can go hand in hand without the establishment of more boards of inquiry, commissions and wilderness declarations that do little to advance Australians or Australia as a whole. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(12.24) —In speaking to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, I think it is important first of all to focus on the amendment moved by the Opposition to the second reading motion. The amendment reads: Leave out all words after `That', insert `the Senate declines to give this Bill a second reading, condemns the Government for seeking to delay the making of a decision on the forest industries of Tasmania, and calls on the Government to make a decision on that matter forthwith'. We believe that the evidence which is currently before the Commonwealth Government is more than sufficient for it to come to a point of decision after many years of procrastination on this matter and to indicate quite clearly to the people of Tasmania and to the people of Australia what it intends to do to adversely affect the future of the timber industries in the State of Tasmania. This piece of legislation is an attempt to defer until after the next Federal election, whenever that will take place, the making of a decision on this issue. It is an attempt to keep happy the various interest groups that have already been identified by my colleagues in their contributions to this debate. This morning's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald carries an article entitled `ALP cultivates the joys of nature in order to capture the green vote'. The article goes on to indicate the extent to which this Government has decided, for reasons which are pure electoral expediency, to attempt to recapture that part of the conservation vote which it believes it has lost to the Australian Democrats, to other independent candidates and to potential green parties being formed in this country. I want, secondly, to indicate three particular concerns that I have about aspects of the legislation. In the first instance I believe it to be unsound from a constitutional point of view, particularly to the extent to which it seeks to use the foreign affairs power of the Commonwealth, not simply to interfere with the rights of the State of Tasmania, but in particular to extend that operation to affect adversely the rights of private property which are involved in this legislation. Second, I wish to draw attention to the quite extraordinary powers given to persons who might be designated to exercise certain functions under the proposed Act as provided for in clause 14 of the Bill before us, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, giving powers of entry again into private property, which are quite extraordinary and quite unjustified. Third, I draw attention to the provisions in clause 17 of the legislation, which deals specifically with the question of the issue of injunctions. It clearly puts into the hands of the Minister, in relation to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests areas, powers of a legal nature which relate to the issuing and enforcement of injunctions which are not available to other Ministers or to others in any other comparable situation. I turn to discuss something of the area and something of the management plans which have been developed by the Forestry Commission of Tasmania. It seems to me that just as the debate about the management plan for the Kakadu National Park to a very large extent failed to focus, as far as the Government was concerned, upon the intrinsic value of the management plan itself, which we on this side of the chamber believe to be flawed from an environmental point of view, so there has been an implication in the speeches made by members of the Australian Labor Party that the management plans developed as far as Lemonthyme and the Southern Forests are concerned, and the overall strategy of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, are somehow at fault. There has not been an attempt by them actually to look at what is planned by the Forestry Commission or has been put into operation already. I have studied in some detail the comments of the Australian Heritage Commission's report entitled `Lemonthyme State Forest', in which it has made two points which I think are of particular relevance. The first is that the Heritage Commission considers: That the vistas from the World Heritage area will be degraded by the proposed forestry operations. Secondly, the Australian Heritage Commission considers: that the recreational value of the Overland Track and adjacent peaks will be reduced as a result of the diminution of aesthetic values due to Forestry Operations in the Forth Valley. I want to address both of those comments. I do so first by turning to the annual management plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest, dated December 1983, by the Forestry Commission of Tasmania. In terms of the general principles and objectives, it states: The Lemonthyme State Forest lies within the area controlled by the Working Plan for the Crown Forests of North and North East Tasmania-1983. The management objectives for the Lemonthyme State Forest are, therefore, in accordance with the working plan. I interpolate to say that I have had a chance to look at the working plan and also to visit not only the Lemonthyme State Forest area, not only to have been on Cradle Mountain-I do not defer to Senator Sanders or to anybody else in their claims of greater expertise or greater aesthetic sensitivity in this matter-but also to talk to the members of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and the relevant State Government authorities. I believe that the overall working plan is a very sound document. The Lemonthyme report goes on: The management objectives shall be: 1. To ensure that the area continues to provide water, natural, recreational and other cultural values. 2. To organise forest operations to provide continuity of supply to the milling and pulpwood industries and stable decentralized forest employment. 3. To organise integrated use of the forest managed for wood production. It continues: Because the Lemonthyme State Forest adjoins the Cradle Mountain-Lake St. Clair National Park, careful consideration will be given to the impact of forestry development on the users of the National Park and values other than wood production will have a high priority. The report then goes on to demonstrate a management plan which I believe is entirely consistent with those objectives. Indeed, those objectives themselves are of a sufficient nature that I do not believe any genuine conservationist-I draw a distinction between genuine conservationists and Australian Democrats-would object either to the principles or to the specifics laid down in that particular management plan. I think it is amazing that Tasmanian Australian Labor Party senators who have participated in this debate have made no significant reference to the actual management plan, relevant to the area which is under discussion in this Bill, adopted in 1983. Honourable senators will recall that I indicated that one of the concerns mentioned in the Australian Heritage Commission's evaluation of the Lemonthyme situation was the potential damage done to what it described as the vistas from the world heritage area. In fact, they are adequately covered in another of the Forestry Commission's documents-a bulletin of November 1983 entitled: `Visual Management System'. The Forestry Commission in Tasmania has in fact given careful consideration to the question of the aesthetic value of forests in that State and, indeed, to general landscape policy-and not just land use policy. The report states: The forests of Tasmania are of growing importance for their watershed, wildlife habitat and scenic values. Senator Sanders shows great concern about sweet little nocturnal furry beasts, which is undoubtedly very commendable and I suspect is a general description of most Australian Democrat voters. Nevertheless, the animal habitats are similarly recognised and accorded protection within the visual management system plans that the Forestry Commission already has in place. The report goes on: The quality of the visual environment concerns many people and there is an increasing public expectation that landscapes should be carefully and wisely managed. With this in mind it is necessary to consider the `visual landscape' as a basic resource to be systematically assessed and managed along with other forest resource values. This is to be achieved by the use of the Visual Management System which provides a framework within which to inventory the visual resource and establish measurable visual standards or objectives for its management. This plan further develops that. Once again, none of the Tasmanian Labor senators who have spoken have bothered to give the slightest degree of attention or credit to the Forestry Commission of Tasmania or to the respective State government authorities in Tasmania for being years ahead of the debate which they are already getting into in terms of not only the management plan of the Lemonthyme itself, but indeed the wider question of the visual management systems, of the very vistas about which the Heritage Commission says it is particularly concerned. From the point of view of a person who perhaps either relishes or suffers from the reputation on this side of the chamber of being a conservationist, a trendy, a greenie, or whatever the terms happens to be, when we actually look at the environmental considerations which are central to the Lemonthyme management plan and to the visual management system plan drawn up, we find that the environmental considerations have been adequately and comprehensively dealt with. I want to turn, therefore, to the final point that I want to make about the approach to the issue of conservation as has been developed by the Democrats and others in this debate. I come to the point which I quoted previously from the Heritage Commission report about the aesthetic and recreational values of the Overland Track. I want to make this point: It is high time that people in the environmental and conservation movements, and those who claim to have a particular concern for the natural environment, ceased to pursue what is in essence an anti-humanist view of what constitutes aesthetics and human satisfaction. There appears to be, from listening to Senator Sanders, above all, a clear view that what he despises are the signs of human habitation-the clear indications of the presence of human life-a sort of romantic, mystical quality attached to the natural environment as if it is only an untouched virgin or unspoilt area of wilderness which can possibly provide any degree of human emotional satisfaction or aesthetic value. The buzz word, of course, is pristine-things must somehow be preserved in their pristine state-and all of the marks of mankind are to be equated with the marks of Cain. This sort of romantic, primitive value system, which may have been appropriate in the days of Rousseau, or indeed of Thoreau and others, simply seeks to deny that there can be human satisfaction in the joys of human creation. It seems to me that people such as Senator Sanders, who undoubtedly are unable to get any degree of aesthetic satisfaction as I certainly do from the skyline of Manhattan or from seeing Sydney Harbour replete with both its Harbour Bridge and Opera House, with the actual marks of human habitation-- Senator Harradine —The seventy-fifth anniversary of the Navy? Senator PUPLICK —I am sure that there were many people in Sydney who got extraordinary value, some of its undoubtedly aesthetic and some of it more directly emotional in a quite different sense, from the seventy-fifth anniversary celebrations of the Royal Australian Navy. Nonetheless, it is important to reject the line which is so intellectually bankrupt, which says that only by the preservation of everything in its totally natural state can one advance the human spirit and dimension. I am particularly concerned about the way this debate is proceeding in a fashion which devalues humanity by devaluing the notion of progress and civilisation, and which fails to realise that it was only when mankind started to build on and modify nature that we also started to modify the laws of nature, red in tooth and claw, and started to adopt the principles not of the noble savage but of human beings living together in a state of civilised interrelationship. Senator Coates —There are plenty of buildings in the National Estate. Senator PUPLICK —As I am talking about civilised human interrelationship I would include neither Senator Coates nor other members of the Australian Labor Party. Frankly, I am not the slightest bit interested in that facile interjection. I have had the opportunity to roam in many of the world's great national parks, whether they be the Yellowstone National Park or the national park south of Sydney which was the second national park in the world to be proclaimed. I had the opportunity some years ago as a guest of the American Government to spend some time in that country studying the management of its national parks system. I have had the opportunity to travel in areas of Canada, out on the ice-floes, and areas of Prince Edward Island, where there are no overt signs of human habitation. There is no doubt that aesthetically it is enormously pleasing to be able to travel in such places. But for the majority of Australian people that is not a viable option. It is a viable option in certain parts of the Kakadu National Park and the South West Tasmania National Park, but it is not possible for all people under all circumstances to expect that every part of the nation should be dedicated exclusively to the preservation of those types of aesthetic and cultural values. When the Heritage Commission says that the recreational value of the Overland Track or the view from Cradle Mountain will be reduced as a result of the diminution of the aesthetic values due to the forestry operations in the Forth Valley, it is simply kidding itself about what it is that constitutes the fulfilment of human satisfaction in terms of contact with areas of wilderness. There are very few people who are actually capable of taking advantage of the genuine wilderness-who are physically, emotionally or in any other fashion capable of living a wilderness existence. For the majority of people who are both conservationists and seeking some support for the human values about which I have been talking, it is simply not possible to pick them up and drop them in the middle of some total wilderness area. It is therefore necessary to have national park systems which integrate the capacity of human beings to get there and enjoy those areas and, at the same time, an economic and social system which is capable of producing the wealth and resources which allow those areas to be taken out of productive use and made available for the sort of purposes for which national parks ought to be available. It is simply no good to believe that the absence of human beings is what is to be desired in terms of wilderness areas. If that were the case, one could designate certain areas around the planet, as has been done; where for genetic diversity and the preservation of the gene pool what are known as Vavilov centres are protected-and are worthy of protection. But for the majority of Australians the focus has to be on this question: How do we provide an adequate system of national parks to be used by human beings? What has not been addressed by the Heritage Commission or Labor Party or Australian Democrat senators is the proper management of the human dimension of the national parks system. I believe that this Bill is flawed on all those grounds. It is flawed because it is constitutionally unsound and it is a political attempt to get this matter off the political agenda for the next 12 months to get past the next election. It is technically flawed because of the problems I have alluded to in clauses 14 and 17, and there is an Opposition amendment which relates to clause 19 of the legislation. It is intellectually flawed in its failure to address what has already been done by the Tasmanian Forestry Commission in terms of both the Management Plan for the Lemonthyme State Forest and in the forest landscape Visual Management System which that Commission has already adopted. Above all, the Bill is shot through-and the debate particularly from the Democrats has been shot through-with this extraordinary anti- human approach to the way we should be seeking to provide those benefits for the people of Australia to which they are fully entitled, and the balance which of necessity must exist between the provision of a national parks system and the financial, economic and managerial capacity to provide that and to provide it in such a way that all Australians have access to it, can enjoy it and can benefit spiritually from it. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in that capacity and as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. It concerns the industrial relations policy of the Business Council of Australia announced yesterday and widely publicised today. I address it to Senator Button because of his long interest in industrial relations and his previously expressed support for the concept of a more flexible wages system, and also because of the importance of the issue for industry and commerce for which he is directly responsible. I ask: Does the Minister welcome the policy put forward by this committee of leading businessmen chaired by Mr Stan Wallis of Amcor Ltd? In particular, given his previous comments on the wages system, does the Minister welcome, and will he support in government the recommendation for a move to enterprise level agreements on pay and conditions which are enforceable under law in place of the existing centralised system of awards? Senator BUTTON —I think the first thing to say about the history of industrial relations and wage fixation in Australia is that in current economic circumstances, and in the economic circumstances of the last two or three years, the centralised wage fixation system has been immensely important. I have said on previous occasions, and I repeat it, that there is a need to develop gradually greater flexibility in the wages system in this country. Senator Chaney asked me a question about the industrial relations system and, of course, that embraces the wages system and a whole range of other issues. The Government very much welcomes the Business Council of Australia's paper and finds much common ground with what the BCA is saying, particularly its recognition of the need to improve work and management practices which go to the very important question of productivity and also the need to minimise industrial conflict in Australia, again in the interests of reliability and productivity. Having acknowledged that fact, let me say that many of those issues can best be solved at the enterprise level. At this stage I think the Government would draw a distinction between wage fixation policy and a range of other issues addressed in the BCA paper which are probably more suitably dealt with at the enterprise level while, in the Government's view, the question of wage fixation, in order to prevent erratic behaviour, breakouts and so on, is perhaps best dealt with at the national level. At this point in history I would argue that the needs of economic policy in Australia's institutions do not provide a basis for a wholly enterprise based approach. The Government will have the opportunity to discuss with the Business Council of Australia some of its suggestions-I think it has produced an important and valuable paper-and in the course of those discussions some further developments in industrial relations policy and practices in Australia might well emerge. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of a report in the Northern Territory newspaper the Sunday Territorian of 22 March which alleged the existence of a sweetheart deal between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments to allow the development of a uranium deposit in Western Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the report which relates to the discovery of uranium by Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd known as the Kintyre deposit in Western Australia. CRA has undertaken exploration for minerals in an area 300 kilometres south-east of Marble Bar under an exploration permit issued by the Western Australian Government. The company has reported the discovery of uranium mineralisation to the Commonwealth's Bureau of Mineral Resources as is required by law. The article in the Sunday Territorian of 22 March makes a wild and totally false assertion that there exists a sweetheart deal between the two governments to allow development of the mine to proceed in contravention of the Commonwealth's-and the Labor Party's-three mines policy. I make it absolutely clear that there is no such deal. Both the Western Australian Government and CRA have discussed their interests in this deposit with me but I have made it clear-and they understand and accept this-that under the Government's uranium policy the Kintyre deposit cannot proceed to development. As I have told the Senate on several occasions, the three mines policy remains quite firm and there is no proposal to alter that policy. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and is about real wages under this Government. By `real wages' I mean average weekly ordinary time earnings for adults working full time after allowing for the consumer price index adjusted for Medicare. The Minister will recall that September 1983 was the last quarter of the Fraser Government's wages pause before the accord's introduction of wage indexation in October 1983. No doubt the Minister will be aware that there has been some rise and fall in real wages since that time. I ask: Is it not a fact that the latest figures available show that there has been a growth-admittedly it is small but it is a growth-in real earnings over that period, from October 1983 to December 1986, which is the last period for which figures are available? Does not this give the lie to the Minister's statement-will I wait until the Minister gets the brief from the Leader of the Government in the Senate?-- Senator Button —Oh, shut up! The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney —Senator Button should withdraw that. The PRESIDENT —Senator Button, Senator Chaney has asked that you withdraw that remark. Senator Button —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Finance, not the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Does not this give the lie to the Minister's statement on 7 October last, in answer to a dorothy dixer from Senator Foreman, that the accord has delivered a fall in real wages? Senator WALSH —It does not because Senator Lewis has chosen to take September 1983 as a starting point and, of course, the accord was the agreed policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government ever since this Government came to ofice in March 1983, almost seven months earlier. One of the false premises incorporated in Senator Lewis's conclusion is that the so-called wage freeze would have held in the absence of an accord even though it was tested for a period of only three or four months. Had the Labor Government not been elected but had economic growth taken off and unemployment started to fall, as it did from April 1983, there is certainly no guarantee that a so-called wages pause would have remained in operation. Nor is it likely that the great bulk of the unions, in the absence of the election of a Labor government with a real wages policy which addressed more than the short term problem which Mr Fraser found himself facing in late 1982, would have allowed the so-called wages pause to remain in existence. In the absence of such a policy it is certainly a heroic assumption to believe that the unions as a whole would have continued to restrain their wage claims in the face of no policy and a government which not only was different but also had no ongoing policy. As for the September 1983 figure and, more accurately, the movement from then to the most recent quarterly figure, I do not carry in my head precisely what figures are relevant but I understand that the most significant element of the recent figure was the award to nurses in Victoria, for example. I do not know whether Senator Lewis is critical of that; some people may well be critical of it but I understand that that was a significant element in it. In more general terms, for those who argue that the Government should declare a wage freeze now, it is very easy to declare a wage freeze. Canute commanded the tide not to come in; the tide came in. Those who think that they can just declare a wage freeze are suffering from the sort of self-delusion that, as I understand it, Canute himself did not suffer from but some of his supporters suffered from-the belief that he could exercise total control over events. The reality is that one cannot do that, and I would have thought that the unhappy experiences of the last non-Labor government and the Treasurer in that last non-Labor government-both for them and for the country, with the wages blowout in 1981 and 1982-would have taught them that it is better to have an ongoing wages policy than to pull the odd stunt out of the bag now and again when one feels an election coming on and hope that it hangs together until the election. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I ask Senator Walsh: Whether he takes the period from March 1983, when this Government came to office, or from September 1983, which was the end of the wage freeze which had been introduced by the Fraser Government, since that date, whatever it might be, do the figures not show that at all times, at the end of every quarter, real wages have been higher than they were under the wage freeze? Does that not give the lie to the Minister's repeated assertions that real wages have fallen under this Government? Senator WALSH —I have already said that I do not have the relevant statistics in front of me and I do not remember them all. But I will investigate Senator Lewis's assertion. I will certainly be very surprised if they say what he says they do if measured against the 1983 quarter. But even if that is the case, it is possible, by being very selective about the starting point for any comparison or any particular period through which outcomes are compared, to get figures which are unrepresentative and even misleading. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Veteran's Affairs. It relates to a decision to charge health insurance funds for veterans being treated in repatriation hospitals when the veterans happen to have private insurance. Will veterans and war widows be disadvantaged if they use their private health insurance; or, indeed, will veterans and war widows who have no health insurance be discriminated against? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that in the last Budget the Government established a procedure whereby it is capable in certain circumstances of recovering from the private health insurance funds part of the cost-in some cases the whole of the cost-in respect of veterans who, despite acceptance of their disability by the Repatriation Commission, are privately insured. Taking out private cover is purely a voluntary act by veterans, for whom the Commonwealth has a responsibility to provide treatment. However, the Government has been put in a position where the private health insurance funds have not been paying their share of the costs involved in the treatment of veterans who have taken out such cover. So in fact we have been subsidising the health funds by providing at the Commonwealth's expense treatment which would otherwise have been the health funds' responsibility. It is purely a voluntary arrangement between veterans and the Commission, and it is therefore of no disadvantage to a war widow or an entitled veteran. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer him to a front page report that recently appeared in a newspaper in the Elizabeth area of South Australia. It related to long queues outside the local office of the Department of Social Security. Is the Minister aware that these queues are, of necessity, apparently, formed on the footpath along a busy highway and therefore very humiliating and embarrassing for the people concerned? Does the Minister agree that it is, as the headline said, `disgusting' that these individuals, often bread winners who have been made redundant, should be treated like this? Can the Minister give some assurance that this matter will be dealt with, first of all, by increasing staff levels on the two busiest days-that is Monday and Friday-and, secondly, by arranging for these queues to form somewhere other than in a public thoroughfare? Senator TATE —I have seen in a local newspaper from the Adelaide metropolitan area the article to which Senator Haines refers. Without endorsing the use of every descriptive adjectives in the article or, indeed, in the question, it is the case that it must be embarrassing for those who are seeking the assistance of the Department of Social Security that they are forced to line up in queues in a public thoroughfare due to lack of sufficient accommodation in the Social Security office at particular times. It has to be realised that in Elizabeth, which is the area particularly referred to or highlighted in Senator Haines's question, every day some 900 persons are dealt with by that office, and honourable senators can imagine that, particularly early in the morning on a Monday, when people have been laid off on the Friday previously, there is quite a deal of congestion. All that having been said by way of background, it is the case that the problem needs to be addressed. I am told that measures are being implemented to minimise the problems. They include increasing the number of counter reception points for clients returning benefit forms only. I notice that one of the young social security recipients mentioned in the article said: You've got to get here early. They should have a box so you can just dump your form and go. I do not know whether it is as simple as that, but certainly the reception points for that simple returning of a benefit form are to be increased. Additional counter staff are to be provided at peak times. Where possible an attempt will be made to alter the public contact areas to provide more room and interviewing facilities. There is also an undertaking to have a look for further leasing arrangements that might be entered into. There is a real problem and it is being addressed. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. On 9 February 1987 the Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, stated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM that if he became Prime Minister he would scrap the Foreign Investment Review Board. Senator Ryan —Don't you worry about that. Senator SIDDONS —We presumably know what a possible Prime Minister of this country thinks about selling off Australia's wealth creating industries in the interests of short term capital profits. Overseas competitors, no doubt, will be delighted to learn that they are able to buy up Australia's manufacturing industries as soon as they become troublesome on international markets. Can the Minister inform the Parliament of Labor's policy in this regard? Will the Government scrap the Foreign Investment Review Board or further weaken foreign investment guidelines? Senator WALSH —The honourable senator expressed some concern about what might happen if Petersen became Prime Minister. I think that, as Senator Ryan suggested, one answer to him-and not an inappropriate answer-is: `Don't you worry about that'. The Government did make some changes, most recently in July last year, to the operation of the Foreign Investment Review Board with the objective of making it easier for foreign investors, whether as sole investors or in partnership with Australian firms, to pursue worthwhile direct investment opportunities in Australia and to remove much of the regulatory burden on companies. As far as I know, the Treasurer does not contemplate any further changes since those made in July, but I will check that out and let Senator Siddons know. Senator BOSWELL —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to his public statement that large retail monopolies are not in the national interest. In light of this expressed concern, will the Minister investigate the current sales tax system in which tax is calculated on the last wholesale transaction? Does he agree that this unfairly disadvantages small retailers who have to pay sales tax on their base purchase price plus the cost of warehousing, whereas large retailers who do their own warehousing pay only on their base costs into the warehouse? As most small retailers purchase through non-profit organisations, such as Newspower, Mitre 10 (Queensland) Ltd, and Queensland Independent Wholesalers Ltd, will he consider giving practical assistance to small business by shifting the sales taxing point to the point of sale by a manufacturer, which would ensure that all retailers would be treated fairly and be able to compete on the same basis? Senator BUTTON —I have a dreadful feeling that Senator Boswell asked that question last week. If his point is that he did not get an answer, he can ask it again. Senator Boswell —Someone may have asked a similar question, but it certainly was not me. Senator BUTTON —I do not know what statement of mine regarding retail mergers he is referring to. At the time of the Coles-Myer merger I uttered that I felt some disquiet about it. Having said that, the rest of the question is appropriately addressed to the Treasurer and I will see that it is sent to him. The PRESIDENT —I acknowledge the presence in the President's Gallery this afternoon of a delegation from the Polish Parliament, led by Mr Rakowski. I welcome the delegation to the Senate on behalf of all honourable senators. I trust that their visit to Australia is both beneficial and enjoyable. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COOK —My question is directed to Senator Walsh, wearing his hat as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It relates to the need, manifested in this chamber today, for improved research into industrial relations issues in Australia and improved teaching of industrial relations. Is the Minister aware that appendix IV of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems argued for improved provision of industrial relations courses in `advanced programs of management education', and for continued Commonwealth Government support for independent university-based research into industrial relations issues-research such as that carried out by the Industrial Relations Research Centre of the University of New South Wales? Is the objective of improved university level teaching and research in industrial relations furthered by actions such as that of Mr Charles Copeman, who last week sent a letter to a senior lecturer in industrial relations at the University of New South Wales? Senator WALSH —I will not claim to be completely familiar with the substance of appendix IV of the Hancock report, but I believe it does contain the recommendations or opinions which Senator Cook has attributed to it. I am aware, via a Press report published in the Sydney Morning Herald two days ago, that Mr Copeman has written a letter to Mr Dabscheck, who is a senior lecturer in industrial relations at the University of New South Wales, which could only be regarded as an intimidatory letter, arising from a lecture which Mr Dabscheck gave to first year students in which he said, among other things, that the confrontationist tactics adopted by Peko-Wallsend Ltd at Robe River had failed and that Peko-Wallsend had lost that particular dispute. I think it is difficult to reconcile any other conclusion with the empirical facts. Even if that were not so, I find it a little alarming that Mr Copeman would attempt to intimidate a university lecturer in that way, particularly a university lecturer such as Mr Dabscheck, who, in the lecture in question, explicitly told his students that they should question everything, including what Mr Dabscheck was telling them at the time. Those who really believe that the spirit of inquiry, intellectual freedom, excellence, and all of the things that are supposed to be associated with universities, are the standard ethos of university teaching, research and discussion would believe that everything should be questioned and nothing should be taken as infallible. Mr Dabscheck explicitly said that. I understand that he also has the reputation in a more general sense of being somewhat of an iconoclast-a sort of Dick Klugman of the University of New South Wales. I do not know whether I should say that I find it surprising, but certainly I find it alarming, that Mr Copeman should have reacted as violently as he did. The report of the Hancock inquiry states that uiversity researchers in industrial relations should be able `to pursue their research without ``fear or favour'' '. Those who want to look that up or put it into context will find it at page 48 of volume 3 of the report. The general view put forward in the Hancock report is that industry and the country would be better off if both management and unions were better informed, more fully aware of each other's views, and sought to reach agreement, or at least reconcile those views, in the context of negotiations rather than industrial confrontation and standoff. There is, of course, an alternative view to that view-that is, that knowledge and comprehension should be subsumed by ignorance and bigotry. That appears to be the view which is held by Mr Copeman and, much more seriously, by the Federal Opposition, which gleefully anticipates five years of industrial warfare and which stated in a paper prepared towards the end of last year: `Prepare for a general strike'. That is not this Government's preferred outcome in industrial relations in Australia nor, I would have thought, that of any sensible or responsible person. Senator NEWMAN —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to his plan to change the defence service home loans scheme, which was announced in the mini-Budget in May 1985, and to the expressions of interest which he finally called for from private enterprise, which were to be in by 12 March this year. Can the Minister advise the Senate, firstly, what response he has had from private enterprise; secondly, whether currently ineligible servicemen will be included in any new scheme he plans to unveil; and, thirdly, when veterans and servicemen who are effectively waiting in limbo will finally get some action from the Government on this future scheme? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that in the statement of May 1985 the Government decided to invite interest by private institutions about the future functioning of the Defence Service Homes Corporation-the purpose being, firstly, to make additional funds available to the applicants, having regard to the increased price of accommodation in Australia and, secondly, to overcome the waiting time which was one of the `innovations' that the Fraser Government introduced to the operation of the scheme in the late 1970s. Of course, there is, as Senator Newman said, a waiting time which does create difficulties from the point of view of the veterans, because invariably they are obliged to borrow money from the second mortgage market and that is inevitably at a much higher rate than normal interest rates. The Government drew up a tendering process inviting interest from private or public institutions. I stress that it was open to any institution. It was not, for example, closed off to the Commonwealth Bank or any State building society, if they were interested. That interest has been consummated. There has been a response which is currently before the Government and which is in the hands of the Treasurer. The decision will depend on whether those who have expressed interest in response to the advertisement are able to meet the requirements that the Government laid down in the 14 May statement-that is, that no existing beneficiaries would be disadvantaged, that they would be able to provide long term loans, increase the amount of funds, and in no way create any difficulties in respect of the existing policies that operate under the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Until such time as the Government has an opportunity to evaluate that interest that has been expressed, I have no further comment to make. Senator NEWMAN —Perhaps I may put a supplementary question. I asked the Minister whether currently ineligible servicemen will be included in the new scheme, and when will the Government's response be available? Senator GIETZELT —There has never been any intention that I am aware of as Minister that the scheme should be extended to people other than those who have met the requirements-that is, they had to serve in a theatre of war, or be a war widow, or had to have two terms of service in the peacetime services. No suggestion has ever been made that I am aware of that that eligibility should be extended. Senator Newman should know, on the basis of her own experience as the wife of a former Minister, that the processes of government lay down certain procedures. The Ministers who are interested-the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Treasurer as well as the Prime Minister-have all had the opportunity to comment on the responses and in due course the matters will be determined by Cabinet and announced to the public. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister for Finance, representing the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, aware of proposals reported in last Saturday's Canberra Times to use tax penalties among other measures to restrict trade union activity, and to use criminal sanctions against unions and employers who operate within the mainstream of present industrial relations practice and who resist adoption of those industrial relations practices proposed by the New Right? What are the origins of these proposals and what would be the effect of their implementation? Senator WALSH —I did indeed see the article referred to in Saturday's issue of the Canberra Times, stuck away on the back pages somewhere. Perhaps that accounts for the fact that it has not received more publicity, because it is an article that reports some pretty extraordinary events, which I thought would have been considerably newsworthy throughout the country. Essentially, it reports that at a gathering of Surfers Paradise real estate agents and other members of the white shoe brigade, and another couple of people thrown in-who, I understand, took off like a rocket as soon as they realised what was going on and wanted to dissociate themselves very quickly from the proceedings once they realised what was going on-one Brian Ray, who was acquitted a week or two ago of a charge of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, an acquittal which says a great deal more about the difficulty of getting a conviction on conspiracy than it does about Mr Ray's guilt or innocence--. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —He pinched $16m from the taxpayers. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President-and I also ask you when I sit down to restrain the Minister from his usual objectionable and unparliamentary comments about me when I take a point of order. However, the matter having gone to criminal trial and acquittal, to have the Minister making those comments is a gross abuse of this place. I have no personal knowledge of the facts of this matter and I would not think it at all proper to canvass the decision of the jury in that respect. I suggest that the Minister should be asked to desist from dealing with that matter. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. However, I would remind Senator Walsh that he was making remarks that were not entirely relative to the question that he was asked. I would ask him to answer the question as soon as possible. Senator WALSH —I accept that, Mr President. I note for the record that Senator Chaney defends scumbags like Brian Ray as well as all the other people he habitually defends. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I both ask for a withdrawal of that and I suggest that it should not be recorded in Hansard. I am sick of this. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw the remark he made. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. As well as Mr Ray, another one of the group associated with this recipe for dealing with unions and industrial relations is a Mr Charles Connelly, the article reports: whose antipathy to Mr Howard developed when as Treasurer he would not allow certain financial arrangements for medical practitioners . . . It goes on to say that there are other Surfers Paradise real estate agents, including the Douglas brothers and another loosely knit group. In other words, it was a gathering, with one or two exceptions, of the sort of people who have coalesced around the Premier of Queensland, which is a gaggle of convicted criminals and some of those who are still facing criminal charges, including in the former category Minuzzo, one of the Callaghans, Milan Brych, and in the latter category the other Callaghan who is still facing a criminal charge, and Shrian Oskar, who is currently on the lam. It was that sort of gathering that produced this document. The journalist who wrote the Canberra Times article reported that the document shows considerable subtlety in dressing up some of the draconian and repressive provisions in rhetoric about equity and justice. The proposals for handling the immigration issue, in a manner which plays on racist sentiments but does not involve use of the Queensland Premier's confrontationist approach, indicates the need for the Petersen backers to manage him to achieve their personal objectives and so on. But the proposals specifically on industrial relations are to use criminal sanctions against unions whose actions or activities are considered to be politically motivated. I do not know how that would be proven, but presumably in the way it was put forward by using a similar methodology to that which was proposed in 1950 and 1951-that is, if somebody stands up in parliament and names somebody as having a particular motivation, in that case being a communist, that that is then it. Somebody presumably would name a unionist conducting a campaign that was politically motivated and criminal sanctions would then be used against him. That would be a fundamental denial of civil liberties and inimical to the principle of voluntary association, which the paper professes to espouse. Finally, the draconian attitude to enforcement of ill-defined rules of behaviour about trade unions, as put out by this group, stands in stark contrast to their attitude to enforcement of the taxation laws and the use of penalties against people who decline to comply with those laws. Senator SHEIL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is there any truth in the report that registered clothing manufacturers will be able to continue to import certain lightweight silk, cotton, wool and man-made fabrics at a concessional 2 per cent duty after 1988, while home dressmakers-by that I mean people who make their own dresses at home to get some relief from the high cost of living today-will be hit by a duty of 8 per cent per year for five years, with the duty rising to 40 per cent by 1993? Senator BUTTON —The information contained in the question does not sound right to me, but I have not got those figures precisely in mind. I will obtain an answer for Senator Sheil. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and follows a question asked earlier this week by Senator McIntosh concerning the nuclear targeting of United States facilities in Australia. Can the Minister confirm the report in the Times on Sunday that Minister Beazley believes that the public is entitled to know of that possibility-that is, the nuclear targeting of United States facilities in Australia-and to be able to take precautions? If so, will the Government make available to the public the full text of the Defence Department's study of nuclear target possibilities and will the Government ensure that any proposed civil defence plans to handle such events are made public? Senator GARETH EVANS —Like all other members of the Government, the Minister for Defence considers that the public is entitled to know the precise nature of the risk of nuclear attack on the Australia-United States joint defence facilities. As I said in answering Senator McIntosh, this Government takes seriously its responsibility for the civil defence of people living in the vicinity of the joint facilities. As I again said, the report is now being made available to State and Territory emergency services with a view to developing appropriate plans in consultation with the Department of Defence and the Natural Disasters Organisation. When this process of consultation with the States and Territories is complete, I am advised by the Minister for Defence, it is his intention to make public the document referred to by Senator Coleman. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I refer him to an article that appeared in the Times on Sunday of 22 March concerning the reporting of an apparent decision by the Government to introduce a system to award costs in cases heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Has such a decision been made or has the Government reviewed proposals for the introduction of such a system? In particular, will the effect of such a measure be to discourage prospective complaints in seeking to have administrative decisions, particularly in relation to taxation assessments and related matters-I point out that these can be very small as well as somewhat larger-reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal? This comes on top of the Government's disgraceful decision to impose a $200 filing fee for all matters heard by the AAT. Senator GARETH EVANS —Without conceding that any decision made by this Government is disgraceful, let alone the one to which Senator Messner has referred, I must say that I am not briefed on the matter to which he referred and I will seek an early answer from the Attorney-General. Senator WEST —Has the Minister for Education seen the comments on education in today's Australian? Can the Minister confirm that, without the money raised by the $250 administration charge, student numbers this year would have contracted? Is it a fact that this year 30,000 students will be locked out of higher education? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to an article in the Australian Higher Education Supplement today which was written by the Opposition's spokesperson, Mr Peter Shack. Apart from the trite generalisations and off the track ravings of Mr Shack, there were a number of factual errors. Before I go on to point out these errors and comment on them, I might say that it would do the Opposition a lot better if Mr Shack would research a few facts before he started sounding off. Senator Archer —Thanks for the advice. Senator RYAN —The Opposition certainly needs a bit of advice. One of Mr Shack's totally erroneous claims was referred to in Senator West's question-that is, that student numbers in 1987 would have contracted without the higher education charge. That is clearly wrong and could easily have been corrected by reference to the 1986-87 Budget Papers which document our commitment to continued growth in 1987, with an extra 10,000 places expected, including 2,000 new intakes. The charge has enabled us to increase new intakes from 2,000 to 3,000. That information is readily available in Budget documents. Another erroneous claim made by Mr Shack in his article was that the private income of higher education institutions is 2 per cent. This is clearly wrong and, again, a simple reference to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report shows that income for institutions from non-government sources in 1983 was 9 per cent, and this would now be higher because of the various policies of our Government, including the 150 per cent research and development tax concession-that is creating about a $100m a year turnover from the private research companies of universities and colleges-and the full fee places for overseas students. The claim that 30,000 students were locked out last year-a claim that Mr Shack likes to make frequently-is clearly wrong. The number of students who were unsuccessful in gaining places for 1986 was around 10,000 and, again, those figures were confirmed by the Vice-Chancellors Committee. Also, the claim that there had been a decade of stagnation in higher education up until now is clearly wrong. Over the past decade we have had six years of decline under the Fraser Government's policies-not stagnation, but actual decline-which is clearly documented in the CTEC report, followed by four years of steady growth under the Hawke Government's policies. It makes no constructive contribution to the education debate, nor does it do any good to students or aspiring students, for Mr Shack to get himself space in the Australian or some other journal and then repeat a number of these fallacies. I hope that the publishers of the Australian Higher Education Supplement will take note of these inaccuracies as the education community is very well aware of them. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to Senator Ryan as the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Does the Minister agree that Professor Jackson was totally incorrect when he claimed that `cutting of forests in Tasmania is 19 per cent in excess of sustained yield', because in his calculations Professor Jackson included pine pulpwood, understoring species, myrtle on private property and residues generated by sawmills? I realise that the Minister may not have the facts. If she does not, will she attempt to get them and inform the Senate as soon as possible? Senator RYAN —Yes; as Senator Townley has suggested, I will refer the question to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and get an answer as soon as possible. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is to the Minister for Finance. Has he made any progress in standardising public accountability procedures between Federal and State governments? In particular, what steps has the Minister taken to deal with ongoing allegations of impropriety in the Queensland Government's financial management of Federal funds, as accountability cannot be monitored in Queensland because there is no public accounts committee or freedom of information legislation? Can the Minister investigate the current scandal relating to a secret Queensland Public Service Board report alleging the deliberate overstating of the numbers of homes built under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement? Furthermore, will the Minister insist on proper accountability procedures at the forthcoming Premiers Conference, before allocating Queensland's State grants? Senator WALSH —In relation to the last part of the question-that is, the scandal concerning the allocation of CSHA funds-I heard on the news this morning that Mr West has already initiated an inquiry into that. Naturally, the Department of Finance will do everything it can to assist in that inquiry. In relation to the other questions, about any progress in standardising public accountability between Federal and State governments, as far as I know no progress has been made with Queensland. Indeed, I would be very surprised if any progress could be made with Queensland in doing anything like that, because the Queensland Government's attitude is that it does not want to be held publicly accountable for money and, far from being interested in standardisation and revelation, I believe that it is much more interested in concealment. I will ask officers of the Department whether any progress has been made recently of which I am not aware. I would be surprised if there had been any, particularly in relation to Queensland. I was asked what steps I had taken to deal with the misuse of Commonwealth funds in other areas. There is one area of Commonwealth funding which comes directly under my administrative control, and that is the national disaster relief arrangements. There was yet another scandal in Queensland towards the end of last year when the National Party's north Queensland organiser, Mr Behan, received a loan of $145,000 at a highly concessional interest rate, notwithstanding the fact that the responsible administrative body in Queensland had recommended against the loan being granted. One of the conditions laid down in the Commonwealth guidelines under which loans of that type are granted is that the farmers who receive them must be assessed as being viable. Since then, and notwithstanding the fact that the beef industry if not going through a boom at the moment is at least relatively prosperous, particularly in the north, Mr Behan's farm had been offered for sale because of, I understand, the insolvency of the proprietor. I will be taking whatever steps I can to ensure that the Commonwealth taxpayer provided component of that $145,000 loan, which is a bit over $80,000 will be returned to the Commonwealth before it disappears into the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation or follows Alan Bond's $400,000 into Petersen's back pocket. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation. I remind him that last Wednesday, a week ago, I asked him a question concerning the new coastwatch contract that the Government had entered into with a body known as Amman Aviation Pty Ltd. I then asked a series of questions relating to that new arrangement which is to take effect as soon as, I think, 1 May this year. To my astonishment, the Minister in reply said he had no information in his briefing papers. I now ask him whether he has a brief on the subject, and will he please answer the question today? If not, when will he answer the question, bearing in mind the seriousness of the matter as far as the surveillance of our northern approaches is concerned? Senator Chaney —Mr President, I apologise for interrupting at this stage but I rise on a point of order. I understand that at the end of the last answer the Minister for Finance made reference to a large sum of money going into the Queensland Premier's back pocket. If that is so I ask for an immediate withdrawal. The PRESIDENT —I am afraid that I did not hear the remark attributed to Senator Walsh. Strictly speaking, the point of order should have been taken at the time. Senator Walsh, did you make the remark that has been attributed to you? Senator Walsh —I said I will be trying to get back the $80,000 before it follows Alan Bond's $400,000 into Petersen's back pocket. If we want to be pedantic, that is not strictly accurate-it disappeared into a bank account and not the back pocket. The PRESIDENT —Senator Walsh, I ask you to withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —Certainly, Mr President. Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Durack mentioned, that he asked me a question about coastal surveillance on 18 March. I would have thought that he would have been aware of the media release that the Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, issued on that very day in response to some concern that has been expressed. It is true that the Minister's response did not specifically refer to Senator Durack's question as such, but in my view, and I think in the view of any reasonable person, it did deal with the subject matter in a factual way. As that statement was issued on the same day I would have thought that a prominent front bench member of the Opposition parties would have been aware of it and would have been able to draw his own conclusions from it. If he did not, of course, that only shows how relaxed he is about the problem. Maybe he has some other motivation. The honourable senator asks me now whether in fact a brief has been supplied to me. Yes, I do have a brief and the brief confirms what Minister Morris said on 18 March. It shows also that the answer I gave on that day was factually correct; that is to say, the proper tendering pro- cesses were followed and the Minister had insisted upon that process. There was some ha, ha-ing from the Opposition at the time I responded to Senator Durack's supplementary question. The facts are that the organisation called Amman Aviation Pty Ltd did submit a very satisfactory tender. There was as a result of the acceptance of that tender a saving of $2 1/2m and I would have thought that that would have enjoyed the support of the Opposition, which is always concerned about government expenditure. The company, although it is new in the aviation world, has been assessed by specialists in the Department of Transport and the Department of Aviation as meeting the technical requirements of the tender, and is considered financially secure. Of course I also made my own investigations because Senator Durack suggested some impropriety, or raised some suspicion about the Government's obligations in this matter, and found that the same sorts of circumstances existed when Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, which he is obviously representing in his questions to me, won the contract during the period of the previous Government. It was at a similar stage of establishment. It is very difficult, therefore, to understand why Senator Durack is so excited about this. I can understand the position of those persons whose tenders were not accepted. There were other tenderers besides the two parties that have been mentioned by the Minister and me. The Government did what it was logically required to do; that is, satisfy itself about the technical capacity of the lowest tenderer. There appears to be some concern in Senator Durack's mind about the staffing arrangements. I understand that the successful tenderer is prepared to take all the necessary steps to take on staff who, as a result of its successful tender being put into operation, may be displaced. Those staff will be offered the opportunity to work for Amman Aviation. Senator DURACK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. For the second time Senator Gietzelt has spent a great deal of time not answering the question. It is not for me to scout around getting the answers to questions that I ask of Ministers in the Senate. It has always been a courtesy extended by Ministers, when they get information-the Minister got this information a week ago-to provide it to the Senate as soon as possible. All the Ministers seem to observe that courtesy except for Senator Gietzelt. I asked him several specific questions which he has not answered. Apparently he now has the answers in his brief and I ask him again when he will tell the Senate the answers. Senator GIETZELT —I believe I have answered Senator Durack's question in accordance with the brief that is required of me. The media release is made available to every member of parliament. If Senator Durack is too lazy to look it up himself, that is his responsibility. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald by David Robertson entitled `Local Car Parts Industry Beefs up Export Push'. In view of the potential that the article indicates for the export of vehicle components, can the Minister say whether the Government has any policy initiatives to accelerate the growth of these exports? Senator Peter Baume —A dorothy dixer! Senator BUTTON —It is not a dorothy dixer; I do not happen to have the answer. The Government has taken a number of initiatives to improve the efficiency and export potential of the components sector. Until the marked devaluation of the Australian dollar there were a number of component exporters in Australia. They had a natural advantage in terms of access to raw materials, low energy costs and so on. The range of components now being exported has expanded significantly. That has happened as a result of the devaluation of the dollar and also because of specific measures taken by the Government, such as the export facilitation scheme, as part of the motor vehicle plan and a special export facilitation scheme for component manufacturers which was introduced at the end of last year. The purpose of that was to try to help importers into Australia of fully built up vehicles who can earn credits in exchange for export activity in overseas markets. A number of those things seem to be working. I think the great challenge to the component sector is the continual one of improving quality and reliability of manufacture. It has to keep working at that. But apart from that, the opportunities are enormous and the results are already significant. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-Senator Gietzelt, in the course of his non-answer to my question a few minutes ago, made a most offensive remark, in saying that I was asking the question on behalf of Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, one of the unsuccessful tenderers. That is not the case. I had not been approached by Skywest before I asked the question. Indeed, I have not been approached by Skywest since I asked the question. The matter that Senator Gietzelt has alleged has added further offence to the total inadequacy of his dealing with this matter. Senator TATE —I have a further answer from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in regard to a question asked by Senator Bjelke-Petersen some days ago. The Minister for Health has advised me in answer to Senator Bjelke-Petersen that the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1986 introduced new requirements for personal supervision of pathology services by approved pathology practitioners. The requirements are that for pathology services to attract Medicare benefits they must be rendered by or on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner. For a service to be rendered on behalf of an approved pathology practitioner it must be rendered under the personal supervision of the approved pathology practitioner. That is, the approved pathology practitioner must, first, exercise a reasonable level of personal control after the rendering of the services and, secondly, have personal responsibility for the proper rendering of the service. These requirements arose from the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts covering `Medical Fraud and Overservicing-Pathology' which identified significant weaknesses in the existing approved practitioner scheme. The Committee recommended a strengthening of requirements for personal supervision by approved pathology practitioners before Medicare benefits are payable. The first recommendation of the Committee was that Medicare benefits should be payable only for services personally supervised by resident approved pathology practitioners in laboratories accredited to provide the services. However, in its third recommendation the Committee noted that special arrangements may be necessary for situations such as remote laboratories-which I think was the crux of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question-where the requirements for personal supervision could not reasonably be met. The new requirements are not intended to prevent the operation of laboratories in remote areas but will require an acceptable level of personal supervision. Practices identified by the Committee, such as the `lending' of pathologists' names to accounts in order to attract higher benefit levels, will not be acceptable. I note that Senator Bjelke-Petersen nods in agreement with the outlawing of that practice. The Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission are currently examining the issue of personal supervision to see how remote laboratories may be accommodated without leaving the way open for abuses identified by the Public Accounts Committee. The relevant section of the legislation defining personal supervision has not been proclaimed pending finalisation of the arrangements. The PRESIDENT —This morning Senator Harradine gave notice of a motion with respect to which a query was raised on the grounds of the acceptability of some of the language used in the proposed motion. Without ruling on the matter, I indicated that I had also been concerned at the wording of the notice of motion and that I would examine the details of the notice and report to the Senate on the matter. I have now considered the matter in detail and report that, following discussions with Senator Harradine, he has agreed to re-word his proposed notice of motion. I understand that he wishes to seek leave to give an amended notice at this time and I believe this to be an appropriate course of action. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that- (a) the Governor of Victoria, Dr Davis McCaughey, deliberately chose as the subject for the 23rd Tracy Maud Memorial Lecture the title `Medical Ethics: Who decides what and how?' which in his speech he describes as `one of public controversy'; (b) when referring to the question of human embryo experimentation, the Governor in his speech said `Even if legislation of a restrictive kind were to receive a majority vote, say in the Senate, or were to reflect public opinion as expressed in a public opinion poll, it would still be questionable whether it would be good democracy to impose it'; (c) Dr Davis McCaughey, in conjunction with another member of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Medical Research Ethics Committee (Dr Robert Jansen, now a director of an IVF clinic in New South Wales) drew up the pro-experimentation guidelines in 1982 which have given rise to so much public concern; and (d) these guidelines were subjected to the scrutiny of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 which found that the marker event contained in the guidelines before which experimentations on human embryos could take place lacked inherent ethical validity and that the concept contained in those guidelines that the human embryo could be regarded as property should be rejected, Declares that: (i) the statement by the appointed Governor of Victoria, His Excellency Dr Davis McCaughey, which questioned whether it would be good for democracy in effect for executive governments to enforce laws passed by elected Parliaments restricting experiments on human embryos strikes at the heart of our system of Parliamentary democracy and raises fundamental questions as to the role of Her Majesty's representatives in Australia, (ii) the question of experiments on human embryos is a major matter of public importance which cannot be confined to and determined by selected scientists and ethics committees, (iii) insofar as the Governor's statement seeks to undermine an Act of the Victorian Parliament which restricts experiments on human embryos that is a question for the people of Victoria to determine, and (iv) insofar as the Governor's statement relates to Federal legislation to restrict experiments on human embryos as indeed has been recommended by a Senate Select Committee and the Family Law Council whose reports are now under consideration by the Federal Government, the statement of the Governor of Victoria might understandably be interpreted to be a reflection upon and an attempt to unduly influence the democratic processes of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 25 March, from Senator Crichton-Browne: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- ``That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and the other costs which are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns.'' Yours sincerely (NOEL CRICHTON-BROWNE) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.09) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and the other costs which are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns. When it comes to rural policy, this Government has a one-track mind. It sees the beginning and the end of the farm problem as export prices, and exclusively export prices. Its entire program for rectifying the malaise of the Australian rural economy is to close its eyes, cross its fingers and hope for a recovery in the export prices that our farmers receive. The truth of the matter is that this Government cynically recognises that for it there are no votes in the country. It is more concerned about outer suburban Sydney and Melbourne. It has total disregard for the economic plight of country people. Only recently the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said on radio in Sydney that there was nothing further that the Government could do to help the Australian farmer because there was nothing he could do to change export prices. The Prime Minister even went so far as to say that his heart bled because there was nothing that he could do for the farmers. Surely this is the most abject nonsense that we have ever heard, even from this cynical Prime Minister. A child of 10 knows that the profit is the money left after the costs have been paid. Despite this, time and again this Government has either done nothing to mitigate the rises in farm costs or, worse still, it has played an active part in increasing them. No one could be so blind as not to recognise the effect high prices and high costs are having on our farmers. In this case ignorance is the result of the Government deliberately shutting its eyes. In the coming year the average return on capital on Australian farms will be minus 6.9 per cent. The returns for one in four Australian farmers are minus 19 per cent or worse. Only 15 per cent of farmers will actually earn a positive rate of return on their investment. One in every three family farms will make a loss this coming financial year. Land values have fallen at such a rate that even those farms which will show a positive cash flow at the end of this year will show a negative return on their capital when the fall in the value of their land is included in the equation. In the wheat and sheep zone land prices have fallen by between 8 per cent and an incredible 47 per cent in the two years from June 1985 to June 1987, the worst affected State being my own State of Western Australia. Senator Walsh tells us that there is some virtue in land prices falling, as that means that people coming into the industry can buy land. What about the vast majority of farmers who are presently seeking to raise loans through their equity in their farms and who are finding that their equity is dramatically falling as the value of their land falls? So much for the concern that Senator Walsh has for the farmers. Rural debt is presently in excess of $8,000m, and it is tipped by the National Farmers Federation-and in my view it is a modest assessment-to rise this financial year to $10,000m. The farmers are being forced to leave the land in droves as they find it quite impossible to service their debts. Such is the state of the Australian rural economy at the moment. Yet our Prime Minister tells us that there is nothing he can do. Despite what the Government claims about prices, interestingly enough not all the prices received by farmers have been falling as dramatically as perhaps the price of wheat has been. The prices for wool and beef have actually risen over the last 12 months, although in Western Australia over the last few months there has been some modest deterioration in the increases in the prices for cattle. But the prices certainly have not risen to a level to accommodate interest rates. For instance, the price of wool has risen by about 10 per cent on average over the last 12 months. So it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to tell us that the farmers' problems are to do with their prices for their commodities. Despite the Government's attempts at a snow job, of trying to use the well publicised media reports of the falls in wheat prices as if they are indicative of all areas of agriculture, it is important to note that rural export earnings in 1985-86, interestingly, in gross figures, were at record highs. Even this year Australian rural export earnings are expected to be just 4 per cent lower than the record of 1985-86. How can it be accepted that the average income for family members working, for example, on a cattle station last year was slightly in excess of $10,000? Yet cattle prices are up. Why is it that one in four beef producers will make a loss this year? Of course it is because of costs, and not primarily because of prices. The reason is the same for cattle producers as it is for dairy producers, for graziers and, in some respects, for wheat producers. It is costs, not prices, that are causing this problem. The answer is that the Australian farmer has had to contend with massive increases in input costs, with which his overseas competitors do not have to contend. The rates of increases in prices, or, to put it another way, the increases in inflation in the major overseas countries, are the lowest they have been for 20 years. However, the present inflation rate in Australia is at the highest level relative to overseas countries that it has been for 30 years. Our overseas competitors have the lowest rate and Australia has the highest rate it has had for 30 years. The bright outlook for prices in the cattle and wool sectors was immediately undermined by an average increase in costs of 7.6 per cent for this past year. What is even worse is that most of the increase occurred in the latter part of this year, indicating that things might actually be getting worse during the balance of this year. So it is expected that costs will go up. These increased costs are far above the levels which are being experienced by our overseas competitors, and they are negating the best efforts of the wool and cattle industries to get themselves back on their feet. They are unmercifully compounding the problems of Australian wheat farmers. Where these rises are government induced, then the Government must take exclusive and absolute responsibility for the flight and the plight of our farmers. Foremost amongst the price increases has been the amount farmers have had to pay on interest rates. The Primary Industry Bank of Australia is charging an 18 per cent interest rate on loans. Commercial banks are charging about the same, with variations depending upon the bank and the capacity of the customer to pay and the equity he still has in his farm. As I have said on other occasions, the crushing effect of interest rates being charged by banks pales into insignificance for those farmers who no longer have adequate equity in their properties and who have to go to finance companies. The rates they charge vary but go up to 24 per cent. If the farmer is forced, as many are these days, to purchase second-hand equipment, he finds that finance companies are charging even higher than 24 per cent. What return does a farmer have to get to accommodate interest rates of 24 and 25 per cent? I put it to honourable senators that there is not a business in this country that can make a substantial profit on return on investment at interest rates at those levels. Since the present Australian Labor Party Government won office in 1984, Australia's interest rates have increased dramatically. The prime interest rate has risen from 13.5 per cent to over 18 per cent-by one third in the short time this Government has been in office. In stark contrast with Australia, interest rates in countries such as Canada, the United States of America, France and Japan have all fallen over the same period. As we all know, the Australian Government has deliberately followed a policy of holding Australian interest rates high. In fact, they are at their highest level since the Great Depression. The Government is doing this when farmers are carrying record levels of debt; for example, one in four wheat farmers has a debt in excess of $185,000. If the farmers are blessed by God, and few are, with, for instance, an interest rate of 16 1/2 per cent, that means that they are paying annually $30,000 in interest, or $600 a week, before they even start to contemplate and worry about the cost of wages, fuel and machinery. A fall in interest rates of but 5 per cent would save those farmers $9,000 a year in interest. In a time of high levels of debt, much of which was brought about by the disastrous and unpredictable drought of 1982, the Government has callously and wilfully jacked up interest rates without any care, compassion or consideration as to what this will do to the Australian rural producers, who contribute 40 per cent of our export earnings. It is false for the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, to suggest that the Government cannot reduce interest rates for farmers. As we all know-anybody who has done elementary economics knows-substantial reductions in government spending will immediately relieve pressure on interest rates. But the Government has shown that reducing its spending is something that it will not do-in my view, probably for ideological reasons. If this Government does not change emphasis from monetary policy to fiscal policy the plight of farmers will deteriorate even more. The Government has introduced the most iniquitous tax so far seen in Australia. That of course is the notorious fringe benefits tax. Each time a farmer provides a house or home for his employees, or perhaps even lets them have a side of beef, or allows them to use the farm electricity, he is liable to pay fringe benefits tax. This will be irrespective of whether that farmer is able to make a profit; irrespective of whether there is a requirement to provide accommodation as a result of an award under which an employee works. The tax is grossly inequitable because it taxes an employer on a benefit received by an employee. It has a disproportionate effect on the rural industry for the same reason as it has a disproportionate effect on the mining industry-the isolation of the industry and, therefore, the need to provide an incentive to have employees travel to the country to accept a job. Farmers do not enjoy the luxury of being able to pass this cost on as do producers of domestically consumed items and goods. About 70 per cent of primary production is sold on overseas markets. Competitors in these markets are not saddled with this Hawke-Keating fringe benefits tax. If farmers tried to pass the tax on through their selling prices it would immediately have the effect of cutting their own throats-they could not compete with their overseas competitors. So they cannot pass the costs on. They must absorb the costs of the Hawke-Keating fringe benefits tax. The Prime Minister tells them that there is nothing the Government can do to alleviate the plight of the farmers. To these taxes can be added the increases the Government has thrust upon the entire community by the failure to allow a full flow-on of the falls in world oil prices. In February 1986, for instance, petroleum products excise for petrol and diesel was 10.43c per litre. Today it stands at more than 19c per litre. The Government levies on petrol and diesel have almost doubled in that time. I am aware, as we all are, that the Government provides a rebate for off-road diesel but that totally ignores the fact that 40 per cent of farm fuel costs do not relate to off-road diesel. Wheat farmers also face very substantial transport costs. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table demonstrating the distances and costs for farmers. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Transportation of Grain in Australia: Average distance by State Movement NSW Vic Qld SA WA Aust km km km km km km Farm to Silo... 15 8 48 13 21 17 Silo to exp. term.... 500 330 380 150 270 360 Source BAE Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Does the Government not realise that when overseas farmers are able to take advantage of fuel price falls our farmers again are disadvantaged? Freight costs in general are higher in Australia than in competing countries. For instance, while the cost of a 300-odd kilometre rail haul of wheat in Australia varies from around $16 a tonne to $24 a tonne, in Canada the price is less than $14 per tonne. The Government has removed the immediate deductions for water conservation expenditure, converting them into a three-year write-off at a cost to industry in 1986-87 of $20m. It has doubled the tax on wine from 10 to 20 per cent, costing another $47m in 1986-87. Now it is about to introduce quarterly payments for personal provisional tax. This will require payment of an instalment of provisional tax earlier than would normally otherwise occur. It will also require farmers to make an estimation of their income for provisional tax purposes by August, which is far earlier than the present March. As a consequence, the estimations will be far less accurate and farmers and small businesses will be faced with paying more tax than they need to pay at a time when finance costs are high or running the risk that they may well underestimate their income by varying their assessment and hence incur penalties. Amid the Government's patting itself on the back about income tax reductions, it is worth remembering that for many farmers the question of reduction in income tax, personal tax and otherwise is of no consequence. It is not an issue. People do not pay income tax when they are making a loss. That is the case with the vast majority of the Australian rural industry. Where was the Government when the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales went before the Industrial Commission arguing about the conditions in the rural sector, arguing that they were so bad that the industry just did not have the capacity to pay the increase of 2.3 per cent in wages under the pastoral award? It was deafening in its silence, absent in its contribution, denying the farmers the moral and physical support of arguing against that diabolical increase which the community just could not afford. We have seen that this Government has total disregard and lack of concern for the rural industry. The Government could have undertaken reforms in many other areas. It could have removed the ridiculous requirement that superphosphate be brought to Australia from the Christmas Islands in Australian flag ships at $30 a tonne, more than it costs to cart superphosphate from Florida to Australia. That would be a cost of $16 per tonne, a saving of $25m for the Australian farmers. At the same time, the Government has abolished the subsidy on imported fertilisers, aware that the Industries Assistance Commission has said that inevitably that will require an increase in the price of fertiliser. There are many other examples of the damage that this Government has done to farmers. For example, I could mention the fact that the level of protection maintained by this Government is costing the average farmer $9,000 per farm. Another result of Government policy is that the exchange rate is higher than it ought to be. The rising farm costs and the guilt that the Government has on its hands for the present situation in rural Australia now ought to be obvious to all. It is utterly wrong for the Minister for Primary Industry to suggest, as he has in the past, that farmers are after a ride on the taxpayers' backs. Our farmers are not bludgers. As a group, they are perhaps the hardest working in Australia. It is not the case, as I said from the outset, that all farmers' problems are due to price falls, as was suggested by Senator Walsh recently in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald. What these farmers, our farmers, Australian farmers, want is for the Government to get off their backs. It has to stop taxing and cut spending so that the disastrous rates of interest which are now prevailing can be reduced. In essence, the Government must realise that every time it implements a policy which raises Australian levels of costs, it kneecaps another farmer. It therefore stands condemned for the injury it does to our farmers, our community and our export earnings. Neither the farmers of Australia nor those Australians who live in the cities should fall for a moment for this Prime Minister's and Government's ruse of trying to pass the blame for our rural problems exclusively on to export prices. The farmers are not the only ones suffering. As we all know, the effect that this Government's policy is having on rural industry is flooding into country towns and devastating country towns and businesses, driving people away from country towns, reducing populations and forcing people into the cities, on many occasions without jobs, opportunity or hope. That is the contribution this Government has made to the rural economy and to the country of Australia. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.29) —On behalf of the Government I oppose this motion which has been moved by Senator Crichton-Browne. In June 1982, when Mr Howard was the Treasurer of Australia, the interest rate on 10-year Commonwealth bonds was 16.4 per cent. Yesterday the interest rate on Commonwealth bonds for a 10-year period was 13.5 per cent. So there has been a 2.9 per cent reduction in interest rates on Commonwealth bonds since Mr Howard was Treasurer. In June 1982 the interest rate on 90-day bills issued by the banks in Australia was 18.7 per cent. That was when Mr Howard was Treasurer. Yesterday the interest rate charged on 90-day bank bills was not 18.7 per cent; it was 16.3 per cent. So this motion about interest rates, which has been moved today by Senator Crichton-Browne, is a nonsense. Senator Brownhill —Tell the farmers that they can get their money at 18 per cent. They will love that. Senator MAGUIRE —In 1982, Senator Brownhill, the lowest income tax rate in the Australian tax schedule was 30c in the dollar; it is now 24c in the dollar under a Labor government. In 1982, when Mr Howard was the Liberal Treasurer of Australia, the top marginal tax rate was 60c in the dollar but from next July, under a Labor government, the top marginal tax rate will be 49c in the dollar. Despite lower interest rates, despite lower income tax rates, the Liberals have moved this absolutely nonsensical motion which is critical of this Government on the questions of taxation and interest rates which clearly were higher when Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition, was the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia. The facts show that. Mr Howard, aided and abetted by the National Party of Australia, managed the Australian economy by overvaluing Australia's rate of exchange. He overvalued the Australian dollar in relation to other currencies to create slack and to reduce demand in the Australian economy, and that was very damaging indeed to the rural sector. It kept the proceeds of Australia's rural exports down in Australian dollar terms. Yet today the Liberals have moved this nonsensical motion. The motion mentions small business but small business has benefited enormously under the economic growth which has occurred in this country as a result of the policies of the Hawke Government. Let us face it, there has been economic growth in this country. We have not been going backwards quarter after quarter as we were when Mr Howard was Treasurer of Australia. Let us look at the rates of economic growth. Real gross domestic product rose by a mere 0.2 of one per cent in 1982-83 when Mr Howard was Treasurer. In 1983-84 the figure was 3.7 per cent. In 1984-85 there was 4.5 per cent real economic growth and in 1985-86 the figure was 4.0 per cent. So in real terms the Australian economy, by the middle of last year, was approximately 15 per cent larger than it was when Mr Howard was the Treasurer. Those are the facts which were published by the Statistician and they are on the record. Greater spending power in the community has benefited small business enormously. Unfor- tunately, the motion moved today ignores the fundamental economic problem now facing Australia and that, of course, is the deficit this country faces on its overseas trading activities. In 1985-86 the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments was some $13,800m. The motion which was moved by Senator Crichton-Browne mentions interest rates in isolation. It is the typical Liberal approach. The motion pretends that no other questions need to be resolved in the economy. It tries to create the fiction that interest rates can come down without anything else being done. The balance of payments problems facing Australia have been caused by external factors and it is very important that there be an internal adjustment of the Australian economy. The reality is that we have faced massive falls in our commodity prices. Most of the commodities we sell on world markets have faced tremendous falls in value and I refer to products such as wheat, barley, sugar, coal and iron ore. All those commodities are facing massive declines in prices on world markets. As a result, Australia's national income has been slashed by the fall in export prices. Thousands of millions of dollars have been taken off Australia's national income. The motion ignores that fact; it ignores that reality. The Hawke Government is responding to the fall in Australia's national income. It has a plan of action, a strategy, already in place; it is a strategy for economic recovery. Interest rate falls are part of that strategy but we will not go into the business of having auctions about reducing interest rates on a short term basis if overall economic management is going to suffer. Under our Government the monetary policy of this country has been restricted to help our balance of payments and to underpin interest rates in order to encourage capital inflow into Australia. An important reason for doing that is to ensure that the Australian dollar is held at a satisfactory level on international exchanges. That is what our policy is about-maintaining the value of the Australian dollar. An appropriate level is needed to enable this country to trade its way out of our current balance of payments problems. We have to boost exports; we have to reduce imports; we have to close the current account deficit on our balance of payments. The management of policy is such as to ensure that our export industries become more competitive. There are signs that this policy is beginning to work. I instance the figures on the balance of payments current account for the three months to February this year which show that Australia is now achieving some contribution to gross domestic product growth through net exports, that is, the excess of exports over imports. I refer to the overall balance on current account which is more than just looking at exports and imports. It shows that in those three months there was a deficit of $2,600m compared with some $3,100m in the three months to February 1986, the previous year. It is very pleasing to note that in two of the last three months on record-Australia recorded a surplus on physical trade, that is, our exports have been greater than our imports. I do not believe that we can prematurely relax monetary policy and certainly we cannot have arbitrary interest rate cuts as the Liberals are demanding today because they would be premature and damaging and they would wreck the adjustment of the Australian economy to the changed international circumstances. I suppose this motion which refers to cutting interest rates would be appealing to many persons in the community. But let us look at the immediate impact of that policy. What would it mean if an arbitrary reduction in interest rates occurred? The fact is that there would be a run on the Australian dollar on international exchanges and the dollar would be pushed down to very low levels. I ask the Senate: What would the pushing down of the Australian dollar on international exchanges achieve in the short term? The fact is that it would have a major impact on prices in Australia. The price of imported items expressed in Australian dollars would rise enormously; so import prices would rise, there would be a large impact on the consumer price index and, of course, in turn, there would be a very large impact on costs of production for Australian industries. I note that this motion, which has been moved by Senator Crichton-Browne, complains about existing cost levels. The honourable senator is complaining about current cost levels facing farmers and small business but the result of this motion, if the policy it calls for were to be implemented, would be a massive explosion in costs in Australia because imported items, expressed in Australian dollars, would go through the roof. Prices would rise enormously. There would be a devastating effect on the rural sector; there would be a severe impact on small business. In short, the motion moved today contradicts itself on this point. Costs would not go down; they would go through the roof if there were a reduction in interest rates in the short term. I am greatly concerned about the level of interest rates and the Government is aware that some producers are concerned about their levels of profitability. We certainly want interest rates lowered but only when that is appropriate. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has made that abundantly clear. Interest rates are not to stay up a day longer than is absolutely necessary for economic management purposes. They will then come down. However, the Liberals pretend that an easy choice can be made in this matter. They suggest that easy choices are available in economic management in the present day and age but that is an absolute fiction. Interest rates cannot be cut without there being side effects. I regret to say that the Liberal Party is trying to delude the electorate that easy choices can be made in economic management. It is attempting to perpetrate a cruel hoax on farmers, small business and the Australian people. We are entitled to ask: What would the Opposition do? What would its policies be in the unlikely event that it were sitting on the Treasury benches? How would it deal with the balance of payments? How would it reduce the level of imports? Would it create excess capacity in the economy? Would it have policies that depressed the level of utilisation of plant in industry to reduce the flow of imports into the country? Would it repeat its efforts of 1982-83 and throw another 186,000 Australians on the industrial scrap-heap? Would those policies be introduced to deal with the balance of payments problem facing Australia? It seems that the Liberal Party of Australia would depress economic activity to improve the balance of payments. I have indicated today that this Government already has in place the policies to deal with this problem. We have reduced the level of government spending. We have reduced the Budget deficit from the horrific figures which applied earlier in this decade and, of course, in May there will be further cuts in the level of government spending in order to reduce the impact of the Budget on the economy. What are Opposition members doing at the same time? What are their proposals for dealing with the economic problems which are facing the country? Looking at what they have been saying in the media over the last year, it is very clear that they are talking about higher government spending. One has only to tot up the various items that have been called for over the last 12 months by Liberal Party and National Party spokespersons to see their range. They would cost billions of dollars to the revenues. They are talking about abolition of taxes in Australia. They are involved in a desperate auction to try to get re-elected at the next election. Looking at their policies and their promises, one can see that, on one estimate, another $14,000m in commitments would be added to the Budget. This is a massive figure compared with today's Budget position and the likely deficit for this financial year of between $3,000m and $4,000m. Those extra commitments will blow out that figure enormously. I ask members of the Opposition today: How would those extra commitments assist in reducing interest rates in Australia? How would those extra claims for expenditure and for reductions in taxation have an effect in reducing levels of interest rates in Australia? While members of the Opposition go around the country calling for more and more projects and programs which would add to the Budget deficit, it seems as though there are to be some items which will get the chop. There are some items which this Opposition is looking at to remove from the budgetary program. I refer to a leaked document which was made available to the media and to members of parliament earlier this week in which reference was made to the abolition of farm fertiliser subsidies. That is on the record. It was in that particular document. Senator Crichton-Browne spoke at length earlier in this debate about fertiliser subsidies for the farming sector of Australia. But it appears from this leaked document that was made available to the community over the weekend that fertiliser subsidies are in for the chop in the unlikely event of a Howard Liberal government being elected in this country. This motion today berates and criticises the Government for its policies in regard to the farm sector. But it seems as though the Liberals have a hidden agenda to remove farm fertiliser subsidies. I remind the Senate that the largest single rural program in the Budget is, in fact, fertiliser consumption subsidies. In 1985-86 the total allocation was $55m for that particular item. I would ask Opposition senators who will be speaking in this debate today-Senator Brownhill from the National Party and Senator MacGibbon from the Liberals who will follow on from Senator Crichton-Browne's contribution-to repudiate this particular document. I want them to go on the record here in this chamber and tell us that they will not cut the fertiliser subsidy to the farm sector. Senator Crichton-Browne —I am telling you that that is the case. Senator MAGUIRE —I want to hear it from the others as well, because this is a very important question. It was quite clear in that document that was issued on the weekend that farm fertiliser subsidies are in for the chop and, as of this morning, media contacts with the Opposition had failed to get the Opposition to make a specific repudiation of the particular item. So I think it is very much on the agenda. If honourable senators opposite do not repudiate this particular item-if Senator Brownhill and Senator MacGibbon do not get up this afternoon and repudiate that it is the intention to remove the $55m fertiliser subsidy from the rural sector-they can only stand accused of the grossest hypocrisy for moving this motion today, talking as it does at length about farm costs, farm interest rates and farm taxation. Let us hear it from Senator Brownhill and Senator MacGibbon later this afternoon. Mr Howard claims that he would cut taxes. Senator Crichton-Browne has moved a motion about taxation. But Mr Howard's own record in government shows that, if he were elected leader of this country, he would be most unlikely to reduce taxation. I refer to the record of the Fraser-Howard Government, particularly in the period from 1978 to 1983 when Mr Howard was the Treasurer of Australia. That Government, over its period of office, promised repeatedly that it would reduce taxation in Australia. That was the pledge it went with to the Australian people in 1975. We had the fistful of dollars election in 1977. Time and time again honourable senators opposite said to the Australian people that they would reduce taxation. But let us look at the record. Let us look at the official figures published by the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury in Budget Paper No. 1. They show that, over the life of the Fraser-Howard Government, taxation as a percentage of Australia's gross domestic product-that is, Australia's national income broadly defined-did not fall; it rose by 1.7 percentage points. So while Opposition members go around saying to the people of Australia-as they have been saying today to the farm sector and to the small business sector-that they would cut taxation, their very own record in government shows that they are incapable of doing it. They cannot deliver, and people have to be very sceptical indeed when they scrutinise the Liberal's policies for the next elections. This Government has delivered tax cuts. We have reduced the tax rates. We have reduced the tax rate in the lowest bracket from 30c in the dollar under Mr Howard to 24c-a 6c reduction in that tax rate. We have lowered the tax rate for middle income Australians from 46c in the dollar to 43c today, and it will be lowered to 40c from 1 July next. Also, of course, the top marginal tax rate was 60c in the dollar under Mr Howard when he was the Federal Treasurer. From July it will be 49c in the dollar. So there have been major cuts in taxation and, of course, they will be of significant benefit to small business proprietors and to farmers-just as they will be to the rest of the community. We have ended the deductions for entertainment allowances; the tax subsidised lunch has gone. Ending that particular lurk is saving the rest of the community some $300m a year. How can the abolition of the free lunch hurt farmers? How can they be worse off? People are not going to eat less, are they; so how can it hurt the farming sector? I ask Senator Crichton-Browne, who is the mover of this motion: Are farmers in Western Australia any different from those in other States? Were they in the habit of driving into town for leisurely lunches at expensive restaurants and then claiming it on their taxation? Of course they were not. They are benefiting enormously, just as the rest of the community is, from the scrapping of the tax-subsidised lunch. Interest rates are of concern to the Government. The Government has in place policies which will bring about lower interest rates, but we will reduce them only when it is possible to do so in the light of the current balance of payments circumstances. The Opposition is being irresponsible. It claims it can cut interest rates in isolation from other economic variables. It is a nonsense; it is a fraud; it is a cruel hoax on Australians-one which will be exposed at the next elections. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.48) —We are debating today a motion brought forward by Senator Crichton-Browne which reads: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and the other costs that are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns. On any analysis of the problem of agriculture in Australia today, one would have to say that the two major difficulties facing Australian farmers are the extraordinary collapse in markets and the price squeeze from which they are suffering. Given that collapse in markets, to which I will refer later, high production costs, particularly the cost of borrowing within Australia, have imposed a crippling burden on many farmers-not on all farmers, but on many. Unfortunately, many of those farmers who are now suffering from crippling borrowing costs are the farmers who are either new to farming-younger farmers who have had to borrow very heavily to buy new farms-or those who have in recent years sought to expand their operations and buy, say, the farm next door or extra land in order to increase their production. Those people have been hit not only by the cost of the money that they borrowed, but also, of course, by the massive reduction in markets and in the value of their product. Senator Crichton-Browne referred in his motion to interest rates. An explanation, presumably, must be given as to why those interest rates are so high. The major problem with interest rates, quite frankly, is that to attract foreign investment in order to offset our overseas debt, we have had to borrow, and borrow heavily. Why, then, is the overseas debt so high? It is high for a number of reasons. Unfortunately, there has not been much discussion in the debate of the distribution of that overseas debt. For example, in June 1985 terms, which is the last available breakdown, the figure was 26 per cent Commonwealth debt and 15 per cent State debt, making a total of 41 1/2 per cent for governments and government instrumentalities, and 58 per cent private sector debt. In the following 18 months our debt rose from $40 billion to over $100 billion. Who borrowed that money? An extra $12 billion was borrowed by the public sector and an additional $20 billion by the private sector. That seems to me to be at the heart of the problem that we are facing. The Australian Labor Party adopted the conservative view about deregulation of money markets. The markets, once deregulated, operated under their own steam and to the detriment of this country. That is the reason why, under Menzies for example, there was a great deal of regulation of the financial markets in Australia. Our type of economy needs that regulation. When this Government adopted that conservative policy of deregulation, the market certainly took over with a vengeance. The overseas debt, of course, was pushed up very strongly by the extraordinary collapse in our terms of trade. Indeed, between $6 billion and $8 billion per year has been wiped off this country's income by the collapse in the terms of trade. That has been caused by a host of things. I give one example: $640m has been lost by our wheat farmers in the last financial year. Why has that happened? It has not happened because we did not sell our wheat. Interestingly enough, we sold more wheat than we have ever sold before, but compared with the previous financial year, we lost $640m because the international price of wheat had not only gone down but had collapsed. The Green Paper on the cost to the Australian population of the European Community's policies puts the cost at over $1 billion. What about Japan? Japan, of course, in terms of agriculture, has denied us access to its markets, at enormous cost to our community which has not yet been quantified by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. But it is certainly substantial and runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. Those three items alone-that is, wheat, the common agricultural policy of the European Community, and the denial of access by the Japanese by tying up their markets-represent a loss to our farmers of over $2 billion, despite the fact that they have sold more. If we do not address that issue, if we do not understand the operation of those international markets, we are deluding our population into thinking, `At the next election we will put somebody else in, it does not really matter who, and it will all be right'. Quite frankly, it would not matter who wins the next election; the isolationist and protectionist policies of the United States will continue to cripple this country. It is interesting that recently Ian McLachlan of the National Farmers Federation said: When friends like the United States are prepared to crucify you economically, what confidence can you have that they will defend us in a time of military threat. I say to Senator Crichton-Browne that that is a statement by the person who is leading the farmers in this country. At least he knows what is going on. Senator Crichton-Browne —Run that past me again. Senator MACKLIN —If he did not listen, he missed out. Senator Crichton-Browne —I have a great deal of difficulty comprehending what you are saying, but I am listening. Senator MACKLIN —All right. He has a great deal of difficulty comprehending what I just said. I will repeat it slowly, so that he can comprehend it. This is what Mr Ian McLachlan said: When friends like the United States are prepared to crucify you economically, what confidence can you have that they will defend us in a time of military threat. The interesting thing that Ian McLachlan pointed out is the crucifying of our economy by the United States and the European Community. Senator Crichton-Browne —Next he will want to close the bases. Senator MACKLIN —He does. Their will is broken. An omnibus trade Bill will be presented to the United States Congress which will further crucify our exports. What have we done about that? Almost nothing. Currently, we have in Washington no more than two people who can operate in this area. We have appointed the ex-Ambassador to Mexico as a special envoy in this area. But what is that person confronting? What are we expecting of him? He is confronting over 70 congressional trade committees. On every one of those congressional committees there are at least four congressman or senators. They all have at least seven to 10 staff. We are looking conservatively at having to cover over 2,000 politically important figures on the Hill with regard to trade-and with how many people? Two or three. We have more military people there, discussing purchases of hardware, than people trying to sell goods to the United States. I have said before, and I will say it again, that we need to beef up the Cairns free trade group of 14 countries. At least if those 14 countries operated together on the Hill in the United States and each assigned five people, one person could be assigned to each committee. At the moment three people are assigned to 70 committees, which is obviously an impossibility and is to the incredible detriment of our agricultural community. Let us talk about realities. The realities are that we are operating in a vastly corrupted market. In fact, it is corrupted by the United States and the European Community for their own internal political purposes. We can produce efficiently but if we remove every add-on cost from both Commonwealth and State governments from the wheat sales that we make and then seek to sell that wheat-that is, without one cent added by government charges-the United States would go into the market and undercut us by a dollar. The United States authorities are currently supporting their agricultural community to the tune of $35 billion, half of Australia's entire Budget. They can drop that price, and they will do so. The United States agricultural spokesperson and indeed the Secretary of State recently indicated in a major speech in the United States that they intend to go into the Community and sell everything they have, no matter what the price. Let us talk about agricultural realities, for they are the realities that our farmers have to face around the world. The Government has to face the fact that, having removed controls, which is also Opposition policy, there has been an enormous flow of investment out of Australia which in the last 12 months amounted to $7,000m. That is, the outflow of investment dollars, caused by deregulation, pushing up the interest rate. For every Australian dollar that goes out we have to attract another dollar back to be able to do anything with it. I repeat that $7,000m, mainly from life offices and superannuation funds, is invested outside this country. That is the problem of deregulation, set in train by this Government, which took over the policies of the Opposition parties. Once the operation is deregulated, the market will take over-and it took over with a vengeance. That is the basic absurdity of trying to operate our type of economy in that type of deregulated way as though we are a major player on the world stage, when in fact we are a minor player and need to protect ourselves against that type of predatory operation of the United States and the European Community. Unless we put into place some type of regulation in governing our economy and in protecting ourselves-not in the way we did in protecting the secondary industries for so long under conservative governments under National Party Ministers, not that type of protection but the type that protects our dollar-interest rates will not go down. Not only will our farmers continue to be crippled in their borrowings, but when they get their product to market and try to sell it overseas they will be crippled by the corruption of the international market. They are the factors which are pressing in on our farmers. If people want to come up with simplistic solutions, let them do so, but those simplistic solutions will not work-they will not work under a coalition government as they have not worked under this conservative Hawke Government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.03) —The matter of urgency that is now before the Senate reads: The need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and the other costs which are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns. Having just listened to Senator Macklin and Senator Maguire, I was wondering to what debate they were referring in their speeches, because I do not think they were at all relevant to this debate which was led by my colleague Senator Crichton-Browne. I am surprised in the current rural crisis that any Government senator, including Senator McKiernan, who will speak later, would have the gall to stand in the Senate to defend this Government's performance. It is appalling by any standards. One only needs to look at the record of this Government to see why Australians, and particularly rural Australians, are in such a mess. It is well known that this Government cares little for the rural sector. It argues that there are few votes for the Australian Labor Party in country areas of Australia. On that basis, therefore, the Government feels that it can ignore the rural sector and the people who live in the rural towns and cities. The Prime Minister's task force recently indicated the depth of concern and understanding in the Labor Party for those people outside the metropolitan area. The chairman of that committee claimed that farmers are doing okay. He said that he had spoken to lots of farmers and, for many, things have never been so good. That is shades of the Whitlam years-the famous Whitlam statement. Senator Tate —He did not say that. He has never used the term. Senator BROWNHILL —It was quoted in the paper. I am quoting what I have read in the papers. I would like to meet any farmer who is happy to be paying three times more than he should be in fuel excise. It is over three times more than he paid when the Hawke Government came to power some four years ago. I would like to meet any farmer who at the moment is happy with inflation, which is four or five times the rate of our major trading partners. Again, I would like to meet any farmer who is happy with his rates and taxes increasing by 83 per cent in the last five years while in some areas of Victoria land has gone down in value by as much as 40 per cent. This urgency motion talks of `crippling interest rates', and that is the only description of them. They are crippling, and do not just affect the foolish risk takers, as some senators, including the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), would have us believe. All businesses run on credit. Money is borrowed on overdraft, loan or through credit companies for a range of items. Farmers are encouraged to do so by their banks and accountants. When interest rates were stable and affordable it was a wise business decision to make. Any business person to be successful must be a risk taker, and farmers are probably the biggest risk takers of all. By necessity, they must gamble on the size of their crop, the value of their wool and the return from their cattle and other produce. Only a few short years ago it was wise economics to borrow to upgrade machinery and purchase more land if it became available. But today that has all changed. Today those same farmers, the same risk takers who made forward plans based on interest rates of 12 to 14 per cent, are facing charges running at 21 per cent or more. Bankcard interest rates are now some 22.5 per cent and rates on small overdrafts are more than 20 per cent. Senator Maguire earlier quoted, I do not know from what, figures which do not apply to people who want to borrow money from banks. Despite the claims of Senator Maguire and of the Labor Party that it is only the bad farmers who are in debt today, the facts are that thousands of farmers, good and bad, have been caught in this interest rate spiral. Senator Peter Baume —Why don't we circulate Senator Maguire's words around the bush? Senator BROWNHILL —I think we should. With these higher interest rates come higher wages, higher inflation and higher prices. In 1983 a farmer needed to sell some 35 steers to afford to buy a Holden utility. Today, despite good cattle prices, that same farmer needs to sell 52 cattle to buy that vehicle. If it is being said by Labor senators that prices are going down and interest rates are not affecting the position, I think that the economic rationale of the Hawke Labor Government must be found wanting, as the people of Australia will prove at the next election. The simple facts are that no matter how well farmers and small business people are able to do they now have to work that much harder to stay in business than they did four years ago. The Government claims that it is working on the problem, that it is containing costs and providing tax cuts for people. To start with, tax cuts are only of benefit if a person is earning sufficient income in the first place to pay any. Secondly, we all know that the so-called tax cuts are illusory. Single income families with dependent children are still worse off now than they were four years ago-in fact, much worse off. The figures I have show that Australians are now $31 a week worse off with their disposable income than they were when we were in government. Senator Maguire made some very rash statements about interest rates. I wish to correct him and point out that the Bankcard rate in December 1984 was 18 per cent; it is now 22.5 per cent. In December 1984 prime interest rates were 13.5 per cent; they are now 18.5 per cent. In December 1984 small overdraft rates were 14.5 per cent; they are now 20.5 per cent. Anyone who is listening to this broadcast might reflect on the figures that Senator Maguire has been touting around the place. Obviously, this is the economic rationale of this Government and its disregard for country people. Because of these interest rates it is not surprising that our bankruptcy rate increased by more than 35 per cent in the first six months of the current financial year. That means that more than 8,000 people are likely to go to the wall, compared with the previous worst record of 6,408 in 1985-86. But, of course, we keep being told that things have never been better. Senator Maguire said that again here today. But we know how high interest rates, spiralling wages and prices and falling land values are affecting every individual in country areas. Certainly, we in rural areas know that the Government cares little for the individual; but what is happening to whole communities is even more frightening. Whole towns are disappearing. Some country areas have more vacant shops than open shops, more people looking for work than in work and more people selling than buying. Rural industry is not in a position to pass on its costs and so, increasingly, it is attempting to absorb them. Some businesses are failing and the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of this Government. People in rural businesses in rural towns are trying to help some of those in the farming community by carrying the debts that those farmers cannot afford to pay. Those same businesses are having to pay the exorbitant interest rates foisted on us by this Labor Government. A recent survey conducted by my office of 300 regional businesses in New South Wales showed the effects of the fringe benefits tax. That is just one tax that this Government has foisted on us. It has also foisted additional capital taxes on us. Of those 300 businesses, most said that the fringe benefits tax definitely had adversely affected them. Some of those businesses that I surveyed only five months ago are now not even in existence. The burdens of loss of sales and spiralling interest charges have killed them. They have become another statistic in the unemployed scrapheap that the Hawke Labor Government has brought on this community. The same is happening on farms throughout Australia. Farmers are walking off their properties. Some are in so much debt that they will never be free of it. What they once hoped would be an inheritance for their children has now been taken away by government actions and government inactions-inaction in dealing with the spiralling interest rate problem that besets this country at present. There are actions and remedies that this Government could take if it cared enough. The National Farmers Federation attempted to put a submission to the Government on cutting interest rates, spending and inflation. But it was not even given the courtesy of a decent hearing. The New South Wales Farmers Association has put a similar submission to the Government. It has also been ignored. I quote from an article that quoted that the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, Mr Tooth. The article read: Mr Tooth said the effects of the Government's high interest rate policies were being carried solely by those who borrowed-and he claimed this would include nearly all those engaged in agriculture. The article went on: ``This Government will allow borrowers, and that accounts for most farmers, to continue to hurt,'' he said. In other words, this Government is an uncaring government towards the people who produce export income for this country and who give people such as Senator McKiernan a standard of living which be obviously enjoys. The Government is not interested in doing anything constructive. The National Party has just recently completed a paper on rural adjustment arrangements and, if the Government is not prepared to do something positive, the Opposition will at least attempt to stir some action. The Opposition parties appreciate the extent of the problem and the urgent need to do something about it. The Government must not ignore the problems any longer. More funds must become available to assist with the interest rate burden. More must be done to assist farmers in determining their viability, to assist them in coping with the present crisis and to advise them how best they should restructure their debts. Help must be given to farmers who are viable in the long term but simply cannot pay the crippling interest charges they are being charged at present. If we do not take immediate steps, the very fabric of our society is threatened. The long term effects of this crisis will be catastrophic and irreversible. Country towns will shrink even further and with them the services, such as banks, schools and hospitals, which have been built to look after the people in those areas. Once those facilities are closed they are unlikely to be reopened. If a local machinery dealer loses his mechanic because the farming community has been crippled with high interest costs, he will not get that mechanic back easily from the city. More people will drift to the cities looking for work and more people will become chronically unemployed and unemployable. There is a very real prospect of large city ghettos starting as more unemployed people go to the cities-people who are qualified only in skills that are no longer needed in country areas. That will mean that more money will be required from the taxpayers to pay social security benefits to those people who have been put out of work, thrown off the land or thrown out of businesses in country towns. We can all talk all day in this place about the statistics of the crisis. We can argue that 10 per cent or 20 per cent of farms are at risk because of high interest rates. What it comes down to is that this crisis involves families; it involves real people. It is more than machinery repossessions, more than politicians arguing about who caused it and how. Senator Macklin went on about this at some length. The problems are real and the poverty is becoming widespread. The crisis is spreading and remedies must be more than words. There must be action and it must be taken now, not later at the whim of a Labor government that wants to stay in power and will do anything to stay there. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(4.18) —I rise to speak on this matter of urgency which relates to the levels of taxation, interest rates and other costs which the Opposition alleges are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses. It is interesting to see that over the past few weeks we have had a progression of speakers in this place and the other place, each raising this matter only when it is broadcast day. Yesterday, when it was broadcast day in the House of Representatives, it was a matter of major importance there, but it was not a matter of importance here because our proceedings were not being broadcast. How superficial are the interest and concern of the National Party of Australia-or of the faction of that Party we are talking about! A common thread has been highlighted by both Senator Brownhill and Senator Crichton-Browne and by speakers yesterday in the House of Representatives. We are being told that we are in major difficulties. The electorate knows that, the Parliament knows that and we know that. None of us supports high interest rates or high inflation, but the reality of the economic situation, both domestically and internationally, as was spelt out by Senator Macklin earlier, is that for the time being we must endure these difficulties and work against them. I put it to the Senate that it is the Hawke Labor Government that over the last four years has shown interest, and has provided the policies and has given constructive direction to demonstrate that interest, in trying to redress some of the problems we have been confronted with both domestically and internationally. One should not deny the effects of the world debt crisis, of world economies and of American farm policies when it comes to looking at the plight of the Australian farmer. Senator Crichton-Browne suggested that I should blame the communists but in this instance they might in fact help with the purchasing of Australian farm products. So much for that little contribution. The electorate has two clear options. It has the option of continuing with the Hawke Labor Government's policy of involving it in open discussion about our problems, of telling that we do have immense problems and bringing it into our confidence or, alternatively, it has the policies of the Opposition. It is pretty hard to work out where the Opposition stands. Last year a Professor O'Brien of the University of Western Australia, in a book called The Liberals: Factions, Feuds and Fancies, managed to highlight 10 different factions in the Liberal Party, ranging from the wheeler-dealer Liberals, of whom we notice that people such as Sir Robert Askin have been in the forefront, to the wets, the dries, the damps and so on. He said, however, that the biggest group in the parliamentary Liberal Party was probably the sheer pragmatists, or the bandwagon opportunists. I suggest that that is the sort of mentality that governs Opposition policies today. What do we find in the Opposition's rural policy? We find confusion, for a start-not only confusion amongst the different factions of the National Party but also within the Liberal Party. Let me take the Senate through this confusion point by point. For some time the National Party of Australia has represented the mining industry and has done very little for Australia's primary industries. This has been highlighted in recent days by National Farmers Federation spokesman, amongst others. They have brought it to the forefront. What is being suggested now? The current Leader of the National Party, Mr Sinclair, was in Adelaide about three weeks ago. He spoke on radio about the rural sector. It was quite strange because I could not quite fit the policy contributions with the voice. I have heard Mr Sinclair in this Parliament for about five years but it is the first time over that period that I have actually heard him talk about the rural sector. Is it not coincidental that he is talking about it now that the Queensland branch of the National Party is attempting a takeover, with the assistance of taxpayers' money-- Senator Brownhill —He lives on the land. He has a property. He knows a lot more about it than you do. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Brownhill suggests that he was talking about it. The aspects of rural policy he was talking about in South Australia related to farmers in New South Wales. He may have realised that he was in the wrong State after the interview but when he was talking about the rural sector and its problems he never quite got it right. He never quite got it right that afternoon, either, because the South Australian branch of the National Party did not endorse him as willingly as he would have liked. What has he been talking about? He has been talking about repealing tax reform measures such as the fringe benefits and capital gains taxes. These taxes do not impinge on the welfare of farmers but may, in fact, benefit them by allowing governments accessibility to more finances and in turn enabling them to introduce significant tax cuts. What does he want to do? Maybe he wants to introduce a consumption tax; maybe he does not. We do not really know today, and we did not know yesterday. The implications of a consumption tax on the rural sector would hurt farmers dearly. Senator Peter Baume knows that as well. The Opposition has promised to reduce tariffs and increase subsidy measures. That was a one day wonder in the terms of a promise, because the Liberal Party has repudiated it. Or has it? I turn to the other factions within the National Party. We have Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and his thrust from the north. His recent interview with the National Farmer newspaper did not seem to mention the rural sector. All he was concerned about was once again reducing taxes for the wealthy. Let us look at some of the specific problems of the rural sector. This Government recognises that it is a vital part of Australian industry. We recognise that it employs over 6 per cent of our work force directly, and perhaps 20 per cent all up. We recognise that it supplies 4 per cent of total output and 35 per cent of exports. But what we also recognise is that the rural sector's problems are not merely related to domestic matters. The reality is that if average world prices had not fallen over the last couple of years, average real farm incomes would have risen by over 30 per cent compared to an actual fall of 26 per cent. We must recognise that the problem is not purely domestic. As I said earlier, none of us on this side likes high interest rates or high levels of inflation. But let us also remember that up to 1983, under a Howard-Fraser leadership, with Howard as Treasurer, inflation and unemployment-both economic indicators-were at an all time high, and much higher than the current levels. I now turn to the Government's rural sector policy and look at what this Government has done. Since first coming to office in 1983 we have adopted a five-pronged strategy for the rural sector. The first prong has been to get the economy right. We have recognised that maximum competitiveness and economic growth are of major benefit to the rural sector. We must allow the farmers to compete internationally. We are concerned about inflation. Not one member of the Opposition has mentioned that over the period 1982-83, under Howard, to the present time the rate of farm cost inflation has been reduced from 11 per cent to 6 per cent. If the rate of inflation that has prevailed under the Howard Treasurership had prevailed now, farm incomes would be only one-third of the current level. We have made a major contribution in this respect. Secondly, we have been set upon reforming the marketing systems of institutions. We have recognised that, like all industries, primary production has needed to seek out markets and tailor its production to those markets. Accordingly, we have taken important measures by reforming statutory bodies such as the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Wool Corporation, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation, the Australian Dairy Corporation and so on, which are all geared towards becoming more innovative and competitive. Thirdly, we have taken measures to reduce farm costs as well. Accordingly, we have had an impact on farm costs inflation rates. The Government's policy has been to approach industry and transport areas with a view to reducing costs and imports in those areas, particularly for the rural sector. The tariffs on grain harvesters and cultivation equipment have been replaced by bounties so that the costs can be spread from the rural sector throughout the Australian economy. The excise on diesel fuel has been fully rebated to farmers. The fourth part of our strategy has been to secure the long term resources base of this very important part of the economy by upgrading research funding and arrangements. We have introduced the national soil and conservation program. Appropriate policies in fisheries and forest management have made a major contribution to this area. Fifthly, we have not forgotten that the rural sector does not consist merely of farmers. Country towns and areas have been at the forefront of our employment generating policy. Let us also accept that under this Government unemployment has gone down, particularly rural unemployment. Particular policies have been geared towards the rural sector. However, when one looks at the promises of the Opposition-not solely in the rural sector but across the board-one wonders what it would do for the rural sector. Just recently the secret Liberal Party agenda was revealed. This agenda includes something of immense importance to Australian farmers. The Liberal Party-currently one of the coalition partners-is looking at reintroducing a fertiliser bounty at a cost of $83m to the rural sector. It is no secret that it would privatise institutions such as Telecom Australia, Australian Airlines and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Let us remember that cross-subsidies prevail in those three areas, and they are cross-subsidies which benefit most country residents from States such as Queensland, from which Senator MacGibbon comes. He will be speaking after me in this debate. The three institutions I mentioned are under great threat of the Howard scalpel, and their loss would have great impact on standards of living in the bush. The Opposition would also abolish the community employment program, which has been extremely useful in providing employment facilities in rural areas. What about the consumption tax-the tax that is on today and off tomorrow, the tax that John Howard is wedded to one day and not the other? The reality is that the Opposition promises that have been made over the last 18 months-the $16 billion shopping list of promises that has been circulated-will have to be paid for somehow. We know that some sections of the coalition do not want a consumption tax. But the reality is that the current Opposition Leader is wedded to such a tax. We can see what is going to happen. Within a week after the election John Howard will find that he has no option but to go ahead with a consumption tax. He will announce it. How will that affect the people in the country? In closing, let me say that it does us no good as a parliament to come in here with fool's gold promises. It does Parliament no good to come in here with instant remedies and with promises that the Opposition can do it better. The reality is that our economic problems are not purely domestic. Nor are they just recent. They go back for a least 30 years on the one level and they transgress our shores on the other. Let us also accept the successive coalition governments have failed to meet the challenge that Australians have always has to face. Whether we measure their performance in terms of employment, economic growth, inflation or labour costs, they failed between 1975 and 1983 as responsible economic managers. Let us also remember that the current Leader of the Opposition is the first Treasurer in our history to give us an economy which actually shrank. Between 1982 and 1983 Australia's economic growth was minus one per cent. Senator McKiernan —We have not recovered yet. Senator BOLKUS —We have not recovered yet. All we have been promised is a return to those sorts of philistine economic policies. Let us accept now the challenge that has built up over 30 years, the challenge that has been developed over successive coalition governments-governments that were not prepared to accept that the Australian economy had structural problems and that there were challenges to meet. Let us meet the responsibility that we have to get the policies right this time. I can understand why there is some confusion in the electorate about what the Opposition policies are. There is confusion here as well. This confusion was highlighted recently in an editorial in the Australian. In essence, the Australian editorial writer, referring to the Opposition's tax policy, said: Pick a tax policy, any tax policy. If you are buying conservative you can have an old federalist tax policy or you can have a new centralised one, and you can have either in any one of several tiers or any degree of inclination in flatness. It is the silly season for politics and the Liberal and National parties are excelling themselves even by their previous best efforts. That is the promise that the Opposition now gives to the electorate. It is no wonder that the electorate is not going to accept it. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.33) —The Senate is debating as a matter of urgency `the need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and the other costs which are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns'. Since we are on rural matters, it may not be inappropriate to start with the biblical quotation `by their fruit shall you know them'. You know damn well that the fruits from the Australian Labor Party are total neglect and ignorance and lack of any caring or support at all for rural Australia-the most vital section of Australia which is responsible for our big export earnings. Senator Tate —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I am sorry that I am a little slow to my feet but I am sure the expression `you know damn well' is not normally heard in this chamber, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Senator Peter Baume —What is the expression complained of? Senator Tate —`You know damn well' was said in reference to some aspect of the Labor Party's stance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Senator MacGibbon, do you wish to withdraw? Senator MacGIBBON —If it upsets the sensibilities of the Labor Party, if we are in the fantasy world, I will be quite happy to withdraw it. I want to get on with my speech about the Labor Party's shortcomings. This Government simply does not care about rural Australia. This is being proven every day of our lives as a result of what has taken place during the four long and painful years of its administration. At the outset I would like to declare a personal interest in rural Australia because I derive an income, meagre though it might be because of the vicissitudes of this Government, as a grazier and a cattle producer. The Australian rural economy is absolutely vital to Australia. Last year it produced in aggregate $16,350m. It provides 38 per cent of our exports. Australia is the world's largest exporter of wool, beef, veal and live sheep. We are in a crisis at the moment because of the profligacy of this Government. The Government has trebled the indebtedness of this nation. The burden of paying the huge debt of over $100,000m that this socialist Government has run up with its reckless financial policies is going to fall on rural Australia. The ability of the rural producers of this country to produce efficiently and earn money abroad is absolutely vital to us. But what is happening? Rural Australia is weighted down with unreasonable costs and the Government is doing nothing to maintain the markets that we have. One only has to go into the supermarkets to find that the fruit on the shelves comes from countries such as New Zealand. We even find that oranges, which we leave to rot on the trees and which could be kept in cold stores if we had some decent rural policies, are imported. Sunkist oranges are being imported from California. Senator Maguire led for the Government in this debate. He was followed by Senator Bolkus. The simple question I put to them is this: If their policies are so good, why is there not a vote for Labor in the bush? I can tell them that not one Labor member will hold his seat in rural Australia after the next election. I have always had a high regard for Senator Maguire. However, he told us quite succinctly that we had to have high interest rates; that it was impossible to cut interest rates because they were the only way back to economic health. When he said that, I wondered what galaxy he came from. All of my friends in business tell me that if the interest rates imposed by this Government on the commercial world are maintained for the next two or three years, they will be out of business and on the dole because they will not be able to survive. I will come back later to Senator Maguire's aberration about the fringe benefits tax. Senator Bolkus simply made no intelligent contribution to the debate at all. The first part of the motion deals with interest rates. Interest rates in Australia are now running at record levels, as are inflation rates. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics maintains that this year the average interest rates for rural Australia are 19.4 per cent. Last year they were 17 per cent. They have risen by 14 per cent in a year. Interest rates are crucially important because rural Australia is in debt. The BAE estimates that the level of rural indebtedness to institutional lenders was of the order of $8,000m in June 1986. The number of overdrafts has gone up 14 per cent. The rural debt under Labor rose by 21 per cent between June 1984 and June 1985, and 7 per cent of farmers are now estimated to be in trouble of maintaining their viability in the short term and 20 per cent in the longer term. It is estimated that 70,000 Australian farmers will be forced off their land by the end of the century if the present policies of this Government are continued. Most critically in relation to this debt position, only 25 per cent of Australian farms have debts below $2,000 but a staggering 25 per cent of all Australian rural producers have a debt position in excess of $84,000. Farming is not lucrative. The average farm income-I am referring not to the farmer but to the farm income-is one-third of average weekly earnings in Australia. How many members of the Labor Party, who tout for higher returns for their unionists, would be prepared to accept a 50 per cent cut in what unionists in urban areas are receiving? Yet the average farm income is one-third of average weekly earnings. The farming community is receiving a return of 1.5 per cent on capital invested compared with about 9 to 13 per cent for mining, manufacturing and the tertiary sector. One of the key reasons why this return is so low is high interest rates which are the result of the tight money supply policy of this Government to keep money in this country to try to shore up the collapse of the Australian dollar that it engineered, and, most importantly, the big deficits that have come from the Government's big spending, big taxing and big borrowing programs. When the Labor Government came to power in 1983-84 the deficit for the first year of operation was $7.9 billion. The year after it fell to $6.7 billion and this year the Government hopes to get it down to $5 billion. It has sold the mythology to the Australian community that if we have a $4 billion deficit-that is, if we spend $4,000m a year more than we get in-we are managing the economy well. Compare that with the Fraser years, when the average deficit was about $2.2 billion and we will see why the country is in a mess. Why do farmers need to borrow money? It is very simple: They do not get paid until their crops are taken to market. They have to borrow money for wages, fuel, equipment and stock and to pay the taxes that this Government imposes on them. We have record levels of taxation which have a two-handed effect. There is the direct effect of paying tax when a farmer has a good season, and there is also the indirect effect of on-costs on everything bought on a property. One of the most iniquitous of those in recent times is the fringe benefits tax. I am sorry that Senator Maguire does not understand what is going on. He is partially right when he says that there is no free lunch for farmers. They do not go into town and have dinner in air-conditioned luxury. That is true. But where rural employers differ from other employers in the country is that rural awards provide that certain things shall be provided for employees. They cannot pass that cost on to the employee and they cannot compensate for it in any other way. Many of the rural awards provide that an employee shall be provided with food and accommodation. The unions demand that. So Mr Keating and the Treasury make a fringe benefit assessment on this obligatory payment by the employer to the employee. They assess that a meal is worth $2, but of course it costs the employer a lot more. They impute a 46 per cent fringe benefit to that expense-$2 a meal, three meals a day, seven days a week-which means that any employer in the country has a fringe benefit tax liability of at least $1,000 a year for the privilege of giving someone gainful employment. It is absolutely iniquitous. On top of those costs for the rural producer we have had the brilliant policies of Senator Gareth Evans in this Government as a result of which we pay the same price for all the hydrocarbon fuels that we use here as we did when crude oil was twice the price it is today. World prices have halved and rural producers in other countries have got the benefit of that, but we have not got it in Australia. The value of the dollar has collapsed. While that has aided exports-it has made them cheaper on world markets-machinery is vitally important for most rural enterprises and spare parts are essential. The cost of buying and maintaining equipment on the farms has doubled in the last couple of years. We come to tariffs, which is an area in which the Australian Labor Party in its sectional way looks after its friends in the union movement. It is not interested in rural Australia; it is interested only in the great masses of suburbs to the west of Sydney and around Melbourne where it gets its votes. So it puts very high tariffs on the motor industry to protect it. It puts a tariff of 150 per cent on the clothing, footwear and textile trade. Those costs are all added on to the rural producers' costs. Every tariff imposed on anything bought in Australia automatically gets transferred across to the price of the product when we sell it on the world market. It is even more pernicious than that, because when we argue with the European Common Market and the Americans on their rural subsidies, they say: `Look at your protection of your manufacturing industry, which is 50 per cent or greater for the motor industry and 150 per cent for the textile industry. You cut those tariffs and then come back and talk to us about our subsidies for our rural products'. So it bites both ways on the Australian farmer. Among the biggest imposts on the rural community are transport costs. Everything in Australia has to be moved, and it has to be moved over vast distances. Very few Australians realise that 20 per cent or more of the Australian gross domestic product is involved in transport. We must have efficient low cost transport. To compete, we must have the most efficient transport in the world. Instead we have some of the most inefficient and certainly the most expensive. We need low cost and efficient sea, land and air transport. One of the reasons we have not got that is the degree of regulation that this Government supports and encourages, and the monopoly position that it supports with respect to union labour in the transport industries. The consequence of all of this is that it costs so much to move things from the farm gate, down the countryside to the wharf and on to the ships. As an example, I give the cost of moving scrap metal from the wharfside in three different countries. At Greenock in Scotland the cost is 64c a tonne to get it off the dockside on to the ship. At a United States port it is $3 a tonne and in Australia it is a staggering $15 a tonne. Fifty per cent of the value of a product at the farm gate is absorbed by off-farm costs. Farm costs have gone up 44 per cent in the last four years while prices have gone up about only 12 per cent. What does the farmer get in return for all this regulation and taxing imposed on him? Very little. Research has gone down. Australian productivity in the rural sector can be shown to be declining because of the lack of research to keep the competitive position which Australian producers formerly enjoyed. We once had a great benefit in the fact that we were efficient, low cost producers. But there is good evidence now that our position is being eroded because of the high costs imposed by government and because of lack of research. One of the other reasons why those in the rural areas are in difficulty is that the support that we are entitled to expect overseas in maintaining and developing our markets through the Department of Foreign Affairs has not been provided. I am sorry that I do not have time to go into that today, but that is a story all in itself. What does Australia need? We need low cost inputs for rural industry and we need to have those markets overseas maintained and developed. We need to have fuel available at the world price and to have a deregulated transport industry. We need an improvement in rural research and we need marketing promotion. But this Government has only taxed and taxed and taxed. It has set up a committee of rural back bench members from marginal seats, and that committee has not earned one vote for the Labor Party, least of all ameliorated the conditions for rural Australia. This industry is vitally important to Australia because it supports the standard of living that we all enjoy. It must have the highest of priorities, not the shabby treatment that it has got from this Government. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(4.48) —The Senate is debating this afternoon a motion moved by a Liberal Party senator from Western Australia, Senator Crichton-Browne, in the following terms: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to bring down the crippling interest rates, record levels of taxation and the other costs which are devastating Australian farmers and small businesses in country towns. I suppose if we live long enough we get to see everything. Here we have the charade of the Liberal Party pretending to have an interest in not only the farming community but small business as well, particularly the small businesses in country towns. This pretence will help the Liberals in their current crises both within the coalition and within the individual parties in uniting, hopefully, on one issue and giving this Government some opposition, which has been sadly lacking for quite a long time. There have been many references by Senator Crichton-Browne, Senator Brownhill and, just recently, Senator MacGibbon to the winning of votes by political parties and the concern felt by political parties for people in the bush, for the farmers and for those in the rural sector. One thing that is quite often forgotten and overlooked by this community, and indeed it is overlooked too often by those sitting on the Opposition benches, is that it is the Australian Labor Party that holds the most seats in the rural community in this country today. It is the oldest political party in this country that finally gained, at the last Federal election, the recognition of farmers and rural people throughout this country. They were not being represented in the past and they put their faith in this Government. Indeed, they have not been let down by this Government. This Government has faced a crisis in international trade that no previous government has ever faced. I will deal with that in some detail at a later stage of my contribution to the debate. In this debate we are near enough automatically locked into taking sides. There is a danger in that that the poor old farmer and those living in rural communities could be locked up somewhere in the middle, being kicked from all sides. That is a great danger in any debate in which two sides are participating. I have decided to refer to an independent source which perhaps will have some degree of objectivity, the Australian Financial Review, a reputable newspaper that is not, as I understand, under the control of or greatly influenced by either of the major political parties in this Parliament. In its editorial today, 25 March, headed `Strength through adversity'-Mr Acting Deputy President, I will repeat that because it is funny how one's tongue gets caught from time to time; `Strength through adversity'-it goes into a number of valid points about what is happening in the community today, particularly as they affect rural producers. Senator Siddons —Why don't you speak English? Senator McKIERNAN —My countrymen back home also say something like that, only they reckon I speak Australian. We will find out later in the year, hopefully. The article makes a number of valid points. If one were to listen to the debate from outside, not knowing what really was going on in the rural community-and I commend honourable senators in this place to go out into the rural community and see the position for themselves-one would think that it really was all gloom and doom out there and that farmers really had the seat out of their pants, were being cast off the properties and so forth. But that really is not the case. Certainly, sectors of the farming community are suffering very harshly and bitterly at the moment, as are their families and the towns and rural communities that support those isolated regions. That is happening but it is not happening in every sector of the community. It is certainly not happening all over Western Australia, as might have been implied by Senator Crichton-Browne in his contribution. I will quote a short section from the Australian Financial Review which discusses wheat, about which Senator Crichton-Browne spoke in great detail. It says: . . . we are about to harvest the fourth largest wheat crop on record. Last year, we were also the only major wheat exporting country to increase its world market share. I think those facts speak for themselves. Some people out there are not quite ready to be tossed off the farm. I will have something to say on that again at a later stage in the debate. It was asserted by, I think, all three previous Opposition speakers that the problems in the rural sector are completely the fault of the Hawke Labor Government, a government that has been in power now for four years and one month, that nothing that ever happened before has had any impact on the problems we are currently experiencing. Of course, that is not the case either. We have to be objective or we will never reach solutions to the problems. The people who will suffer will be the farmers. We should not merely turn them into political footballs in order to win seats-and Labor will win votes in the rural sector because there are farmers who know what this Government has done for them and who, at the next Federal election, whenever it is held, will cast their votes for us. One seat of particular interest, not only to this side of the House but also to honourable senators opposite, is that of O'Connor because the Labor Party votes in O'Connor will play a very important part in determining who represents that vast regional area. Senator Puplick —It will choke you to give it to Tuckey. Senator MCKIERNAN —As Senator Puplick knows, I am not in control of that. There are a number of reasons for the problem, not least of which is the current flavour of the month-restrictive work practices. This editorial from which I have just quoted says something about restrictive work practices, not those imposed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the trades and labour councils-even the Australian Workers Union or any other union for that matter. I will quote directly to put this matter in some degree of perspective: Grain growers could also do their bit by eliminating their own restrictive work practices. There is no reason why authorities should be forced to accept wheat deliveries around the clock. Such deliveries force up labour costs unnecessarily. So I ask the rural community, the farmers and the grain producers to look at that. This opinion is not coming, as I said, from this side of the chamber but objectively from the Australian Financial Review, a reputable newspaper. I will finish the quote on this matter but there are a number of other matters I want to deal with, not the least of which is the National Farmers Federation, which has also been mentioned in the editorial. I quote again from the editorial: We have also done our bit to contribute to the current world over-supply of wheat. The writing was on the wall about falling grain prices by the late 1970s but our grain growers chose to happily ignore it and kept borrowing and planting. If the current world wheat downturn forces long-overdue reforms in our handling and pricing policies, then our wheat industry will emerge strengthened from the adversities which have plagued it. Unfortunately, in farming, as in any other industry, unavoidable structural change comes at the bottom of the economic trough, not at the top. That editorial is well worth preserving and quoting again and again. Certainly, when I visit the rural communities I will be quoting sections of it. Senator Brownhill stuck his neck out quite a bit. That is expected of National Party people these days. He mentioned that farmers perhaps were the greatest risk-takers of all. Indeed, if one looked at the history of farmers in this country, one could tend to agree with that comment. If we looked at how they have sought political representation, we would have to agree. There is a national acceptance in the community at large that farmers are part of the conservative forces of the nation and look to the conservative parties for their representation. That record in recent years is none to good. I will not go back before my lifetime, but let us look at the Country Party, lead by John McEwen, which built up a manufacturing industry based wholly and solely on protection. Ever since that time farmers and their industrial organisations have been screaming at all governments to reduce the levels of protection. I will move on a bit and say that the leader of the National Party, the National-Country Party, or the Country Party-I am not sure what it was called at the time-Doug Anthony, as the representative of farmers, has the unenviable record of hyping up the resources boom in the late 1970s and early 1980s to the detriment not only of manufacturing industry, which was decimated and destroyed at that stage; he also put the rural sector and farmers in second place to the interests of foreign multinational companies that had no interest in the people of this country or in representing them in any shape or form. A number of previous speakers referred to the National Farmers Federation. Unfortunately, farmers have been pretty unlucky again. Just over a month ago, a major national policy release by the Farmers Federation called on the Government, just after it announced the decision to have a May economic statement, through its President, Mr Ian McLachlan, to cut outlays by $10 billion in the coming financial year. That can almost stand up against the leaked document from the Liberal Party last weekend. The $10 billion of last year, as well as cutting outlays, included demands for a flat tax. Senator Crichton-Browne said earlier that only 15 per cent of the farming community shows a profit. I would argue that most farmers do not now pay tax but if we accepted the policies of the National Farmers Federation, which purports to represent farmers, they could be paying a flat tax of 30, 40 or 50 per cent-whatever the going rate is at the moment. That is what Mr McLachlan is about. He also called for the repeal of the fringe benefits tax. Earlier one of my colleagues, Senator Maguire, went into some details of what the fringe benefits tax is about. He asked how many farmers trot off to the city or the major town at lunch time to have a three or four hour lunch topped up with all sorts of expensive wines and spirits at taxpayers' expense. As we have heard, not too many of them. However, the National Farmers Federation, through Ian McLachlan, wants that privileged reinstated. Mr McLachlan also called for the abolition of the capital gains tax. I do not know what impact the capital gains tax has had on the farmers of this country. As I understand it from the statistical information I have seen, the price of farm land has been going down. If that is the case, no farm land will be subject to a capital gains tax. Unfortunately, the problem we have is that the National Farmers Federation has been, and is, misleading and misrepresenting the interests of those it purports to represent. Ian McLachlan is not a resident or working farmer; he is an absentee landlord. He is more closely aligned with doing deals with fellows such as John Elliott, a director of Elders IXL Ltd, not looking after the interests of farmers. Whenever the next election is held the farming and rural sector will look closely at the policies offered by the individual political parties. Again it will endorse the Australian Labor Party and make us the major party representing the rural community in this nation. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(5.02) —There is no doubt that high interest rates are strangling the Australian consumer, the home buyer, the small business person and, in particular, the farmer. It is clear that interest rates must be brought down. The question is how. I asked that question of the Opposition and it said that it should be done by a tighter fiscal policy, which means that we have to reduce expenditure in this country; we have to cut down on government expenditure. The unfortunate inevitable result of that policy is that it will dramatically increase unemployment at a time when unemployment in this country is already too high. A little while ago we saw the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on television saying: `No government likes high interest rates. If we could do something about getting them down we would'. The question has to be asked: Why is it that Australia has an interest rate of 18 per cent when Japan has an interest rate of 4 per cent and Canada-a rural exporting economy-has an interest rate of only 7 per cent? Our interest rates are about twice the average interest rates of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. I think we can legitimately ask the question: What has gone wrong with the economic management of the country? Surely we can ask the question: Has the complete deregulation of all our financial institutions worked? When the present Government first moved to free all controls on capital movements in and out of the country and to free the exchange rate we were told that this would have the effect of reducing fluctuations in the Australian dollar and help to alleviate our balance of payments problem. However, the reverse has been the case. The Unite Australia Party, alone amongst political parties represented in this Parliament, says that some measure of re-regulation of our financial institutions-by which I mean both the banks and the non-banking financial institutions-must be introduced in this country. We must do something about controlling to some degree the flow of capital in and out of the country. At the present time banks are borrowing enormous amounts of money overseas, presumably at low interest rates, lending it in Australia at 18 per cent and, in turn, again investing overseas in speculative activities. Each year $6 billion goes off-shore from our banks. Each year our superannuation funds invest 20 per cent of their money overseas. Some measure of control on the flow of capital in and out of this country must be established. The problem could easily be solved by saying to the Reserve Bank of Australia: `What about having a deposit on the percentage of foreign borrowings that institutions involve themselves in overseas?'. They could vary those deposits up or down depending on whether the Reserve Bank thought that capital was being invested in productive or non-productive areas. If there was too much speculation the Reserve Bank could up the deposit; if it felt banks were taking notice and trying to invest money productively it could reserve the deposit. That is one measure and there are many others. The simple fact is that we have to face up to a more regulated economy if we are to get interest rates down to reasonable proportions in this country. Question put: That the motion (Senator Crichton-Browne's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J. Baume, Michael Mason, C. V. J. Baume, Peter Messner, A. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M. Boswell, R. L. D. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Powell, J. F. Carrick, Sir John Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, R. N. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K. Durack, P. D. Sheil, G. Haines, J. Short, J. R. Hamer, D. J. Siddons, J. R. Harradine, B. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S. Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D. Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook. P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. West, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Giles, P. J. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Withers, R. G. Grimes, D. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. We are considering a large number of treaties-some 16-which have been signed or ratified by Australia or which require some further treaty action by us. The ones to which I want to address myself particularly are those concerning the notification of nuclear accidents and radiological emergencies. As I understand it, those treaties have attracted very little comment so far, although it is interesting that in a Press statement on 11 May the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, identified the main gaps in them as the absence of an effective early warning system and multilateral emergency assistance arrangements. The treaties, of course, relate to the early notification of nuclear accidents and assistance in the case of nuclear accidents or radiological emergencies. They are a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster. In this context, it is worth noting today's report of the uneven spread of the Chernobyl fallout cloud, the worst consequences being in those countries in which it rained while the fallout was overhead. Hence, of a thousand deaths from cancer expected over the next 50 years in Europe, 700 are expected in southern Germany and northern Italy, with high figures also in the north of the United Kingdom. In the notification treaty before us there are some quite disturbing factors which deserve to be looked at. One is clause 3 of Article 5, which imposes a right for the notifying power to provide information on a confidential basis. I suppose that some sort of defence arguments can be made for this, but it is really part of the disturbing attitude of governments everywhere in the world to keep their people in ignorance of major nuclear accidents. To that extent, I think the fact that we have contributed to that situation is quite disturbing, and it affects the value of this particular treaty. Disclosures of nuclear accidents should be as public as possible. Another problem area is clause 3 of Article 11, which comes very close to making the treaty a quite useless piece of paper. It allows the states, simply by declaration, to opt out of the decisions of the International Court of Justice in the event of disputes arising under this treaty. The treaties are also inadequate in that they do not state clearly enough that avoidance of nuclear accidents should have the top priority, and they do not attempt in any way to apply any kind of sanctions or penalties whatsoever on offending states. That, I agree, would be a difficult thing to do, but I think it is something that will have to be addressed by the world in the very near future, because it really is the crunch point. This should be an important next step. Australians might see this treaty as rather remote because we do not have close neighbours with nuclear power. However, we do have regular visits from warships of allied powers which have nuclear reactors and weapons on board. It is crucial to note that this treaty specifically excludes notification of accidents with nuclear weapons, although it does apply to reactor accidents, presumably including military reactor accidents. I think that is something that the Government ought to make clear in some sort of comment on this paper. As far as accidents with weapons on visiting ships are concerned, it is worth noting that 32 serious accidents in either the carriage or use of nuclear weapons were reported by the United States Department of Defense between 1950 and 1980. That figure applies to major accidents, not minor ones. They were caused in most cases by fire or mid-air collisions. Those are the main causes, and these are the sorts of things that could happen in a crowded harbour such as Sydney harbour. It is worth saying that, according to the November 1986 edition of Nuclear News, all five of the nuclear weapons states have given a voluntary undertaking to include early notification of any accidents at military installations, although it is noted by Nuclear News that `such facilities were excluded from the formal convention at the drafting stage'. However, it is a less than satisfactory situation, and one to which our Government ought to address itself plainly in the national interest. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(5.17) —I want to speak very briefly on two of the treaties before us. One is the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, which was signed in Vienna on 26 September 1986 and which Senator Mason has just mentioned. I am sure that the majority of honourable senators are aware of my continuing interest in the safety of the nuclear industry and of the fact that from my office a number of books have been published on this very subject. Whilst I have doubts as great as ever over the suitability of nuclear power as an energy source and completely abhor the existence of nuclear weapons, I welcome any new measures to minimise the effects of nuclear accidents if and when they occur. The most recent one, as Senator Mason said, occurred at Chernobyl. In fact, it took that tragedy for this Convention to come into effect. We are told by the experts that tens of thousands of people will die as a result of the accident and that there will be long term effects on further tens of thousands of people. But I believe that that accident at least shocked the nuclear power community into accepting that it has to act in a responsible manner and into making new efforts to ensure that the majority of countries took notice. This Convention was brought about largely by the recognition of the fact that radioactive material recognises absolutely no boundaries at all, and if, as has been put forward, the Kerguelen Islands are to be used by the French for their future testing, the people who are resident in Western Australia will know only too well very quickly that radioactive material respects no boundaries. The Kerguelen Islands are only 3,500 kilometres off the coast of Western Australia. We are told by the experts that the prevailing winds-the Roaring Forties and the intemperate fifties-that frequently come up against our shores will bring the radioactive material, after testing at Kerguelen, to Western Australia within a matter of hours-perhaps days, but nevertheless, it will come to Western Australia. In general, I suppose, I have to support international initiatives which show that the nuclear industry is accepting some responsibility, but there are, of course, other opportunities and other ways for it to evidence that responsibility. If we look, for instance, at the third paper that is before us-the Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency, which was also signed at Vienna on 26 September-I suppose we in Australia would like to think that the most relevant aspect of this Convention would be the provision of assistance by Australian authorities in the event of our near neighbours suffering a nuclear accident. When we take a hard look at the extent of nuclear-related activities in this country, we see that this is not an accurate perception. Australia is actively involved in the nuclear industry in a number of ways. Most importantly, we have uranium mining, processing and transportation, on which I have spoken in this place many times. There are a number of locations throughout the country which will cause concern. Of course, most recently there was a radioactive leak at Lucas Heights. It may well be said that that was a minor accident and something that we should not really worry about. I am prepared to accept the reassurance of the authorities that the leak was minimal, but that is all I will accept. It was nevertheless an accident that occurred. We must be more conscious that in the age in which we are living we will constantly come up against this type of accident. We have to be ready, as our neighbours have to be ready, as our whole community has to be ready, following the question that I asked the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) at Question Time today, to take into our own hands actions and activities in the event of accidents that might happen in areas that are close to us. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.22) —These 16 treaties cover a diverse range of commitments into which the Government has entered on behalf of Australians. Four, in particular, are of far-reaching significance. There are two relating to notification of nuclear accidents, and assistance in the case of nuclear accidents, which my colleagues will deal with. The two on which I want to spend some time are the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India on co-operation in the Field of Science and Technology. It is a pity that we are given only five minutes to deal with 16 treaties of this level of importance. I would particularly like to draw to the Senate's attention the agreement with India on science and technology. India is our continental neighbour to the north. It has achieved a remarkable technological and industrial revolution since its independence at the end of World War II. India has been famous throughout history for outstanding scientific and other achievements. Since its independence in the 1940s India has emphasised science and technology in all five-year plans. The planning commission is responsible for systematic planning of the Indian economy. In the last 10 years India has succeeded in developing an advanced industrial base with a strong technological emphasis based on full exploitation of its rich natural resources. Taxation and investment breaks for overseas Indians to invest in India have led to a large extent to the development of new enterprises, especially in the area of computing, which is an area that I know something about. Bangalore and Hyderabad are growing electronic cities. The Bombay tax exempt zone has been an outstanding success in encouraging technological investment. In particular, the allocation of 6 per cent of the total budget to research is, I believe, noteworthy and should be taken account of by this Government. Because of the time constraints, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a summary of this research budget allocation. I have sought the permission of both sides of the chamber. Leave granted. The document read as follows- GANDHI BACKS RESEARCH New Delhi The government headed by Rajiv Gandhi, who has pledged to prepare India for the twenty-first century, has allocated the equivalent in rupees of #900 million, or about six per cent of the government's budget for 1985-86, for scientific research and development. The allocation for science represents only a marginal increase over that for the previous year but it is significant for its emphasis on research and development in non-conventional energy sources, bio-technology, high-power lasers and thermo-nuclear fusion. As in earlier years, the lion's share of the budget goes to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), which is to set up a new centre for advanced technology at Indore, in Madhya Pradesh. Besides housing a new facility for plasma research, the centre will develop lasers for isotope separation and high power niodymium-glass lasers for laser-induced fusion. DAE also intends to set upt a synchrotron radiation source, build superconducting magnets for its heavy-ion accelerator and establish a medical cyclotron for producing short-lived positron-emitting isotopes and radioactively labelled pharmaceutical preparations. BUDGET ALLOCATIONS BY SECTOR (# million) # Department of Atomic Energy... 210.0 Space... 133.0 Industrial research... 114.4 Defence research... 104.0 Non-conventional energy... 65.0 Agricultural research... 55.5 Electronics... 78.0 Oceanography... 20.7 Meteorology... 27.0 Other... 93.0 Total... 900.6 The Department of Ocean Development (DOD), which has assessed India's ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) potential at 50,000 MW, is planning to begin work this year on a 1-MW OTEC plant on the island of Lakshadweep. DOD will also place an order for an ice-breaker, estimated to cost #30 million, for undertaking expeditions to Antarctica. Previous expeditions were made in vessels charted from Norway. Electronics and biotechnology have been singled out as frontier areas. The government has abolished excise duty on computers and drastically reduced customs duty on their import. The Department of Electronics will launch this year a project to design a ``fifth generation super-minicomputer incorporating inference and knowledge based management functions''. The Ministry of Science and Technology has earmarked as sum of #5 million for a biotechnology centre in New Delhi, its contribution to the UNIDO plan for twin international centres for genetic engineering and biotechnology at Trieste, Italy and in New Delhi. The Department of Environment has allocated funds for setting up a chain of botanical gardens for building a germ-plasm bank of economic plants, and seed and pollen banks for the conservation of threatened species. The department will also initiate this year a five-year #180-million programme to clean up the polluted river Ganges. The Department of Space, which gets the second biggest share in the budget, plans to set up five regional remote sensing service centres to facilitate use of aircraft and satellite-sensed data and to provide trained manpower. Images received from Landsat will be augmented with data to be obtained from the French SPOT satellite. The space department will also start work on a new launch-pad for orbiting satellites in polar orbits. The polar launch station is expected to become operational in 1992. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I look forward to the closer ties with this amazing country which this treaty brings forward. I cannot emphasise too strongly the advantage which Australia can gain from closer economic relations with India. It could become part of a closer economic relations agreement similar to the one with New Zealand. I also welcome the agreement concerning Antarctica, which is our continental neighbour to the south. It is an area in which we are responsible for 42 per cent of the total angular area. This is a most important milestone in Australia's commitment to the conservation of the Antarctic environment. The CCAMLR Commission is an inter-government organisation which was established under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, which was signed in 1980 and entered into force in 1982. Its objective is to conserve the Antarctic marine life and ecosystem through proper scientifically based management. It does this by compiling information on the numbers caught and observations of fish, whales, krill and other Antarctic sea life. It analyses and publishes this information, which is of extreme use to scientists all over the world. There are two reasons for welcoming Australia's active role in CCAMLR. The first is the opportunity it offers Australia to establish Hobart as a base for Antarctic expeditions and as a major gateway to the Antarctic, which will also, to some extent, boost the economy in Hobart. Australia has always taken a strong stand on conservation issues in the Antarctic, but we must ensure that enough support from fishing, as well as non-fishing, states is forthcoming so that CCAMLR can work. Russia in particular is very slow to release its fishing data on the size of catches. We should be putting pressure on that country. We have an opportunity, as host to the Commission's headquarters, to put pressure on the fishing nations, particularly Russia, to fulfil their obligations in this area. I welcome the agreements. I believe that the agreements on fishing around Heard Island which we have entered into with the Russians offer us a lever. Heard Island is in the Antarctic Ocean and is remarkable-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(5.27) —I address my remarks to the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident. Given that many of the world's nations have been foolish enough to tread the nuclear path, this Convention serves an admirable purpose. All signatories to the Convention must give immediate warning of a nuclear accident to any other nation which could be affected by the fallout. The Convention is a result of the Chernobyl disaster which was first brought to the world's notice by Sweden, rather than the Soviet Union, where the accident occurred. Article one of the Convention lists the facilities and activities which are covered. The first item listed is `any nuclear reactor wherever located'. In the case of Australia, this is the only item which has any relevance. While there is no chance that a land based civilian reactor in another country could contaminate Australia, we regularly allow ship based reactors to enter the harbours of some of our capital cities. I draw the Senate's attention to the fine work of Professor Jackson Davis from my former university, the University of California, Santa Cruz campus. Using the standard methodology of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Davis has calculated that a severe nuclear reactor accident on a warship berthed in an Australian port could cause thousands of cancer deaths in following years. Professor Davis found that the only way to avoid these long term casualties would be to evacuate the city within one or two hours and to decontaminate affected areas at a cost of billions of dollars. No amount of warning of a nuclear reactor accident on an American or British warship can reduce the decontamination costs. However, early warning is essential for evacuation to take place. But early warning in itself is not enough. It must be possible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of citizens to leave the city in a couple of hours. I ask honourable senators to consider what would happen in Sydney or Melbourne if notice was given to evacuate within two hours. Senator Puplick —You would not notice it in Melbourne. Senator SANDERS —One might not notice it in Melbourne. This would be possible only if mass evacuation procedures involving residents were regularly practised. Of course, they are not. After all, no army would draw up plans for mass manoeuvres in time of war without practising them. The same philosophy should apply to mass manoeuvres involving civilians. Even then, I doubt that evacuation of a major city could take place in one or two hours. Senator Mason —Certainly not in Sydney. Senator SANDERS —No, not in Sydney. Nevertheless, as long as Australia continues to ignore its interests and allows these warships into our ports, the public deserves to get the earliest possible warning of any reactor accident. The same applies to an accident involving a nuclear warhead. The United States defence nuclear agency has drawn up a nuclear weapons accident response procedures manual, which acknowledges that the high explosive component of a warhead could explode, causing a fire. The manual states that there is a `very real possibility of radioactive contamination at the accident scene, and extending many miles downwind'. Professor Davis found that the plutonium liberated by a warhead fire would cause health problems up to 55 kilometres from the accident site. In Sydney, this could lead to 11,000 deaths in the long term from plutonium contamination. Those deaths would be from cancer, which of course is a slow and painful way to die. A nuclear weapons accident would also require mass evacuation and decontamination. As with nuclear reactor accidents, early warning is essential. This raises the question of whether this convention applies to accidents on warships. Nuclear reactors are specified in article one, but no mention is made of nuclear weapons accidents. Article three provides that parties: may- I emphasise the word `may'- notify in the event of nuclear accidents other than those specified in article one''. There is no mandatory obligation to report a nuclear weapons accident. The other question is whether a United States or British warship visiting Australia comes under the terms of the convention, which only applies to radioactive releases which cross national boundaries. It is my understanding that a visiting United States warship remains United States territory. If that is so, then this convention applies to foreign warships in Australian ports. However, there is no certainty as to whether the convention does apply to visiting warships, and it does not extend to nuclear weapons accidents. I call on the Australian Government to conclude whatever agreements are necesssary to ensure that this convention does cover these circumstances. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 March, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.33) —I begin my remarks on this report by congratulating the secretariat of the Select Committee on Television Equalisation. It worked extremely hard to bring in a very complex report in an abbreviated time. Susan Gibb and her staff deserve the congratulations of the Senate. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Richardson, has already covered in some depth the majority recommendations in the report, and I do not intend to go over that ground again. There were several dissenting reports, one by Senator Puplick, and I do not intend to cover that today. His was a consistent dissenting report, fairly well argued. We do not agree with some of his conclusions, but I acknowledge that in his dissenting report he has put a logical case for his point of view. The second dissenting report was signed by Senator Lewis and Senator Sheil. This describes Government policy and our majority report as a bucket of worms. I am not quite sure what animal analogy I could apply to their dissenting report. I congratulate them on coming up with conclusions based on none of the evidence put before the Committee. That is a remarkable achievement. They did attend the Committee meetings. How much they absorbed from them must be thrown into a lot of doubt by reading their dissenting report. First, they argue very much for the fact that television in rural areas should be `market force driven'. That term is never defined by them in their minority report, so it is very hard to understand what they are getting at. It obviously comes from some obsessive desire to prove that they are more hairy-chested free enterprise people than any one else, but I wish they had defined it. Do they mean that if there are 10 frequencies available, one allows the market to sort it out and issues 10 licences? For instance, here in Canberra if there are 10 frequencies, I assume they are saying that there will be 10 licences. If that is the case, what does it mean? What effect will it have in terms of Australian content? What does it mean in terms of 104 hours of Australian drama? What effect will it have on children's television? Do all those regulations get thrown out of the window because market forces in their pure form are to be observed? For a start, it destroys any reference to `viability' in the Broadcasting and Television Act. That goes out of the window. Why did not those senators say in their report, if they want market forces to go, that they want to remove viability as one of the criteria by which one assesses whether a licence should be issued? I wonder what the industry's reaction will be. The industry is squawking and squealing right now that there may be three stations in an aggregated area. The minority report by Senator Lewis and Senator Sheil implies that there can be up to ten. I would love to hear the reaction subsequently of the industry to that part of the report. The dissenting report goes on to make assumptions about Aussat II. The satellite has not even been designed, but these two dissenting members of the Committee can already design a function for it. That I cannot understand. One can assume that when Aussat II goes up there will be 60 transponders between the lot, 20 per satellite. One must remember that the launch dates are 1991 to 1996. Apparently if their grand scheme comes in, some rural people by 1996 may get a second commercial service. How generous of them to put that forward. One must also remember that of the 60 new transponders, many will be replacing the old transponders on the first Aussat satellite that went up. Those dissenting members make no reference to what sort of beam they want from this future satellite. They do not say whether they want a national beam, a regional beam, a spot beam or the latest thing, the so-called pencil beam. There is no mention of that at all. How can we give their report any credence? Once one starts sending up the beam by satellite, what will it do to localism? We heard a lot of evidence about the importance of localism. Indeed, in another section of the minority report signed by Senator Sheil and Senator Lewis they stress localism. There will not be much localism if one sends a picture up to a satellite using market driven forces. I also noted with humour that they are complaining about the cost of the Government bringing about an equalisation scheme that may cost $160m or more. They are talking about the effect it will have on our balance of payments. Let us look at how much their system would cost. One can do only two things with a satellite. It means that everybody in the rural areas must have a dish to receive the broadcasts. I cannot give any firm figures on the cost of that dish at the moment, but I would love to see Senator Sheil and Senator Lewis go out campaigning and telling everyone in rural areas that they will pay a minimum of $1,000 for a dish. The figure is $2,500 at the moment, but one assumes that with economies of scale and technological advance the figure will be reduced to $1,000. Let them go out on the campaign trail and tell their rural constituents that they will enact legislation that will cost those people $1,000 to receive television pictures and see what sort of reaction they get. Their only other alternative is to put up UHF towers everywhere. If they intend to do that, in my view they might as well go along with our aggregation scheme. Why go to all the bother of beaming it down from the satellite or is this technology gone mad? The most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in a minority report comes in their reference to cable television. Obviously they have not read the 1982 report. They say that they are worried about cost and the balance of trade and of payments, yet they advocate the introduction of national cable television. When the costings were done in 1982 it was estimated that it would cost some $500m for one capital city to put in cable television. They are not talking about doing it in capital cities of the States but right throughout Australia. With the transfer from copper to optic-fibres they are talking $10 billion minimum to cover half Australia. Yet they are worried about the effect on the balance of payments of the other $200m. Cable television probably is not on any more in a country of this size. It may be that it can be argued for capital cities, but in no way can one put it in rural areas. Do they know the cost of establishing a telephone on a rural property? There is a degree of cross subsidisation that they would agree upon, but one will never get cable television to those areas. Those honourable senators go on in their report to advocate competitive tender for licences. That is ill-defined. How many licences are they talking about? If they are talking about hundreds of licences, we will not get a zack for them. Or are they arguing that a government will just leak out the licences when the price is right, as a fund raising measure? Forget the poor old rural viewers. All that a government will do with competitive tendering for licences is use this method as a money raiser. That is absolutely ridiculous. By the way, if the two dissenters are so anxious to support competitive tendering, why last year in this Senate did they vote against cash bidding for oil leases when we put up that legislation? It is a very similar principle. We have a finite number of exploration areas and we argued very strongly that these should be put out to the highest bidder. Everyone on the Opposition benches voted against it. That was ridiculous. This report, which in many ways supports the proposed Government action, is saying this: `We want three competitive services in the shortest possible time in rural Australia. We want this on a basis that these services are competitive and that there is not just a cosy monopoly as there has been in the past. We want it on a basis of strong cross media ownership rules'. That is what the majority report argues. We want three stations free to air time. We do not want something that will involve people living in rural areas in the expenditure of well over $1,000 for a dish. We are arguing for a system in which localism will be maintained and where there will be some sort of link in with the networks so that costs will not go through the ceiling. I support very strongly the majority report and reiterate that the minority report signed by Senator Sheil and Senator Lewis is, to my mind, just a joke. It has no relevance to the evidence that we heard; it is fantasy; I believe that it is a product of intellectual sloth. Those honourable senators should reconsider their views, or at least read the other two dissenting reports to find out exactly how it is done. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(5.43) —It is remarkable to listen to the fumaric ruminations of the socialist mind. I feel that I should mention how congenial we all were on the Select Committee on Television Equalisation. I wish to thank the members of the Committee and congratulate the Chairman for keeping us all together. Senator Walters —It is worth another five votes on the selection committee. Senator SHEIL —Oh, I see; that is probably what it was all about. The Select Committee on Television Equalisation was well run and we did a lot of work. We heard an enormous volume of evidence and we read a lot of submissions. Most of the time it was like doing callisthenics for tired eyeballs. I congratulate Susan Gibb and Peter Hallahan of the secretariat, who worked tirelessly for us, and also all the people who did the mountains of typing. Serving on the Committee meant that one had to learn a new language. We had a glossary of terms so that we knew the kind of things we were talking about. Until then, nobody knew much about aggregation, equalisation, video and audio entertainment and information services-VAEIS-and all the other terms that are a technical part of the television world. We all learnt that; but then we had to contend with the policy. On innumerable occasions I asked for an explanation of how we came to have a policy in which there were to be three commercial stations in all these new aggregated markets, as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, in order to bring regional areas into the same category as the metropolitan networks. Nobody could tell me. I do not know whether it came from something that the Australian Labor Party had learnt from its experience, whether it was divine inspiration or whether it was just the result of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) having a fugue one night. Perhaps thinking about the execrable television coverage that we receive here in Canberra made him decide that we would have three commercial stations in all these newly created aggregated areas. The television equalisation Bill is supposed to apply to only the regional stations. They must pay for and implement the whole of the new aggregated market system. But, of course, it does have spin-offs to the networks and to the remote commercial television services. The regionals have developed and prospered under the present legislation and have provided a very good service throughout Australia. They have a share market which is priced well above the capital investment in their industry and I suppose that from a socialist stand point they are fat geese ready to be plucked. In effect, they are being asked to pay for and implement this aggregated system. This would take a lot of their money. Therefore, they could not be expected to supply remote area services. This policy would put them under the hegemony of the networks on which they would become more reliant. That might or might not be bad-they might get on well with the networks-nevertheless it would remove them from the situation in which they are now. All the new services which are to be brought in are on ultra high frequency or UHF, as opposed to very high frequency or VHF. At the moment we have a VHF network throughout Australia, with a small amount of UHF. The evidence we heard was that UHF is enormously more costly than VHF. It is not only costly to put in but also costly to run because it needs more power and nearly all the towers and equipment and so on which must be used would have to come in from overseas. Not only would we spend a lot of money here to install it, but we would also have to spend a lot of money overseas to bring it in. The operating costs would increase in generating finance not only for the implementation of the scheme but also for the creation of branch stations and in the procurement of advertising. The regionals told us that their advertising revenue would be reduced, but this was not accepted by the Department of Communications. However, I believe that it would certainly take a downturn for a start. When one is spending money and then one has a downturn in income, one is put in even more straitened circumstances. The items that Senator Ray mentioned-cable television, VAEIS, subscription television, educational television and all these other specialised services-would be an additional burden for the regional stations to bear. The stations complained that, with the aggregated markets and having to supply a signal to distant areas, their contribution to localism would be reduced. As we found out from all the evidence, localism is a very important part of each station's service to the people. The Department of Communications said: `Oh yes, but they will be able to have a different form of localism and, even though the employment used in creating these local programs would be reduced in certain areas, generally in the aggregated market area, employment would increase because there would be a wider view of localism'. One thing that shone out throughout the whole inquiry was that as a result of all this we will have to create another enormous bureaucracy, with much more regulation, many more controls, more licensing, more relicensing, many more hearings and much more administration. In my mind's eye I can see an enormous bureaucracy developing on top of the one we already have. But that is not all. This represents only stage one in a three-stage development of television in Australia. The next stage begins in a couple of years and we will have to go through the whole box and dice again, with the same cost and probably with the creation of another bureaucracy. Then, as the next generation of satellites comes along, we will have to do it again and there will be another enormous upheaval in the industry in Australia. Senator Ray talked about market driven development and he admitted that he did not know what that term meant. He also seemed to imply that I did not know what `market driven' meant. `Market driven' means that one does what one can afford in order to make a profit at the time. If one cannot make a profit one does not do it. That is the way in which we see the organisation developing. What the Government refers to as market driven is not market driven at all; it is artificial. It is creating several new aggregated markets, with approximately one million people each, and then saying that now there can be competition within those markets. They are entirely artificial markets. One thing that people seem to be afraid of is a concentration of media ownership in Australia. This is why we had this whole inquiry into cross-media ownership, and the 75 per cent rule which says that nobody can supply an audience of greater than 75 per cent of any aggregated market. Historically there has been a fear in Australia of a concentration of media ownership. I do not think there has been any proof that a concentration of media ownership has ever influenced the outcome of an election in Australia, and I would ask people to tell me if they have any evidence to that effect. In fact, I think quite the opposite effect has been shown in Australia. People have shown themselves to be very discerning in picking out political bias. If we took the worst case of the Russians taking over all our networks tomorrow and trying to brainwash us, everyone would switch off, the stations would go broke and there would be a breakdown following which the system would come back to normal. There is a lot of sense in our dissenting report. If the Government does bring the Bill back, I am sure it will create an enormous upheaval in the industry that will recur again and again in following years. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(5.52) —Because of constraints of time and the nature of the reference, the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation had no choice but to concentrate on the electronic and engineering technicalities of the television industry, and of course the financial considerations of the commercial television licensees. I think at the end we were left with a lot of unanswered questions, even in relation to those technical and financial matters. We found, of course, that as we had to put together a report of this complexity in such a short time we simply did not have the luxury of going to those questions of public interest which should in a reference of this nature get a great deal more attention. We simply could not spend the time or the consideration on submissions such as those put to us by Mr Huw Evans, Dr Brown and Academics Responsibility in the Media. We were not able to address consumer interests. There certainly is an opinion, and an educated opinion, that those in the market will pay enormous amounts for television licences, if the amounts for which they have changed hands over the last few months are an example, and that consumers in the end will pay. We talked about audiences a lot, mostly in relation to the quality of transmission that they were currently receiving or were likely to receive in the near future. Their program preferences were discussed at some length, but mostly in terms of the sorts of programs they are getting now. The assumption is made that the consumers want more Dallas, more Dynasty and more football. I was diverted by a paragraph from Phillip Adams's television review in last Saturday's Weekend Australian, in which he says: It's a paradox. While the technology gets trickier, the programming is increasingly predictable. There is, on balance, about one new idea per annum, something as innovative as Ted Robinson's The Gillies Report or Geoffrey Robertson's Hypotheticals. The rest is variation on a theme. Media tedia. We had only one piece of useful evidence given to us about what audiences really thought when offered more services, as distinct from the assumption in the reference that they required more commercial stations. The Public Television Association of Australia which gave us that information cited the survey done in Perth not so long ago as part of the process of issuing a third commercial licence there. Seventy per cent of the people surveyed had a preference for a non-commercial station of some kind. Perceived need for real diversity, choice and range in television was often mentioned. To paraphrase what Senator Sheil just said, Australian audiences are perceptive and, given a real choice, I believe that many of them would agree with suggestions put by, for example, Huw Evans, for a fourth channel-a channel which is not commercial, which would provide real options and which might have at least an element of public participation. I do not dissent from the recommendation of the report that 75 per cent should be the maximum combined potential audience of any one licensee. We were also able to recommend that the one licence to a market rule should stay. My feelings about the maximum combined potential audience is that the time has gone when we could have ideally split off the Sydney and Melbourne markets, which in my opinion should never have been allowed to combine. There is a certain inevitability which hinges, I think, mostly on the size of the Australian population. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal came to the conclusion some time ago that networking is inevitable and desirable. The opinion echoed in our report was that it was not undesirable. Trying to unscramble what is now very clearly set, to mix my metaphors, in something closely resembling concrete simply seems to be a futile exercise. For those who are interested, networking is interpreted in this report at paragraph 8.44. The ABT believes that we will have no more than three networks. I might add that there are no more than three in the United States, which has a population vastly larger than ours. We were impressed with the fact that the cost of production of high quality programs and the development of a critical mass-a phrase coined by witnesses to the Committee-inevitably pointed towards the necessity for networks to have considerable resources. It has been interesting to discover during the inquiry what the regional stations consider to be their responsibility in contributing towards the development of high quality programs. A submission from the Australian Children's Television Foundation included a description of the programs it has been developing over the last few years. Its excellent children's drama and programs for young children are very highly regarded internationally. One of their series, the program Winners, has won international prizes. It has been sold to a wide range of countries-33, I believe-and has been translated into a number of different languages. The series is also appearing as paperbacks. Without doubt there is capacity within the Australian population to produce programs of this calibre. The Children's Television Foundation is to be sincerely congratulated for it is now moving into a series of programs for younger children, films, and discussions for teenagers which will be shown within the next 12 to 18 months. Once again, the capacity to produce programs of this quality requires very large bankrolling. That seems to be a capacity that is beyond any except those who have the enormous resources of the metropolitan majors and perhaps the regionals in combination. Another point about children's programming is the fear of the Australian Children's Television Foundation that aggregation will require an alignment of competing regional stations with a network program supplier. This will mean that the networks' response to the children's drama regulation will in turn determine the respone of all stations in the system. That is a minimum compliance strategy. The Foundation gave evidence to the effect that very many stations are complying only minimally with what is required. It seems to me that we are extremely dependent upon the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to maintain standards to ensure compliance with program standards. We are also going to be very dependent upon other legislative requirements in relation to the monopoly considerations that are of such importance to many Australians, particularly to trade unions with whose concern for employment issues I have a great deal of sympathy. There is a need for a great deal of vigilance. I think there is also a need for another inquiry into all of the qualitative issues that we simply did not have the luxury to address. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(6.02) —As Senator Robert Ray has already indicated, I have appended a dissent to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the 14 paragraphs of my dissenting report. Leave granted. The report read as follows- DISSENTING RECOMMENDATIONS BY SENATOR PUPLICK 1. That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1986 be defeated in the Senate. 2. That action be taken by the Department of Communications to process all applications lodged for Supplementary Licences, and that existing applicants be advised that upon request one or two Supplementary Licences will be made available; with all licences to be granted on request. 3. That broadcasting of approved programmes on Supplementary Licences be required to be commenced by 1989. 4. That the Government should announce forthwith a decision that by 1992 (in conjunction with the operation of the next generation of Aussat satellites) a complete range of DBS and Pay-TV services will be licensed, and that restrictions on MDS/VAEIS services (other than limited encoding restrictions) will be lifted. At the same time MDS/VAEIS services should be brought under the operation of the Broadcasting and Television Act. 5. That the necessary steps be taken now to ensure that the new generation Aussat satellites have sufficiently powerful transponders to provide these required services. 6. That the Government should announce a commitment to the development of Cable Television Services throughout Australia provided by commercial licensees using the facilities of Telecom as the common carrier. 7 That the existing `two-station' rule be abolished, but that licences be granted to broadcasters such that no one licensee has access to more than 43% of the total available Australian market, and that a one licence to a market rule be put in place. 8. That cross-media ownership rules be enacted along the lines of those operating in the United States of America, prohibiting the ownership of a commercial television licence and a daily newspaper within the same market, and that divestiture of existing interests be required to be in place by 1992. 9. That major steps be taken to overhaul the licensing procedures of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and that the responsibilities of the Tribunal vis-a-vis those of the Minister be clarified to return greater licensing and control powers to the Minister, leaving the Tribunal primarily responsible for the policing of the Act and the establishment of programme standards. 10. That the system of licensing be revised to place greater emphasis upon the grant of licences by competitive tender with the financial `viability' criteria of the Act being substantially modified and accorded lower priority. 11. That in relation to Tasmania, the licences of ENT Ltd be consolidated and it be allowed to broadcast State-wide; and that the Minister instruct the ABT to call applications for a second commercial licensee to serve the whole State in competition. 12. That the recommendations of the Committee Majority be supported in relation to: (a) Mildura (b) Griffith (c) Geelong (d) Cairns (e) the need for independent, external assessment of the competing claims of the Department and private consultants in relation to spectrum and frequency management arrangements and policies. 13. That in any event NBN-3 and WIN-4 not be forced into UHF transmission at this stage, and that no policies be adopted which would preclude a continuing mixture of VHF and UHF broadcast signals. 14. That immediate steps be taken by the Government to commission or undertake a significant national survey of viewer attitudes and requirements in relation to the future of television development, and that the issues canvassed not be restricted to mere commercial alternatives but be extended to canvass matters such as expansion in public broadcasting services; Channel 4 type services and the expansion of SBS programming. Senator PUPLICK —The Government's preferred option in this matter has been for the provision, it says, of a service of aggregation of regional television programs. I have attempted to put forward in my dissenting recommendations a series of proposals based upon two prime considerations-the provision of choice and the provision of diversity. The Government's preferred option is for choice by aggregation. Firstly, I believe that this method does not give real choice. It will end up providing a choice between Dynasty and Dallas, a choice between the football broadcast by Rex Mossop or that by Ray Warren or whatever happens to be the case. But it will not be a real choice. Secondly, I believe it will take too long to achieve this choice. In the case of Victoria, that choice will not be available to viewers in regional areas until 1992 at the very earliest. Thirdly, I believe that this method will cost too much, and I will return to that point later. Fourthly, it will be unfair to some smaller regional market operators such as those in Griffith and Mildura. Finally, it is clearly designed to be precipitated into an aggregated situation by the operation of the so-called one in all in rule whereby the smallest operator in the market will be allowed to force the other operators in the market to aggregate whether they want to or not. The alternative which the Government says it has put forward in the provision of the multi-channel service system is no alternative because it unfairly penalises those who choose that route, firstly, by maintaining the so-called two-station rule limiting their capacity to own more than two broadcasting stations; and, secondly, by requiring them to draw up plans for the provision of service in an unrealistically and unreasonably short time, subject to ministerial veto. Senator Sheil —They call that market driven. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Sheil says, it is their version of market driven. I have proposed in my dissenting report that we should move immediately to the provision of supplementary licences-either one or two supplementary licences-to existing broadcasters on application without the need for complex, lengthy or expensive hearings. I advocate the immediate issue of supplementary licences. In my view, that will provide choice faster, more fairly and more cheaply and it will give real choice. I mention that this would be cheaper. It is estimated that the provision of additional services by the grant of one supplementary licence would cost the operator approximately $2m to $3m. Two MCS permits, which is one of the Government's proposed options, would cost $5m to $5.5m. Aggregation on the very high frequency band would cost $14m to $14.5m and aggregation on the ultra high frequency band, as the Government wants, would cost $18m to $18.5m. That is a factor of nine times the cost to the operators concerned. As I say, I believe that supplementary licences provide real choice because they allow complementary programming rather than competitive programming. People would have a choice between complementary programs rather than directly competitive programs. This is what is known in the broadcasting industry as the Steiner theory and I have attempted in the dissenting report to deal with that in some considerable detail. I do not have time to do so here this evening. I believe that by imposing a time limit on supplementaries until approximately 1992, at which stage one will be in a position to look at the services available as a result of the second generation of satellite broadcasting, we will be able to move to an almost open skies policy in terms of access by people to programming on the satellite. Certainly, people will have to buy dishes; that is only to be expected. But they will have the benefit of supplementary licenses and in addition will have access to satellite programming. Thus, the access to and direct broadcasting from satellites and video and audio entertainment and information services, which are discussed in the report, will be made available to a far greater number of people throughout Australia. I reject Senator Ray's comments about the cost of cable television, which is also covered in my dissenting report. I believe that there is a confusion between the cost of the public sector and the cost to the private sector of the provision of cable services. I think that needs to be analysed in far greater detail than we have the opportunity to do today. I believe we need new players in the market. I believe we need new operators. I believe that the viability criterion, which the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its interim report on the future directions for commercial radio in fact described as a conservative and protectionist device, ought in fact to be done away with. People ought to be able to take the risk. Provided they are fit and proper persons-the Tribunal in the 96FM case has determined how that is to be operated-provided they can survive commercially the test applied by Mr Justice Shepherd in the 2SM case and provided they have the technical capacity, they should have access to becoming a broadcaster. I believe that the public needs to be more directly consulted on the nature of television services which it wants in the future. I come, therefore, to the final point that I have the opportunity to make today, and that is that I believe in legislating for very tight cross-media ownership rules. In this respect I am at variance with all of my colleagues on the Committee and, I suspect, with the majority of people within my own political party. Nevertheless, I believe that it is imperative in Australia that we look at whether a person who owns a major daily newspaper in a market should be allowed to own a television broadcasting licence in the same market. It is an absolute scandal that we have already got to the situation in Australia that News Corporation Ltd is able to control something like 59.8 per cent of the major metropolitan dailies circulating in Australia; that John Fairfax and Sons Ltd controls another 22.8 per cent. We have in terms of the newspapers what is now clearly established as the Murfax duopoly. It ought not be allowed to extend itself to a total control of television broadcasting as well. As Senator Richardson would well know, in November 1976 Mr Keating introduced into the House of Representatives a Bill to enforce divestiture of ownership and control of the media. Mr Keating said: Divestment must occur. In future, newspaper groupings should not be permitted to take over other groupings with holdings in radio and television. I happen in this instance to agree very much with that as a matter of principle. In the United States of America the Federal Communications Commission enforces such a rule. In the United Kingdom the provisions of the Fair Trade Act 1973 provide that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in relation to newspapers, may refuse a newspaper takeover which might-and I emphasise the word `might'-operate against the public interest. They are the words of the Fair Trade Act 1973. In the case when Lonrho attempted to take over the Observer newspaper in the United Kingdom, it had to run the test of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and very strict rules were placed upon it in terms of what it was permitted to do. I believe that that has to be done in Australia. I believe that the networking which will follow the 75 per cent rule provided by the Government is undesirable, and that we should go back to the principles which Mr Duffy attempted to establish, in terms of a 43 per cent coverage. I say finally to those who have made commercial decisions based upon the Press release of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on 27 November last year, that the rule caveat emptor is going to apply to them, I think very strongly, and they deserve to have it applied to them. I believe we will have the opportunity, when the legislation comes before us, for a reasoned and reasonable debate on a most complicated subject. I conclude by paying tribute to Susan Gibb and to the staff of the Committee for the way in which they handled this extremely difficult inquiry and to Senator Richardson, the Chairman of the inquiry. He conducted the inquiry with very great skill and patience but unfortunately he came to entirely the wrong conclusions, which he then had to put into the majority report only on the basis of his own casting vote. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.12) —The report of the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation is a very important document. It brings out the value of open public inquiries into matters of extreme public interest, preferably before legislation is brought before the Parliament. The great pity in this case is that the Government and the Department of Communications sought to control the whole input process to press ahead with unworkable and unwanted proposals to hand over Australian television in toto to three operators. I would like to support Senator Puplick who, in his very lucid report, reminded us that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its 1984 satellite program services report drew attention to the impact that the satellite would make on Australian broadcasting. That report said: Australia has reached a critical stage in the development of its commercial television system. The points mentioned should be considered by elected members of the Government/Parliament before the impact of satellite services confirms the fundamental imbalance. This imbalance is the imbalance that Senator Puplick has been talking about. It is the dominance of the Sydney and Melbourne stations over the whole of Australian television, and the lack of opportunities for new players to enter into the television market. Unfortunately, there has been little activity out in the open on these matters since that time. The Department of Communications boasted that: There have been the most exhaustive consultations with the organisations representing television broadcasters on the policy objectives of the Bills, and on drafts of the Bills themselves. As Senator Puplick has pointed out in his dissenting report, the disgraceful conduct of not consulting the people of regional Australia, has been consistently followed. The people of regional Australia were not asked about this. It was the Forward Development Unit's proposals which were put forward. No opportunities were offered for new players to provide new broadcasting services, be they terrestrial broadcasting services, or other technologies. Little consideration seems to have been given to the advent of high definition television. I do not believe those aspects and other technological changes have been systematically examined. This has in fact been brought out by Senator Puplick's dissenting report, which I would like to commend highly to the Senate. In fact, the Department has been in a flap at the prospect of having to cope with applications for pay television licences. Documents released to Senate Estimates Committee C late last year show that the Department had been hoping to find some power to call a moratorium under the current legislation. There is no such power and legislation will have to be amended properly to implement the Cabinet's four year moratorium. The way things within the Department work, the legislation is likely to be ready in about four years time. The fundamental flaw in this whole sordid episode, and the reason why four years of this Government have failed to produce new services in regional areas, as opposed to remote Australia, is the attempt to look at only the interests of its powerful mates. This Government has not been looking after the interests of ordinary Australians. With an integrated approach to broadcasting in the 1990s, based on the most appropriate use of 1990s technology, we could have an imaginative broadcasting service. We could plan ahead. But no, we are getting old solutions, and I blame the Department for this. What hope do we have when the Department of Communications is panic stricken by the very thought of any type of new technology? Its handling of both the pay-television and the video and audio entertainment and information services system has been pathetic. Because of its incompetence the VAEIS system has been handled within a completely different area from other types of broadcasting, and there is no proper fee structure for these licences. The whole area is fraught with difficulty. It is going to be one way in which large operators will further control our media. This, as we can discern from the report, is exactly what we would expect within the policy areas of the Department which prefer to deal with small groups of clients. There is a tremendous amount for which the Department has to answer over its failure in the supplementary licence scheme. A large part of the failure has been to provide services, and this can be sheeted home to the failure of political and administrative will within the Department. It is not good enough to claim that the procedure was complex and unwieldy. It was the Department that was in charge of it. It should have suggested amendments to obtain a fast track public inquiry system for the granting of licences, and it did no such thing. In fact, it suited some of the key bureaucratic people within the Department to try to pass the blame on to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. It also suited their push for a system which handed over Australian television lock, stock and barrel to a handful of operators with whom everything would be sorted out behind closed doors. I believe that this is the scandal of this report. In that, I support Senator Puplick. I hope we will be throwing out this legislation lock, stock and barrel. We should get the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit to examine closely the lack of performance from a Department which is supposedly presiding over our move into new broadcasting technologies. The broadcasting and media world is littered with disgruntled ex- employees of the Department who were essentially forced out because they were competent. It is time we gave those first rate employees who remain a chance to use their skills and not be stifled by high level internal manoeuvrings within the Department. It is also time that we presented some services to the people of regional Australia. I thought that was what the report and the legislation were going to be about. Someone should demand of the Broadcasting Tribunal that it complete its Canberra supplementary inquiry. The attempt by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to interfere in that was quite unlawful, and I believe a disgrace within the Westminster tradition. We now have seen the Newcastle television station take the Minister to court over his failure to get a move on with that particular application. We now have a situation where there are regulations governing Broadcasting Tribunal inquiries and proposed amendments to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act to make it harder to abuse the courts with delaying tactics, as happened during the Perth third commercial licence inquiry. Results can be achieved quickly. The Committee has in fact identified a need for a local service in Geelong, and I commend it for that. Senators Lewis and Sheil have noted that the situation in Cairns appears ripe for an independent service and I support them in that. It should not be beyond the Government to come up with areas in which a second independent service is, or may well be, viable. In other areas there could be the grant of an immediate supplementary licence, as proposed by Senator Puplick. That way a second service could be provided everywhere within the next two years. In addition, a third service could be offered in all areas with a complementary charter and partial funding from a levy on stations with a very large reach. The third station could provide educational and multicultural programs and community access windows, alongside other programs specifically targeted to a narrow specialist audience and which would give advertisers access to those special audiences. There are an enormous number of things that we could have done, but instead we are aggregating and handing the whole system over to the current operators. I support the United States system with a 25 per cent audience reach limit and quite strict cross-media ownership provisions which are there even under the Reagan Administration. This seems reasonable for Australia, not the 75 per cent that has been proposed. I would go lower than Senator Puplick in terms of the percentage ownerships that I would allow people to have in this area. I do not believe that even 43 per cent is a decent limit. We should be considering 35 per cent or 25 per cent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(6.22) —in reply-Tonight I would like to pass some comments on the minority reports, having presented the majority report last week. To begin with, I would like to say that if at the start of the inquiry regional television proprietors saw Senator Lewis and Senator Sheil as their saviours, they must be very sad people today because the minority report presented by those two senators and, for other reasons, the minority report presented by Senator Puplick are prescribing a disaster for regional television. I have never been one to believe in conspiracy theories but having read those reports, I think a conspiracy operates not only to crush regional television operators, but to absolutely crush regional viewers-because rural and regional viewers out of those two proposals get nothing. First are all the wonderful proposals for cable television-the great saviour and the big answer. The facts are that if cable were begun to be laid now, tomorrow morning, in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne-forgetting about the country-it would take until the middle 1990s before any of the western suburbs in Sydney could be reached. It would be the end of the 1990s before all of metropolitan Sydney would be covered. The realities are that some of the smaller towns in the country would never be covered. Even the larger country areas would not be covered until some time in the next century. That is what honourable senators are advocating. They are saying: `We are going to put this whole plan on the never-never. We will let the monopolies stay in place'. That is what is it all about. As far as the regional television operators are concerned, they will get a few years of joy. But what do they think will be the end result? Once we get direct satellite broadcasting services regional television begins to get into regional trouble. What is the prescription for DBS in rural Australia? In neither the dissenting report of Senators Lewis and Sheil nor the report presented by Senator Puplick do we find the answer. But the real thrust is to throw all the expense on to viewers and consumers-people who can least afford it. Let them spend thousands of dollars on dishes and in the meantime let us remember one thing: When it comes to satellites and DBS, the enormous cost of transponders means that there will not be any little players in this game. They will all be very big and a betting person would have to take odds that more than likely the control again would be with the networks, the networks these people say they are trying to protect regional viewers from. The reality is that they will hand all television in Australia to those networks by that. What is more-and this is the devastating indictment on DBS for regional television-people will not advertise on any regional station and will not worry about localism if they have direct services from a satellite. Regional television will be crushed automatically, it will be finished, and what is worse, localism-the thing we have heard so much about in this inquiry when day after day we were told how desirable it was for country viewers, how much they love it and how highly it rates-is finished under any of these proposals. It will be no more. If we compare the effects on consumers, the only expense if one opts for the Government's plan is $80-odd for alterations to aerials to receive UHF. The cheapest decoder and the cheapest head-end amplifier for multi-point distribution services will cost consumers something like $1,500. So any of those things proposed in the end simply mean disaster for ordinary consumers in the bush. Let us go on to look at Senator Puplick's supplementary licences scheme. His report is worded a lot better than the other. I only wish there were some good sense in it to match the beauty of the prose and syntax. But in looking for the sense in it, we see it is just another shabby attempt to protect monopolies, to keep them intact and to keep them going as long as possible. We are told that supplementary licences are a way of delivering a second service immediately. Senator Puplick says he is really keen to get a second service. But he is entrusting the delivery of the second service to the current operators. If he looked at the current operators, he would not need to be too bright to work out that those competitive monopoly holders at worst are downright hostile to any change whatsoever and at best they are lukewarm. If all we do as a result of this inquiry and the debate in this Parliament is hand over the future of the viewing of television to those current holders and say: `You can have supplementary licences. There will be no competition and no problem. It is just a free run', all we will get is a shabby service at best, and in some places much worse than that. There is no way that any of those operators will put effort into a second station. It is not in their interests. They do not want it; it would have to be forced upon them. In the end the only way they will be forced to perform is by going for aggregation and making certain there is genuine competition in the market-place. Mr Acting Deputy President, I think you have heard the old joke: `What do you think about schizophrenia?'. `I do not know, I am in two minds'. Certainly Senator Puplick has been in two minds about regional television because having gone for a supplementary licence scheme he then says that by 1992 he wants to start an open skies policy, so he will give them four or five years and protect their monopolies. At the end, of course, he will crush them completely. Once regional television operators and regional viewers examine these two reports they will know the real effects, which will be to do away with any involvement of local communities in rural and regional Australia in their television services. There will be none if Senators Lewis, Sheil and Puplick have their way. To turn to cross-ownership restrictions, Senators Sheil and Lewis did something that the majority agreed with. They came down in favour of a figure of 75 per cent. In a report that size presumably they had to get something right. But Senator Puplick has come down for forced divestiture for the Fairfax, Northern Star, Bell and Rouse groups. For those who have gone against what the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) stated on 27 November 1986 we will all agree; but for others, we are talking about forced divestiture for people who have legitimately acquired interests under the law and who have abided by the law under the policies of successive governments for decades. At the end of that time those people will be told: `We know you abided by the law. We know you did the right thing legally all the way. There was never any impediment to your doing what you have done. We will now force you to sell'. Once people know they are being forced to sell the price is diminished and that costs the shareholders of those groups an absolute fortune. According to Senator Puplick, that divestment is `a revolutionary proposal'. For most people it is just revolting. Turning to ownership limits, Senator Puplick has argued for a figure of 43 per cent. We have heard evidence time and time again of the huge cost of Australian-made programs; just how much they are costing the bigger networks. Sixty Minutes is costing $150,000 a week to put on air and Willing and Able, a new show, is about the same price; but a mini-series like Anzacs, which received so much praise last year, cost $250,000 per hour. Vietnam, which has just been shown, cost a similar amount. The network's partners, that is the networks which receive the programs, do not share the costs and those costs have been outrunning the revenue that networks can get for the programs. Once one restricts the limit to 43 per cent one restricts forever the possibility of high quality program production in Australia. That is something the Government has to protect; it is something all Australians want. Some extraordinary claims have been made about the costs of equalisation. Senator Lewis and Senator Sheil claimed that all transmission equipment has to be imported from Japan. That is just nonsense. What Mr Sebire said at the Senate Select Committee hearing on Television Equalisation was that the equipment he will order will come from Japan. Germany, Holland, France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are all substantial manufacturers of that terrestrial equipment and all of those countries are buying it all the time. The only advantage they have is that they got their systems into place quicker, as this country would have done had we been in the fortunate position of having a Labor government with some foresight some years earlier than this Government come to power. Now we have such a government the first steps are being taken to make sure that regional viewers get something like a fair go. We will not protect monopolies and we will make sure the interests of end consumers finally get looked after. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education) —I table the following papers: Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments; Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 and Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the reference of particulars of proposed additional expenditure to the Senate Estimates committees. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —I move: (1) That the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 in relation to the Parliamentary Departments, the Particulars of Proposed Additional Expenditure for the Service of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Additional Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1987 be referred forthwith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That the Committees consider Proposed Additional Expenditure in the Estimates Committee groupings agreed to by Resolution of the Senate of 20 March 1987. (3) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Thursday, 7 May 1987. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.33) —I point out that we will have four days, including the weekend, to consider these papers. They are very late in being brought before the Senate, as are the Appropriation Bills. Although we support the motion, it has to be put on the public record that the Senate's process of reviewing expenditure is not being taken seriously by the Government if we are expected to look effectively at matters in such a timescale. Future governments putting forward this type of proposal should not put us under such strain. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I present the fourth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Australian Institute of Health Bill 1987, the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 and the Moreton Island Preservation Bill 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 4, dated 25 March 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the 268th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator GILES —This report details the Government's response to the Committee's 244th report which recommended the abolition of the Munitions Production Trust Account. In line with the Committee's recommendations, the Government has agreed to abolish the account and to improve the level of reporting on other trust accounts to provide more detailed information to Parliament. The Munitions Production Trust Account was created in 1956 to finance munitions manufacture in government factories for departments of the Commonwealth and other governments and authorities. The account was a holding account financing the production of munitions. It enabled factories to obtain reimbursement for production undertaken in advance of payment from the Department of Defence or overseas customers. The Committee's inquiry recommended the closure of the account to eliminate double accounting, abolish unnecessary administrative costs and overcome poor management of funds. Additionally, the Committee found that there was an urgent need to improve the level and quality of financial reports on other trust accounts to Parliament. The Government's acceptance of the Committee's recommendations means that individual government munitions factories will become more accountable publicly for their operations and performance. I commend the report to honourable senators. Debate resumed. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.36) —The Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987 is surely one of the most cynical Bills that has even been before this Parliament. It demonstrates how this Government is prepared to behave, and particularly how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will behave. It defies the Constitution, convention and common sense. Its sole purpose is to appease the crazy, off-the-cuff commitments of one man. It contravenes the memorandum of understanding and defies any normal silvicultural practice. The Bill does nothing about saving jobs or saving forests. Only this year in respect of the proposed inquiry into television equalisation, government members repeatedly raised the question of cost-that a committee should not be set up because of the cost involved. In view of the rush to get this forest inquiry into action, are we to assume that it will be free, or that it will be paid for in foreign currency or by some other method? The Bill debases the Government as a group of senseless grovellers, pandering to extremist minorities, hopeful of gathering a miserable handful of tainted votes and prepared to sacrifice principle and the investment and employment of others just to be seen to be doing something to support a silly promise. I find it extraordinary that government members have so studiously avoided speaking to the Bill. For instance, Senator Aulich's speech was such that I thought he had picked up the wrong notes, especially as he had only put his name on the list of speakers as an afterthought. Having spoken on only one Bill in the Budget session, he may be a little out of practice. The charade goes on and follows nine inquiries, all public, all open and all reported. This inquiry will be the tenth. Do not brush off the Bennett Lemonthyme and Southern Forests Commission of Inquiry, the massive and thorough environmental impact statement or any other inquiries. The list of inquiries has been referred to by other senators and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- NINE MAJOR INQUIRIES INTO TASMANIAN FORESTRY SINCE 1972 Each of these nine major public inquiries into forestry and the forest-based industries have taken detailed evidence on technical, economic and environmental considerations. Each of these nine major inquiries was established that there is no overriding environmental reason why balanced forest development should not proceed. 1. 1972 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee ``Inquiry into Forest Regeneration'' 1972. 2. 1975 Federal Working Group ``Economic and Environmental Aspects of Export Hardwood Woodchip Industry'' Parliamentary Papers No. 116 and 117. 3. 1975 Senate Standing Committee on Science and Environment ``Woodchips and the Environment''. 4. 1977 State Government Board of Inquiry into Private Forestry Development in Tasmania by Mr Justice M. G. Everett. 5. 1978 Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment ``Woodchips and the Environment'' Supplementary Report. 6. 1981 Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce ``Australian Forestry and Forest Products Industries''. 7. 1985 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee ``State Forestry Report''. 8. 1985 Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee ``Woodchip Export Licences''. 9. 1985 ``Environmental Impact Study on Tasmanian Woodchip Exports Beyond 1988'' and ``Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Tasmanian Woodchip. Senator ARCHER —The legislation ignores the pride that Tasmanians have in Tasmania; whoever else has an interest, Tasmanians have one first and foremost. We really appreciate our national parks and, incidentally, regret the damage now being done to them by visitors. We also need to consider a balanced economy, something for which those who interfere have no thought. We think of jobs for our kids, investment in our State, things for people to do, and the effort to gain true balance for all, as Senator Puplick said in his magnificent speech earlier today. There is no party politics in this matter. Every decent and worthwhile Tasmanian member of Parliament is of a like mind. Senator Coates made much of his differences with Premier Gray. He played down the fact that his differences are also with his State Parliamentary Leader, Mr Batt, and every member of the Tasmanian Parliamentary Australian Labor Party as well. This fact should be recognised and noted. He also raised, but avoided dealing with, the real core of this Bill and I wish to do that. What are the prudent and feasible alternatives that the conservation movement says exists? I was fascinated to hear Senator Coates last night say that he did not intend to go through them. Why not? The Government has not bothered at any stage in the public debate on this issue, either in the other place or here in the Senate, to tell us what alternatives it would like the inquiry to look at. What are they? I challenge the Government to table a document-any document-that it thinks is so cogent and reasonable that it should take up the time of the Parliament and the High Court of Australia in inquiry. Let the Government show us that there is more to this whole business than mere political opportunism. I should say in advance that it would need to be a more realistic document than the so-called `Forest Industry Strategy for Tasmania' that was published by the conservation movement in March 1985. That rubbish did not get to first base when the Hawke Government considered woodchip export licence renewals later that year. Let us hear from one of the Government speakers on this Bill what alternatives there are that Senator Coates declined to discuss. Let them put up the supposed basis of this Bill, the alternatives that are worth considering, or withdraw it now and let the Tasmanian Government and the industry get on with the job on the basis previously agreed by the Hawke Government. Senator Sanders made the thoroughly naive claim that our forest industries are not replacing the forests and that this is why they need to move into new areas for timber harvest. This argument highlights the technical incompetence of the extreme conservation argument. The State forests set aside for wood production are managed on a sustained yield. For a forest rotation or crop cycle of 80 years one must cut one-eightieth of the forest every year. This is precisely what is happening in Tasmania. As the timber is logged equivalent areas of forest are replaced. This policy ensures that there are forests for the future. In fact, in Tasmania there are more than 100,000 hectares of this new forest growing to maturity over the next 80 years. Unfortunately, Senator Sanders never bothers to consult the people who are managing the forests. He simply flies overhead, makes outlandish comments and sees how he can go about getting media headlines to prop up his fading electoral hopes. The present Tasmanian Liberal Government, the previous Labor Government, the present Labor Opposition, the unions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the various chambers of commerce and manufacturers bodies, et cetera, and community groups of all types all agree on the actions and the planning for industry and for the reservations. Tasmania has the best forest practices in Australia. Tasmania, however, is not all good. We also have the worst bunch imaginable of drop-outs, drop-ins and drop-offs from the mainland and even overseas. We have disruptionists, selfish individuals and obstructionists. Many pay nothing, take everything, do as little as possible and are a big financial drain on Tasmania. I turn now to the legal aspects. No Government member in fact has made any effort to justify the pretty rough state of the Bill and the various issues raised by the Opposition. No Government member has spoken in depth on the memorandum of understanding, on the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, or on Senator Walsh's response to a question of 13 February 1986; so I had better take up those matters. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, in its report No. 3 of 1987 dated 18 March 1987, said on page 9: The Committee has been critical of such provisions which remove the right to refuse to answer questions or produce documents on grounds of self incrimination but which confer protection in subsequent proceedings only in respect of the use of the actual answer given or document produced. It went further, saying in respect of clause 14 (c), `Entry and inspection': Clause 14 provides that, for the purposes of performing his or her functions under the Act a member of the Commission of Inquiry or a person authorised in writing for the purpose by a member may, with such assistance, and by such force, as is necessary and reasonable, enter and inspect- The Law and Government Group of the Parliamentary Library also produced a paper which says: The National Crime Authority Act . . . recognises the privilege against self incrimination . . . But it said that section 6A of the Royal Commissions Act, which is mentioned in the Bill we are talking about, `abolishes the privilege against self-incrimination'. The paper also goes on to say that the National Crime Authority Act makes it necessary `to apply to a Judge for a warrant authorising a police officer to enter and search'. It says further that `there is no requirement for a warrant' under this Bill. What is the level of crime that we are talking about? The Government is not prepared to give these powers to the National Crime Authority; yet it is prepared to provide them to a committee of inquiry for a matter such as this. Government members clearly have not been told all this and I wonder how people such as Senator Cooney consider these civil liberties aspects of the legislation. Having listened attentively to the entire debate, I trust that Senator Ryan in her summing up will answer some of those questions. The Government refusal to adhere to the memorandum of understanding is a cause of great concern. Item L of the agreement expresses confidence in Tasmania by saying: . . . in entering into this Memorandum, the Commonwealth recognises the professionalism and competence of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and accepts that the Tasmanian Government, acting through the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, will duly and efficiently perform the many activities necessary on its part to give effect to this Memorandum. That is all very well. But that was followed up by clause 25, which says, in part: In respect of domestic timber operations, i.e. extractive timber operations which are not Forest Operations, the MPI acknowledges that it will be for the State to decide the extent to which it would implement Commonwealth views on the protection of National Estate values. That is very clear. Then clause 30, which deals with what happens when something goes wrong, says: In the event that any dispute arises over matters concerning Forest Operations and other export-related matters, which cannot be reconciled at officer level, the two relevant Ministers will meet and will discuss the problem with the intent of reaching a mutually acceptable solution. The MPI and the MFF- that is, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Fisheries and Forests- agree that every endeavour will be made to implement and administer the matters the subject of this understanding through mutual co-operation rather than by resort to the coercive use of Commonwealth or State powers and prerogatives. That is what the agreement said. But what happened? Before arrangements for a ministerial discussion were approved, the Federal Government had stated that unless the Tasmanian Government submitted to its will there would be an inquiry under Federal legislation. That is what happened and, quite rightly, Minister Groom said: `You withdraw the threat and we'll talk, as provided for under the memorandum of understanding'. This Government refused to withdraw the threat and so here we are. The very heavy-handedness of the Bill and of the negotiation is absolutely crazy. We all thought that Senator Walsh had made the matter totally clear on 18 February 1986 when, in answer to a question, he said, in part: I am advised that operations planned and being undertaken in the normal management process by the State Forestry Commission do not compromise the proposed arrangements. Further on he said: The Government does not propose to limit logging in the area beyond those limits already proposed in the Tasmanian Forestry Commission's 1983 management plan. That looks pretty clear to everybody who can read-but not to this Government; not when this Prime Minister has got his foot in it and is asking for people to try to get him out of it. The Prime Minister, from his actions, had apparently never read the memorandum of understanding. If he had, he decided not to respect it. So much for consensus and accord and all that sort of rubbish. The Prime Minister having made a fool of himself, the only move was to try to save face. To him the only two issues were, firstly, to set up some form of an inquiry and, secondly, to have logging stopped. Then honour and ego would be satisfied and, of course, such action supports his clearly enunciated anti-States philosophy as outlined in his Boyer lecture of 1979, to which we regularly refer. He is no respecter of State rights and no respecter of the agreement-or anything but ego. An inspection of previous legislation passed through this Parliament can find no other Bill to equal this one for arrogant, single minded, unnecessary, ill-advised boofheadedness. Land use is not the prerogative of the Federal Government. The area under discussion is not World Heritage by listing; nor is it World Heritage in fact. The craziness that put the Prime Minister into this mess is unbelievable, but may it never cease to haunt him. If such arrogance and overbearing were allowed to go unchallenged, where would it stop? Farmers, miners and tourist operators throughout Australia, for instance, are petrified at the implications. The Biggles spy flights had nothing on this. By the way, we have not heard from Senator Gareth Evans on this issue. I would like to know where he stands having regard to his once fond pursuit of civil liberties. The many errors of both fact and opinion during the debate have shown a lack of knowledge and deliberate misinformation provided to Government members, and a lack of care and attention by Government members who have spoken to keep up with the facts. I had intended to deal with them, but there are too many of them to deal with and I will restrict my remarks to some of the more critical aspects. The loss of jobs and investment seems to be of no concern to the Government. The Tasmanian Government mentioned that there would be a loss of 900 jobs this year. Senator Coates said: `Nonsense'. But he failed, however, to provide any figures or any evidence to prove otherwise when he had the opportunity to do so last night. Australia is currently facing an appalling balance of trade. We export $400m worth of timber a year; we import $1500m worth of timber a year. It is one of the areas which have a growth potential. With good management, we can make timber one of the big export industries. Conservationists in Australia do not mind that every stick of timber that we buy from overseas comes from someone else's forest. We adopt this very holy attitude as far as our own forests are concerned. We do not mind if other countries wreck their own forests for our pleasure. I even heard a speaker this morning refer to the way that the Japanese do something. But that did not mean that he was prepared to suggest that we ought to have some protection as well. The whole manoeuvre is absolutely empty. Great credit should go to the Tasmanian Minister, Ray Groom, for the way he has handled this matter. I also give great credit to the professionals of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. I think that the commercial interests have shown remarkable restraint and have done a great job. They have been a very valuable force in Tasmania's development and commerce over a long time. I also give credit to the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, for the trouble he has taken and for his understanding and the presentation of his case. I must ensure that I make that comment at this point. Tasmania has hundreds of thousands of hectares that still need forest restoration and regeneration. In fact, this still needs to be done in about 750,000 hectares. Australian productivity must be improved. Unless we improve it, we will not be given the opportunity. The International Monetary Fund or somebody like that will tell us what to do. Those with no interest or involvement in the economy must come to understand forests and the balance that is necessary. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) must understand that point. This whole stunt lies at his feet, and his feet alone. Last night Senator Coates confirmed that this Bill is the foot in the door for a reservation of a further 284,000 hectares. In spite of the Commonwealth's statement of 1981 to the World Heritage Committee, nothing has changed. The 1981 statement reads: It (the area nominated) is large enough to survive as a wilderness and to maintain genetic diversity despite influences from surrounding areas and to permit the experience of solitude. The nominated region is an outstanding example of one of the few remaining temperate areas which is of sufficient size for natural processes to continue. The geology and climate of the three parks have resulted in a unique environment which contains 83% of Tasmania's wilderness area. Clearly, the Commonwealth was quite convinced at the time that the boundaries were appropriate and provided proper protection of the values. Why was the change necessary? No new information has come forward-only the persistent bleating of a small, noisy minority who are not interested in balanced development, but in large scale resource lock-ups in the community. Nothing at all has changed. One in seven Tasmanians depends on forest industries for his livelihood. They will not do things that will prejudice the overall interests of Tasmania. But this is not the issue. The real issue is that this Government will do this initially in Tasmania. It knows, of course, that it will only lose one senator. But when it sees its chance, if it is game, it will try it again in Queensland, Western Australia or elsewhere. I suspect that it is not likely to do that at the moment now that it has seen what a big loser it will be. It is like feeding the piranha. Once it has been done, it wants more and more. The only thing the Government cannot grasp is that, like the piranha, the lunatic fringe of the conservation movement will never be friendly and will not vote for it even with a bribe such as this. I am pleased to say that last night Senator Richardson totally clarified the question of compensation when he said: There is no cutting off of any possibility of compensation for anyone in Tasmania who considers himself or herself to be affected by this Bill. That is what we, the people in the industry and the people in Tasmania, have been waiting for. The legislation does not specifically cover it. The second reading speech did not cover it as clearly as that. We are, naturally, grateful that Senator Richardson should have put the matter beyond all doubt. I certainly thank him for that. It is terrible legislation. It has been put to us under the worst circumstances with the worst motives. I totally oppose the Bill and the motives. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.56) —The Senate is debating, at the second reading stage, the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987. A great deal has been said in the debate thus far. I think almost everything that can be said has been said by a long list of speakers. A number of senators have yet to speak. I appeal to the Government to abandon this legislation because I believe that, in introducing this legislation, it is going down a path which it should not go down. The Government, as has been said, is faced with a situation whereby both the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Labor Opposition oppose this measure. That is an important factor to bear in mind. But in my view it is not the essential factor. The essential factor is that the Government, in introducing this legislation, is relying-improperly, in my view-on the external affairs power to intervene and interfere in an area of responsibility which is rightly an area of State responsibility. Land management since Federation has always been a States' matter-a matter for the parliaments of the States to determine, and for the governments of the States to administer. Yet in this measure there is an attempt by the national Government to utilise the external affairs power, to impose, in this instance for a period, a view on a State which is contrary to the considered best interests of that State. I say `considered best interests'. In this instance it is against the best interests of the State as considered both by the Government and the Opposition in that State. I raise this question as a constitutional one because, to my mind, perhaps the Government may not be able entirely to rely on the external affairs power for the implementation of this Bill. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) stated in his second reading speech, the Bill seeks to rely on the obligations which the Commonwealth says it has under the International Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage-the World Heritage Convention. Of course, if one looks at some of the areas which are covered by this legislation, it must be borne in mind-and it must raise serious questions-whether those areas are the ones which would fall within the scope of the Commonwealth's responsibilities, even under the broad interpretation of the Commonwealth's responsibilities. I think not. What other powers can the Government rely on? It may rely on its powers over export licences. If it does, that is a question to which the Government must give serious attention. A Commonwealth government of a different political texture could impose its will on a Labor government in a particular State using the same method. It could be said that if all else fails-if its export power and external affairs power failed-the Government could rely on the corporations power of the Constitution. There have been long discussions in this chamber about that question, and I recall having spent some time advancing reasons as to why the Federal Government should desist from utilising the corporations power in areas such as this. In the Tasmanian dams case one needs to look at the judgments of their honours. One finds a bent among some of the judges that the corporations power is available to the Commonwealth to do almost anything, and to determine almost any matter so as to have effect within State boundaries as it affects corporations. I warn the Government that that power could be used against the trade union movement by a conservative government if it came to power. I recall that when we were debating the Australian Bill of Rights I raised the question as to features in that bill of rights which would impinge on the rights and responsibilities of trade unions. I believe, and have always believed, that if rights and freedoms are under question, they should be protected by specific statute law, not by a bill of rights or something of that order which appoints a non-elected committee to determine broadly drawn rights and laws in specific instances. It is the right and duty of the Parliament to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and their freedoms. But if the Commonwealth is to rely for this measure on the corporations power, given that the external affairs power is inappropriate and maybe an inadequate basis for its intervention in this area, and if, for example, the export powers of the Commonwealth are inappropriate and found to be wanting, and if the Commonwealth then seeks to rely for the effect of this Bill on the corporations power, it is making a whip for its own back and for the backs of the trade union movement. When I expressed this view on the Bill of Rights, some people raised doubts, but not many questioned the statements I was making, mainly because I assume they knew that I had been in this field for many years. Now this has come to be truly understood. Without canvassing the merits or otherwise of the Victorian equal opportunities decision in respect of trade union membership, I wish to point to that example where a law was passed dealing with broad rights and broad freedoms by a government in Victoria and establishing a non-elected tribunal to determine those rights. It determined them all right, but did so in a way that rebounded on the Government that brought in the legislation. I raise this matter very seriously because, if my reading of some of the judgments in the Tasmanian dams case is a proper interpretation of what their Honours are saying, I believe that a Commonwealth government could exercise the corporations power under the Constitution and impose a wage freeze, or cut down annual leave by half for the whole nation. That could apply in respect of employees of corporations which work under State awards. The Government is going into a very difficult area in that instance, and I warn that if it treads that path it will be making a rod for its own back. The other aspect is the utilisation of the external affairs power for purposes which were never envisaged by the conventions. I see Senator Ryan is in the ministerial chair and I give an example from the sex discrimination legislation. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was the basis on which the sex discrimination legislation was introduced. The Government, in that legislation, sought to place a de facto relationship on an equal status with a bona fide marriage relationship. I happen to know a bit about that particular convention because I happened to be the political adviser in the United Nations at the time, in 1977, when that matter was being discussed. There was no intention in the Third Committee to place a non-marriage state on the same basis as a married state. Senator Zakharov —What has this got to do with the Lemonthyme? Senator HARRADINE —It has a lot to do with it. What I am trying to say is that the Government is using the external affairs power in an improper way and that it is part of a pattern of use. When the Government cannot get its own way, when it cannot see its way clear to do things by the legitimate means of going to those constitutional heads of power which are appropriate, it uses the external affairs power, and does so inappropriately. In the case I was putting, under that legislation persons who wished to let their place could not prefer a married couple to a cohabiting couple, under pain of penalty. That is what the Government has done. When I tried to introduce a conscientious objection provision for that, the Government rejected it. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. In the case before us it is again a misuse of the external affairs power because one's imagination really has to stretch very broadly if one is to believe that the measures contained in this Bill are anything to do with an obligation on the part of the Government under the International Convention. I certainly cannot see it and I do not think many others can either. Those others include quite a lot of persons representing the employees-the workers-in my State and, of course, the State Government and the State Opposition. Something has been said about the motives of the Government in introducing this measure. I do not want to canvass those issues because I am not one to think up motives; but some people who are pressing for the passage of this Bill have said that it is important for the Government to be seen to be doing something about the environment. I have no objection to the Government doing something about the environment. I think that it is an important matter for governments, both State and Federal, to consider. But in the current instance this matter has been the subject of inquiry after inquiry. I shall refer to some of those inquiries. In 1972 the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee held an inquiry entitled `Inquiry into Forest Regeneration'. In 1975 there was a working group which studied economic and environmental aspects of the export woodchip industry. Again in 1975 our own Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment published a report entitled `Woodchips and the Environment'. In 1977 there was a board of inquiry into private forestry development in Tasmania. In 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment published a supplementary report entitled `Woodchips and the Environment'. In 1981 the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce published its report, `Australian forestry and forest products industry'. In 1985 the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee published its State forestry report. In 1985 the Tasmanian Legislative Council Select Committee published a report entitled `Woodchip Export Licences'. Again in 1985 there was an environmental impact statement on Tasmanian woodchip exports beyond 1988. Nobody denies that there have been problems about the regulation of this industry, as there have been with a number of other industries. But this industry in particular has been under the microscope now for at least the last 10 years. I notice that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is now at the table. I point out to him that this is an industry which is extremely important to our balance of trade figures. After all, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has stated that Australia is facing the worst economic crisis since World War II. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said that the reason for that is the loss of value of overseas trade and, of course, the imbalance which takes effect because of the imports we have to get from overseas. In relation to Australia's forest-based industries, the problem is that currently we import about $1.5 billion worth of timber and wood products-in a land which should itself be able to supply that raw material. On the one hand we are importing around $1.5 billion worth of timber and wood products, but on the other hand we export less than $400m, and most of that is in woodchips. If we are to concentrate on the need to develop our own local industries, we must ensure that the raw materials, the products, are there and that they are able to be supplied to those industries. Tasmania is the only State which has a net surplus of forest products. Its forest-based industries are export oriented, with between 5 and 10 per cent of native timbers being sold overseas and a large proportion of low grade wood being exported as woodchips. The State also produces between 60 and 70 per cent of Australia's fine paper requirements and about 40 per cent of our newsprint needs. Imagine what would happen if Tasmania went out of business. Honourable senators would not be able to read most of their newspapers and they would not be able to read their telephone books. Tasmanian industry, the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Parliament are committed to further development of the timber industry in that State. In recent years the State has moved into veneer production and has increased the proportion of sawn timber used in fine furniture manufacture. Because of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, vis-a-vis the Japanese yen, there is a real possibility for a major pulp mill to process much of the wood that is now exported as chips. That depends on a number of factors, one of which is whether the Japanese consider that their yen is overvalued and what will happen in that respect. The Tasmanian hardwood sawmilling industry, the producer of the justly famous Tasmanian oak, has been through a difficult period of rationalisation as log production levels have been reduced to a level that is sustainable indefinitely. It now should have a secure resource base to further develop downstream processing of sawn timber. The whole forest-based industry in Tasmania, which puts food on the table in one out of seven households across the State, has been through three years of intense public debate and uncertainty. This measure throws another area of uncertainty on to that particular industry. If there were alternatives-it has been suggested in this chamber that there are-why are they not put on the table so that we can look at them, as I think Senator Archer mentioned? As yet, they have not been placed upon the table. One of the problems is, as the Prime Minister is constantly saying, that business needs a secure environment to work for the future. This Bill is not giving that environment or that security to this industry in our State. There is just one other point I wish to make with reference to the statement that one of the reasons for this measure is to attract some votes. I think there has been a pretty broad debate in Tasmania on this issue, and as I see it there is not the great degree of concern over this issue that there has been over others. Whether or not that ought to be taken into consideration when legislation of this nature is being considered is a matter for the Government. It is also a matter for this Parliament and we, as senators, need to make up our minds as to the facts of the matter and as to how we believe this measure should be dealt with for the benefit of not only the State but the nation, including the nation's environment. In that regard I come down with the view that the legislation should be opposed. I do not think the Government should consider that it will get many votes out of this at all. It may get a few, but all I can say is that it is doing the wrong thing, if, for example, it ignores the plight of the family. At the next election the major issue will be the fact that the family is now suffering a worse economic plight than it has for many years. A family with a worker on average earnings, a dependent spouse and four children has over the last 10 years suffered a drop in its standard of living of 10 per cent. Even given the tax cuts, it will suffer a further drop of one per cent by September of this year. Those are the points that are concerning people, and this threat to the family allowance, for example, really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. I am getting terrific feedback on that. People view that as part of a confidence trick which has been played on the family since 1976, when the worker had a concession for every child. Workers put their forms into their employer and the employer was then able to ensure that a tax concession was made for that worker, and so on a weekly basis that worker was able to foot the food bills. In 1976 that tax concession was abolished, and was cashed up as a family allowance. So there was a transfer out of the hip pocket into the purse of the mother. Now the Government is stealing from the purse of the mother money which has been put there by the husband over the years. That is how the workers feel about it. They are concerned with that great robbery of $10 billion that has taken place over the last 10 years. Those are the issues which will really bite when we come to the election, not issues such as this legislation, which has been debated ad nauseam. There might be some merit in an inquiry if the results of the inquiry are to be abided by, but as I understand it a number of the people who have been pressing for the inquiry have said quite openly that they will not abide by the results. Senator Button —You mean people outside this Parliament? Senator HARRADINE —Yes. In any event, this legislation is about domestic logging and a number of companies-I do not have time to go through them as my time has almost expired, but I shall refer to two-will be discriminated against. This Government should have a look at that situation before this measure goes through the Parliament. I feel that the Senate, in view of all of the points that have been made in the debate, should vote against this measure, and I believe that one day the Government will rue the day it set off down this path. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania)(7.26) —I wish first to assure the Opposition senators from Tasmania that I support the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill 1987, a Bill which will be recognised as perhaps a watershed in terms of the Federal Government's attitude to protection of the environment and protection of areas which are clearly in the world heritage category. The Tasmanian Government caused divisions in the Australian community over the Franklin dam. Let me remind honourable senators that the economics of the Franklin dam in the context of hydro-electricity power generation in Tasmania are now well known to have been completely fraudulent. All Tasmanians know, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Franklin dam would have been a gross waste of the nation's resources. I remind Opposition senators that the Hydro-Electric Commission just recently started to pay interest on the money that was borrowed to build the Pieman Dam, and there is no industry to use that power. It is quite obvious when looking at the record so far in Tasmania that very little thought has been given to this matter by the State Government or by the forestry industry. There has been a forestry industry in Tasmania for many years, since prior to 1970. This industry in the early 1970s was essentially a saw milling industry operated by small family concerns, subcontractors and small companies. The woodchipping industry got under way and the whole nature of the forest industry in Tasmania changed rapidly, for the first five years or so, then there was open slather, with anyone who could use a chainsaw or drive a truck moving in. The industry became dominated by large companies. These companies still exist but most of the small concerns disappeared, as it became unprofitable to stay. By 1982 some 80 or 90 sawmills had closed down as their local source of supply was logged out and they were too small to compete with large mills by transporting sawlogs from further afield. We have seen an enormous decline in the number of jobs available in the sawmilling and logging industries in Tasmania. Since the introduction of woodchipping, over 4,000 jobs have been lost. Anybody who cares to look at the census figures will see that this is clearly the case. It seems that no one was very upset about the small mills and subcontractors going to the wall, but the profits of big companies appear to be far more sacrosanct. I think the sort of bleating we have heard from Tasmanian Opposition senators in this House underscores that point entirely. The Federal Government must govern for all Australians; in this case for timber industry companies and their employees, who rightly defend their rights and livelihoods, as well as for those groups that are aware of and watch over our historical, cultural and environmental assets. The Federal Government is party to, and is obligated to carry out, many international agreements. That watchdog role sometimes impacts upon State resources, whether or not that is liked by the State governments. However, this is a necessary function of any Federal government. The Commonwealth Government in this case has assessed those obligations and concluded that its role is to conduct an inquiry which will have as its sole aim the sorting of the facts from the rhetoric. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal No. 3 of 1987-List of Names and Addresses of Agricultural Establishments for Bureau of Agricultural Economics.