Wednesday, 6 May 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious beach 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 therefore humbly pray that the Government: 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 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 Hamer (from 40 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 Macklin (from 361 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: We are concerned that The Australian National Flag be retained in its present form. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate stop any change to the design of The Australian National Flag without the prior approval of the Australian citizens at a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 684 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the continued presence in Australia of the United States bases make this country a target for nuclear attack; 2. these U.S. bases are integral parts of the global nuclear war machine; 3. Australia should be governed in the interests of Australians and foreign bases are not in our interests. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Australian Democrats' Foreign Bases (Pine Gap Base) Removal Bill which requires the Government to wind up operations at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility-better known as Pine Gap, by terminating the agreement under which it operates in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational archaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 170 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate and honourable senators assembled, the undersigned citizens call upon all members to pay due respect to pensioners and other recipients of Social Security benefits and to Commonwealth Superannuants and to cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Government. We call upon the Prime Minister and his Government to take the following action when considering budgetary changes to be announced in May this year. 1. They ensure there is no further erosion of existing benefits to pensioners and other Social Security recipients and further that they honour their promise to pensioners made before the last election that pensions be increased to a level equal to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. 2. That the Government reconsider its action in reducing by two per cent the level of superannuation paid to Commonwealth Superannuants, retired members of the Defence Services and other eligible Commonwealth Superannuants. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 182 citizens) and Parer (from 170 citizens). Petitions received. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —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, 7 May 1987, adjourn till Monday, 11 May 1987 at 2 p.m. (2) The Sessional Orders relating to the days and hours of meeting of the Senate and the Routine of Business for week 2 apply to the week commencing 11 May 1987. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate (a) welcomes the reinstatement of 78 staff at HSV-7 in Melbourne; (b) notes the effect on media employment opportunities already shown as a result of the concentration of television ownership in fewer hands; and (c) agrees that this episode is further evidence that a Senate inquiry into all facets of media ownership is essential in 1987. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with alarm and concern that since the Federal Government introduced tertiary fees in last year's Budget, thousands of Australian students have been forced to abandon tertiary study; (b) notes that the Federal Government's own monitoring committee has acknowledged that the fee has placed an unfair burden on women and poor students; and (c) calls on the Government to use the May 1987 mini-Budget to remove the now over 20 anomalies and inequities in the fees legislation, such anomalies having been identified by the Australian Democrats when the fees legislation was introduced, such amendments to resolve them having received no support from the Liberal, National or Labor Parties. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(10.05) —I move: That the 89th Series of Variations of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its environs, dated 28 April 1987, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. The eighty-ninth series of variations involves the closure of Ainslie Avenue between City Walk and Bunda Street to allow an atrium to cover the space between the Monaro Mall and the proposed development opposite on section 38. This means an end to part of the vision of Walter Burley Griffin. Mount Ainslie has to date been directly linked to City Hill by views along Ainslie Avenue and has formed an important secondary axis of the Griffin plan for the city of Canberra. This integral plan of the townscape is to make way for an argument of improved commercial viability for the proposed Canberra Building Society development on section 38. In similar vein the past policies of the National Capital Development Commission are being jettisoned in the name of development at all costs. I would like to ask: Indeed, at what cost to the people of Canberra and the people of Australia? This is a matter which has exercised the minds of a number of people in the Australian Capital Territory. They, like me, fail to see how a responsible body which is supposed to act in the public interest-as the National Capital Development Commission is supposed to do-could have allowed such a shambles as the Civic development to develop. In 1984 the NCDC published the metropolitan policy plan, which sets out employment and retailing patterns for Civic. That document, formally noted by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), is supposed to present a blueprint for the future of that part of Canberra. It is supposed to let the people know what they can expect in future planning. A lot of time and effort goes into the production and improvement of such policy. It is a matter of infinite regret to find that all the planning principles have been turned upside down within the space of three years. We need to ask how an organisation which prides itself on its professional planning expertise can behave in a fashion which has seen so many local government bodies dismissed in the various States. We need to ask: What is so wrong with the current process that a total perversion of what has been set out as policy is allowed to continue to run unchecked? We need to ask what is being done to make sure that an unplanned mess of this magnitude will not be foisted on the people of Canberra in the long run. Back in July the NCDC set out policies which anticipated a work force in Civic of between 25,000 and 27,000 people by the year 2003. The Commission explicitly rejected the concentrated model which led to a work force of 35,000 by the year 2003. It did so for extremely good reasons. The Commission wanted to co-ordinate major zones of activity with the capacity of the transport system and infrastructure to serve them. It did not want a chronic, unmanageable congestion in the centre of Canberra. It did not want to load the people of Canberra, and all Australians for that matter, with a spiralling cost of infrastructure for environmentally unsound proposals. I believe the matter is summarised very well in a letter that I received this week from the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra. This is the peak conservation body for this region. I quote part of that letter: The NCDC's Metropolitan Plan for the development of Canberra until 2003 published in 1984 advocated a continuation of dispersed planning and employment decentralisation. It determined an employment threshold for Civic of 25-27,000 workers. Beyond this threshold it predicted outer suburban residents forced to work in Civic, increased fuel consumption for the journey to work as outer suburban residents were forced to work in the city, increased inner traffic congestion and air pollution and the need for a massive increase in expenditure on transport infrastructure to cope with the expanded transport task. In other words, sensible and environmentally sound policies were deliberately chosen three years ago. Since then, the policies have been gradually whittled away until, in practice, they have become the opposite of what they were meant to be. Accordingly, as is evidenced in the figures supplied to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, we are well on the way to a Civic work force of more than 25,000 by the end of this year, and nearly 33,000 by the end of 1992. Those figures relate simply to developments that have been approved or are under close consideration; there is no guarantee that they will not rise further. There is no guarantee that the numbers presented are necessarily accurate because they differ, to some extent, from those presented by the National Capital Development Commission in a recent court case. In the interests of time, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table entitled `Employment Growth in City (Approved Development)', which was submitted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee. I have sought leave from both sides of the House. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Attachment A EMPLOYMENT GROWTH IN CITY (APPROVED DEVELOPMENT) Date Project New Employ- ment Cumu- lative Total Employ- ment 18,700 1987 White Industries (St. 1)... 410 Canb. Build. Society... 810 Northbourne Towers... 570 White Indust. (St's. 2 & 4)... 1300 Ian Potter House... 130 Civic Hotel... 900 White Indust. (St's. 3 & 5)... 1200 C.W.A., Polish Club (St. 1)... 475 Ansett Building... 540 Edwards, Dunlop... 420 Gaha Park. Struct.... 35 Derwent House... -280 25,200 1988 Polish Club (St. 2)... 240 Nat. Capital Ctr. (St. 1)... 815 Section 56 Park Struct.... 270 Nat. Capital Ctr. (St. 2)... 715 White Ind. Hotel/Con. Ctr... 400 ADC... 120 Derwent House... 280 28,040 1989 Nat. Capital Ctr. (St. 3)... 315 Section 38-Retail... 870 Town House... 670 29,895 1990 Section 38-Office... 700 White Industries (Stage 6)... 850 Nat. Capital Ctr. (St. 4)... 525 31,970 1991 Canberra Times (St. 1)*... 600 32,570 1992 Canberra Times (St. 2)*... 180 32,750 * Development Under Consideration Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table entitled `Future Development Projects', which is attached to the affidavit of Dr Robert Care, Chief Engineer of the NCDC, which was submitted to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory at about the same time. Leave granted. The table read as follows- ATTACHMENT 1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Empl. Date Occupancy Begins Parking Space in Structure Present... 20,100 1.87 White Industries 1.1... 450 3.87 110 Northbourne Towers... 550 6.87 100 White Industries 1.2... 450 9.87 100 White Industries 1.3... 665 9.87 110 Edwards Dunlop... 440 9.87 89 Civic Hotel... 900 9.87 183 White Industries 2.1... 1,253 9.87 250 Ansett-Pioneer... 520 12.87 107 CWA Building... 270 1.88 58 Polish Club... 390 3.88 81 Uniting Church... 1,200 3.88 237 Section 56... 187 4.88 Short Stay Section 8... 120 10.88 White Industries 3.1... 891 12.88 167 Town House*... 650 3.89 130 Uniting Church 2... 1,170 3.89 236 Canberra Times1*... 432 3.89 79 Section 53... 275 4.89 Short Stay Section 38... 1,374 9.89 600 Canberra Times2*... 390 12.90 79 32,677 (say 32,700) 2,558 * not yet approved 1.1 stage 1, Building 1 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Honourable senators can examine the variations in permanent employment figures for particular projects, which are noticeable in the documents prepared by the same organisation-- Senator Coleman —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 406, which precludes the right of any honourable senator in this place to read his speech, and also to the fact that Senator Vigor has read his speech for the past seven minutes. I am not prepared to sit here for the next 23 minutes and listen to him promoting himself for selection in the Australian Capital Territory. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The practice in this chamber is that honourable senators have every right to refer to notes, however copious they may be. There is no point of order. Senator VIGOR —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Indeed, in dealing with matters of such importance, it is important to get one's facts correct. I could continue for a great deal longer if I were shooting from the hip in these matters-which is exactly the problem that we face because that is what the NCDC, the Minister and the Department have been doing to date. If there were less shooting from the hip and more conscious care about detail, there would be much better government in this country. The section 38 development is mentioned in both of the tables to which I referred. The Chief Engineer's table has 1,374 jobs on section 38, 275 at the associated structure on section 53 and 187 on section 56. The table supplied by the Secretary and Manager of the NCDC, Mr Alan Phillips, has 270 jobs on section 56 and 870 retail and 700 office jobs on section 38. Undoubtedly, the NCDC will be able to reconcile those numbers, as it is able to do with most matters. The point of agreement in both the tables is a total Civic work force of about 32,700-although the Chief Engineer has that happening by 1990, while the Secretary and Manager of the NCDC has it happening by the end of 1992. Either way, employment levels in Civic are heading towards 35,000 people 10 years earlier than they were meant to be heading towards 27,000 people. That is the nub of the whole problem of section 38 development and the proposed variations in the city plan. Many Canberrans are left scratching their heads about how such incongruity could arise. They are wondering just what extra cost they will have to bear as a result of this turnabout and the explosion in development in the inner city. People in the inner suburbs are wondering what will happen to their living standards. Residents associations have been formed in both Braddon and Turner in recent weeks as the magnitude of potential traffic, lead pollution and commuter parking problems has become clearer. Only yesterday Mr John McMillan, the Convenor of the Braddon Residents Association, contacted my office and pointed out that concern over the impact of the rapid development of Civic and its surrounding areas had brought 70 people to attend a public meeting in April to form a residents association. Ms Katherine Beauchamp of Turner wrote to me in these terms: I am one of four residents who last week convened a meeting in Turner concerning unwanted conditions being forced on our suburb by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories. The vote was overwhelming to form a residents association, which is currently being planned and will be formalised in a couple of weeks. Ms Beauchamp pointed out that over half of those present were in the older age bracket. The Reid Residents Association has been actively pursuing traffic and pollution questions in its area related to section 38 development. The Association made an extremely thorough submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. It has been pointed out that there will be lead pollution problems in the Reid and Braddon areas as a result of the section 38 development. At page 48 of the Joint Committee's report we find the following passage, which clearly contains some internal contradictions: In order to reach the upper lead limit (1.5 grams per cubic metre) 15 metres from the road the traffic volumes will need to be in the order of 8000-plus vehicles per average day. At present no residential areas in Reid/Braddon experience these traffic levels and therefore no streets would experience unacceptable lead levels. Most streets would in fact have very much lower lead levels. The exception to this is the following streets: Ballumbir/Coranderrk Street and Constitution/Limestone Avenues, which surround Reid/Braddon. These streets have existing traffic volumes in excess of 8000 vehicles per average day and therefore predicted lead levels in excess of the health standard quoted above. This is just the start of the problem. It is not good news for the public housing tenants in the Bega flats and in the Allawah flats, or for those people who use the nearby child minding facilities. On page 56 of the Joint Committee's report we find the following paragraph: Existing daily traffic flows on Ballumbir Street are around 23,000 vehicles a day north of Ainslie Avenue and about 15,000 vehicles per day south of Ainslie Avenue. These volumes are expected to increase to around 30,000 vehicles per day at the time section 38 is completed. Surely this raises questions about the potential effect of lead pollution as a result of the proposed 89th series of variations and the development of section 38. Yet the Department of Territories has the gall to tell the Joint Parliamentary Committee that `there should be no significant environmental impact' as a result of the development of section 38. Similarly, the NCDC ignored the significance of its comments in Appendix VI supplied to the Committee, from which I would like to quote: The Committee also asked for the expected travel time from the development to Barry Drive. The Commission anticipates that the travel time will be six to eight minutes at peak times but would be subject to a high degree of variability due to the way traffic control signals are linked and phased, and the simplifications built into the traffic network model. Once again, both the NCDC and the Department wish to ignore a significant environmental consideration. I believe that the estimate by both the Department and the NCDC that the cost to the Commonwealth would be only $1.23m is most appalling. That is the result of adopting the most narrow definition of cost. I feel that that is a problem. Significant transport, parking and public infrastructure costs will be incurred year in year out by the people of Canberra as a result of this project. I wish to address some of the matters that should have been spelt out in a full environmental impact study. We should not be going into such projects without full impact studies; we require them. The Government complains about problems in the States, yet it does this type of thing in Canberra. It is very important to protect the environment. It is very important for Canberra to have the right facilities and not be subjected to environmental degradation because of `development at all cost' types of policies. On 10 March 1986 the NCDC Commissioner, Mr Malcolm Latham, wrote: At the present time, the Commission would be irresponsible to allow yet more office space in the knowledge of its potential adverse impacts on parking and transport and without material progress having been made to resolve these problems. Earlier in that letter is the following passage: Essentially the problem is an imbalance between the sudden growth in employment through a development boom and the amount of parking and public transport which have not kept pace with office development. Unless the combined efforts of the public and private sectors can redress the balance the Commission will have no option but to review its policy and limit future development or redevelopment to levels which will not worsen the situation. I believe that that letter shows that the NCDC is conscious of the problems which face it in respect of section 38 and the Town House Motel. The section 38 proposal represents a net parking loss, yet the Commissioner still recommends it. That is a problem. The Committee's recommendation that the Town House Motel be redeveloped for hotel use was endorsed by the NCDC's Chief Planner, its Chief Architect, its Chief Construction Manager and its assistant secretaries in the urban economics section and the external relations and information section. The Commissioner overrode the advice, saying: The effect of accepting the recommendation in the submission would have been to change the Commission's general policy regarding the future development of Civic. I was not willing to bring about a change in policy of such magnitude as a result of a single decision on a single development application. The Commission has made mincemeat of that 1984 plan in a series of decisions of which this is one. The Town House Motel case saw an attempt by the Department of Territories to claw back its costs after the Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra was forced to withdraw a redevelopment objection because of a lack of funds to remain in court. In its perceptive editorial of 29 March 1987, the Canberra Times said: In the absence of any form of self-government, the citizens of this city must have a legal right to be heard on development plans. The present system guarantees no such right. As things stand, the right to object to NCDC proposals has little to do with the merits of the case but with who has control of the purse strings. I seek leave to have the full text of the editorial incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The editorial read as follows- OBJECTION STIFLED The already limited say the residents of Canberra have in the development of their city is even more limited with the decision of the Government to refuse legal assistance to a community organisation seeking to challenge, on public-interest grounds, a major redevelopment project in Civic. The Conservation Council of the South-East Region and Canberra has been forced for want of money to withdraw its legal objection to plans to vary the lease of the Town House Motel site in Civic to enable its demolition and the construction of a 13-storey commercial complex. This is most regrettable because the objection seemed to have considerable merit, given the chaotic parking situation in Civic and the unhealthy noise and pollution problems of Civic in general, and of Barry Drive in particular. The departments which could have given the council financial help to mount its case, Territories and Attorney-General's, have refused to do so. Territories' reason is that it is indirectly a party to the objection proceedings in the Supreme Court. It refused assistance to the ACT Youth Accommodation Group, too, in the important Morpath case in the Federal Court. That case concerns the commercial redevelopment of residential sites in Turner and is regarded as the redevelopment test case for the ACT. Attorney-General's refused to help the conservation council because it regards the Morpath case as the only one which might justify public funding, though so far it has not told the Youth Accommodation Group that it will actually cover the costs. And it will not fund the two Turner residents who bravely, and perhaps foolishly, took on Morpath and the Minister for Territories on their own. Unless Attorney-General's comes to the party, the youth group faces insolvency and the residents could lose their houses if they lose in the Federal Court and if costs are awarded against them. That this is even remotely possible is scandalous. The objectors have done the residents of Canberra a considerable service in challenging, in a most comprehensive and reasoned way, the seemingly unlimited powers of the National Capital Development Commission to shape the future of the city. That they could face financial ruin for doing so is wrong. The way the Conservation Council was forced to drop out of its case is unsatisfactory, too. It tried to get the hearing of its objection deferred till the Morpath decision was known, but was refused by the Supreme Court. As well as giving all the parties, and the court, the benefit of that decision (which could change considerably the nature of the case), it would have had more time to raise the money to pay its legal costs. Why the court refused that reasonable request is hard to fathom. But the end result is that the ``system'' has combined to defeat the council and the many people it represents. Once again, the only conclusion The Canberra Times can reach is that the entire system of planning and development in the ACT is deficient and should be radically overhauled. In the absence of any form of self-government, the citizens of this city must have a legal right to be heard on development plans. The present system guarantees no such right. As things stand, the right to object to NCDC proposals has little to do with the merits of the case but with who has control of the purse strings. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. Earlier I mentioned the closure of Ainslie Avenue between City Walk and Bunda Street as part of the eighty-ninth series of variations. This prospect was examined in 1985 by R. J. Nairn and Partners and costed at $2.7m in extra travel costs each year on the basis of there being 28,500 workers in the Civic area. An indication of the costs of the NCDC's removal of future options from Tuggeranong and Gungahlin can be found in a study titled `Transport Implications of City Development' from the Commission's own staff. In order to save time I seek leave to incorporate those figures in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 5.1 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED CIVIC EMPLOYMENT LEVELS Civic Employment 27,000 31,000 35,000 $ $ $ Capital Costs Roads and Parking * City Roads (incl. traffic management measures) 11m 28m 70m * Regional Roads (from MPP) 200m 240m 320m * Parking (PE and/or Govt.) 60m 105m 150m Public Transport * buses 11m 15m 12m * IPT - - 300m Woden * interchange 0.5m 4m to City * bus priority 2m 4m 6m Pedestrian/Cyclist facilities 2m 4m 8m Landscape Protection 1m 2m 4m Operational Costs (p.a.) Policing/Parking inspectors 1m 1.5m 2.5m Road Maintenance Base +0.3m +0.7m Public transport operational deficit 2m 4m 10m Senator VIGOR —At the 35,000 employment mark, rejected by the NCDC in 1984 as being too much for the year 2003, the road system apparently starts to choke up. Planning authorities have to start examining the idea of a light rail or similar mass transit system between Woden and Civic. The cost of roads required for 27,000 workers is $271m, but this is nearly doubled to $540m if 35,000 people work in Civic. The section 38 development will mean permanent Civic jobs for some 2,000 or more people. They have to get to Civic somehow and the public transport system is already unable to cope. In 1985 it was shifting about 19 per cent of those people working in Civic. This has since dropped to 17 per cent during the explosion of the development approvals, as mentioned at page 411 of the Committee's transcript. Thirty-five of the 110 extra buses needed were available through the Budget funding this year. Who knows whether in the May cuts proposed future bus services will be cut, and whether we are going to have to rely on ACTION's aging fleet. I believe a lot of pressure will have to be applied to bring the public transport system up to scratch to enable it to handle any of these projects. The services are just not currently available. This will bring pressure on to the whole centre of the city. The section 38 proposal is in fact a net contributor to parking overspill. On page 51 of the Joint Parliamentary Committee's report is a table headed `Effect of New Development Only', which estimates a parking shortfall of 321 spaces. This is the last document that I would seek approval to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- 6. EFFECT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ONLY Spaces lost 1241 Generation, new development New offices (11900 x 3.3 per 100m2) 393 New Retail (35500 x 4.8 per 100m2) 1704 3338 Provided 3017 (321) Shortfall Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The chaotic situation in Civic was examined in 1985 by the House of Assembly Standing Committee on Development and Planning. On page 6 of the Committee's report we find the statement: The Committee considers that the current parking problems in Civic are due to the unplanned nature of recent City Centre development. The NCDC has put forward a strategic plan for additional surface car parking places which cuts all the corners. As noted from the internal submission `Short Term Parking for Civic. Implementation Plan', neither the Chief Planner nor the Chief Construction Manager was in agreement with this proposal. Most of these sites were quite unsatisfactory for landscape or other reasons. Under any sensible arrangements, the people of the Australian Capital Territory would have had a complete environmental impact statement which would have dealt with transport, parking and pollution problems associated with a development of this size. The statement would also have covered the impact on the retail scene of more than 20,000 square metres retail development being inserted beyond what the NCDC set as the target for the year 2003. There are grounds for fearing pressure to scale down the developments at Tuggeranong and Gungahlin, especially if retailers in Civic do not get the boom that they are hoping for from this type of development. This in turn will create further road and transport costs and will result in a wasteful use of scarce fuels. The Chief Planner's submission to reject the Town House Motel redevelopment, which was obviously not approved, stated: There is increasing probability that the Commission may be required to provide information under the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 if development in Civic exceeds stated Commission policy. Such environmental impact statements should come automatically before development approval is given. I believe that cutting corners in this way is quite unacceptable. If we cannot get a proper environmental impact statement and a public infrastructure account sheet for this project, it should be rejected. In any case, I believe that we should be pushing for a judicial inquiry into the system of land planning and lease administration before the current system gets totally out of control. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.31) —Senator Vigor's motion to disallow the proposal for variation of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs is simply an attempt to further delay development of a major shopping centre in the heart of Canberra. Shopping in Canberra is an interesting-- Senator Coleman —Exercise. Senator LEWIS —`Exercise' is not quite right, Senator. It is interesting for strangers who are not used to Canberra to come into Canberra and look around for the shops. The first thing they discover is that there are no corner stores. In fact, if they drive in from Melbourne or Sydney they will find there are no corner garages either so they can almost run out of petrol until they get to Manuka and discover the first corner garage. Those who live here know that there are signs along the way indicating where the garages are and how to get off the major road to them, but most people expect garages to be on the corners of major roads and do not appreciate that they have to turn off to find a garage. There are quiet shopping areas mostly within walking distance of the residential areas but, as I said, there are no corner stores. These quiet shopping areas provide a good range of the basic necessities. In addition, there are three medium sized shopping centres-one in Civic, which is in the centre of Canberra, one at Woden, one at Belconnen-and a fourth one is to come at Tuggeranong. But what Canberra lacks and what Canberra needs is a major central retail area. When tourists come to this town they go to the centre of Canberra to find some sort of central, major shopping area and, as Senator Coleman indicated, they do not find it. They discover that if they want to go shopping properly in Canberra there is a bit of a shopping centre in the heart of the city, but it is better to go either north or south through the suburbs to one of the other shopping centres. What is needed is some sort of hub shopping centre, a Bourke Street Mall, a Martin Place, somewhere right in the heart of Canberra where tourists can come and say: `Right, I have been to Canberra and there was a marvellous shopping complex there; we bought this and bought that', and where the locals can go knowing that they will be able to buy, for example, a range of shirts. That was one of the things that surprised me when I first came here. I thought that at least I would be able to get a wide range of shirts such as those one can buy in Bourke Street in Melbourne. I discovered that in fact we have a better range of shirts in the Target shopping centre in Warrnambool than in any of the stores I have been able to find in Canberra. The central Civic shopping complex of Canberra has not developed for a number of reasons. Firstly, there have been delays in the erection of some of the structures, but the major problem has been the competition created by the decentralised small shopping complexes and the decentralised Woden and Belconnen shopping centres. Now there is an opportunity for Canberra to take a major step forward in developing a major retail shopping enterprise. This is to be done by private enterprise. Private enterprise will spend $175m on the development of this complex. It will be the largest private development in Canberra. Certainly, the Federal Government's contribution will be $1.23m, but the private entrepreneur is about to spend a massive sum on developing a major complex on section 38 which will adjoin the area known as the Monaro Mall which is section 51. It will add to that area 35,000 square metres of retail floor space making a total of over 55,000 square metres, plus another 11,700 square metres for non-retail use-for things other than shopping. In order to combine the Monaro shopping complex with the new building to be erected on section 38, the variation of the plan requires the closing of a small section of Ainslie Avenue so that the existing buildings can be made one and Canberra can have this major retail shopping area. The proposed variations were advertised extensively. The Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory met and heard evidence about the proposed variations from 29 witnesses. The variation we are now dealing with is the proposed closure of this small area, a small section of Ainslie Avenue. Interestingly enough, the Joint Committee brought down a unanimous report approving the proposed variation. The report deals with all of the matters that Senator Vigor raised which actually relate to this development. Senator Vigor's speech ranged widely over all areas of development in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee did not, of course, deal with those things, but insofar as Senator Vigor raised some matters which are relevant to the debate here today, the Committee dealt with those matters in this report. Senator Vigor has proposed some further delay for reasons which he gave today. I say to Senator Vigor and to the people of the Australian Capital Territory that it is about time this city made a few decisions. With due respect to Senator Vigor, he has no vision for our capital city. I find this a most exciting proposal. It is an opportunity not only to have a major retail centre but also to have a central meeting area, to have a vibrant focal point where people can see and be seen, where there are footpath cafes and street stalls, where people can go during the weekends to shop in the arcades and malls, where they can go by night as well as by day. Is it too much to hope that we can develop an area such as those in some European capital cities? If we had been in the Champs Elysees, in the Piazza Navona or at the Trevi Fountain last night we would have found hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people gathered around chatting, talking, having a cup of coffee in a sidewalk cafe, looking at one another or walking up and down. We would have found young people meeting one another, old people looking at them, mothers keeping an eye on their daughters-that vibrant human existence in those sorts of areas. Is it too much to hope that we can develop areas of that sort? If we had been driving around Canberra last night-we would not have been walking-we would have found a dead city. Where do the young people go in this town at night? The only places they can go are the pubs. They have discos and places like that. The Government has tried to encourage the development of a young people's centre but, with all due respect, the Government has not allowed private enterprise to take it over. Sometimes one gets the feeling that in the Australian Capital Territory private enterprise is considered to be something distasteful, that we ought not to be associated with it, that it is a bit dirty. However, as I say, there is a young people's centre which the Government has tried to develop but, because it is being run on that sort of basis where private enterprise is not allowed to move in, it has not really been successful. I was hoping that it would become a place where young people could gather in the Australian Capital Territory. It is very important to have in the Australian Capital Territory somewhere for young people to get together without feeling that they are obligated to get stuck into the grog. That is what worries me. They need a place where they can have a soft drink, a cup of coffee or a milk drink and meet their friends. That really requires private enterprise, people with a bit of initiative-- Senator Coleman —It doesn't. Senator LEWIS —It does, Senator Coleman; it needs private enterprise, people with initiative who know what young people want and are prepared to provide them with those sorts of services. There are a couple of entrepreneurs in this city who I am sure could make that young people's operation a success. I just think that this is one of the most exciting proposals that the people of Canberra have ever had. We have an enormous opportunity, not only to develop a major retail centre but, if it is properly developed with sidewalk cafes and street stalls, it could become a hub where the people of Canberra and the tourists could visit. I am sure they would say: `Gosh it was exciting, there were people everywhere; the shops were open, the lights were on and it was really a terrific spot'. If that were the case, we would have in Canberra a major tourist centre, a major tourist attraction which would attract people to Canberra. They would stay overnight so that they could visit the exciting fountain or whatever it happened to be in the mall in the Australian Capital Territory. I become very excited when I think about this prospect. With all due respect to my friend Senator Vigor I feel that he is being led down the garden path by people who for one silly reason or another want to defer this proposition unnecessarily. People talk about having some sort of a survey, but that would mean that the people of Canberra would have to wait years and years for this development. Now is the time for the people of Canberra to get a major retail centre, a major meeting place. Let us throw out this motion and get on with the development. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.43) —There are a few things that I would like to say. In reality we are looking at the closure of a small piece of road in Ainslie Avenue, Civic, next to the Monaro Mall, and a number of things that have been said this morning quite properly flow from that. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory looked at those things most thoroughly and commented upon them in its report. A number of other matters raised this morning go much wider than this development and the Civic area. I think that all those matters have been addressed in the Committee's inquiry into the metropolitan plan, and we will be reporting to the Senate on that before too long. Those issues will be dealt with then. The degazettal of Ainslie Avenue will have, I think, as its most significant aspect the fact that it will make it a much safer place for people moving through the Civic area, from near the Boulevard through the section 38 development and into the older areas of Civic, bearing in mind, of course, that Monaro Mall is to be redeveloped as part of this exciting development project which, as Senator Lewis said, is the largest private development that has ever occurred in the national capital. Ainslie Avenue will be closed in a way which will enable it to be used in a quite exciting way by people moving through it. It is also designed to enhance the axis along Ainslie Avenue from City Hill to Mount Ainslie -an axis which has never been developed and has never really been visible to the people of Canberra. It was altered significantly in the 1960s when the Monaro Mall was built in such a way that it cut off part of the road; and there is nothing there at present which indicates that there is an axis through there. The roofing for the atrium, or the area between section 38 and the Monaro Mall, will be done in a way which will draw attention to it and I believe it will be a focus for the area. This development and the exciting plans for the development of the Canberra Theatre area in time will enhance the Burley Griffin axis from City Hill to Mount Ainslie. It might not be a double roadway, but I think it will be more interesting and will mean a great deal more to the people of Canberra. Of course, the Reid Residents Association and the Braddon Residents Association have been established and it is totally reasonable that they have been. A lot of parking is taking place in those areas at present and it is not being policed in the way in which it should. This problem needs to be addressed. We have mentioned it on a number of occasions. I have high hopes that it will be attended to. There are other problems in those areas. It is inevitable that as any city grows there will be problems associated with it. There will no longer be a time when one can park outside one's office door, as was the case when I came to Canberra. I could bore honourable senator's to tears with the story of where I have parked over the years whilst working at Civic. I parked almost outside the MLC building when I first came to Canberra in 1965. The situation is different now. But there are a lot more people in Canberra and Civic needs to grow to become a more interesting place. There is no other city in Australia where one can park in the way in which we have been able to park in Canberra. Of course, the process of readjustment will be fairly painful and difficult for those who are caught up in it. The bus service will have to be different; it cannot be at the moment because we do not have enough buses to make the service more attractive. These are all matters that have to be dealt with. I do not think we do anything for Civic or Canberra by just blindly saying no to this particular development. This is a part of the growth of the area and of the development which, overall, will assist in Civic being worthwhile and a significant tourist entity for Canberra and the region. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has dealt with the question of parking. We suggested that a trust fund account be set up and administered by the Department of Territories to enable the revenue from parking fees to be used to develop other areas, and to be used specifically for dealing with parking and traffic matters. We have suggested that no arrangements be made for any more government offices in Civic until the plan has been reviewed. We asked the National Capital Development Commission to make public by June of this year a revised policy plan for Civic. To suggest that no more development should ever occur in Civic is really quite absurd. I can see the need for another couple of hotels in the area, with the sort of entertainment facilities that go with them. I think that there is a lot more to be done yet to make Civic a place of interest for the residents living in the areas around it. I cannot think of anything more exciting than living in the areas near Civic and being able to walk to work, to the theatres and to restaurants. But we have not achieved that stage yet. This significant development is a part of growing in that direction and I welcome it. When honourable senators have had time to read this report in full they will find that we have dealt with the matters that have been raised. We do recognise that there are problems but we are looking at the broader picture and the long term development. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.49) —The Government has no basic disagreement with the contributions made by the Opposition shadow Minister, Senator Lewis, and Senator Reid. The Government and the Opposition agree that Canberra's Civic centre requires redevelopment. The Government believes that public consultation is essential and that there should be private involvement which will bring about certain stated objectives. We are debating a disallowance motion and I think it has to be conceded that the Senate has been very generous to Senator Vigor in allowing him to incorporate in Hansard a whole range of matters relating to his particular view. In fact one might even go to the point of saying that he could have his name in the Guin- ness Book of Records for the number of incorporations he placed in Hansard during his speech. I suppose it is his right to do that. But it is also the right of the Government to govern. To that extent the Government has engaged in extensive consultation with the citizens of Canberra. As Senator Lewis has correctly pointed out, there was unanimity in the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which was asked to examine the redevelopment proposals. One matter that has to be understood by the citizens of Canberra is that they have the most planned city in Australia. They have a city that has a large public involvement in that planning process. It is a city that has decentralised its shopping facilities, as was pointed out in the debate. Many new shopping developments have taken place close to the major residential areas. In that process we have seen the decline of Civic, the main centre of Canberra. I have always expressed the view that what Canberra seems to lack most of all is a soul, a common area to which people feel attracted to the degree that it comes alive not only during the daytime but also in the evenings. In Sydney there has been the same decentralisation of suburban shopping complexes; nevertheless there has been a revitalisation and regeneration of the inner city area, particularly the downtown section which now in the evening is filled with young people going to films, coffee shops, discos or any of the other important facilities that make up a cosmopolitan type of society. It has even been suggested to me that what Canberra needs is a Kings Cross concept to complement the development that should take place in a modern city. The Government has been aware of the parking problems. Any objective analysis would show that Canberra probably surpasses any other capital city in the world in the off-street parking that has been provided over the years by the National Capital Development Commission. There is no doubt that the more car places that are provided, the greater is the response. There is an insatiable demand that the planning authorities always have to consider when they set out to provide for the convenience of citizens and shoppers. Of course, that is exactly what is at the core of the redevelopment that is to take place. The important element that perhaps Senator Vigor ignores is that there is a need for an overall planning concept for Canberra. When the construction of the new Parliament House concludes sometime during 1988, that work force will have to be given alternative employment. So any delay in the concept of the redevelopment would mar the planned approach that the Government has accepted as part of its responsibility for looking after the total environment of Canberra. As the work force from the new Parliament House is displaced, it will be absorbed into the other public building and private development that is envisaged in these proposals. To that extent any delay suggested by the Australian Democrats will have an impact on that overall planning concept for employment, a very important process that the Government accepts as part of its total responsibility. After all, had we not been put in our present position by the Democrats' action with respect to self-government for Canberra, a number of these matters would have been in another jurisdiction. Because we were confronted with an intransigent position in the Senate, of course the responsibility has passed back to the public area-to the NCDC, the Minister and, in the case of this development, the Joint Committee. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has acted properly and sensibly in the way in which he has applied himself to his areas of responsibility. Late last year he gave notification of his intention to vary the layout plan for the City of Canberra and its environs. Members of the public have been involved. He set out specifically to stimulate public interest in the discussion of these important new proposals. The Department of Territories advertised in the Canberra Times on five occasions the variations that are the basis of the redevelopment proposal. On five occasions advertisements were lodged in the newspapers between 17 December 1986 and 3 January 1987. Displays were arranged in various shopping centres and places of public assembly in Canberra. Then, of course, a resolution was adopted which gave the Joint Committee the opportunity to participate in the redevelopment proposals. As Senator Lewis has correctly pointed out, there was unanimous approval by the Committee. It is not often that we get unanimity on committees, but there was a feeling that this new concept for Canberra was an exciting one and one that would bring about the regeneration of the central business district. Of course, that is always an important objective. The Committee heard evidence about traffic, about parking and about what has happened to population growth in Canberra in recent years. It accepts that there is a need for retail space to be set aside, for proper planning concepts to be adopted and for employment levels to be taken into consideration. All the public authorities charged with responsibilities in these various areas were consulted and their views taken into consideration. An understanding of the basic objectives of the redevelopment was that we would have a great deal more private investment and private involvement in the project. There was an understanding in the NCDC and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services that no more government offices would be located in Civic until such time as we had met our requirements in that area. So in every sense there has been consultation. In every sense there has been co-ordination with the Government's committees, the people's committees and the public at large about the policies to be adopted for the redevelopment of Civic. The Government cannot quarrel with the basic motivations to which Opposition members have referred during the debate. It is an exciting project, and one that I am sure will capture the imagination of the citizens of Canberra. It will take into account all the matters referred to by Senator Vigor. Both the short-term and long-term parking problems will be resolved. Developers will be required to provide off-street parking; that is an essential prerequisite of any retail development. If shops are built but proper parking facilities not provided, the development will not prosper. The Government and the developers are correct in accepting their responsibilities in providing public facilities. Of course, the public sector will also play a part in providing sufficient parking. I must tell Senator Vigor that Canberra, of all cities in Australia-I would almost go so far as to say in the world-is well placed in environmental, parking and development matters. To that extent we cannot, under any circumstances, support what I think I am entitled to call the nuisance disallowance motion that has been put forward by Senator Vigor. We appreciate that the honourable senator spends a great deal of his time examining the way in which the public authorities in Canberra operate, and that is part of his responsibilities as he sees them. However, it is part of the Government's responsibilities to make the decisions. It has made those through the consultative processes of Parliament and the community at large, and we are entitled to say that all the issues that the honourable senator has raised have been considered-if not in public, certainly within the various government committees operating in Canberra. Therefore, I believe that the disallowance motion should not be supported. I thank Opposition members for their constructive comments this morning. I am confident that the disallowance motion will not succeed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.03) —in reply-In closing the debate, I rise briefly to tell honourable senators that I am quite disappointed that this process will not be subject to further review-although I expect that, because of the debate, that will indeed happen. As I have said, the claim that only $1.23m of public money, compared with $175m from the private sector, is involved in the project is ludicrous. The documents describing what consultation has taken place have come to the fore only through court cases. Most of the deliberations have been carried out behind closed doors and the people of Canberra have not been properly consulted. I admit that the Committee has looked, and is looking-I am glad to say-at the provision of new infrastructure and the need for new bus services, new parking, and the consideration of a better road system to serve the central city area of Canberra. I would hate to be in the position in a few years' time to have to say: `I told you so'. The Australian Democrats were the only people who said that the New Parliament House would be a $1 billion project, and that constraints and controls should be placed on it at that early stage. Everyone shouted us down when we said that. I hope that I will not be in a similar position in a few years' time with this project. I agree that Canberra is one of the better planned cities in the world, and I want to keep it that way. I am very pleased with and proud of our national capital, and I believe that, as Senator Lewis and other people have said, sensible development is good. We are not luddite in that sense. However, we believe that Canberra is so good because of that sensible planning, with consideration given to access and environmental planning at every stage. My main concern is that this proposal is breaking a number of the longstanding rules that have made Canberra the place that it is, and that needs to be examined. In any other area or in any State we would have required an environmental impact statement. Perhaps it has been done, but the ordinary people have not been told about it. The Australian Democrats believe that consultation is a very important aspect of the planning process. We recommend that, even though the proposal is now to go ahead, the environmental impact effects be made public. I urge the Government and the Committee to do that. Question put: That the motion (Senator Vigor's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Haines, J. Sanders, N.K. Macklin, M.J. (Teller) Siddons, J.R. Mason, C.V.J. Vigor, D.B. Powell, J.F. Archer, B.R. Knowles, S.C. Aulich, T. Lewis, A.W.R. Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D.J. Baume, Peter McIntosh, G.D. Bjelke-Petersen, F.I. McKiernan, J.P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G.R. Boswell, R.L.D. Messner, A.J. Brownhill, D.G.C. Morris, J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J.M. Childs, B.K. Parer, W.R. Coates, J. Puplick, C.J.G. Coleman, R.N. Ray, RobertCollard, S.J. Reid, M.E. (Teller)Cook, P.F.S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E.A. Crichton-Browne, N.A. Ryan, S.M. Crowley, R.A. Sheil, G. Devlin, R. Short, J.R. Elstob, R.C. Sibraa, K.W. Foreman, D.J. Tate, M.C. Gietzelt, A.T. Teague, B.C. Giles, P.J. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A.E. Hamer, D.J. Walters, M.S. Hill, R. Watson, J.O.W. Jessop, D.S. West, S.M. Jones, G.N. Withers, R.G. Kilgariff, B.F. Zakharov, A.O. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.14) —The timing of the presentation of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987 to the Senate has made things a little difficult-somewhat unnecessarily so-but we will cover the issues as we go. Firstly, I pay tribute to the work done by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. We all appreciate its great dedication to the job. It is probably the most difficult and unrewarding committee in the whole of the Parliament to work on. There are certainly no thanks and no good publicity for the work that is done. It is a genuine labour of love. A note of caution must be expressed that elections do not become just an art for those who organise them, instead of serving the purpose for which they were intended. I would not want the running of an election to become more important than the result. At all times we must ensure that elections are not merely exercises in political science. The effectiveness of the result should be the goal. Amongst other things, we should ensure that all forms of fraud, misdemeanour, stacking and so on are detectable and adequately punishable. Fairness must be achievable. The legislation should not be turned into a mere exercise in political science. Elections should not become an exercise in the way the Australian Electoral Commission runs parliamentarians. The system must be reasonable to operate, at all levels of understanding, by those who work in it and from it. The present Act is already very difficult and complicated. Very few members and senators, if any, fully appreciate or understand their responsibilities and liabilities under the Act, not because they are not interested but simply because the Acts we have passed and the amendments we have before us are very difficult. I particularly ask the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) and the Electoral Commissioner to concentrate on taking steps to make the legislation easier and less complicated as their next project. The present Act runs to 272 pages-that is before the addition of the amendments before us and the next lot, which we may get later this year, early next year or whenever it is to be and which, I gather, will be considerably more substantive. When we consider the effects of some of these amendments and of some of the things that are in the pipeline we should take into account the costs of running an election. The latest estimate I have, given in answer to a question on the estimates for this year, is that we are facing a cost for the next election-that is, just the additional costs of running the election-in the order of $50m. Items include extra election staffing, at a cost of $19.354m; freight, $1.296m; hire of premises, $0.883m; postage, $4.773m; printing, $1.325m; tally rooms, $0.341m; advertising, $3.406m; ballot boxes and voting screens, $1.59m; data preparation, $98,000; training, $1.346m; payments to political parties, $10.344m; and other miscellaneous charges, $1.124m. The total is $45.88m and does not include the cost of sending out election leaflets, which has been estimated-I think undergenerously-at $2.5m, staffing increases at a cost of $0.75m and training programs for polling officials at a cost of $0.443m. I realise that democracy comes at a price but we need to consider whether the price is reasonable and, more importantly, whether the price represents value for money-or whether the election is merely a Commission exercise. The cost of sending personal letters, printed envelopes, checked and posted, to every elector is listed at 30c each. I would like to get on the tail end of a postal service under which it costs $2.5m to send out about eight million personal letters. The figures at this stage indicate that we will reach the $50m involved quite readily. The Minister's second reading speech covered many of the issues for which the Bill provides. Intensive media campaigns and the mailing to electors of information on electoral procedures are included. It is hoped that the exercise will be very successful. I guess that the test of that will be the number of informal votes at the next election compared with the number at the last election. If the process is to cost some millions of dollars, those last few informal votes may be very expensive. I am pleased that the Government accepted the Committee's recommendation to ensure that patients in hospitals and nursing homes can freely exercise their vote. I realise that that matter was under some discussion. I am glad that those people are at least as important as some of those who cast informal votes previously. I believe that they are entitled to be treated just as adequately. I am concerned about the enforceability of the legislation as far as failure to vote and failure to enrol are concerned. In our system, both those functions are compulsory and there are penalties for non-compliance. From the answer to another question that I asked at Estimates hearings I find that, while in theory these matters are compulsory, their implementation is rarely carried out. That is so for a variety of reasons. Firstly, on the scale of penalties, undoubtedly it would cost considerably more to prosecute for failure in either of those areas than the amount of the penalty, and I gather that it always brings poor publicity. It makes compulsory enrolment and voting a farce. We do not have compulsory voting; we have the compulsory taking of a voting paper. That is the nearest thing we have to it. I put it to the Government, the Committee and the Commission that what we have at present is not quite what we say we have. With the other alterations and amendments that we are considering, we are going right over this issue which requires a lot of attention for a variety of reasons. When I look at the trouble that we have taken on other issues, I feel that we need to cover this more adequately than we are doing at the moment. Much of what is in the Bill is completely of a technical and machinery nature. I accept that many of the items are there purely and simply to make the situation for senators and members easier, for the parties involved to be able to do things more reliably and for the electoral staff, at election time, to do their job a little better and, hopefully, in some cases a little quicker. The first problem that I strike concerns the definition of what constitutes electoral matter. Page 2 of the Bill states: `electoral matter' means matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in an election; Everything that we do in the course of our lives as politicians is designed to affect the voting in an election. Last night when I was trying to satisfy the questions of some of my colleagues, I rang Dr Hughes and had a discussion with him on this subject. I believe that his interpretation is important. I request the Minister, in the course of the debate, to provide us with a full and detailed list of what that definition is intended to cover. We would like a full description of what is and what is not meant by the definition. We would like to have examples of both so that there can be no trouble and no misunderstanding, in line with Dr Hughes's private comments to me last night. It is important to know exactly where we all are. I do not believe that it is desirable that members can do things erroneously, which they are unaware of, or wrongly do things which they have done for the past 20 years because the rules have been changed by rather obscure wording which may catch up with them in some way. It is important to tidy that up. If the Minister could arrange to get as full a listing of that as possible I would be most obliged. There is room for considerable dispute. The Bill seeks to amend sections 305 and 308 of the principal Act by replacing the words `election period', wherever occurring, with `disclosure period'. That amendment makes being a member of the Parliament a most onerous occupation. At this stage I am unable to see how that can be properly and accurately fulfilled. If the Minister is able to provide details of that before we reach the voting stage, I would be greatly obliged. The inclusion of third party groups in the legislation means that there will be identical coverage for everybody involved with an election-an existing member, a prospective member or a third party participant. The rules will be the same throughout. However, the rules are not nearly clear enough for the practitioner. It may be all right for those who sit in judgment over the Act, but it is not nearly clear enough for those who have to live by it. I ask that greater attention be given to trying to ensure that the Act is workable, that it is not there just to trap people but to secure equity. If it can be shown to do that, I am sure that it will have the complete support of all members and senators. In the meantime, I feel that there must be a better way to go about it. The matter of redistribution is one of the heartburns that go with being a member of the House of Representatives in particular. At the last election there was great criticism of the way in which the system operated and the way that it did or did not work out. Considerable publicity was given to the situation in New South Wales. I was largely in support of those who were critical. Also, I was completely in support of those who were critical of the Tasmanian situation, which I thought was deplorable. However, we are stuck with it. We must ensure that such a situation cannot happen again without far better participation from the community and the people involved. On my reading and my study of the provisions that now pertain, I believe that should be possible, but it will take the operation of the provisions to see whether or not that is so. I now refer to the question of the margin. It is proposed that what used to be a 10 per cent margin between the highest and the lowest should be reduced to 2 per cent. Clearly this is going to create difficulties because it is a very fine margin. We have never tried to work with such a close margin before. It remains to be seen whether it is too close. But it is something that was discussed at great length by the Joint Select Committee. Recommendation four of that Committee said: That the degree of permitted variation under paragraph 66 (3) (a) should be 2 per cent variation above or below the future average and that the Electoral Act paragraph 66 (3) (a) and sub-section 75 (4) should be amended accordingly. That was a unanimous decision taken by the full Committee. We will support a 2 per cent variation in accordance with that decision. The changes to the methods of nomination appear to be quite satisfactory, and they are supported by us. The ballot scrutiny amendments also appear to improve efficiency in procedures to bring about earlier results. But I do not wish to see earlier results at the expense of the pre-ballot and absentee voters. The amendment to the Electoral Act that we have before us provides that the period for the acceptance of such votes be extended from 10 to 13 days. But when we look into the operation of the Act, we find that there is really no reason at all why this should be needed because every one of these votes is known to exist by the close of polling. There is no reason at all for any closure on when the pre-poll votes should be admitted. The constraint of 13 days would certainly discourage laxity in the dispatch of these votes. I believe that anything we can do to ensure that the polling clerks get those votes into the system and get them sent off in safe hands as fast as possible is to be encouraged. They will all be in the hands of the Australian Electoral Office. Safe delivery on the Monday after the election would ensure that there is never any circumstance where they could not and should not be taken into the count. We would therefore oppose the amendment that is before us and move not to limit the taking into account of these votes because we believe that that is quite reasonable. There should not be any limitation at all. It may well be that we can encourage the operators of the system to work harder in getting them counted. Senator Tate —We are talking about postal votes, not absentee votes. Senator ARCHER —We are talking about the pre-poll votes. The majority recommendation of the Committee was: . . . that there should be a fixed cut-off period of 14 days for the return of postal and pre-poll votes. We have now moved to change that period to 13 days. The report continued: There is some merit in a cut-off period for postal votes since although the number of ballot papers issued is known, there can be no way of knowing the number completed and committed to the post. Pre-poll votes, however, are quite different. All such votes are in the hands of electoral officials prior to polling day. There is no reason, by any action of the voter, why they should not be admitted to the ballot. There should be no limit on pre-poll votes. Similar procedures to absentee votes should be followed. That was the recommendation of the minority report, signed by Senator Sir John Carrick, the Hon. Michael MacKellar and Mr Charles Blunt. Accordingly we will be seeking to have the limit on the acceptance of those pre-poll votes lifted altogether. The other matter which has caused quite an amount of concern is that of residential qualifications. The Liberal Party at this stage finds it very difficult to support the reasoning that went with this in the report. There still appears to be an inadequate check on stacking or other illegal practices. We concede that the present system is not ideal, but we do not support changing a less than adequate system for one that may be no better, and may even be worse, and only time will tell. The reasoning that was used in the report is stated as follows, on page 29 at paragraph 3.29: It can be seen that the 3 month rule is therefore in practical terms incapable of across the board enforcement. More seriously, however, its operation is anomalous in that it only works to disenfranchise those electors who have not correctly maintained their enrolments, but are honest enough to admit it. This clearly raises the general question of whether the rule continues to serve any useful purpose. The Committee believes that the regular maintenance of the Rolls by annual habitation reviews should ensure improved accuracy and reliability. The 3 months real place of living requirement has been needed because the accuracy of the Rolls at any given election could not be guaranteed. It might be reasonable to suppose that if the Rolls could approximate better to the ideal, the significance of the 3 months rule would be diminished. It may be and it may not be. Whether there is an advantage remains to be seen. On behalf of my Party I inform the Senate that at this stage we are not prepared to vote for the elimination of that until such time as there is much better evidence to determine that it is possible that there can be an improvement. I realise the deficiencies under the present system, but nobody has convinced me or my Party of the advantages of the proposed change. The National Party of Australia has an amendment for the deletion of requirements on financial disclosure. This will not be supported by the Liberal Party. We cannot agree that there should not be some financial accountability, and the amendment that the National Party has put forward at this stage seeks to eliminate the entire section. The Australian Democrats also have an amendment, which provides for what I suppose they would term the `truth' question. I am of the opinion that it would be unenforceable. I regret that it is impossible to determine this because it comes back to who determines what is truth. I believe it is quite normal and logical that the voters will determine whether they see people putting propositions to them in the course of an election as being truthful or not. I do not wish to induce party political problems at this stage, but I wonder: At what time does an election promise or an election statement cease to be a promise? At what stage can it be held to be untrue or at what stage can a statement, that is made now, be held to be misleading or deceptive later on? I say this only because the example that always comes to mind is the promise that there would be no capital gains tax. Whether that statement was said to be untrue, misleading or deceptive is a matter of opinion. It was probably made in good faith at the time, but there is nothing in this amendment that would give that sort of latitude to the interpretation in this legislation. I completely support the principle. I know that Senator Tate would totally agree that it should be the principle behind election advertising, but I regret that there is no way that I could see that we could ever reach the stage of being able to legislate for what is untrue or likely to be misleading or deceptive. Apart from those few comments we have no other objections to the legislation. We certainly look forward to the next package or information on when this might come through. It is a bit difficult to deal with a Bill that goes through and picks out half a dozen or a dozen items out of 156. We do need very carefully to see how the next lot of amendments will fit into the operation of the legislation. I am concerned that my colleagues and I are all facing problems as the Act is getting more difficult and extremely unsure in a lot of areas. I believe there are now definitions in the legislation that are quite unreasonable. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(11.40) —I rise to support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987. This Bill follows upon the major amendments made to Australia's Electoral Act in 1983 and 1984, shortly after the Hawke Government came to power. The current Bill is based significantly on the 1986 report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Much of the content of the 1987 amendments now before the Senate is about the matter of electoral redistributions for the House of Representatives. The 1983 Act which was passed by the Parliament restored to Australia fair electoral boundaries for the House of Representatives. These amendments passed by the Senate in 1983 restored the principle of one vote one value which had been taken out of the Commonwealth electoral laws. This had had the effect of distorting enrolments in House of Representatives electorates around Australia. I am very pleased indeed that it was under a Labor Government that the principle of one vote one value was restored to our electoral laws as they apply to elections for the House of Representatives. We did that by removing the disgraceful weighting of country electorates which was introduced at the behest of the National Party of Australia. We removed the 5,000 square kilometre rule, as it was known, which gave people living outside the metropolitan areas votes with a higher value than those votes cast by people living in Australia's large cities. It is very important to note that just as the Labor Government has restored equity and fairness to the Australian taxation system so, too, has the Labor Government restored fairness to Australia's electoral boundaries for the House of Representatives. It is very important to note that we now have greater fairness in the elections for the Australian House of Representatives. There is now a close relationship between votes won in House of Representatives elections and seats won in the House of Representatives chamber as a result of those votes being cast. That is how it should be in a democracy; that is how it should be in an advanced industrialised society-one vote one value. Previously we had incredibly large disparities in our electoral enrolments. I simply refer to the enrolments in Federal districts in your State, Mr Acting Deputy President, at the time of the 1980 elections, less than seven years ago. We had an enrolment in the electorate of Fadden of 83,900 persons, but in the Kennedy electorate, well outside the metropolitan area of Brisbane, we had an enrolment of 61,750 Australians. So within your State there was a 36 per cent disparity in electoral enrolments and a major difference in the value of the votes cast in national elections by Australians living in Queensland. That was an outrageous situation; it was a disgrace and blight on Australia and it was unacceptable. It is pleasing to see that that sort of situation has been dispensed with in national elections for the Australian Parliament. I regret to say that in State elections in your State it is still possible for minority governments to be elected-we have a minority government there at the moment. It is still possible for political parties polling less than 40 per cent of the votes-that is, fewer than four votes in every 10 formal votes cast-to be elected. That is the situation which prevails at the moment in the State of Queensland. Having dispensed with the unfairness in previous enrolments in Federal electorates, and having discussed the current unfairness in the drawing of electoral boundaries and in enrolments in Queensland, I will now move to the effect of the 1983 amendments to the Electoral Act in enfranchising many hundreds of thousands of Australians in elections for this place. Before those amendments were introduced as a result of the election of the Hawke Government, the fact was that at every election the number of people voting informal in Australia as a result of an unnecessary, complex and cumbersome electoral system for this place exceeded the number of people voting for the Australian Democrats. I think that puts the position into perspective. The informal party in Australia, up to and including the 1980 Senate elections, regularly outpolled the third party, if you like, in the Australian Parliament outside the Government and the formerly existing coalition. Many hundreds of thousands of Australian electors were disenfranchised by that ridiculous electoral system that we all had to suffer when we were expected to go into polling places with up to 74 preferences ranked in our minds for candidates. It is ludicrous to expect people to be able to carry around 70 or 80 preferences in their heads for a range of candidates in Senate elections. In my State of South Australia at the 1980 Senate elections there were two polling places in the Port Adelaide division where there was a 27 per cent informal vote. More than one person in four was forced to vote informal as a result of that ridiculous and unnecessarily complicated electoral system we had for this place. As a result of the amendments following the initial report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, informal voting in the Senate fell from 9.9 per cent nationally to 4.7 per cent. That was a tremendous reform. There was a reduction of over five percentage points in Senate informal voting. I am pleased to note that in my State the informal vote at some polling places was reduced by up to 19 percentage points. Unfortunately in recent times there has been a significant rise in informal voting for the House of Representatives. Traditionally informal votes for that House were relatively low compared with Senate informal votes, but at the 1984 elections there was a most regrettable and unfortunate increase in informal votes for the House of Representatives. In fact, a figure of some 6.8 per cent was recorded. I have no doubt that in other States of Australia, just as in South Australia, more than one vote in every 10 in some areas was an informal vote. That certainly was not the fault of the electors themselves; rather I believe it was to do with unsuccessful attempts to explain to the electorate the new voting system which resulted from the 1983 Act. One major milestone in the 1983 Act was the quantum leap in the recognition of political parties in our political system. Previously the Commonwealth Electoral Act had substantially ignored the vital role that political parties play in the Australian democracy. It was as a result of the 1983 Act that party affiliations first appeared on ballot papers alongside candidates' names. That was a major step forward. It brought Australia into line with those democracies around the world with which we traditionally identify ourselves. The Bill before the Senate takes on board many of the recommendations in the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in 1986. Generalising, the amendments are the result of the monitoring of the effects of the 1983 amendments in operation at the 1984 elections. As I suggested earlier, much of the content of this Bill is about redistribution procedures for House of Representatives elections. The original 1983 legislation got rid of the open-ended situation where it was possible for governments-normally they were conservative governments in Australia-not to call for redistributions when electoral enrolments got vastly out of line. The 1983 legislation provided for a maximum redistribution period of seven years. There had to be a redistribution at least once within a seven-year period. The aim of the 1983 legislation was to have equal enrolments 3 1/2 years from the date of the redistribution-that is, half way through the redistribution cycle. That took into account the fact that some parts of Australia had a declining population and declining enrolments while other parts had an increasing population and increasing electoral enrolments. To get back to the intitial point I made this morning about one vote one value, this procedure was to strengthen the Australian democracy by better providing, in practice and in effect, for the one vote one value principle. The amendments in this legislation will change the means of examining population during the seven-year election cycle. Instead of providing for a fairly precise equality in enrolments 3 1/2 years into the election cycle, this Bill will allow a tolerance of plus or minus 2 per cent on that figure to allow some latitude in forecasting population, and in developing enrolments during the seven-year election cycle. Clause 45 of the legislation provides that a redistribution is to occur within one month of nine months after the first meeting of the House of Representatives after an election. It is very interesting that clause 45 will have to be put into effect next year or early in 1989 and will have a tangible effect on State representation in the House of Representatives. For instance, Victoria at present has 39 members in the House of Representatives in Canberra, but on the basis of the population figures which were released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the December quarter of 1986, Victoria will be entitled to only 38.48 electoral quotas. It will fall below the half of an electoral quota which entitles it to have 39 members in the House of Representatives. Because of that declining relative population compared with the rest of Australia, Victoria will, at the next redistribution, go down from 39 members to 38 members in the House of Representatives as a result of the operation of clause 45 of the legislation. The population figures suggest that rather than having 148 members in the House of Representatives as at present, the total number will go down to 147 as a result of that one seat reduction in Victoria. Clause 19 of the legislation takes the role of the political parties even further in the Australian electoral system. I mentioned earlier that the 1983 amendments gave tangible expression to the role of political parties by providing for party affiliations to appear on ballot papers alongside candidates' names. Clause 19 of the new legislation will provide that a nomination form for candidates who contest an election can now be signed by the registered officer of a political party. So instead of the old situation where we all had to run around the community finding various numbers of electors to sign our nomination papers, we can now opt for one of two alternatives. We can continue with the old system or we can simply have our electoral nomination forms signed by the registered officer of our political party who is, in most cases, the State secretary of the political party. So there is further recognition in the legislation of the role of parties. After all, they are one of the central cogs of our political system. They are one of the vital elements of the modern Australian democracy. Clauses 20 and 26, based on my experience of the 1984 election, will be of benefit to all honourable senators. The clauses greatly simplify nomination procedures for candidates of Senate elections. Clause 20 relates to ballot paper groupings of Senate candidates. All Senate candidates from one party can now, as a result of this legislation, make a joint request for nomination rather than individually requesting nomination for election. Clause 26 relates to the group voting ticket which is one of the central ingredients of the reformed Senate voting system which was introduced in 1983. That clause will enable one member of a Senate group, that is one member of a political party grouped on the Senate ballot paper, to sign that party's group voting ticket. One of the landmarks in the 1983 legislation on electoral reform was the treatment of money in politics. It took the election of a Labor Government to move to clean up the flow of money into politics. Over many decades Liberal and National conservative governments did nothing to clean up the flow of money into politics. They did nothing to expose the flow of money to the light of day. It took a Labor Government, within 12 months of being elected, to move to introduce new financial disclosure laws for Australian elections. That sort of legislation is vital in a democratic system. It is vital in balancing powerful forces in our electoral system. Money should not be able to buy votes. The ability to spend should not influence electoral outcomes. It was those disclosure laws, introduced by the Hawke Government, which first had their effect at the 1984 election. I repeat: Those laws first went into effect for the 1984 election. I was amazed to see on 30 April last week on the front page of the Sydney Daily Mirror the headline `Joh-I Need Money'. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, is said to have told Australian business leaders that he would find a way around `devilish laws'. He was referring to the new disclosure laws which, as I have indicated, seek to clean up the flow of money into politics. Sir Joh, in a public forum, was telling Australian business leaders that he needed up to $20m to finance his Canberra push. He told them that he would try to find a way around these electoral laws which are in place for Commonwealth elections in Australia. The most incredible claim Sir Joh made at this particular gathering was that the laws on disclosure were `aimed specifically to starve his Party'. That is what he told this gathering in Sydney. That is what he said when he told them that he needed $20m to finance his push to Canberra. I remind Sir Joh, the Premier of Queensland-Senator Macklin knows this full well, as he was part of the process-that these electoral laws were the result of many long deliberations in 1983, that they were passed into law soon after and that they were in place for the 1984 Federal election. Now Sir Joh, who had the brainwave over Christmas that he wants to come to Canberra-- Senator Macklin —You are being retrospectively vindictive-obviously, Senator. Senator MAGUIRE —I was going to move on to say that my diagnosis is one of either creeping paranoia or, more likely, senile dementia. We have the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, reported on the front page of the Sydney Daily Mirror as saying that we are out to get him by passing these laws. But they were passed to clean up the flow of money into politics at the 1984 Federal election and later. I will leave honourable senators to make up their minds as to the real reasons for the claims Sir Joh made in Sydney last week. I think it is outrageous that a State Premier is trying to avoid a law of the national Parliament. The conservative Premier of Tasmania set a precedent recently by trying to play around with the procedures for replacing senators who have resigned from this place, despite a referendum result in 1977 which was very clear on the position. It is outrageous that conservative State Premiers are trying to avoid a law of the national Parliament, a law which was passed not just in this place but by both Houses of Parliament-as are all laws. It is a law which has been tested in operation, in the case of the disclosure laws, and Sir Joh in making the claim that he will find a way around these `devilish laws' is setting a very bad example for the Australian community. Sir Joh is the leader in the political system, yet he is advocating the avoidance of laws. Sir Joh does not want to have money on politics exposed; he does not want to see the flow of money into elections brought out into the light of day-he wants his anonymous donor funding to continue. Sir Joh wants to see a continuation of secret deals and to see continue unchecked the rampaging around Australia of political bagmen. Of course, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's attitude to the flow of money in politics is quite consistent with his attitude to the flow of money under the Queensland Government. It is no coincidence that Queensland is the only State in Australia which does not have a public accounts committee to scrutinise and check government expenditure activities. This Bill also moves further into what I call the third party area in politics. Its provisions are aimed more directly at the involvement of third party groups in the Australian political system. Of course, these groups have become more active in recent years. What I call `on behalf of groups' have begun to proliferate around Australia. We have seen many advertisements in the Press in recent years by groups on behalf of candidates or, perhaps more commonly, advertisements by groups against candidates-negative advertisements. I believe one of the important aspects of this Bill is the requirement that third party groups which are involved in the political system now must disclose publicly the gifts they make throughout an entire three-year electoral cycle, not just the gifts they make during a formal election campaign. It is appropriate that third party groups be treated like other groups in the Australian political system and that all gifts be disclosed throughout the three-year period rather than just for the period of a formal election campaign. After all, much research these days indicates that many people change their votes, many people change their preferences for political parties, well before an election occurs. The number of votes which actually change during a formal election campaign may be quite marginal in number. This particular provision, aimed at the proliferating number of third party groups in Australia, I believe is very important indeed. Looking ahead, there are further reforms in the electoral system that I would like to see brought into effect. For example, it is vitally important that we go all out to enfranchise the maximum number of Australians to vote in House of Representatives elections. We had the most unfortunate situation at the 1984 House of Representatives election where 6.8 per cent of all people who cast votes did so informally. It is vitally important that those Australians be fully enfranchised and able to play their full part in the Australian political process. It is therefore important that we embark on better advertising. We need market research and we need the provision of appropriate voter education material to assist these Australians to cast valid formal votes at future elections. I certainly welcome the plans announced by the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, to embark on a mail-out of material, through the Australian Electoral Commission, in an attempt to assist electors to cast valid votes. It used to be said in one of the more corrupt of the American States by one of the political machines that operated there that electors should `vote early and vote often'. I would like to refer in the few minutes remaining to me to the advertisements and calls made by the Australian Electoral Commission at most elections that electors should vote early. I think that we have all heard the Commission's advice to electors to vote early. My experience is that in the early hours of voting at polling booths there tend to be queues. There is more congestion at polling booths in the mornings than in the afternoons, which tend to be rather dreary for poll officials and for Australian Labor Party workers and I am sure for conservative party workers when handing out how-to-vote cards. I think it is time that the Electoral Commission looked at the practice of calling on voters to vote early; instead, the Commission should try to spread the number of voters at polling booths more evenly throughout the day. I think that there must be people who go to a polling booth of a morning, find it congested and go away and do not return to vote. I would like to see in Australia further speeding up of the counting of our election results. It takes far too long in Australia to determine which party will form the Government of Australia and which party will form the Opposition. Often we find that we must wait for up to a week to know the margin in a House of Representatives election, and a three or four week waiting period is common before we know the final results of Senate elections. Overseas, people can go to bed at night, after voting, and wake up the next morning and know immediately who has formed the government of that country. It is very common in political systems such as that in the United Kingdom for the Government to be known either on election night or early the next morning. Obviously our system of preferential voting in Australia complicates that and has an effect on the speed with which we are able to determine who will govern us. I think we really must look at this whole matter of speeding up the determination of who will govern Australia after an election. Many issues, many policies and many countries are involved and it is vitally important that this matter be looked at. Of course, the Bill does move down that road in two areas. First, it simplifies the means and the method of counting Senate votes, including the exclusion of some candidates' votes in bulk in some situations; and secondly, it certainly enables an earlier scrutiny of preferences on voting papers to occur than was the case in the past. So in those two areas the Bill certainly helps to speed up the processing of Australian election results-but I think we need to do more. I would like to see further examination of computerised voting in Australia. I am aware that in many countries now computerised voting is extensive. Most States in the United States of America, including those with small populations, engage in computerised voting. Technology such as optical scanners is now available to handle preferential voting. Senator Tate —What do you mean by `computerised voting'? Senator MAGUIRE —I mean going beyond filling in ballot papers by writing to new computerised technology where people can press buttons or put an image on a scanner for preferences for a range of candidates. That is now very common overseas. I realise that it is a costly exercise. Computerisation does not come cheaply, but it should be looked at. I instance the fact that most Australian schools, certainly in my State-and I know that South Australia is a pioneering State in many ways-have computer terminals. Schools are often used as polling places, so we should look at the use of schools more as computerised polling places for the conduct of our elections and not look just at the traditional areas. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.10) —We are debating the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987, which amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the fundamental Act for the operation of democracy in Australia. I have been a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform since its inception in 1983 and it has been fascinating not only to have had the opportunity to work through the Act in detail section by section but also to be in a position, having suggested changes to that Act, to have the opportunity to review those changes to see how they worked out in practice and to see whether they were the best or optimum changes that could have been made. Following the Committee's review of the 1984 election we produced a report almost identical in size to the first report of the Committee. This report did not deal quite so heavily with matters of philosophy or general discussions of practice; rather, it dealt in some considerable detail with the minutiae of electoral operations running up to, during and after an election. The Australian Democrats support the amendments contained in the Bill. As a result of the Committee's inquiry and the extensive discussions it had, it had sufficient confidence to propose in its second report hundreds of amendments on the matters addressed. The Government is to be congratulated not only for accepting the Committee's report but also for moving so swiftly to translate the report into legislation form and to introduce this Bill. I must admit that I for one did not expect to see it until at least the Budget session. Fairly obviously, for a number of reasons, we would not have liked it to have been introduced in the Budget session. However, I would have thought that the pressure, particularly on the legislative wing of the Government, would have been such as not to enable the Government to produce a Bill in that amount of time. I am very pleased that it has been able to do so. Senator Tate —It is a tribute to the new Minister! Senator MACKLIN —Yes, undoubtedly it is a tribute entirely to the new Minister. I accept that point which came from Senator Tate, who is the new Special Minister of State. This Bill means that by the time of the next election the Commonwealth Electoral Commission will have had a considerable time to put these changes into place and it will be well prepared to address the next election. I also commend the Commission's work during the 1984 election in particular. I make special mention of the work done by the Commission after the election. My Party, in all divisions, found the Commission to be extremely helpful. Its officers went out of their way to explain to people who were in some confusion because of the immensity of the changes that had been made precisely what was necessary. After the election they were extremely helpful on the matter of public funding. Their implementation of the law at that time was both delicate and considerate, in view of the fact that we were all novices. They dealt with it in a proper way which showed great sensitivity and which showed that they understood that the candidates who were standing were attempting to do the right thing even if they did not manage on all occasions to meet the letter of the law. I again make a plea to the Electoral Commission that it produce a step by step guide. The guide might not be so important this time around for the established political parties, but I believe that a guide would be of incredible use particularly to independent candidates who wish to stand in the next election. I do not think that we should expect in a democracy that a candidate is necessarily a constitutional lawyer, or a lawyer of any sort. I think that it is one of the strengths of our democracy that the Parliament is composed of people from all walks of life. Although we need a complex electoral law-I disagree with Senator Archer on this-we must make sure that the complexity of that law should not deter people from standing for Parliament. I would hope that a step by step guide could be provided whereby the candidate, having completed step one of filling out forms or whatever else is necessary, could then move on to step two and step three. It is a constructive way of dealing with the problems that undoubtedly many independent candidates in particular, but also candidates for the major parties, have. They could then be sure that they have completed all the necessary requirements that are set down in the Act. The amending Bill will reduce enormously the amount of complexity in a range of areas, particularly in the area of Senate nomination. I remember quite vividly my campaign manager constantly calling me back from somewhere in Queensland to suggest that I had to fill out yet another form, and then that we had to get people together from all over Queensland to fill out yet another form. This seemed to go on for most of the election period. This Bill has addressed that issue head on. We now have to fill out only one form. Candidates of established political parties do not even have to sign the form; it can be signed by the registered officer of the party. We have attempted to meet a number of the practical problems that arose during the last election. I must admit that there are other areas in which I am still not satisfied. They are areas in which in our discussions within the Committee we found it very difficult to think of a viable and reasonable alternative. Here I refer to the issue of public funding, particularly whether the political parties have complied with the Act and have declared, as they should, their donations. People within the community who ought to know better have threatened that they are going to get around the law. I find that to be an utterly disgraceful, incredible and reprehensible statement for any politician in this country to make. I find it extraordinary that people in a position of passing laws should promote their intention to get around the law and urge other people to get around it. If such people do not have the numbers to overturn such a law, they should either declare that it is an immoral law and that they will not comply with it and take the necessary consequences of that action or seek to come up with some suggestions as to how an alternative system may work. One of the problems we are going to face next time around is that the amount of money which was refunded last time under public funding will now appear as an item in the new amounts when they are tendered to the Electoral Commission after the election. In other words, the Electoral Commission will receive certain amounts of money that were a refund from a previous public funding exercise. That amount of money will simply grow over the years to make inoperative the various items that we currently have in this legislation. So the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform will be pressed in its continuing inquiry to come up with something more substantial in this area. It is a pity in a way because the law as it currently stands, if it were complied with honestly and openly by political parties, would be sufficient. Increasing complexity and toughness in this area will induce all sorts of concomitant problems. But, obviously, because of the stated intention of a number of people, that type of tack will have to be taken. For example, it had to be taken with regard to fringe benefits. If people had complied with the law, there would have been no problem. The problem that confronts any government in addressing a law which is being abused in whether to take the law out or to toughen it up. There are really no other choices. I am very supportive of the Act and the amendments to it contained in this Bill. I think the Bill will go a long way towards overcoming a number of problems that we encountered last time. As the spokesperson for my political party, the Australian Democrats, I have another wish list of possible amendments that could be made. I think that over time some of these may come about, but obviously the political climate at this time is not conducive to those types of reform. However, we could have addressed one additional issue, which is the issue of how to vote cards. I know that it is suggested that this is a self-serving argument, and I wish to address that directly. The first step is to avoid having people along the footpaths and elsewhere thrusting cards on to citizens as they come up to an election polling booth-an intrusion about which many people feel very upset. Although my preference would be to get rid of the cards entirely at that point of the electoral process, the next step could very well be to place them in the entrance to the polling booth, in a designated box, so that electors could take them in an easy fashion and use them if they so wished. That would be a relatively simple way of handling the problem. It would meet the kinds of objections that have been raised about our seeking a self-serving operation. What we are seeking is to remove that operation at the polls. One of the underpinning arguments that we would put is the need constantly to push our citizens to address their civic obligations by knowing precisely what they will do before they even get into the car or walk to the polling booth. Because we have compulsory voting, we do not have the pressure that exists in other countries for political parties to do a whole host of things by way of electoral education. Essentially, what we have to do is to push it back on to the government of the day to provide what in other countries is provided by political parties. To add a bit of pressure in this area we might take one step back with regard to how to vote cards. But that is obviously not to be. I submitted a minority report with the first report of the Joint Committee but we have not been able to proceed beyond that point. I doubt whether, even if I moved an amendment, I would get any indication of support from either the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who is at the table, or Senator Ray, who is also in the chamber and who is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. However, I will move one other amendment in the hope that we may have another debate on this issue. It is an issue which was the subject of a recommendation of the first report. It ended up in the Act but was taken out of the Act prior to the 1984 election. It concerns truthfulness in advertising. To address head on the issues raised by Senator Archer as to why he could not support this I quote-in a way that I should not do-from a speech that I made in the Senate previously. With a certain amount of prescience, I used the exact same argument that he used-the capital gains tax argument. This speech was in 1984, pre-capital gains tax. I think it shows an extraordinary amount of foresight on my part to have used that example at the time. As recorded in the Hansard of 11 October 1984, I said: I will take two substantive statements that may be included in an advertisement. This is the first: the Australian Labor Party will introduce a capital gains tax if it wins the 1 December election. Let us also take the statement that the Australian Labor Party's official policy is to introduce a capital gains tax. The first statement would not be caught up under the Act as it currently stands. Let us remember that it was in the Act at that time but was taken out. I continued: In other words it is a statement made amongst the political hurly-burly. It is a statement which has almost as much bearing as Mr Peacock's list of broken promises which he issued the other day. This is dated, is it not? I continued: It is of that order. Mr Peacock was rightly picked up in his Press conference, for the Australian Labor Party had not done what he had said it had done in government. In other words, Mr Peacock was saying that the Government was going to break that promise in the next Parliament. It is a political debating point; part of the grist for the mill. The ordinary elector knows that it is the type of comment which is thrown around; it is not the type of comment which is caught under this Act. However, the type of statement which would be caught up under the Act as it currently stands and which this Government will remove, supported by the Opposition, is a statement such as: `The Australian Labor Party's official policy document says that it will introduce a capital gains tax when it comes to power'. The only point one can make about that comment is not that it is a debating point; it is that it is untrue. It is deceptive. It is calculated to influence the result of the election. That is what one can say about that comment. It is a comment which would be caught up under this Act . . . I want to distinguish those two types of comments. In the Committee stage of that debate I referred to another item, an advertisement of the Australian Labor Party which had appeared on the previous Thursday with regard to what it had done in government and which included a whole list of statistics. The point I made at that time was that I would have thought that a political party would be happy to have a legislative guarantee that those statistics were true. Someone may ask: `Well, is it true?'. That is a reasonable question from an elector trying to make up his mind about such advertisements. We can say: `Yes. We are not allowed to put in deceptive or untrue statements'. We are not talking about statements concerned with predictions of what will occur. Those types of statements do not have a truth value. But, as Senator Tate will realise, quite a number of statements do have a truth value but can be untrue, deceptive. In support of my argument, I refer to the Trade Practices Act. With the Trade Practices Act 1974, passed by a coalition government, this chamber was happy to impose on other people-not on politicians-an identical obligation. That Act states: A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive. That also means anything that is likely to be misleading or deceptive. On advertisements, it states that corporations shall not make untrue, false or misleading statements or publish advertisements that are false or misleading. We are happy for an obligation to be imposed on commerce to address the issue directly and head on and that, in its relationships with the community, it be compelled to make true statements-that is, ones that are not misleading or deceptive. The least that we can ask is that. I apologise to the Senate for the amendments that have been circulated, as another one should have been attached to them. The last time that the issues were discussed we had a lively debate on injunctions, essentially initiated by Senator Ray. At that time, I said on behalf of my Party that we would be happy to give away the power of a political party to take injunctions under that section if it were retained. I stand by that commitment and will, in the Committee stage, circulate an amendment to that effect. We are happy for the Australian Electoral Commission, which has the power of injunction and also the obligation to enforce the Act, to have that power in its hands, and not to have it ourselves. I take the point made by Senator Ray in the 1984 debate, that the power could be used in a destructive fashion by certain groups, particularly those which do not have the resources held by the major parties, to engage in massive advertising campaigns and hence, out of spite or otherwise, to seek to disrupt the legitimate process. The Australian Democrats do not wish to do that. We admit that a narrow band of comments and advertisements will be picked up, but in any reform one must start somewhere. If we cannot reform the entire world, there is still a legitimate argument for reforming the little bit that we can get hold of. I believe that the Bill will be at least one step down that path. It will catch a limited range of statements that have truth value in their own right. That is not a matter of conjecture, or of what is in the eye of the beholder-it is a matter of strict logic. Certain statements can have a truth value; the majority cannot be assigned a truth value. It is a very simple proposition. We will address ourselves to that part of the Act in the Committee stage and seek to move amendments. The Australian Democrats will support the Bill. Of course, we shall listen to the arguments, but I doubt whether any of them, on the matters to which I have referred, have not already been heard by the Committee, which carried out an exhaustive analysis of those items. My Party is of the view that, at the moment, we envisage no benefit in supporting the amendments circulated by the National Party or the Liberal Opposition. I count myself proud to have been able to engage in this process, which does not occur very often in the life of Australia. It has been a very fascinating exercise. With the independent Electoral Commission, the means to carry out redistributions, the more open way that we conduct our elections-especially relating to funds, and we all know that elections are premised on increasingly large amounts of money-I believe that we now have an open, responsive, clean, fair and equitable electoral system, which is possibly the best anywhere in the world. A very large amount of that is due to the Government, and I am happy to say so. It has shown an enthusiasm, willingness and determination to act in these matters, and that should be acknowledged. If that passion continues, further changes can and will be made. It is unfortunate that, in politics, often credit is not given when credit is due. We spend most of our time attacking one another, and I wish to take some time out from that activity to congratulate the Government on its efforts during the last two parliaments. I appreciate the work done by so many people, especially Dr Klugman, who was the Chairman of the first committee, and Senator Robert Ray, who was the Chairman of the second committee, for their diligent, detailed and exhaustive labours on behalf of both committees. They carried through something that was not an easy task. It is not a task to which we tend to lend much weight in this place, although it is a fundamental way of governing what we do in this country. It is a vital task. I would not like the debate to pass without putting on record the Australian Democrats' appreciation of the work done by the Government in this area. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(12.37) —I thank Senator Archer for his kind words about the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, but I must issue a warning to him. In trotting parlance, at least for Liberal front benchers, the Electoral Reform Committee has been known as the death seat. For example, first of all Mr Steele Hall, a shadow spokesman, served on the Committee. He was unfortunately dumped on the back bench. He was succeeded by Mr MacKellar, a front bencher at the time who is now sitting at the back of the House of Representatives. We also had the pleasure of the service-on occasions-of Mr Charles Blunt, also a front bencher at that stage, who has also been relegated to the back bench. My advice to Senator Archer, as a new shadow Minister, is: Do not aspire to serve on this Committee. The Bill is directed only at improving the 1983-84 Bills. It irons out the bumps and fills in the potholes of that landmark legislation. I agree with Senator Macklin that it has been one of the major areas of improvement in Australian society in the past few years. That is not really acknowledged by the public because it is not of most interest to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill, with only two exceptions, follows the recommendations of the Electoral Reform Committee. It is not as comprehensive as we may have wished, but I am sure that everyone will understand the problems that we faced with the availability of parliamentary draftsmen and the very heavy legislative program in which we are currently engaged. Therefore, although some of the Committee's recommendations are not picked up in the Bill, I understand that an assurance has been given that, at a later date, most of them will be picked up. Of course, the Government reserves the right not to pick up all of the recommendations, but I think that well in excess of 90 per cent of them will find their way into law. At the start of the Bill are some fairly heavy amendments on redistributions. I acknowledge that they were included in this Bill and not in a later Bill simply because they were already drafted. We might as well deal with them now, even though we do not have a prospective redistribution-other than perhaps in Victoria-for another four years. Firstly, we reordered the timetable under which we carry out redistributions. That was primarily occasioned by the fact that New South Wales was dealt with on the last occasion of a redistribution simply because, during that process, it was involved in a State election-one in which, I am pleased to say, Mr Neville Wran was again returned. Therefore, New South Wales came at the end of the timetable, but we are suggesting a legislative amendment that would allow it to start where we always thought it would start, which is at the beginning. After all, New South Wales has 51 seats. A redistribution would be more difficult there than in any other State. We also suggest a variation of 2 per cent after 3 1/2 years of a redistribution. This simply means that the commissioners would have more flexibility. Under the existing Act the maximum variation can be 10 per cent-some seats grow at a fairly fast rate; I am sure that Senator Sheil would know how quickly Fadden grew and how quickly Fisher is growing now-and sometimes because there is no provision for a variation of 2 per cent after 3 1/2 years the commissioners are forced to create what are almost artificial seats, putting some fast growing areas and some exceptionally slowly growing or declining areas together. This provision will give the commissioners more flexibility and, I think, will draw support from all sections of the chamber for that reason. We stress again in our report, and to an extent in the legislation, that the independence of distribution commissioners is of paramount importance. I cannot recall one criticism of any of the appointments in the last round. There must have been 30-odd distribution commissioners throughout Australia and I do not think there was one criticism. There was one potential problem in Queensland where the Surveyor-General had overt political views, which I think were of Senator Sheil's persuasion, and he immediately stepped down from that position; so there was no criticism. I say that he did the right thing. We have had independent commissioners. One of the keys to having independent commissioners is our request that State Auditors-General throughout Australia be included in the redistribution process. The position of Auditor-General is the perfect statutory position, historically filled by people of independence. If they were allowed to serve on the redistribution committees I do not think there would be any criticism in this chamber. As it was, we had a 3-3 result. Three Premiers gave permission and three refused it. That did not break down on political lines. I think the Tasmanian Premier refused, as did the Victorian Premier, or someone else. I am not sure of the details. We reiterate that we would like to see the State Auditors-General included in the redistribution process. We have also recommended that the broad outlines of redistributions be released by the redistribution committees as soon as they are known. In other words, the committees should not wait until every map and transmission line is drawn. They should let us know the outlines. That would have several advantages. It would enable people to get their objections to a redistribution well and truly under way. It would also stop leaks. The Commonwealth Police, I think, had to investigate a leak of a redistribution last time. It emanated, we think, not from the Electoral Commission but from a mapping office. So the broad outlines should be released as soon as possible. We also argue-Senator Archer probably covered this-that if an augmented electoral commission has made reasonably radical changes in a particular State it has further hearings on them. There was a problem in New South Wales last time where the commissioners, having listened to objections, agreed with the objections and said: `We are going to rewrite the rural face of New South Wales'. There was no chance for people who had not been associated with those objections to put their views forward, or very little chance, because they did not know what was in the commissioners' minds. We suggest that where there is a reasonably radical reorientation of a commissioner's original suggestion there be more hearings. Thus, we would go from a 36-day objection period through to a period of 60 days, which would give us plenty of time. The final thing we suggest in terms of redistribution is about the fact that nowadays sub-divisions are basically an outmoded means of achieving a redistribution. Too often they are artificially constructed and too often they are reliant on what State boundaries are. We suggest that census areas be used as a building block in a redistribution. That would help not only the Commission, by the way; it would help every political party to put in an accurate suggestion to the commissioners. As it is, when one puts in a submission now to the commissioners about a sub-division it is largely guesswork as to what the eventual numbers will be. So we recommend that building block process. We recommend the repeal of the provisions of the Act relating to the registration of candidates. We do so simply because we have found it unnecessary. The registration of political parties virtually picks up everything. It has been largely of nuisance value around election time to have to fill in these forms. I am sure that we can do without them. We have simplified the grouping of candidates and nomination procedures. Anyone who was a Senate candidate last time almost got repetition strain injury from filling out all the forms, hoping that he did not make a mistake. Even though I had been involved in creating all this legislation, I had to puzzle for many minutes over where on the form I signed and where I filled it in to make sure that I did not make a mistake. I am sure that everyone was in that position. We recommend the simplification of those nomination procedures, including, incidentally, dispensing with having to get six signatures on a nomination form if one is part of a registered political party. That goes by the board. A more contentious recommendation, possibly, is the 14-day cut-off rule for postal votes and absentee votes. My pushing this issue has arisen from the Nunawading case, which essentially provides, as I understand it, that there is no time limit for these votes under the present electoral law. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) will be absent from the chamber at Question Time today as he is attending a special meeting of the northern and central land councils in Darwin, at their request. Any questions which would normally be directed to Senator Evans in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to me. Honourable senators who have questions for the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) should attempt to direct them to him in the first half hour of Question Time as he will be departing from the chamber at 2.30 p.m. to travel to Brisbane for a speaking engagement later today. Senator CHANEY —I preface my question by saying that I appreciate the Leader of the Government in the Senate letting us know why honourable senators are absent. However, I ask him to ensure that Ministers are not absent from the chamber at Question Time unless there is some inescapable reason. My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance both in that capacity and in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of a decision by the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union to ban the handling of pay as you earn tax payments from companies? Will that action have serious implications for government revenue, both directly and indirectly, bearing in mind that bans by Customs officers some years ago reportedly cost the Commonwealth about $18m in extra interest payments? In view of this disruption to government activities and the threat by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association to start industrial action next month, what action does the Government propose? Will it consider relegislating for the powers which it discarded to allow it to act by standing down its employees who refuse to carry out normal duties for which they are being paid by the taxpayer? Senator WALSH —I am pleased to note that Senator Chaney and the Opposition are concerned about the effect of work bans, or the possible effect of work bans, on the receipt of money. I just wish they showed a similar concern about the effect of work bans imposed by the Australian Capital Territory doctors union. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order: Question Time is being reduced to a farce by this idiot of a Minister because he will not answer any question which is directed to him without reference to a debate that he continues to raise in Question Time. Mr President, it may be good enough for you as the President to tolerate this abuse of the Senate-I see that my friend the Leader of the Government in the Senate is about to raise a point of order-but I would like to say that the Opposition requires that there be more control over this. Senator Button —On a point of order, Mr President: I think the word `idiot' as applied to the Minister should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Chaney to withdraw that remark. Senator Chaney —I withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to answer the question that he was asked by Senator Chaney. Senator WALSH —I wish I could get a response instead of prevarication and obfuscation from the Opposition about its views on the Australian Capital Territory doctors union's work ban in pursuit of a wage claim of $350 a week for a part time job. I wish the Opposition showed as much concern about the health of people in the Australian Capital Territory as it does about some other things. In regard to the APTU and the ACOA, I was advised orally, just before coming into the chamber for Question Time, that the matters have been referred to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I do not know any more than that at this stage or, more specifically, I do not know what effect the work bans have had or whether they have consequently been removed. If such bans remain in place in the areas to which Senator Chaney referred, they have the potential to delay the collection of tax revenue and, therefore, to increase public debt interest payments, among other things. Naturally, that is an outcome of which the Government would take a very dim view. However, it makes it very much harder for a government to impose discipline on any section of the union movement when other sections of the union movement, such as the doctors union in the Australian Capital Territory, pursue greedy and excessive wage claims with a campaign of industrial action based on work bans-in other words, it does exactly the same thing as the other unions are doing, except that there is an enormous difference of degree. It is very hard, particularly when the doctors union is supported by the Opposition, for the Government to bring any effective moral suasion to bear on the APTU or the ACOA. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the Minister expects the Opposition to solve the Government's problems in the industrial relations area. Does the Minister agree that the Government, when it came to office, had weapons in the legislation that was then in place which would have enabled it to deal with this dispute by standing down those people who are not prepared to do the work for which they are being paid? I ask the Minister: Will the Government consider relegislating to get those powers again so that this sort of industrial blackmail can be brought to an end? Senator WALSH —The provision to which Senator Chaney referred was contained in the CE(RR) Act; that is, the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act. The provision existed in the legislation, but it was hardly ever used, if at all. In other words, it was ineffective. If a campaign of industrial disruption aimed at sabotaging the collection of public revenue continues, obviously the Government will have to consider what action it will take in response. Senator Durack —Reintroduce the Act. Senator WALSH —The former Government had it there for about six years and it did nothing with it. That is my point. Senator Chaney —I used it. Senator WALSH —Senator Chaney says that he used it. That must have been one of the very few instances in which it was used. Senator Michael Baume —Unless you are an idiot. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Baume will withdraw that remark. Senator Michael Baume —I withdraw it. I did not address it to the Minister. I meant that it not be used unless one is an idiot. Senator WALSH —I was about to say, before Senator Durack emerged from hibernation, that I trust that any action this Government takes will be much more effective in addressing the problem than was the CE(RR) Act over which the former Government presided for quite a while. Senator WEST —Can the Minister for Education comment on the effect on teenage unemployment of the increased number of students now participating in post-compulsory education? What is the current rate of youth unemployment? What will be the effect on young people of achieving the 65 per cent retention rate? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to answer this question from Senator West because there appears to be a great deal of confusion in the media, and indeed from some Opposition spokespersons, about the real level of youth unemployment; that is, the actual number of teenagers who are looking for a job and unable to find one. Since 1982, education participation has increased dramatically. The year 12 retention rate rose from 36 per cent in 1982 to 49 per cent in 1986. Over half our younger people will complete year 12 this year. In terms of absolute numbers of enrolments for years 10 to 12, the number is an increase of 118,000. Over the same period, technical and further education enrolments rose by 47,000. This means that the number of young people who are unemployed and not attending any educational institution declined from 9.9 per cent of all 15- to 19-year-olds in 1983 to 7.5 per cent in 1986. This improvement is a clear vindication of our Government's policies of increasing education participation and creating other training opportunities for young people. Despite the Opposition's rhetoric, our Government has in fact raised participation in post-compulsory education and that in fact has decreased the percentage of young people who are unemployed. We have put in place real initiatives to remove the financial disincentives for young people to leave school early. The teenage unemployment rate in March 1983, when measured as a percentage of young people on the labour market, was 26.6 per cent. That figure in March of this year was 22.8 per cent, a fall in four years of 29,400 or 19 per cent. So the number of teenagers who were looking for full time work in February of this year was 125,900, or 9.3 per cent of the 15- to 19-year-old population. The comparative figure for March 1983 was 155,300. So there has been a decline in actual numbers of young people on the labour market of 21,400. Clearly the increasing rates of school retention and tertiary enrolments have had a very substantial impact on reducing youth unemployment. As to the last part of Senator West's question, the Government's target of a 65 per cent year 12 retention rate by 1992 will increase school enrolments by an additional 100,000 students, further relieving youth unemployment and, of course, increasing the job prospects and skill levels of those young people. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Given the importance of the opium poppy industry in Tasmania, is the Minister aware that major producers, India and Turkey, have disregarded international convention provisions against stock buildup in excess of that required to meet current trading needs? Acknowledging the existence of this excess stock, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will not relax its policy of banning codeine imports so that excess stock will not find its way into Australia? Can he also explain why Australia did not call for the vote during the February 1987 United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna on implementing previously approved resolutions, and assure the Tasmanian opiate producers that Australia's position was not, as was alleged in some quarters, used as a trade-off or negotiation for the entry of Australian products into Turkey? Senator BUTTON —Although the question is one which is appropriately directed to me in this chamber, it has implications for the Department of Trade, the Department of Health and other departments. I must confess that the growing of opium is not high on the list of my industry policy priorities. But I have had representations or discussions with a company in Australia involved in the growing of poppies and a producer of codeine products, and I undertook to have the problem examined for them. I also understand that the Premier of Tasmania has written to the Prime Minister about this matter. I think the best I can say at the moment is that there is clearly room for an urgent examination of the question by the Government, and I will undertake to get an answer as soon as possible. Senator FOREMAN —Can the Special Minister of State comment on reports of charges laid against two of the principal figures involved in the Barlow and Chambers drug case? Senator TATE —In answer to Senator Foreman, I am advised that following investigations by the National Crime Authority, in both Malaysia and Western Australia, in conjunction with the Western Australian Police, charges have been laid against two senior members of the drug ring which employed Barlow and Chambers. That particular drug ring was one of the largest importers of heroin into Australia and the investigations concerning the drug ring have, as I say, been carried out in Australia over some time. That particular collaboration between the National Crime Authority and the Western Australian Police reminds me that that co-operation between Federal and State law enforcement authorities is very important to the successful prosecution of the fight against organised crime, and particularly drug trafficking, which I am sure all honourable senators would wish to see conducted in as efficient a manner as possible. One is reminded, for example, that quite recently, as a result of the National Crime Authority's investigations in conjunction with the Victorian police force, heroin worth some $30m was seized and four persons were arrested. The success of that operation was certainly the result of the close co-operation between those two law enforcement agencies. It may be of interest to honourable senators to know that as at the end of February 150 persons had been charged with a total of 386 offences, the bulk of these being drug related, as a result of National Crime Authority investigations. Major offences, besides drug offences, for which charges have been issued include firearms, passport, tax, murder, kidnapping and grievous bodily harm offences. Charges have been preferred against principal targets-major figures-of four Commonwealth references and three general investigations undertaken by the Authority. I make the general point that the Authority's success in investigating, gathering intelligence, assembling evidence and undertaking arrests and pressing charges, has generally been the first to disrupt organised crime which was getting such a grip on the Australian community, despite many of the individuals concerned being well known, having been named in various royal commissions and allegations having been made against them involving criminal conduct for many years. I think the Authority, which is very much the creature of this chamber, invested as it is with quite extraordinary powers, although subject to some supervision both by the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and by the intergovernmental committee which grants it its special references, has well served the Australian people in the few short years of its existence. As I say, not only has it disrupted a lot of criminal organisations, but it is also of interest to note that action is in train as a result of the NCA's investigations to recover some $18m from proceeds of criminal activity through pecuniary penalty orders, civil remedies penalties and taxation assessments. This particular aspect of the Authority's work is probably not as well known as the more spectacular arrests and pressing of charges. But in fact it will well supplement the work that we hope will flow from the passage through this Parliament shortly of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. It will ensure that those who accumulate assets through nefarious criminal activities do not enjoy those assets; for example, they will not merely be subjected to gaol terms, come out of gaol and then enjoy the fruits of their criminal activities. We believe there should be restitution to society and that people should not profit from their illegal activities. We hope that that particular part of the package of legislation introduced by the Attorney-General in another place will get a speedy passage to enable that to be done. Senator SANDERS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Is the Minister aware of a New South Wales Department of Health confidential report produced in January-February 1987, which refers to a sample of dairy products taken on Lord Howe Island, which it describes as `indicating extremely poor quality in terms of chemical composition as well as bacteriological status'? Is it a fact that the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service is conducting a substantial poisoning program on the island in park areas adjacent to agricultural areas? What involvement have Federal agencies had in the poisoning program? How does the Minister supervise New South Wales Government activities on the island, which is of national interest through its world heritage listing? Finally, how will the Minister ensure that the poisoning program is having no negative impact on the native flora and fauna of the island or the human inhabitants and their domesticated animals? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer in response to Senator Sanders's question: It is true that the New South Wales Health Department has taken samples of dairy products on Lord Howe Island. It is also true that the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service is conducting a program of using herbicides and rat poison on Lord Howe Island. However, the poisons used are being applied in accord with the manufacturer's instructions and there has been no suggestion that the poisons have contaminated the dairy products. The Federal Government has had no involvement in this program, which is the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. The Commonwealth Government believes that questions related to land use and land management on Lord Howe Island are essentially ones for the appropriate New South Wales authorities. The Commonwealth Government is also mindful of the fact that Dr Jim Thorsell, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources adviser on world heritage matters, considered that the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service was one of the best five park services in the world. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Does the Department of Social Security have in operation any practice of appropriating funds from social security recipients allegedly in debt to it without a court order? If so, what is the legal basis for that practice? Does the Department have what is called a recall system? If so, what is it? Senator TATE —Yes, the Social Security Department does have in operation a practice of obtaining funds from social security recipients allegedly in debt without a court order. This is by way of withholding from pensions, benefits and allowances, and by recall. The legal authority for withholding is contained in sub-section 140 (2) and for recall in sub-section 135td (3) of the Social Security Act 1947, with which I am sure Senator Cooney, or at least his spouse, will be very familiar. The Social Security Act 1947 empowers the Department to recall moneys exceeding the amount payable under the Act that have been credited to a pensioner's, beneficiary's or allowee's account. Under agreement with the Australian Bankers Association, a recall from a savings account will not be made once the payment has been entered in the passbook. This restriction does not apply to credit union or building society accounts. Recall action is taken under one of the following categories: Direct credit to an account continues after the person's death-recall only with next of kin's consent; whole or part payment is in excess of the person's entitlement; a person requests immediate payment but payment has already been direct credited, in which case that again occurs with the person's consent. A requirement of the Social Security Act is that the client and the financial institution be notified in writing that an amount is to be recalled. Where payment is made to a client by cheque and recovery of that payment is necessary, a stop payment is placed with the financial institution concerned. If effective, this action prevents the client from cashing the cheque. If not effective, an overpayment would be raised and recovery would be in the normal manner; that is, refund or limiting the client's payment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It refers to the separate visits of Mr David Hill and Mr Hayden to Indonesia and to discussions seeking the reaccreditation of Australian journalists to that country. I ask: What terms of settlement were put forward, first, by Mr Hill or, secondly, by Mr Hayden? Is it a fact that Mr Hill indicated that if Indonesia re-established accreditation he would undertake that Radio Australia would not report upon Indonesian domestic matters? If the Minister does not know the answer to this question, will he ascertain the facts and inform the Senate? Will the Government support a settlement on such terms? Has the Government had any discussions with Mr Hill or any others in consideration of such terms or other terms? Finally, somewhat plaintively, may I have an answer to the question of the Minister which has been outstanding for six weeks? Senator BUTTON —Insofar as the last part of the question is concerned, I will certainly see whether that answer can be speeded up. I do not have a detailed briefing on the principal part of the question which has been addressed to me. I know that Mr Hayden had discussions with Dr Mochtar in which the question of Australian journalists was given considerable prominence. I think it has now been a matter of Press reporting here that the Indonesian Government is considering the restrictions placed on the entry of journalists into Indonesia. Insofar as the involvement of Mr David Hill of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in discussions is concerned, I have no information at all at this stage, although I might offer a personal view that Mr Hill might have to visit a few countries. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government seen a recent report by the International Commission of Jurists concerning the plight of refugees from West Irian still camped in Papua New Guinea? If so, what is the Government's reaction to the report's conclusions? Senator BUTTON —The Government has received the draft report from the International Commission of Jurists Australian chapter following the visit to the Papua New Guinea-Indonesia border in August-September last year and has considered it. The view is that the report is well intentioned but seems, overall, to contain little basis for its key conclusions; that is, firstly, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has determined that the great majority of the 11,000 or so Irianese border crossers in Papua New Guinea are refugees on the basis of their group mass influx and, secondly, that Australia has shown a poor level of awareness of the situation. The Government believes that the first point is incorrectly based. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made no formal determination on the status of the border crossers. As a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, it is the responsibility of Papua New Guinea to institute formal determination procedures in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner. This has not yet been done and in these circumstances it would be highly presumptuous of Australia to announce its own determination of their status. The Government rejects the second point; namely, that Australia has shown a poor level of awareness of the situation. It pays close attention to the problems relating to the border. I am very mindful of the welfare of the border crossers and the difficult issues involved in their care and repatriation. The Government believes, however, that these are essentially bilateral matters for resolution between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia. In an effort to assist with the bilateral problem, Australia has provided $4m for relief efforts since 1984-85 and would have no objection to the application of a proportion of non-budgetary assistance to Papua New Guinea for the border crossers should the Papua New Guinea Government decide on that priority. Senator BROWNHILL —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade to the Government's announcement that a second trade delegation is to visit the United States of America and Canada very shortly. Given that the Opposition has for months repeatedly made calls for such a delegation, only to have this idea scorned and rejected by the Government, can the Minister explain his Government's apparent change of heart? Secondly, as the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, has in the past doubted the effectiveness of such missions, is the appointment of a relatively unknown back bench member of parliament, the honourable member for McMillan from Victoria, to lead the delegation a reflection of how essential Mr Dawkins thinks the mission is? If in fact the Government regards our trade position to be in serious jeopardy, and if the trade delegation is regarded as a potentially effective tool to plead for better trading relations between the United States and Australia, can the Minister explain why, in the event of Mr Dawkins being unable to lead the delegation, a senior member of Cabinet, or at least another Minister, is not doing so? b Senator BUTTON-First of all, I must say that I share Mr Dawkins's general view about this matter. Ever since the European Economic Community was formed we have had a history of ministerial delegations to Europe battering on doors about the common agricultural policy. I do not think the achievements can be regarded as startlingly good. If more ministerial energy had been devoted to other activities rather than beating on those very solid doors, we might have been more successful in the past. In answer to the more specific elements of the question, the Government has decided to send a parliamentary delegation to the United States simply because we believe that it is worth while to take every avenue of influencing United States Government policy on this matter, including influencing members of Congress, about the whole issue of agricultural protection and some specific matters within that generic description. It is planned that the delegation will be in Washington on 20 and 21 May and will then travel to Ottawa to meet Mr Dawkins at the opening of the meeting of the Cairns group of fair trading nations which will-- Senator Crichton-Browne —That is a unique way to see Ministers from the Australian Government, isn't it? Senator BUTTON —I think it is an excellent way to see Ministers. If the honourable senator would go to Ottawa we would waste a lot less time in the Senate. The meeting of nations to take place in Ottawa results from an Australian Government initiative initially with countries which are commodity suppliers. It has been taken up by those other countries and warmly supported. It is a matter of great significance in terms of the forthcoming General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade rounds. Senator Sheil —But why are you sending a baby to buy the beer? Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator is describing Mr Dawkins as a baby, I think he should try mixing it with him some time. Senator Brownhill —He can't be in the main delegation. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I do not object to interjections at all, but if they are pointless and reveal that the interjectors have not even listened to the parts of the answer I have already given-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Don't criticise them; they give you time to think. Senator BUTTON —They do give one time to think. They can be very useful. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is useful for you, but boring for us. Senator BUTTON —I am sure that Senator Brownhill is interested in the answer if Senator Crichton-Browne is not. Senator Brownhill —I will be very interested when you tell me why the junior is going. Senator BUTTON —We could send a Government junior as Senator Brownhill likes to call him. We could send Mr Ralph Hunt or Mr Ian Sinclair, but I think that they are a little tied up at the moment with one thing and another. The question asked: When will the delegation be going? I have told the Senate that. I have said that the delegation will then go to the Cairns fair trading nations group for a meeting in Ottawa. The Washington part of the activities will be led by the honourable member for McMillan, Mr Barry Cunningham. In spite of the best efforts and the pretensions which this country has about its politicians, I am not sure whether the delegation requires greater status than that in view of the likely time it will be accorded by members of Congress. As I said, it is one avenue of approaching the whole question. This Government has already made extensive representations through the Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Trade and the Prime Minister, to members of both Congress and the Administration on this matter. Senator Crichton-Browne —The results have been devastating, haven't they? Senator BUTTON —The all-party delegation is seen merely as a useful complementary device to what has already been done by the Government. Senator Crichton-Browne says: `It has been a lot of use, hasn't it?' I remind the honourable senator of some of the problems which the United States Congress has and which principally-- Senator Crichton-Browne —I am more interested in the problems you have. Senator BUTTON —Watching the problems we have is probably a diversion for the honourable senator from watching his own. The problems which the United States Congress has with its own farm community are so enormous that the extent to which a visit of Australian parliamentarians can be accorded a great deal of time by congressional members is doubtful. Senator Boswell —You are condemning them before they leave. Senator BUTTON —No, I am not condemning them before they leave. I just want to put it into perspective. I think it ought to be put into perspective because the ad hoc, knee-jerk response of previous governments in this country was not to send a gunboat but to send a parliamentary delegation to fix problems. I am not sure that it is a course that has been littered with great success. Senator BROWNHILL —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does this mean that the leader of the previous delegation failed in his trip? Senator BUTTON —I suppose it does; but if the honourable senator had an understanding of the problem, he would realise that that sort of failure is not of monumental significance. Senator COLEMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, follows comments or criticisms made by the Opposition earlier this week. What measures has the Government taken to deliver information and advisory services to business in the manufacturing and service industries? Is any special attention paid to small businesses which need assistance to grow and export or is, as the Opposition claims, Commonwealth Government assistance to industry mainly targeted at larger firms? Senator BUTTON —I do not know the allegations to which Senator Coleman is referring, but I have no doubt that they were made. The Commonwealth Government has implemented a range of measures to assist the development of world competitive manufacturing and service firms. Anybody who is in touch with Australian industry knows that. More recently, the Government has launched, in conjunction with State governments, a nationwide program to provide information and advice to industry. This program is known as the national industry extension service. The very important point to make about that advisory service, targeted at small to medium sized firms, is that for the first time in the history of this Commonwealth it is a co-operative effort between State and Federal governments in the provision of advisory services to industry. That service has now been launched in all States as a one-stop shop providing advice to businesses on product innovation and development, management systems, process technology, design and quality. Firms can be assisted by advisers or, more particularly, referred to private sector consultants. It is expected that the businesses most using NIES will be in the small business sector and, in some cases, medium sized firms. The Government's entire range of support and incentive programs is available through that service to small business. It is often the smaller enterprises which are innovative and able to secure a niche in specialist markets overseas. Special priority has been attached to assisting small businesses to become world class operations, capable of competing effectively in Australian and overseas markets. Each State, in addition to NIES, operates a small business corporation which can work in conjunction with NIES and take on referrals of small businesses which are in need of start-up and other advice peculiar to small enterprise needs. NIES business offices also link into Austrade services and export assistance measures. The new exporters scheme came into effect last year to help introduce smaller firms to export markets. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to the approximately 1,000 surviving ex-servicewomen from World War II who have been denied eligibility for hospital and medical treatment by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I also refer to the approximately 2,940 returned ex-servicewomen from World War II who have been denied eligibility for nursing home care by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Is it not a fact that these women had to be at least 25 years of age before they could enlist for overseas service, so even the youngest of them are now well into their sixties? Are these women not disadvantaged in comparison with ex-servicemen? When will the Government find some way of providing them with these services? How can this Government claim to have a policy in favour of equal opportunity for women when it continues to deny them these entitlements? Senator GIETZELT —I am pleased to have the support of the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs on the question of removing discrimination against ex-servicewomen. Of course, that discrimination did not start in May 1983; it began in 1939 when the conservative government of the United Australia Party-now the Liberal Party-took us to war. That discrimination has remained for all these years. If my arithmetic is correct, the conservative forces have occupied the government benches of this country for 30 of the 38 years since the defeat of the Chifley Government in 1949. It is true that there was, and is, discrimination against ex-service women, who were required to be 25 years of age before they could serve overseas whereas my generation of males could serve overseas at the age of 18 years. So there was a difference of seven years. The average age of veterans is now 67 years, so the average age of ex-servicewomen who served overseas would be somewhere in the mid-70s. I have endeavoured to identify this problem and therefore I have caused my Department to conduct an inquiry into the problems facing ex-servicewomen who are not part of the ex-service community or are not able in their own right to obtain entitlements through the determining system. To the extent that Senator Lewis referred to numbers, I think they are substantially correct. The current position is that there are just less than 1,000 women still alive and who are not, by virtue of their service overseas, entitled to benefits from my Department. In other words, they are not able to show that their illness, alienation or the difficulties that they face directly relate to their war service. Of course, that applies to more than half the male ex-service personnel. There is a problem in these periods of economic difficulties-economic difficulties not caused by this Government, not generated by this Government and not created by this Government. In each Budget there have been difficulties in implementing Government policy and implementing what Ministers put forward. I think the Senate would be aware of the tremendous pressure in regard to reducing government expenditure about which the New Right and the existing Right in the conservative forces have been most vocal. In those circumstances, therefore, it is difficult to get new policy proposals agreed to by the Government. I assure Senator Lewis that, in respect of ex-servicewomen, they occupy the No. 1 position in my new policy proposal for the forthcoming Budget. I have the support of my colleague Senator Ryan in that respect and I will be seeking her active support for the recognition of that particular issue. In fact, this week I wrote to the Prime Minister indicating that it is my No. 1 priority for the 1987-88 Budget. Because of the amount of money that is required to remove the discrimination that has existed for over 45 years I am hopeful that I will be successful. To a large degree that will depend on how much the Government has been able to reduce the deficit and on how much the Government is able to provide to Ministers for new policy proposals. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that a National Priorities Project sponsored book entitled Spending and Taxing was launched this morning? Does the economic analysis contained in that book support the view that by international standards Australia is a high personal income tax country and that we ought to shift our tax mix away from income tax towards consumption taxes of the value added type? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the launch of the book referred to. Indeed, a Mr Fraser-not the survivor of Memphis but another Mr Fraser-of the National Priorities Project was kind enough to send a copy of the book to my office this morning prior to the launch. Senator McKiernan —Have you read it? Senator WALSH —No, but I have read bits of it. On page 204 of the book there is a bar diagram which might lead a casual observer to believe that Australia is a high personal income tax country. The text, specifically on page 205, makes the true position clear, when it states: However, in terms of the share of total receipts from other taxes on personal income, Australia is well below average. This is because employee social security contributions . . . are important revenue raising instruments in most OECD countries. It then goes on to say: When these additional taxes on labour income are included, the international comparisons indicate that in fact Australia receives a relatively light share of tax receipts from taxes on income. Earlier this week I made a related point in response to a question from, I believe, Senator Chaney. The book recommends the introduction of a value added-type consumption tax, but it does so on the grounds of seeking to rationalise Australia's existing indirect taxes. It does not recommend that as a means of raising alternative revenue to finance personal income tax cuts in the way proposed by the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. Page 208 of the book states: The most important justification for indirect tax reform is not so much to allow reductions in personal income taxes as to reform the structure of the current indirect tax `system', particularly the wholesale sales tax and the excises on petroleum products. Of course that is not the same thing as saying excises on petroleum products should be abolished or that there should be no taxes on petroleum products. The book provides some arithmetic on the effects of doing the latter, but it does not seek to advocate or recommend such a policy. Finally, this book, from the little that I have seen of it, should make some contribution to dispelling a myth currently being peddled, and I think probably accepted to quite an alarming degree-the myth that fiscal responsibility equals tax cuts or that tax cuts equal fiscal responsibility. The evidence, particularly in recent years from around the world, shows that in fact there is a positive correlation between cutting taxes and fiscal irresponsibility. That is most dramatically demonstrated by the Reagan Administration in the United States of America. A comment spelt out by one of the few rational spokesmen for the political Right of Australia, John Hyde, in his column in the Australian last Saturday stated that the supply side theory, or Reaganomics, had been empirically disproven by the Administration which gave it its name. Of course, that is recognised almost everywhere except, apparently, among the various pedlars of snake oil who populate the Opposition benches. Senator ARCHER —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Government aware that there has been a major problem over many weeks involving shipping services between Tasmania and the mainland? Is the Minister aware of the appalling long term damage done to the Tasmanian economy as a result of the effect such intolerable breakdowns have on the primary, secondary and tourist industries of that State? What steps is the Government taking or will it take to ensure that strike free services are again provided for Tasmania? Senator GIETZELT —Everyone would be aware of the continuing problems with freight in respect to Bass Strait. It is a problem which has been constantly on the agenda and constantly debated in Parliament. In fact, in the years that I have been here anything associated with Tasmania, including freight problems, usually results in every member from Tasmania, whatever his or her political persuasion, entering the debate. So this matter is not appearing on the agenda for the first time. I am able to respond only to that portion of Senator Archer's question that deals with the Australian National Line's announcements about increasing freight rates to and from Tasmania, to take effect from 1 June 1987. That is basically a commercial matter. That organisation is required to operate on a commercial basis. I shall refer the other matters that Senator Archer has raised to the Department of Transport for a more precise answer. Senator McKIERNAN —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs will be aware of calls, yet again, by leading lights in the business and farming communities, many of whom also happen to be members of the Liberal Party, proposing cuts in Government expenditure. In the last Weekend Australian National Farmers Federation supremo Ian McLachlan reiterates his organisation's support for the cessation of automatic indexation of pensions, the discounting of subsequent adjustments and the means testing of veterans' disability pensions. Is the Minister giving any serious consideration to these demands? What would be the implication for veterans and their families? I ask this question in the light of repeated calls by veterans and ex-service groups that they be exempted from further cuts because, this group of people claim, they have contributed disproportionately to cuts in the past. Senator GIETZELT —Mr McLachlan is another of the exponents of the theory that all would come well in the Australian economy if there were substantial reductions in government spending, particularly in the welfare sector. I notice that in the article in the last Weekend Australian he went so far as to suggest that the Government ought to consider means testing war veterans' disability pensions. That suggestion has already aroused reaction within the veteran community because veterans take the view that proposals put forward by such exponents of simplistic economic theories might be considered seriously by the Government. In answering this question by Senator McKiernan I take advantage of the opportunity to say that this proposal is not on the Government's agenda. I associate myself substantially with the remarks of my colleague Senator Walsh about Mr McLachlan's other simple solutions to world-wide economic difficulties which obviously not only Australia but also the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Japan suffer. Mr McLachlan is staking out the high ground for a Liberal Party seat and in so doing is suggesting that he is entitled to displace a sitting Opposition member and to take his place in the Parliament at the next election. However, his suggestion that we ought to means test war veterans' disability pensions has been very adequately answered in a letter by Mr Seymour, the National President of the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex-servicemen and Women Ltd, a copy of which was sent to me. He points out that TPI pensioners are those people classified as totally and permanently incapacitated, unable to engage in more than eight hours work per week solely because of disabilities recognised as being war caused. He said that 50 per cent of the membership of his organisation are permanently housebound, hospitalised or in nursing homes. The suggestion by a person expressing interest in a parliamentary career that such people should be means tested gives some indication of the lack of compassion of the person or group concerned. Obviously the New Right has its eyes on that sort of compensation which many thousands of Australian veterans receive from the Government-I would have thought with bipartisan support. Nevertheless, greedy entrepreneurs and spokespersons of the New Right seek to put forward simple solutions at the expense of those who have been unable over many years to be gainfully employed and who therefore are entitled to recognition and compensation by government. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the letter that Mr Seymour, the National President of the TPI association, wrote to Mr McLachlan in response to the article in the Weekend Australian. A copy of the letter was sent to me. It states very clearly the views of his association about the simple-minded people who are able to get maximum publicity for their views and therefore to exert maximum pressure upon governments and oppositions to change long-established principles upon which the veteran movement and government responsibilities have rested. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED EX-SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN THE A.C.T.) Office of...P.O. Box 1072, NATIONAL PRESIDENT...City Road, Vic., 3205 Telephone: (03) 62 1676 LB. May 4, 1987. Mr. I. McLachlan, President, National Farmers' Federation, P.O. Box E10, Queen Victoria Terrace, CANBERRA. A.C.T. 2600. Dear Mr. McLachlan, I have read with interest a short article in the Melbourne ``Age'' of 1st May wherein it is reported that the National Farmers' Federation has placed before the Federal Government a submission calling for a balanced Budget. For reasons that will become apparent as this letter progresses, I would be pleased to receive a copy of your submission or at least that part relating to the proposal to remove from Government policy the automatic indexation of pensions. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am fully aware that short newspaper reports similar to that which I am referring do not always reflect an accurate picture, e.g. your organisation may be proposing an alternative to the indexation of pensions; in passing might I say that I sincerely trust that it has offered an alternative. For this reason I do not propose to prejudge your organisation's conclusions without at least sighting the paper and having the benefit of your conclusions on the points that I will develop in this letter. As you will have gleaned from the title of our organisation I represent, on a National basis, the most severely disabled group of war veterans; the Veterans' Entitlements Act requires that a veteran, before being classified as totally & permanently incapacitated, be unable to engage in more than eight hours remunerative work in any one week solely because of disabilities recognised by the Department of Veterans' Affairs as being the result of his/her war service. Some of our members have met this criteria for over 40 years now. I would suggest to you that more than fifty per cent of our membership is permanently housebound, hospitalised or in nursing homes; the remainder are so seriously disabled that their lifestyle is severely restricted. The Government makes available to war veterans (through the Department of Veterans' Affairs) an asset/income tested pension (Service Pension). The ``income testing'' criteria for this pension is married to the Age and Invalid pensions paid through the Department of Social Security. There are some minor basic eligibility provisions for a grant of Service Pension but these are of little consequence to this exercise. For reasons stated earlier I decline to comment in this letter on your Federation's intentions in this field. However, I feel compelled to make the point that should your proposal fail to come to grips with an equitable alternative to ``the removal of indexation on pensions'' you can be assured that the war veteran community will strenuously align itself with ``civilian'' pensioner groups in opposing the removal of indexation. I now come to my main purpose in writing to you; this is to bring to your notice the compensatory nature of the disability pension paid to war veterans through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. A disability pension is paid only in respect of the incapacity flowing from ``injury or disease, or death'', where that injury, disease or death is determined to be war caused. This disability pension is by way of compensation for this injury, disease or death. Documentary proof of this fact is on record at various levels, however, the following extracts from Hansard are submitted by way of confirmation. Hansard Senate. 13th November, 1985. (Extract from Second Reading Speech on Veterans' Entitlements Bill by Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. A. T. Gietzelt) ``Compensation Pensions (my emphasis) Part II of the V.E.B. sets out the eligibility provisions for the grant of a disability pension to a veteran, a war widow's pension to the spouse of a veteran and an orphan's pension to a dependent child. Eligibility will arise in respect of a veteran's incapacity from injury or disease or his death or her death where that injury, disease or death is determined to be war caused.'' Hansard Senate. 12th March, 1986. (page 867) (Senator Gietzelt replying to a question from Senator McKiernan) ``The Government accepts, as indeed the Opposition when in government accepted, that disability pensions are compensation for illness or disabilities arising out of war service and, therefore, compensation should not, in any way, be associated with any sort of test. A person may be a millionaire or have limited means. If he is injured in an accident the court has no regard to his station in life; it has regard to whether he should receive compensation, and that is the position of a government . . .'' For many years now these compensatory payments by way of pension have been indexed to the C.P.I.; the report that I read in the ``Age'' newspaper would seem to suggest that your Federation is advocating the removal of these payments from the indexation system. I make the point here that Government (of any persuasion) has an inherent responsibility to honour the commitment given over the years to provide at least a reasonable level of compensation to those who have given so much to provide the environment in which the business (including the rural) community operates today. I suggest also that it is equally appropriate that organisations such as the Federation that you represent and other organisations representing business interests should not lose sight of the debt that this community owes to the war veteran who has suffered significantly because of his war service. I am sure that the war veteran himself would support any reasonable moves to salve the economic ills that ail this country; after all he has given more than most to retain the freedom that we now enjoy. Despite this he suffered severe ``cut backs'' in the May 1985 Financial Statement and awaits the 1987 Statement with trepidation. These fears are strengthened almost daily by calls emanating from business (and allied) interests for further disproportionate cuts; disproportionate when compared to some other sectors of the community. I think we should acknowledge, Sir, that we both have at least one thing in common, i.e. we are lobbyists in the interests of our members. It is here that I must sound a word of warning; let us not in our zeal adopt a ``Robin Hood or Robin Hood in reverse'' attitude in our approach to Government depending on which side of the fence we sit. I would be pleased to receive your comments on my observations particularly in relation to payment of compensation to war veterans. I would also, as I said earlier, appreciate receiving a copy (or part thereof) of your Federation's submission. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Yours sincerely, H. G. SEYMOUR, National President. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, following a question from Senator Brownhill. I ask it of him in his capacity as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce or perhaps more particularly in his capacity representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, who is the Minister who normally represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the Minister to a Bill which has been introduced into the United States Senate and into the United States House of Representatives by Senator Symms and by Mr Craig and which is designed to prohibit the importation into the United States of products from Australia which include uranium ore, beef, veal, lamb, skins bearing wool, and wool. I ask the Minister-- Senator Cook —Thank God you are going to ask a question. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Be quiet, you poor peasant. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, ask your question. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask the Minister: Is he aware of the proposed Bill? What steps is the Government undertaking to provide the United States Senate and House of Representatives with information on the implications of the proposed Bill not only for the United States but also for Australia? What steps is the Australian Government taking to assist, as it can, the defeat of the proposed legislation? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the proposed Bill but only from Press reports, as I assume Senator Crichton-Browne is also aware of it from Press reports. There is a fair degree of protectionist hype taking place in the United States at the moment and there is a fair degree of competitive pressure in the Congress-and not in many other places-for people to exceed one another in rash promises of protection for one United States industry or another. Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you saying you only read about the Bill in the Press, or do you know about the Bill directly? Senator BUTTON —I said I had read about it in the Press. Senator Crichton-Browne —But you have had no official advice? Senator BUTTON —It is not my job to get official advice. As even Senator Crichton-Browne seemed to understand in the introduction to his question, it is a matter appropriate to the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Foreign Affairs; it is not a matter on which I have received any intimate briefing. Clearly, from the inarticulate nature of the question, it is a matter on which Senator Crichton-Browne has received very little information too. The Government is aware of the Bill and through its trade and diplomatic representatives in the United States it is persistently arguing the case in respect of Australia's interests in this matter. It is also doing this in discussions with senior government officials. It is pointing out the damage that these measures will cause in the medium to longer term in the United States. Those things are being done. Having said that, I do not see what particular point the question has. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask a supplementary question. In doing so I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that I have a copy of the Bill, and I do not learn these matters from newspapers. I ask Senator Button: Will he provide the Senate with detailed information as to what particular steps are being taken in respect of this Bill, other than the knowledge he has gleaned from the newspapers? Senator BUTTON —I am glad to hear that Senator Crichton-Browne has a copy of the Bill and I withdraw my reference to him as inarticulate and substitute `illiterate' because he clearly has not read it with any understanding. I will provide him with an answer on official Government representations that have been made on this matter. But I cannot do that off the cuff and I will not try to. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Minister seen details published yesterday outlining an internal Australia Post report which found that discrimination against women and immigrant workers remains deeply entrenched within Australia Post. Given a number of complaints that I have received from Australia Post women workers, including an extreme example of victimisation leading to litigation, I can verify the extent of discrimination, especially in relation to compensation and rehabilitation policies. Will the Minister discuss with her colleague Mr Duffy the urgency for reforms within Australia Post to give women and immigrant workers equal status? Senator RYAN —I have noted the Press reports referred to and I am interested to hear from Senator Reynolds her confirmation that those reports are accurate. The study indicates the need for a legislative base for equal employment opportunity within Commonwealth programs. It is very timely that that report has appeared, since there has been some expression of views from the opposite side of the chamber that such legislative programs are not needed. Clearly, they are; they are needed in statutory authorities as much as anywhere else. Of course, as well as being needed, they are greatly supported in the electorate. A recent poll by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd indicated an extremely high level of support for anti-discrimination legislation measures of that kind. So I am very pleased that, as a result of the passage of the legislation yesterday, it will be possible now for Mr Duffy to call for a report on this matter. Under the legislation Australia Post will also be required to implement in detail an equal employment opportunity plan which, in due course, ought to overcome the kinds of discriminatory practices against migrants and women to which Senator Reynolds referred in her question. I will, of course, draw the matter to the attention of Mr Duffy, but I say in conclusion that this report, I believe, demonstrates beyond any doubt the absolute necessity for a legislative base for the kind of equal employment opportunity program for Australia Post that has now been legislated for. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-Last night, after I sat down on completing my speech on the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill 1987 and associated Bills, Senator Coleman referred to standing order 406 and the reading of speeches. In fact, Senator Coleman has in the past frequently raised this point with respect to me. While I acknowledge that from time to time I do read from copious notes-quite deliberately, to ensure accuracy, particularly when quoting from other sources, when giving figures or statistics or in expressing the wording of a complex argument-I rarely read directly from the notes which I have in front of me. This is because of a problem which I have and which I think should be brought to the notice of honourable senators and of Senator Coleman. I came to this country at the age of 12 and at that age I spoke French a lot better than I spoke English. Senator Jones —I take a point of order, Mr President. My recollection of what happened last night is that Senator Coleman was in the chair and it seems that Senator Vigor is reflecting on a ruling of the Chair. The PRESIDENT —Senator Vigor asked for leave to make a personal explanation. He was given leave and he is entitled to make that personal explanation. Senator VIGOR —In no way do I wish to reflect upon the dignity of the Chair. The reason for rising at this stage is that I believe that this place runs on co-operation and understanding. I wish to explain that my circumstances mean that I do have difficulty in reading. This is due to the fact that I missed out on most of primary school because of circumstances during the war and as a result of illness during those years. I have overcome that difficulty, but one of the major problems that I have is that when I am accurately quoting from a document I do stutter and find it difficult to carry out that reading process. I wish to make that known to Senator Coleman and to the Senate and to point out that I also have the problem, as have a number of the Australian Democrats, of having a number of portfolio areas, including industry, technology and commerce; science; communications; immigration and ethnic affairs; and Territories, among others. In the same way as Ministers may read their speeches, I believe that some type of consideration should be given to shadow spokespersons and those in the Democrats with this type of responsibility if we are handling very detailed and complex arguments. I bring that to the notice of the Senate and hope that it can be considered reasonably soon by the Standing Orders Committee, which is the recommendation that Senator Coleman made. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —by leave-The Senate will be aware that last night I was in the chair at the time of the incident to which Senator Vigor refers. I also rose from my place here this morning to draw the Acting Deputy President's attention to the fact that Senator Vigor was at that time reading his speech. We do have standing order 406, which precludes any senator from reading his or her speech. I would not rise if simply copious notes were being used. But last night Senator Vigor had more than copious notes. Every single word was being read out. We were being subjected to a 30-minute barrage of words that had been written by somebody else. Senator Newman —I take a point of order, Mr President. This morning I was sitting in the chamber when Senator Coleman raised the matter that she just spoke of. As I recall it, pretty clearly, the ruling from the Chair was that Senator Vigor was not in fact reading, but was referring to copious notes. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but I remind Senator Coleman that Senator Vigor was dealing with a matter that occurred last night. Senator COLEMAN —Thank you, Mr President. I was also referring to what happened last night, and I will continue to refer to it. I raised at that time the fact that Senator Vigor has the right to make a submission to a committee of the Senate if he objects to standing order 406 and wants some change made. But I will continue to rise every time Senator Vigor or anyone else reads a speech. I will rise and draw it to the attention of the person in the chair. Senator Walters —What about Ministers? Senator COLEMAN —Senator Walters, for goodness sake, surely Ministers are entitled to read second reading speeches. Senator Walters —Not according to the Standing Orders. Senator COLEMAN —For goodness sake, Senator Walters really is giving me a pain. While standing order 406 remains in the Standing Orders book, when an honourable senator is reading his speech I shall continue to rise and draw the attention of the Chair to that fact. The PRESIDENT —The matter of standing order 406 has been before the Standing Orders Committee. The Senate has not dealt with it, so it is still before the Senate. It is a matter with which we should deal, preferably in the near future. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. During Question Time I asked of Senator Button, who is now departing from the Senate- Senator Button —No, I am not. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Oh, Senator Button is not now leaving; his conscience has pricked him. I asked him a question about a piece of legislation that has been introduced into the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. The honourable senator suggested that my knowledge was based on newspaper articles. In fact, as I said in a supplementary question, I had a copy of the Bill. Senator Button first suggested that I was ill-informed, and when I said that I had a copy of the Bill he claimed that I was illiterate. I seek leave to table a copy of the Bill, from which I was directly quoting. The fact that Senator Button called me illiterate is a reflection not only upon me, but also upon the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, as in each case the drafting and the wording of the Bill are identical. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Short proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The policy failures of the Hawke Government which have caused a decline in living standards and necessitated the introduction of a stringent mini-Budget. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.12) —I propose to the Senate today the following matter of public importance: The policy failures of the Hawke Government which have caused a decline in living standards and necessitated the introduction of a stringent mini-Budget. The matter of public importance makes three fundamental points. First, the record of the Hawke Labor Government has been littered with policy failures throughout its four years in office. Secondly, those failures have caused a decline in living standards for most Australians, particularly for average income earning families with dependent children, small businesses and farmers. Thirdly, had those failures not occurred, all Australians not only would be better off but also would not next week be facing a mini-Budget that will bring them further hardship. During the debate today, I and my colleagues Senators Crichton-Browne and Watson will expand on those three points, the facts about which are beyond dispute. What is most distressing is that those facts reveal a government that has a record of broken promises unsurpassed in our history; a government that has no understanding of, concern about or compassion for, the real needs and requirements of ordinary Australians; a government that has lost touch with average Australians-those Australians whom Robert Menzies described, when he was forming the Liberal Party 40 years ago, as `the forgotten people'; those Australians who are the backbone, the fibre and the spirit of our nation. It is a government that has betrayed the trust vested in it by those average Australians who voted it into power in 1983-84; and a government that, quite simply, has forfeited its right to govern. I begin with the Government's record of policy failures. It has failed responsibly to exercise its stewardship of the economy for several reasons. It has proved incapable of restraining its own spending. There have now been four Budgets from the Hawke Government. In the first two government spending grew at a rate far exceeding anything we have experienced during the past 40 years, with the exception of the horrendous Whitlam Government interlude, and far exceeding the capacity of the community to afford. Although there has been, and I acknowledge it, an improvement in the last two Budgets, spending has still been far higher than the Australian economy can afford. The Government has proved totally incapable of standing up to the unions. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has, in many respects, been the determiner of the Hawke Government's economic policies, as well as its industrial relations policies. From reports now circulating, there is every indication that the forthcoming industrial relations legislation will compound that capitulation by government to unions. People elect governments to govern, not trade union officials. The Government has either deliberately chosen to ignore that basic principle, or been incapable of exercising its authority. The Hawke Government has shown that it lacks any understanding of the way business, particularly small business, works. At a time when the Government is paying lip service to encouraging the private sector, it has burdened it with the greatest package of anti-business taxes and other costs that we have ever had in this country. The Government has almost totally ignored the very existence, let alone the problems, of large parts of the rural sector. It has done that because it has no comprehension of the rural sector and/or because it recognises that there are few votes to be won for Labor in the bush. The Government, through its failed policies, has dealt one hammer blow after another to average Australian families and lower income recipients. Its policies have fallen most savagely on single income two-parent families with young children. I shall mention some general examples in a moment, but I point out now that during the four years that the Hawke Government has been in office, the real value of family allowances has fallen by 20 per cent while the real value of the dependent spouse rebate has fallen by 16 per cent. Yet, in Mr Hawke's policy speech on 16 February 1983, three weeks before he bought himself into the Prime Ministership with a series of promises that he knew he could not or would not keep, he promised to maintain the value of family allowances and the dependent spouse rebate. Those policy failures by the Hawke Labor Government have had several inevitable and inescapable consequences, which have caused a fall in the standard of living of most Australians. Inflation has continued at a very high rate. Anyone who is a regular shopper knows all too well how the prices of foodstuffs and other essentials are rising week by week. At an official figure of 9.5 per cent, the rate at which prices are increasing in Australia today is the highest in our history relative to increases in other Western countries. Yet what did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) say about price increases when he was trying to buy votes during the 1984 election? He said: We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent. Senator Walters —What is it now? Senator SHORT —It is now 9.5 per cent, with every prospect of rising. What a joke; what a hoax on the Australian people the Prime Minister perpetrated during the 1984 election campaign! This Government has no hope, and never did have any hope, of getting inflation down to 5 per cent, let alone keeping it below that level. But even if it did, it would still be a poor performance relative to other Western countries where, on average, the present rate of price increase is about 2 per cent, and, in some instances, prices are even falling. Because the Government has been unable to control its spending, it has presided over a huge increase in taxation. Taxes under this Government are about the highest in our post-war history, not only in absolute terms, but also as a percentage of our gross domestic product. That tax grab has devastated individuals, families and businesses alike. For example, when the Hawke Government first came to office, a single income family on average weekly earnings and with two dependent children paid, in net tax, $52.12 a week. Even after the Government's so-called tax cuts come into effect after 1 July next, that same family will be facing a net tax bill of $94.50 a week, an increase of more than 80 per cent. On tax alone, the family on average weekly income would have to have an additional tax cut, over and above the phoney cut which will apply from 1 July, of $15 a week to bring its position back to nearly the same as it was under the Fraser Government. How can these families cope under such crushing tax burdens? Quite frankly, they cannot. However, it is not just families. Business has been hit with a veritable avalanche of new taxes. There has been the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the abolition of negative gearing on property and so on. As well, there has been an increase of almost 7 per cent in the company tax rate. There has been an enormous raft of tax increases by stealth which have affected business and consumers alike-for example, the indexed increases in excises and certain other taxes. The revelation today that the capital gains tax will bring in $125m next year against a forecast of $5m and the revelation that the fringe benefits tax now looks like bringing in $700m against a Budget forecast of $575m in a full year mean that Mr Keating's additional tax bill from his tax slug on business in 1977-78 will top the $2 billion mark. In imposing these taxes, one can only boggle at the memorable Government promises that have been smashed along the way. Many of us will remember, and I am sure that the recipients of superannuation will remember this promise, Mr Dawkins's written promise before the 1983 election that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation. No sooner was that promise made than it was broken. There was the pledge not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. The result? There is now a 20 per cent tax on wine. But the best of them all, the most disgraceful of them all, was when Mr Hawke said in his policy speech on 16 February 1983: And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it: and let me make it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion-there will be no new capital gains tax. Only seven months later, without so much as a blush and without any reasonable explanation for his outrageous duplicity, Treasurer Keating introduced a new capital gains tax. In the opinion of many experts, that capital gains tax is the highest and most vicious capital gains tax in the entire Western world. The raft of taxes on business this Government has introduced has caused and will increasingly cause severe cash flow problems which will have adverse effects on profitability and, therefore, adverse effects on investment and employment. What we should be doing in Australia-what we desperately need-is providing incentive to investment and growth. Senator Aulich —More incentivation. Senator SHORT —Exactly so. It is a pity that Senator Aulich does not tell his colleagues about it. We need incentive to investment and growth. We should not be strangling these very life bloods of our present and future living standards. Even this huge increase in taxes has not been sufficient to meet the bottomless pit of the Government's capacious appetite for funds. As a result, it has undertaken enormous borrowing programs both in Australia and overseas-so much so that the interest alone on the Government's debt is now the third largest single item of government spending. It accounts for 10c in every dollar of government spending. This borrowing spree, along with the disastrous increase in our balance of payments deficit, has been instrumental in pushing our interest rates to levels up to five or six times higher than those in other Western nations. Real interest rates in Australia, relative to the rest of the world, are now the highest, in our post-war history at least. This has hit every borrower in the community. In particular, it has hit home buyers. Housing interest rates now start at 15.5 per cent. When the Hawke Government came to office the rate was 11 1/4 per cent. Over the past 2 1/2 years alone, interest payments on an average housing loan have increased from $545 to $660 a month. That is an increase of $25 to $30 a week. Since the Hawke Labor Government came to office, the waiting list for public housing has doubled. So both private and public home seekers have been disastrously hit by this Labor Government-the Labor Government whose Prime Minister said three weeks before the 1984 election, and just 2 1/2 short years ago: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. That promise has clearly and cynically gone the way of most of the other promises of this Government-out of the window, without any regard for the hardship and suffering caused. I will leave it to my colleagues to elaborate further on some of these issues. What they demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever is that the failed policies of this Government-many of them resulting from the deliberate, cynical breaking of solemn promises-have caused a severe decline in living standards for most Australians, particularly for families on or below average weekly earnings, especially those with dependent children, and the small business men and farmers on whom we all rely for our prosperity and our growth. It would not be honest of me to lay all the blame at the feet of this Government. There are structures and institutions in our society, inherited from governments, unions, management and other sectors over many years, which restrict growth and development in Australia. The Government can, and does, point as well to the decline in our terms of trade in recent years as a cause of our present difficulties. I do not deny the existence of these factors. But I very strenuously deny that they are the major causes of our current difficulties, as the Government so falsely asserts. These factors have been present in the past. There were periods during the years of the Fraser Government, for example, when the decline in our terms of trade was greater than has occurred during the life of this Government. The difference between the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government is that the Fraser Government took the necessary policy decisions to counter such damaging external influences. In stark contrast, the policies of the Hawke Government have compounded the problems caused by these influences. The tragedy of the present situation is that because of the Government's policy failures in recent years all Australians are now facing a mini-Budget next week that will inflict further hardships on them. There should have been no need for next week's mini-Budget. We are having a mini-Budget which will cause hardship, confusion, uncertainty and instability for one reason, and one reason alone; that is, because this Government has proved itself totally incapable of either developing or pursuing consistent and responsible policies. As a result, the problems have accumulated and so the Government, through its ineptness, is now forced to act. The consequence is that Australia will suffer further as a nation, as will all Australians, but most particularly those who are our main engine of growth, small business and those who are least able to bear the blows of bad government-the average Australian, the Australian which this Government has, at one and the same time, neglected, forgotten and penalised. The only solution for those forgotten, neglected and penalised Australians in the removal of this incompetent Government from office at the first available opportunity. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.30) —I rise to say, on behalf of the Government, that we disagree with the terms of the matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Short which condemns this Government over living standards. It is surprising that the Liberals have claimed that a decline in living standards has necessitated a mini-Budget and it is surprising that the Liberals criticise the Government for its record on living standards. It is incredible that they are trying to rewrite the history books of Australia. They are trying to rewrite the history of their record of destroying living standards in this country. They destroyed the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Australians in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They destroyed the livelihoods of Australian workers and condemned them to the industrial scrapheap and to a life of misery and despair. When the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was the Treasurer of this nation in the Fraser Government, we had double digit inflation, double digit rises in the cost of living and double digit unemployment. In the 12 months to March 1983, increases in the cost of living-that is, inflation-amounted to 11 1/2 per cent and were accompanied by a jobless rate of over 10 per cent, with a peak of 10.4 per cent when Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this country. So more than one in 10 Australians were out of work. A total of 186,000 Australians were thrown on the industrial scrapheap in his last 12 months as Treasurer. I ask Senator Short: What about the living standards of those Australians, and their livelihoods? What about the reduction to despair and misery of those Australians thrown out of work by the callous, inhuman policies that operated in Australia when Mr Howard was the Treasurer? He has had one go as Treasurer. His legacy, as I have indicated, was double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. We simply cannot afford to let Mr Howard run this country again. His record was disastrous. This country had its highest, its worst, unemployment level in the post-war period. His principal policy response to an increase in the cost of living was to increase unemployment. That is how the Liberals regulated the economy; they adjusted the amount of utilisation of plant and equipment in the community and regulated unemployment-it was the tool they used to influence the rate of inflation. They did not see jobs for people as an end in itself; they saw it as a means of regulating the rising cost of living. That is how they reduced the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Australians in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. The Hawke Government pledged itself, following the National Economic Summit Conference in early 1983, to fight inflation and unemployment simultaneously. It did so through the development of the accord with the trade union movement. That enabled the expansion of the economy without the inflationary pressures characteristic in Australia in previous years. One of the important aspects of that accord was that it placed emphasis on the social wage. It looked at a wider definition of living standards in Australia. The social wage was one of the central points of that accord. It was a more broadly based measure of living standards than cash disposable incomes. Of course, the Liberal Party takes a very narrow view of living standards. Senator Short, in his speech in the preceding 20 minutes, talked about living standards essentially in terms of after-tax cash incomes. However, the Liberals ignore the vital contribution in modern industrialised societies that government spending programs make to living standards. I refer to health expenditure through Medicare, education expenditure, social welfare expenditure and housing expenditure. They all make a major contribution to the standard of living as we measure it in modern industrialised societies. All of those things make up the social wage. They all add to living standards. As I have said, the Liberals take a very narrow view of those things. Their view is blinkered because of the narrow view they take of the public sector. They do not see the influence of the social wage on living standards. The Government takes a much wider view on this matter. We define standards of living more broadly. I am pleased to see that, to its credit, the trade union movement, through the Australian Council of Trade Unions, also takes a wider view of living standards. It has worked under the accord since 1983 on the basis that standards of living are not based on cash disposable incomes; they are based on a combination of that and the facilities and programs that can be provided by modern governments. I am pleased to note that an increasing number of employers in Australia take that view also. They realise that it is in their interests to have part of the remuneration, if you like, of wage and salary earners come through social wage items. The advantage to employers in having remuneration in that fashion is that it helps keep down production costs. The whole of the remuneration of wage and salary earners does not have to be paid by the employer. That is a very important point to note. This Government has been fighting inflation and unemployment simultaneously since the National Economic Summit Conference. At the 1983 election, we promised that 500,000 new jobs would be created in Australia in three years. I recall prominent Liberal Party members scoffing at the pledge that we would create half a million extra jobs in Australia in three years. I invite them to look at the record. Within four years of making that promise, we have created up to 750,000 new jobs. So the figure of half a million has been exceeded well and truly, with three-quarters of a million Australians now being employed over and above the number in work when this Government was elected in 1983. That is in contrast with Mr Howard's record, when 186,000 Australians were thrown on the industrial scrapheap as a result of his policies. When he was Treasurer, we had 10 per cent unemployment. The figure has been reduced to 8.4 per cent. That has led to a tremendous improvement in the welfare and the standard of living of many Australians. I invite Senator Short to look at the ratio of the number of unemployed people in Australia to job vacancies. In February 1983, there were 28 unemployed people for every job vacancy. The ratio was 28:1. That was Mr Howard's record. Senator Short —Unemployment here has fallen less than it has in other countries. Senator MAGUIRE —Senator Short is a former Treasury officer. He should know that economists use vacancy ratios as an indicator of what is happening in the economy. By February 1987, the ratio had been reduced from 28 unemployed persons for every job vacancy to 11. I do not find that figure acceptable, but it is a tremendous improvement on Mr Howard's record. There has been a tremendous fall in that vital indicator of performance in the labour market. I ask Senator Short: Who are we talking about when we talk about standards of living? Are we talking about the standards of living of those extra three-quarters of a million Australians who have found work under the Hawke Government? Are we talking about the standards of living of all those people who have been taken off the dole queues as a result of finding work under the Hawke Labor Government? Of course we are not. This matter of public importance simply cannot refer to them. In terms of cost of living rises, I said earlier that when Mr Howard was Treasurer this country had an inflation rate of 11.5 per cent per annum. We have reduced that to 9.3 per cent. Despite a big devaluation in the Australian dollar and the higher cost of imports feeding into the consumer price index, we have reduced the rate of inflation in this country by over 2 per cent. That has led to a major improvement in the economic health of this country, which is a major contributor to the standard of living of Australians. The Liberal Party has been making a lot of noise lately about youth unemployment. I suppose we are entitled to inquire into who created youth unemployment. When Mr Howard was Treasurer the national jobless rate for 15-to 19- year-old persons seeking full time work was 26.9 per cent. Mr Howard's legacy to the young people of Australia, his bequest to the up and coming generation of this country, was 26.9 per cent unemployment. That rate has been reduced to 23 per cent. Again, I do not find that rate acceptable but it is certainly preferable to the rate that was left to this country by Mr Howard. The area of wages is a very important factor in standards of living. During the first three years of the Hawke Government's period in office, wages were indexed to take account of cost rises. Wages went up in line with the consumer price index. That provided some real protection to wage and salary earners against cost of living rises. But we had to admit to reality. We had to say that we could not continue to index wages in a climate where people were not prepared to purchase our products on the world market and pay the prices that we had been accustomed to charging in the past, where our balance of payments position was suffering and where the prices paid for our exports were falling compared with the prices that we paid for imports. We could not persist with that, so we looked for a new form of wage remuneration. The Government, before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, supported the concept of a flat wage rise with a proportionate percentage increase at a later date for certain performance criteria being met. That is our wages record-indexation for the first three years and support for a flat rate wage increase more recently. But let us look at the record of the Liberal Party. It has absolutely no credibility on wages and absolutely no credibility on living standards because the fact is that in 18 out of the last 20 national wage cases heard in this country the Liberal Party has gone before the Commission and called for a wage freeze. That is what it has done time and time again. In only two cases out of the last 20 have the Liberals not called for a wage freeze. Yet here we have people such as Senator Short coming into the Senate this afternoon and castigating and criticising this Government for an alleged decline in living standards, when on 18 out of 20 occasions the Liberal spokesman went into the Arbitration Commission and said: `Freeze wages'. That is the Liberals' record. Irrespective of the economic circumstances in this country, over the last four years the Liberals have asked for wage freezes. Whether we had high or low economic growth the recipe was still the same. It was the same old formula: `Let us have a wage freeze'. Whether we had high economic export proceeds or low export proceeds it has been exactly the same recipe: `Let us have a wage freeze'. When inflation has been low or has increased, the same formula has been put forward: `Let us have a wage freeze'. The Liberals are like a bunch of parrots reciting by rote. They want a wage freeze whatever the economic circumstances in Australia. How can they talk today about living standards? How can they criticise the Hawke Labor Government for Australian living standards when on virtually every occasion for the best part of the last four years they have tried to deny the wage and salary earning people of this country a wage rise. That has been their attitude and their record and they stand con- demned for it. I move on to the question of housing. Housing is an area which is vital to the standard of living of most Australians. The family home is typically the largest single purchase that people make during their lives. Our record has been very good in the area of housing, yet we have Liberal senators criticising the Government. Senator Short today talked about public housing. It is very unusual to hear Liberal Party senators talk about public housing, that is housing provided to Australians on lower incomes through housing trusts, as in the case of my State, or housing commissions elsewhere. It is something they do not talk about very much, and when they do they are usually trying to slash the money available to the housing commissions. But the record of this Government in this regard has been second to none. I put forward the figures. In 1982-83, when Mr Howard was Treasurer, $333m was made available through the Commonwealth Budget for public housing in Australia. In 1986-87, the current financial year, not $333m was put forward, or $433m, or $533m, or $633m; instead, $694m has been appropriated for public housing purposes in this country. That is more than a doubling of the funds available. This Government introduced the first home owners scheme to bring housing within the reach of lower and middle income Australians who would not otherwise be able to afford their own homes. Complaints have been made in this place time and again by Liberal senators about the position of the housing industry. It is as though they believe the industry is at rock bottom at the moment and that the golden age was when Mr Howard was Treasurer and running the country. The allegations are that housing is now in a much more parlous position than it was when the Liberals were on the Treasury bench. But this morning I looked at the figures in regard to activity in the housing industry. I am sure that you, Mr Acting Deputy President, will be interested to hear what they were. The fact is that in the calendar year 1982 there were 109,300 housing starts. That is the number of new dwellings commenced in Australia. That is what Mr Howard, as Treasurer, could achieve. But in the calendar year 1986 the number was not 109,300 new housing starts; it was 121,200. In that one area in which the Liberals would have us, the community and the electorate believe that the housing industry is on its knees, the fact is that in 1986 there were 11 per cent more new housing commencements throughout Australia than Mr Howard could achieve in 1982 when he was the Treasurer of Australia. Senator Short —How many fewer than in 1985? Senator MAGUIRE —So there we are, Senator Short. His Government's record was 109,300 new housing starts, and our record in 1986 is 121,000 new housing starts. So I have put forward the Liberals record on housing and I have put forward our record. Australian families know the difference, the electorate knows the difference and, of course, the Housing Industry Association knows the difference. Only this week the Housing Industry Association wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) congratulating him on this Government's record in housing. I put that on the record. It is a very significant indication by a major sector of the economy that it appreciates the work that this Government has done in the housing area. Senator Short, in bringing this matter on the standards of living forward this afternoon, obviously was not aware of the latest information made available on the social wage. I earlier gave the broader definition of `standards of living', by looking at items such as government expenditure programs in addition to cash wages and salaries. I refer Senator Short to report No. 27 of the Economic Planning Advisory Council entitled `Aspects of Social Wage', which looks at the influence of items such as health, education, social welfare and housing expenditure on the economic circumstances of Australian households. There is some very interesting reading on page 13, because there EPAC looks at the Commonwealth Budget sector, the overall contribution of the Commonwealth Government to the community, and at the social wage contributions made by the Commonwealth Government over the period 1975-76 to 1985-86. Some very interesting comparisons emerge, and I am sure that Senator Short will be very interested to hear about them. For example, real annual social wage spending per head of population-that is, per capita spending per annum-from 1975, to 1978-1979, that is the first three years of the Fraser-Howard Government, did not rise at all. In fact it was reduced. It was slashed by five per cent on average per head of population per annum. That is a devastating reduction in living standards when looked at from the point of view of the social wage. Whilst the Liberals brought forward for discussion in the Senate this afternoon a matter criticising this Government about standards of living, the fact is that the social wage under the Liberals was devastated. In the first three years of the Liberal Government of Mr Fraser and Mr Howard, the social wage was devastated. In the period from 1978 to 1982 under Mr Howard only a very modest increase was possible in the social wage. While we had an average two per cent growth in the social wage over that period, since the Australian Labor Party has been in office the increase has averaged 4 1/2 per cent per annum-more than double the increase in the social wage and more than double the contribution of government programs to the welfare of Australian households under Mr Howard. I therefore put that forward as an important indicator of standards of living in Australia. It is hypocritical for the Liberals to criticise the Labor Party over living standards. Mr Howard, as Treasurer, hit the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Australians. We have acted to restore and improve the living standards that were decimated by Mr Howard. There are more jobs, fewer unemployed, lower cost of living rises and more homes being built in Australia than when Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this country. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.49) —Senator Short, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia-although I am not quite sure whether it is also on behalf of the National Party of Australia-has introduced the following as a matter of public importance today: The policy failures of the Hawke Government which have caused a decline in living standards and necessitated the introduction of a stringent mini-Budget. I am a little surprised at the Liberal Party complaining about or even condemning the Government for introducing a mini-Budget in May after spending half of last year demanding that the Government do just such a thing in order to satisfy concerns that have been raised by business and industry in the community. Senator Short —They should have got it right the first time, then we would not have needed a mini-Budget. Senator HAINES —The honourable senator may well be right. The problem is that nobody in the community has any capacity to work out whether the Liberal Party is likely to get it right or whether the Liberal Party's policies are going to be any better, because so far the Liberal Party has not issued us with any and apparently is not planning to do so until closer to the time of the election. I wonder what sort of prescience the honourable senator has in order to be able to assess just when the publication time is going to be under those circumstances. While speaking of things that were extraordinary, I must say I found it a little odd too that Senator Short, for whom I have a very high regard, as he knows, should introduce a matter of public importance that talks about the decline in living standards and then spend most of his time talking about so-called problems facing the wealthy in this country. He canvassed, in particular-- Senator Short —I talked mainly about the average Australian family and how it was being savaged. Senator HAINES —The honourable senator's definition of the average Australian family in that case should include the families of the John Elliotts, the Andrew Hays and so on of this world. Senator Childs —He is the other Treasurer. Senator HAINES —The other Liberal Party Treasurer, the other Liberal spokesman on Treasury matters-yes, indeed. Senator Short canvassed at some length what he called-I quote pretty exactly what he said-the huge increase in taxes which the Government had imposed specifically on business in Australia, but he made little mention, I repeat, of the plight of ordinary Australians and their families, unless he classifies people such as John Elliott, Andrew Hay and their families as being ordinary Australians families. He mentioned the difficulties that business and well-off individuals have faced as a consequence of the imposition of things such as wine taxes and lump sum superannuation taxes, without mentioning that his Senate colleagues, in fairness, I cannot remember whether Senator Short was here for all of this in 1984-- Senator Short —No. Senator HAINES —In that case the honourable senator is excused from the opprobrium I am about to heap on the rest of his colleagues because they were the ones who were responsible for permitting the Government to introduce the original 10 per cent tax on wine, for not supporting us in attempting to amend the lump sum superannuation taxation legislation introduced by the Government that year and, of course, for supporting similar measures in last year's Budget-measures which doubled the tax on wine and imposed other measures which certainly did affect the living standards of Australians and which I will come to in a moment. Senator Short talked about high interest rates impeding the growth and development of business and industry as well as harming average Australian families. That was one occasion when he did mention average Australian families and talked about their problems in acquiring loans for housing and so on. I certainly agree with him there, but he did not touch upon one of the biggest problems to arise in Australia recently and one of the main reasons for interest rates being as high as they are. It certainly is a matter of government policy and is to be condemned. Indeed, I have condemned it a number of times in this chamber in the last 12 months or so. That is the fact that demand for loans exceeds supply, and that of course pushes up market interest rates. That demand is exceeding supply at least partly because so many sectors of business are investing off-shore. Some of those businesses have tax free or tax concessional status. I refer to some of the larger superannuation and life funds which are investing large amounts of money off-shore, still retaining tax free or tax concessional status and reducing the supply that we have for domestic lending. We also have to acknowledge that the Government is keeping interest rates at a reasonably high level deliberately because, although the rate is to some extent set by the market, the Government can affect interest rates and it has affected interest rates by keeping them reasonably high in order to dampen domestic demand for imported goods and, therefore, to increase the level of overseas investment. So the cause of high interest rates is multifarious. I think that Senator Short could have spent a little more time on attacking the Government in some of those areas. I suggest that there is some justification in the charge by some members of the Liberal Party that their Party has lost its soul, it has lost compassion and it has lost touch with the many Australians who need help far more than do the John Elliotts of this world or the other sorts of people to whom Senator Short, whether he intended to or not and whether he realised it or not, seemed to spend most of his time referring in the 20 minutes that he had on this issue. Those Australians whom John Howard would like to speak for, and whom John Elliott apparently does speak for, have been getting wealthier, not poorer, under the policies of the Hawke Labor Government. According to the latest estimates, there are over 30,000 millionaires in Australia. I am certainly not going to complain about that if it produces better conditions for Australia as a whole and if indeed the mythical trickle-down effect actually did operate, but it does not. The top one per cent of Australians in terms of wealth are now worth over $230 billion. The top 10 per cent own 60 per cent of all wealth in Australia, whilst at the same time we have two million Australians living below the poverty line. Included in that number is something like 800,000 children. While some Liberal spokesmen have said in recent days that poverty is a relative thing-it certainly is-and that we do not have the sort of poverty that exists in Third World countries, I would have thought that a country which sets itself as being relatively well-developed would deplore the fact that 800,000 children within its boundaries are living below the established poverty line. Yet we all know the view of the people who are trying to hijack the Liberal Party-people such as Andrew Hay-who say that there is no poverty in Australia and in saying that are forcing some senior spokespeople within the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party to adopt that sort of attitude, to dismiss the very real problems of the two million people living in poverty and to concentrate on those small businesses that would like to be big businesses and those big businesses that already are. John Elliott, for example, thinks wealthy individuals and big corporations are being taxed too highly despite the fact that by the use of various tax avoidance devices-perfectly legal, I hasten to point out but, nevertheless, remaining there because of Labor party policies that support these wealthy individuals and corporations-these companies have an effective tax rate which is below that of the average pay as you earn taxpayer. It is all very well for John Elliott to say that he is taking his bat and ball and going away from home because he does not like the fact that the top rate for business is going from 46 per cent to 49 per cent when America has a top rate of 33 per cent and the United Kingdom 35 per cent. The information that is to hand indicates that his company pays nothing like 46c, much less 49c in the dollar. After he has been able to use the legitimate tax avoidance measures that are still available under this Labor Government his tax payment comes down to a little under 11c in the dollar. There are plenty of other companies such as his. In fact, John Spalvins was crowing to Australian Business magazine two or so years ago that he was able to keep his company's tax payable down to less than 1c in the dollar. That has been lifted considerably, thanks to some steps that this Government has taken to make the taxation system more equitable. But to listen to somebody who flies around the world in a jet plane with gold plated seat-belt buckles complain that he is paying too much company tax and he is going to go away is positively ludicrous. I said earlier that it is ironic that the Howard Liberal Party should be concerned at falling living standards when it is, after all, directly responsible for some of them. I mentioned the lump sum superannuation taxation, the wine taxes and so on that were supported by Liberal and National Party senators in this place not only in 1984 but again last year. The Government cut the indexation of superannuation pensions and delayed the payment of pension increases in its last round of budgetary cuts. I did not notice the Liberal Party senators voting against those measures. I was on radio a week or so ago following Mr Charles Blunt, a National Party member in another place, who said that he, his Party and the Opposition generally, did not see it as their role to protect the population from the unfair, unfortunate legislation that is introduced by the Government they elected. I find that a most extraordinary attitude to take when, after all, members of parliament are, I would have thought, put here to look at legislation on its merits. As part of the May mini-Budget review, the Government has been looking at other areas within the welfare budget which could be cut, including a cut in the Medicare rebate which would, of course, most disadvantage the needy. We have heard claims from the Liberal Party that the cuts do not go far enough. So, faced with its enthusiasm for cuts, we would be seeing a far more disadvantaged sector of the com- munity than we currently see. The Australian Chamber of Commerce-a strong supporter of the Liberal Party and behind its calls for cuts additional to those the Government is planning to make-has called for cuts amounting to a minimum of $4 billion in government expenditure. I might add that there is no mention from that quarter of the Government's raising additional revenue by, for example, cutting out some of the taxpayer subsidised, non-productive negatively geared takeovers and share raids that have become the flavour of the month in the last little while in Australia. John Elliott, another strong supporter of the economic dries in the Liberal Party, is reported to have called for cuts to government expenditure by, for example, closing down the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That is a clear indication, I would have thought, of the depth of his regard for Australia's ex-service men and women. John Howard, currently the Leader of the Liberal Party in Federal Parliament, in keeping with his approach that the best policy is one that contains the fewest details, has called for expenditure cuts of several billions of dollars above what the Government is prepared to make without being able to specify where those cuts will be coming from. What about those Australians who have suffered a decline in living standards? What have been the causes? I think there are three main causes and they have been touched on by previous speakers. They are higher interest rates, falling real wages, and a decline in government services. Between 1982-83 and 1985-86 real earnings fell by between 1.5 per cent and 4 per cent, depending on which statistical database is being used. It is estimated that real earnings will fall by another 3 per cent this financial year and by a further 1.5 per cent in 1987-88. When this decline in real earnings is added to increases in average tax rates, increases in interest rates, and price increases in various council rates, charges and consumer purchases above those shown in the consumer price index, it is clear that household living standards measured in terms of purchasing power have fallen more than the figures indicate. A further indication of the decline in living standards is the proportion of the population living below the poverty line. This is estimated to have doubled from 9 per cent to 18 per cent since the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty was conducted in the early 1970s, the rise being largely due to an increasing proportion of the population obtaining their entire income from pensions and benefits, and social security payments generally which have not kept pace with any increase in average earnings or with inflation. We are seeing in this country a very big rise in the difference between those who have and those who do not have. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.04) —The Senate is discussing the policy failures of the Hawke Government which have caused a decline in living standards and necessitated the introduction of a mini-Budget. The failure of the present Government to live up to its promises, to follow a rationally thought out set of policies and to govern in the interest of all Australians rather than lurch from policy to policy, from crisis to crisis, on the basis of political expediency, has left Australia in the weakest position it has been in in modern times. It has left Australia hopelessly uncompetitive with other nations. It has seen our dollar plunge, our level of debt skyrocket, and our international credit rating downgraded. It has seen record levels of taxes, record high interest rates which are crippling businesses and home buyers alike, and, most condemnable of all, a fall in the living standards of middle income Australians. I emphasise that this Government has slashed the standard of living of average Australians-not just the high earners but the ordinary, everyday Australians. Australians who work during the week, who are buying their own homes, who are raising and educating their children are the people who have been hit by this Government. This Government has betrayed the trust that was placed in it. It has broken the promises that it made to Australians. In my view, it has forfeited its right to govern. Roll on the next election because this Government will suffer the wrath of the average Australian for what it has done to him. This Government endeavours to mislead Australians into believing that the reduction in living standards has been brought about as a result of circumstances beyond its control. Undoubtedly, there has been a national income reduction caused by a fall in the world price of exports, but that is only part of the story and this Government knows that. If, however, deliberate deception is what is required to prop up the Government's flagging stocks with the Australian people in an effort to stave off the inevitable deluge at election day, deliberate deception it will be. Let us look at the facts. Right from the start the Government gave its personal popularity the highest priority as distinct from worrying about the welfare and the future of all Australians. In the very first year this Government was elected it got a windfall-the drought broke. Suddenly, it found itself with an additional $4 billion. What did it do with it? It frittered it away. What an enormous stimulus that could have been to the economy. In the 1984-85 financial year, for instance, the Government received increases in sales tax and income tax on individuals of almost 20 per cent and, in respect of company tax, an increase of 25 per cent in revenue. They were the days when the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, was the messiah of Australia. They were the days when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was the greatest Treasurer that this earth had ever known. Senator Ryan —He is still pretty good. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, he is pretty good; outlays increased in the first year by 15.7 per cent and in the following year by 12.9 per cent. In the first two years the Government increased outlays and frittered away the benefits of a windfall. No money was put away for a future time. Even the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would know that Australia depends heavily on the export of primary produce and on the mining industry. Our manufacturing exports were only about half the proportion of total exports in common with other industrialised countries. Despite this and despite the fact that we had a higher rate of unemployment, the Government sacrificed the competitiveness of the manufacturing industry on the altar of its perception of what was consensus. In an effort to placate the trade union movement, it gave its support to wage rises which would only worsen, as Senator Button would well know, our competitive position. To fudge that, the Government tries to put over to the Australian community that there has been a fall in real wages. This ignores three things. The first is-Senator Button would know this well because he is one of the more enlightened members of the Government although I do not give him marks-that it does not matter whether there is a real increase or a modest fall in real wages. What is important is its relationship to the fall and rise in the level of wages of our overseas competitors. Of course, there has been no fall in our level of wages comparable with those overseas, notwithstanding the fact that the Government talks about labour costs as a unit cost of production but ignores add-on costs to wages. Senator Button —Which competitors are you talking about? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I would love to argue with Senator Button, but time is against me. The Government ignores on-costs, and he knows it. He knows about the on-costs which are imposed and inflicted upon industry. These are the costs which are inflicted upon businesses and they must pay them in addition to the money that employees receive. On-costs include, as he well knows, workers compensation, superannuation and payroll tax-just to name three. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, for instance, tells us that on-costs are equivalent to 10 per cent of actual wages, but it admits that that assessment is extremely limited because it does not include things such as the fringe benefits tax. The Confederation of Australian Industry indicates that on-costs make up over 30 per cent of wage costs, or $7,000, per employee per year. These increases in on-costs and this Government's support for unsustainable increases in wages undermine our ability to compete and reduce our reliance on farm and mining exports. This Government promised taxation reform. Had it been able to restrain its spending it might have been able to provide genuine taxation reforms. It could not, of course, and now it finds that it is required to fudge those taxation reforms. What have Australians received from this Government to mitigate, to reduce, costs to the business sector. We have had the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax, the abolition of negative gearing and sales tax increases, all for the promise of reduced income taxes. Business has not received a genuine increase in taxation reductions. We have had roaring inflation which has put more and more people into higher and higher tax brackets. So despite what has been superficially a reduction in income tax rates, the amount Australians are paying in income tax has increased. In fact, I think it was my colleague Senator Short who made the point that taxes per week had increased for those on average weekly earnings by $15 per week. Senator Button —The thing you object to is that some of your mates in Western Australia are paying tax for the first time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —To the best of my knowledge all people in Western Australia who should pay tax are doing so. If they are not, it is a reflection on the competence and capacity of this Government, and not least the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. Senator Aulich —And let the cheats get away with it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —There are cheats over there; is that what the honourable senators is saying? Senator Aulich —Yes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Really! I assume that the honourable senator is referring, for instance, to the sorts of people that his Premier, Brian Burke, engaged and who have now been charged with fraud for receiving bribes. Are they the sorts of people he is talking about? If he wants a few more names I can drop them around like confetti, but that would hardly add to the quality of this debate. Senator Aulich —Why are you so touchy? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not touchy. I do not mind. It is Premier Burke, the socialist Australian Labor Party Premier in Western Australia, who is hiding behind the door and is not prepared to come out. He is suddenly dissociating himself from his scungy mates. If honourable senators opposite want to talk about friends, I refer to Mr Gale who spent some time in gaol and suddenly found himself as one of Mr Burke's advisers. Mr Burke attracts some very interesting people. This Government has contributed substantially to the accumulation of more than $100 billion of overseas debt. I quote the National Australia Bank Ltd: Corporate sector borrowings in the early eighties mostly went into private investment, and income derived from such investment, either in the form of higher exports receipts or higher national income, can be used to service debt. In the years between 1983-84 and 1985-86 the public sector was most active in accumulating debt which mainly supported large Commonwealth Budget deficits. That says it all. As I have said, our overseas debt is now more than $100 billion. In fact $4 in every $10 we earn from overseas goes straight back overseas to pay interest on that debt, and the debt is increasing by $111m every day. Is it any wonder that our international credit rating under this failed Government has been downgraded? Finally, when the price of our export commodities fell, increasing our current account deficit, and the value of the dollar seemed like it would fall through the floor, we thought that the Federal Government might have got the message. We thought that the penny might have dropped. We thought that the Government might have come to its senses. We thought that the Government might prune back. The Treasurer told us that we were in a crisis `as great as war', that Australians were going to have to tighten their belts and that living standards would fall. The Treasurer was right about one thing: Living standards fell. But as for Australians tightening their belts, this Government is as fat and bloated as it ever was. However, Australians were prepared to accept the necessary inevitability of being frugal. What did this Government do? As always, it missed the opportunity to take tough decisions. Let us look at the last Budget. How many cuts did it contain? None-there was a deferral. The Government could not say no. It said that it would put off the decision until tomorrow. As I say, most of the reductions in the deficit came from increased taxes once again. The Government deferred the hard decisions and instead increased taxes. Senator Button —That is not what your Leader said. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not know what my Leader said, but Senator Button should listen to me because what I have to say is riveting and it is honest. The Government relied on massive increases in interest rates to try to rectify the current account imbalance. Having missed so many opportunities the Government is now forced to introduce a May mini-Budget. The Government is trying to do in one big painful step that which it could have done in moderate incremental movements and changes over a considerable period of time. Of course the policies introduced by this Government have reduced the living standards particularly of middle income Australia. High interest rates and high taxation have taken their toll. As I have said, a person on average weekly earnings will pay more tax even after these phony damned tax cuts that the Government has given people. People on average weekly earnings will pay more tax next year than they paid last year. It is a tax cut you have when you are not having a tax cut. Let us look at interest rates. Interest rates for home loans were 12.5 per cent when the Fraser Government left office. The repayments on a home loan of $50,000, which is an average home loan, over 25 years at that time was $545.18 per month. Under the Hawke socialist Government the interest rate is now 15.5 per cent and that is an artificial figure. Senator Short —And it's a minimum. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes. It is 17 per cent and 18 per cent if one goes to the National Bank, if one is out in the free money market. The repayment on the same loan is now $659.87, an increase of $114.69 per month. What an increase! I remind honourable senators that that applies to a person on average weekly earnings of around $300 per week. Of course those repayments are beyond the average person. That is the average income, but those repayments are beyond the average person. Let us look at housing for a moment. It is not surprising that the waiting lists for public housing have increased by 60,000 over the past four years, and there are now 160,000 people queueing up for public housing. At the same time we find that the level of new dwelling approvals has fallen by 30 per cent from April to April. The increasing inability of average Australians to buy their own homes is a clear breach of the Prime Minister's 1984 election promise to `bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families'. I do not know what the Prime Minister's definition of `ordinary Australian families' is, because the average person that I meet cannot afford a home under this socialist Government. We have seen the devastating effect that this Government has had on the average Australian, and it is an indictment on the Government and it should be cast out of office as quickly as possible. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(4.19) —I thank Senator Crichton-Browne for his performance today-it has certainly been amusing and interesting. When I look at this particular proposition I think to myself that one day I will be retiring from the Senate and in my retirement I will put aside mementos of my stay here, all those little things that will help me remember what this place was like. In my memory chest I will be placing a copy of Senator Short's proposition to remind me of the ways that a political party can become so contradictory about what it believes, so out of touch with reality and so unwilling to work seriously in the interests of all Australians. I will quote the proposition because I believe it should be put on the record once again. Senator Short says that we should be condemned for: The policy failures of the Hawke Government which have caused a decline in living standards and necessitated the introduction of a stringent mini-Budget. This debate is a reminder to the electorate that the Opposition has lost its way; that it has lost its capacity to think as an alternative government; that it is unable to face up to the fact that hard decisions have to be made in the long term interests of this community. The Opposition criticises this Government for bringing in a May statement. Yet its current leader, John Howard, has called for similar mini-Budgets on many other occasions. Of course, that was when he was talking to the business community. As soon as he returns to this Parliament-with his friends in the Senate-he sees votes in an alternative viewpoint, softens his hairy-chested viewpoint and retreats to the weak-willed approach taken here today. The May statement is part of an overall Government strategy to ensure that our economic policies are consistent and to ensure that decisions taken in May keep the growth of Government spending to a minimum. To do that, to keep governments off people's backs, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that excess expenditure and planned revenue measures are in operation for a full year, not for nine months. If we start in May those goals are obtainable, as any good housekeeper knows. This Government understands an important change that has taken place in the Australian economy. The Liberals understand it but they will not join us in addressing the issue. The change is that Australia has lost $9 billion in national income through the significant drop in world prices for our basic commodities-beef, wool, sugar, base metals, coal and iron ore. In the face of that drop in our national income, to continue to spend and live in the style to which we have become accustomed is irresponsible. This Government has faced that fact. It has also faced the fact that the Australian economy must change to make us competitive. The world does not owe us a living. To pretend otherwise is to play a massive confidence trick on the Australian public. That confidence trick has been played for far too long in this community and it is about time we in this chamber faced up to it. The Government has faced up to it and all of us in this chamber, including Opposition senators, have to do that. This Government has set about changes that are in line with our changed standard of living and which are designed to make Australia competitive again. It is worth while reminding the Senate of the changes. Despite the fact that we have been honest with the Australian electorate, it is obvious that the Opposition is still not listening; so I will list the changes. First, we floated the dollar. Such an action was supported by John Howard when he was Treasurer but he was too weak to achieve this against the wishes of his irresponsible Prime Minister. When we came to government we knew that the Australian dollar had been kept at a level that was too high against other currencies. Governments interested only in their electoral self-interest see that keeping the dollar at an artificially high level makes imports cheaper and keeps consumers happy provided they buy imported goods. In that fools paradise, aided and abetted by the Liberal Government of the day, we saw Australia's manufacturing industry decline and Australia's exporters struggling to compete on price terms on overseas markets. Of course, the public could buy cheap imported goods. The Government got the credit while jobs and investment in Australian manufacturing industries went out the window. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Australia were lost as a result of the lazy and gutless policy of past governments. Was that responsible? Are Opposition senators descendants of that Fraserian approach that helped to destroy large parts of the manufacturing sector of the Australian economy? We have made enormous gains in the industrial relations area. We have set in place policies which have helped employers and employees to resolve their differences in ways that benefit the whole community as well as themselves. We have pushed consultation rather than confrontation. That is the key element in this whole approach. Consultative bodies were established which encouraged both employer and employee groups to get together, to provide government with on the ground advice and to plan for the long term restructuring of the Australian economy. The results are obvious. Strikes are down to one-third of the number which occurred in the final year of the Fraser Government. Wages growth has been basically neutral and the necessary increase in profits that creates investment and jobs has occurred. Seven hundred and fifty thousand jobs were created, mainly in the private sector. Compare that with the number of jobs lost in the Fraser period. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was encouraged to provide once again a sensible and affordable direction for wage fixation in this country. The accord, that agreement between the Government and the unions, helped to broaden the way in which we approached industrial relations. Far from the unions setting the pace and far from the unions telling this Government what to do, we were able to broaden the range of goals that unions in this country were seeking. We got away from an obsession with only wages towards broader goals which helped not only the industries in which the unionists worked but the community as a whole. This was approached in a way that kept job losses to a minimum or improved job capacity in that area and kept prices down. That is a record in industrial relations that I am proud to support. I do not apologise for the close and productive relationship that this Government has with the trade union movement. After all, it represents something like 55 per cent of the work force. At peak council level it represents a very significant chance for an input from outside this Parliament into the decision-making process of this economy. It also represents a large group capable of working hand in glove with the government of the day to achieve goals for all Australians. Why should we apologise for that? What are the Liberals offering as an alternative? It is a free bargaining system-as they put it-with a weak or an abolished arbitration system; a new system in which employers and employees will be encouraged basically to go out and do private deals, the costs of which, as in the past, would be blithely passed on to the public at large. Why should ordinary consumers cop the results of those sweetheart deals through increased air fares, consumer products, State taxes and other increased charges that would occur as a result of those sweetheart deals? If people have any doubts about the problems that will be caused by the decentralised wages system being offered by the Liberals, they need only to remember the last year of the Fraser Government when a similar system was in place and the $39 metal trades increase agreed to by the unions and employers which ran a massive increase in wages costs throughout the country and which dealt a body blow to our struggling manufacturing industry. Senator Watson knows what that did as he has been around in manufacturing. We want a growth in wages that is affordable by this community as a whole. We are offering, for example, superannuation coverage extending to most Australian citizens and negotiated in the appropriate manner. Many of those covered will be women who are now denied access to schemes that take the worry out of retirement. We are offering wage increases where there have been proven increases in efficiency and work practices and where an industry that is involved in that bargaining can afford it. All of these improvements to the standard of living of ordinary people in this country are being offered in the context of what this community can afford. What are the Liberals putting up in opposition to that? They are putting up a wages freeze. So far they have opposed something like 18 out of the last 20 national wage case increases, knowing as they do that millions of people are struggling to make ends meet. So they offer a wage freeze! Let us have a look at the restructuring of industry, something which this Government has addressed and which in the past has not been addressed with the courage which was needed. I pay due respect to the efforts of my colleague, Senator Button, in this area. He has copped flak from both unions and employers. He has forced people to sit down and look at the future of industry and how it affects the future of this country. I believe that the sorts of packages that have been or will be brought into operation for industries as diverse as the car industry, the vegetable industry or the steel industry are going to benefit Australia as a whole. They have not been without their costs but they have been necessary. Australia cannot hide behind the old tariff barriers that we once had, the sweetheart wages deal and the over-valued dollar. Those days are gone. The rest of the world does not owe us a living. We have to prove that we are competitive and we have to go out there to seize the opportunities that are offered. What has been the net result of the changes that have already occurred? Firstly, manufacturing exports are up 25 per cent for the nine months of 1986-87. The current account deficit-the measurement of our capacity to pay our way in the world-is improving at a rate that even the Government did not predict at Budget time. So Australian industry has been changed. Very briefly, let us look at another area in which ordinary Australians have had the benefit of sensible reforms by this Government. Personal income tax rates have decreased. By July this year the top rate will have dropped from 60c in the dollar to 49c in the dollar. Other income earners will have received similar cuts. That is something that John Howard talked about but was too weak to get through his Cabinet when he was Treasurer in the Liberal Government. We have slammed down on capital gains. Previously, ordinary wage and salary earners were paying tax on behalf of those speculators whose substantive income came from speculative gains on property or stocks and shares. That has gone. We have included a tax on fringe benefits-one of the main ways in which wealthy and privileged individuals could receive free benefits from employers and on which no tax was pay- able. Only the Liberal and National parties are still able to argue in this House that private school fees, luxury cars, free houses, subsidised loans and free holidays abroad should be benefits that can escape tax. Ordinary taxpayers know better. They know that the wealthy and the well-off receive those benefits at the expense of ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers. What I want to make plain is that it is precisely these Government measures that the Liberals oppose on behalf of their rich friends-the capital gains tax, tax free benefits, negative gearing and other tax avoidance techniques-which have given the Government a chance to cut tax rates for ordinary taxpayers so that their disposable income is increased in real terms. What will the Liberals do if ever they are in government and go ahead with their plans to change the system back again? Who will pay the tax bill then-their wealthy friends or the ordinary taxpayer? I can tell honourable senators that, if the Liberals were ever returned to power, it would be the ordinary taxpayer. That all presupposes that the Liberals, Nationals and Joh Nationals, if I may call them that, are able to agree not only on their tax policies but also on their leadership questions. For example, will we have a 25 per cent flat tax policy as advocated by Premier Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen-a policy which both this Government and Mr Howard say will leave about 80 per cent of taxpayers worse off? We need not worry about that. How on earth will John Howard in that situation face up to Bjelke-Petersen? How will he work with a man he has already described as a thug and a wrecker? If John Howard could not win against Malcolm Fraser on issues on which he knows he was right and if he cannot stand up to Ian Sinclair, how will he stand up to a megalomaniac such as Bjelke-Petersen who has done so much to wreck the Liberal Party, his State and his National Party? The people of Australia deserve better than the option being offered by those on the other side. They deserve better on tax, they deserve better on leadership and they deserve better on all policies. We have not yet seen the tax policy of the Opposition, yet Opposition senators are prepared to come into this chamber today to criticise the Government for not delivering the goods to ordinary taxpayers and consumers in the community. What we are looking for is a continuation of reasonably tough but humane policies that will get this country back on its feet again after 20 years or more of being the lucky but lazy country. I oppose the motion. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.33) —This afternoon the Senate has heard a number of very high-powered speeches. Unfortunately, a debating technique used all too often in this chamber is that of distorting the policy of the other party. Unfortunately, we have heard that again this afternoon. Senator Aulich —What policy? You haven't got a policy. Where is your tax policy? Senator WATSON —I submit to Senator Aulich that his contribution was not directed to the ordinary Australian, but to academia, to the universities. If there is a problem with the Australian Labor Party at present, perhaps it is that it is following the academics and not listening to the ordinary Australian, the person who has traditionally supported the Australian Labor Party. The time has come for us really to break away from some of this detached and artificial discussion that we have been having in this place about such sensitive and important issues as standards of living. We should try to understand what the ordinary people around Australia, the great majority, the silent majority of Australians, really think about some of the important issues confronting this nation today. I submit that the decline in the standard of living is one that is of real concern. What do Australians really feel about family life today? A recent survey threw up a number of interesting comments. One man said: `I am paid fortnightly and it is getting harder to make it stretch for two weeks'. Another lady said: `We reckoned that when we built our house we would be able to lie back and enjoy it, but now we are flat out keeping up with the repayments and just maintaining a decent lifestyle'. A further, more cryptic comment was: `We are supposed to have an accord but prices keep going up and up. Something is wrong'. There is this gut feeling that all is not well within Australia today. We come to who is responsible for these problems. One person said: `Keating hasn't got a clue. He was supposed to be the world's greatest Treasurer and then he told us that we were in a banana republic. That tells us how much he knew about what was really going on'. I would like honourable senators and those listening on the air waves today to put themselves in the position of John and Joan Citizen. They may be swinging voters. They could be Labor voters. They could be conservative voters. John and Joan Citizen begin to realise that John's pay packet is not going quite as far as it used to. The problems with their finances are becoming more and more of concern. They are justly worried about their welfare, their future and particularly the future of their children. John and Joan sit down at the kitchen table to work out their problems and to work out whether they are really better off under this Hawke Labor Government. What are their major concerns? They write them down on a piece of paper. How secure is John's job? How do prices compare with what they were a few years ago? What has happened to their savings? Why have their savings balances gone down? John produces a number of group certificates from over the years and asks: `Why has my tax gone up so tremendously?' Joan says: `They haven't done anything about the family allowance and costs are going up for educating our children'. What does the future hold? John says: `I got a telephone call from my elderly mother, who is a pensioner, and she is in a great state because she has just been told that the Government is deferring the pension increase that was expected in May. What is the matter? There was no public advertisement in the paper telling pensioners of this deferral of the pension increase'. John's mother, the elderly pensioner, dependent on the pension, says: `We used to get it in May and November. They let it slide last time until December and now they have done it again. Instead of getting it in May, it has been deferred until 25 June'. There are all these problems in family lives. Ordinary Australians are really in a dilemma. An ordinary young Australian couple, when they decide to increase their family or begin to have a family, now have to make a decision about reducing their standard of living. How tragic that is in the land that needs people. At the other end of the scenario are those who have had their families, and increasing numbers of them are now finding that they are living close to the poverty line. Let us analyse some of the problems that John and Joan have written down on a piece of paper at the kitchen table. They are wondering why their standard of living has declined. What about John's social security? He is concerned about his job because, for example, he is a car salesman. We know that new vehicle sales are 50 per cent lower than in January last year, and the lowest for about 18 years. In fact, John says that more than 5,500 people in the retail car industry have lost their jobs since the start of the current slump, so he does not feel too good about job security. He points out that he cannot really go elsewhere because other dealerships in his little town have closed. In other words, new jobs are difficult to find. John has a problem because he is in his mid-forties, and when he reaches fifty and is suddenly thrown out of work, the statisticians will tell him that it will take him two years to find a job. With unemployment standing at 8.4 per cent, John cannot afford to lose his job. John and Joan are also concerned about their children-two of them, the average Australian family-one of whom is approaching the end of his school education and is not going on to higher education. Employment prospects for youth remain very poor, despite the much publicised trainee program. Joan tells John that down the road there are other families in similar positions. The fact is that more than one in five young people are unemployed for lengthy periods. In many cases, that merely saps their enthusiasm and their sense of purpose. It is a tragedy, yet all that we have had from this Government is short-term measures. Joan knows of a friend whose daughter went on a short-term traineeship scheme. What happened to her? Like so many others, at the end of the program she was back on the dole and more sad and disillusioned than ever. What about prices, what has happened to them? John and Joan do not understand complex plans; they do not understand the debates in this chamber; they are not used to the balance of payments and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They just know that the very necessities of life are costing more and more and that the few luxuries that they used to be able to afford are now right out of their grasp. Joan recalls that a packet of tea cost about 94c a few years ago; it now costs $1.45. Coffee, cereals, vegetables and detergents are all very much more expensive now. Even the cost of running a car is becoming prohibitive. We see more and more signs on the backs of cars saying: `I own the car but I am paying off the petrol'. Clothing the family has also become a real problem. What about disposable income? John says that they need an extra $31 a week to restore their real disposable income to its level in March 1983. I think that he has probably underestimated it; it is on the home side. Interest rates have gone through the roof and John and Joan are in real trouble paying off the mortgage. However, they say that they are thankful that at least they have a roof over their heads. Yet they are now paying $152 a month more than they paid in December 1984. They know of friends who are still waiting for public housing and the queue is growing all the time. They know that more than 400,000 people are living in caravan parks. Even more serious, up to 100,000 Australians are now permanently classified as homeless. Is that not a sad reflection? Those caught in the rental trap are paying more and more in rent, particularly if they live in Sydney. What about tax cuts? John and Joan will need an additional $15 a week in cuts just to break even. The Government says that it is making tax cuts, but when John and Joan look at their group certificates they find they are paying more than they paid four years ago. What has happened to family allowances? John and Joan recall that, under the Fraser Government, family allowances were introduced to replace child endowment. What has happened since this Government took office? It has forgotten all about family allowances; in fact, it has taken it away from some teenagers and children. Joan, perhaps, is probably more bitter than John, because she remembers the Prime Minister's promise to increase the dependent spouse rebate. She does not work, so she and John have a single family income. However, as with so many of the Prime Minister's commitments, he has failed to honour that promise. What about health care? John and Joan realise that since the Government came into office, the cost has risen from about $10 to $14.30 a week. They are worried about their friends who need to go into hospital. The old man next door wants a prostate operation, but he has been waiting for four years. The cost is rising and the queues are increasing. John and Joan are particularly worried about the elderly mother on a pension who needs an operation. She has to join the long queue. The cost of health care has increased substantially, and the cost of subsidised drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule has meant that the greatest users of drugs, the aged, are faced with increased costs. This Government is attacking those who can least afford to carry the burden. What is happening with inflation; who does it affect most? It is those who can least afford to protect themselves. We are now faced with the mini-Budget, and we can only hope that the Government will distribute the funds honestly and fairly and that it will have some compassion for the disadvantaged, for the ordinary family people in Australia. Our economy is in a sorry state. Bankruptcies are already 40 per cent higher this year compared with the same period last year. Inflation is robbing people of their savings, high interest rates threaten their homes and tax imposts are increasing. I support the motion submitted by my colleague Senator Short, and I hope that this Government takes some notice of the needs of ordinary Australians whose living standards are declining. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.48) —I wish to speak to the matter of public importance that has been raised by the Opposition today. We are at a time when all Australians must exercise restraint, and this Labor Government believes that we must face restraint on equity. My colleague Senator Maguire, in leading for the Government, pointed out how the Opposition has attempted to rewrite history. For example, it has tried to forget the period of the Fraser Government. Senator `Hans Christian' Watson has just told us a `Grimm' fairy tale. He told us about citizen John and he made up a beautiful fairy tale, but he was wrong. I remember that citizen well. In the last year of the Fraser Government John was one of the 186,000 people who were put out of work by the Fraser Government and the Treasurer, Mr Howard. John had a very tough time. I am pleased to say that he now knows that this Government has produced 700,000 jobs since it took office. So John Citizen and his wife Jane- Senator Button —Joan. Senator CHILDS —I was a bit confused because, although Senator Watson started off with Joan, somebody else had a prostate operation and Jane slipped in there somewhere. At this serious time we have had from Senator Watson-- Senator Watson —Treat it seriously. Senator CHILDS —That is the point: I cannot treat seriously an Opposition which, on the one hand, seeks to tell a story based on a superficial analysis and, on the other, reacts-as my colleague Senator Maguire pointed out in leading for the Government-in a way typical of the Opposition. Senator Maguire correctly put the case that the Opposition has an obsession with cash income and a narrow view of the social wage. Referring to the social wage, Senator Short interjected and said: `Who do you think pays for it?' That highlights the fact that the Opposition does not believe in the social wage. Senator Maguire adequately pointed out that in housing, one aspect of the social wage, this Government has a tremendous record. Yet we had Senator Crichton-Browne bleating about public housing, although for the rest of his time he talked about the needs of business. That sums up the problem the Opposition has. It refers to the `average family' and to the `average person' but, unfortunately, all its policies are based on business interests. It is still not close to the average family, or the average person. As Senator Maguire pointed out, the ratio of unemployment to job vacancies, a critical factor, is down from 28 per cent to 11 per cent. It is very important to all the John Citizens of this country that we have reduced unemployment. We have the runs on the board in terms of attempting to make the social wage effective. Under the Fraser Government the social wage was reduced. Under this Government the figures have been doubled. There has been an increase of 4 1/2 per cent. My colleague Senator Aulich has referred to the prices and incomes accord and the progress that has been made, including the progress made by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, with industry agreements which have brought people in this country together. It is worth while going past Senator Watson's analysis to look at what we have, in sharp contrast, in the Liberal Party. There is no longer a coalition. The coalition was snapped like a dry twig. The Opposition parties are now a number of disparate voices. We have confusion. That confusion is manifest in the matter of public importance today. Senator Short's proposal makes no acknowledgment of the international nature of the crisis we face, which has led to our need to make a May statement. Senator Watson did not allude to anything like that because it might have prevented his superficial analysis and the narrow, petty, political point-scoring approach he took in his speech. We must consider the terms of trade, which are outside the control of this Government or of any government. Using 1979-80 as a base of 100, our terms of trade dropped from an annual rate of 95.5 in 1982-83 to 87.1 in 1985-86. That is a problem because it represents a loss of $7,000m in 1985-86. As a background, prices for our commodities have been dropping for over 20 years. But in May 1985 the crunch came. We are seeking to recover from that crunch now. As Senator Aulich has pointed out, we have had a declining manufacturing industry. As other speakers on this side of the chamber have pointed out, unfortunately the overvalued currency which was encouraged by the Fraser Government drastically affected manufacturing industry. Manufacturing industry became inefficient and we relied too heavily on the rural and mining industries. The matter of public importance raised by the Opposition makes no reference to or analysis of the decline in the value of our agricultural and mining exports. More significantly, the Liberal Party as the Opposition puts no alternative program. We had no proposals or solutions from Senator Short or from any of the other Opposition speakers. I do not blame them particularly because, as late as this morning, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, yet again ignored the clamour within his Party and the community and said that he will not release his tax policy. He will not release his solutions for the problems which he says we have. Australians cannot have a proper choice between the Government's policies, which are working, and the Opposition's policies with its niggardly approach and its inability to put up an alternative so that people can make their choice. When we note the words that are used in the matter of public importance, such as `policy failures', we see that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party, Mr Howard, really comes into his own. It was Mr Howard, the failed Treasurer in the Fraser Government, who left us with a projected deficit of $9.6 billion, as Senator Walsh is so often reminding us, as his legacy to this country. It was Mr Howard who failed to take effective action against the tax avoidance and evasion industries which grew under the Howard regime. As Senator Maguire said, today the Liberal Party denies its record. Another thing we all remember is how under the Fraser Government it was the taxpayers who subsidised the business dinners, the holidays, and the private schooling of some. That has all gone now. I believe that the wage and salary earners, the very people whom the Opposition claims to speak for, are very relieved that they do not have to subsidise these people any more. They no longer have to subsidise the fringe benefits packages which the business elite squandered in the Fraser years. That has all gone now and I believe that the vast majority of wage and salary earners endorse this Government's decisions to take away those benefits from those greedy people in society. We have introduced other measures. There has been talk about the capital gains tax. Capital gains are now taxed properly and we no longer have the distortion of investment which occurred in the Fraser years when so much income was converted into capital gain and investment did not go to the industries where it was needed. Finally, when we think of the Fraser-Howard years we remember the $570m we did not get from the bottom of the harbour schemes because the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats would not take the steps to get back the ill-gotten gains from those people who bludged on the average people in the community. The Opposition has not realised it yet, but twice the Australian People have rejected the Opposition's policies. Mr Howard has learnt nothing. The Opposition has learnt nothing. Mr Howard's training-he is a lawyer by profession-has not helped him. Unfortunately, he is now taking his brief from an extreme group, the greedy ideologues of the New Right, extra-parliamentary people, the millionaires, who are making a power grab to control the coalition parties, as they were. Having succeeded in breaking them, these people are trying to take over both conservative political parties. A number of Liberal Party members have reacted against all this. A number of small `l' liberals, who are established as being people who believe in fairness, and more particularly compassion, are clearly distancing themselves from the leadership of those who occupy the Opposition front bench. They are doing so at a time when there is an onslaught on the former coalition. Mr Elliott, Mr Hay and Mr McLachlan, who are outside the ranks of the Liberal and National parties, are now dictating to the Liberal Party and the National Party. Fairness and compassion are not synonymous with those people who are aggressively trying to turn the Liberal and the National parties into extremist organisations which will set out to destroy, in every possible way, the standard of living of ordinary people. That is in contrast with what this Government has done, as Senator Aulich pointed out. It has gone ahead and made sure that reasonable wages go to wage and salary earners under the present circumstances. This year, wage growth for wage and salary earners will be over 6 per cent. At the same time, there are positive moves to remove antiquated management and work practices from Australian industry so there will be an increase in productivity. That is what is happening under this Government. In the few minutes that I have remaining, let me remind the Senate that industrial relations will be the key issue which Australians must consider in the next few years. In 1982-83, under the Fraser Government, we had a productivity rate of minus 11.1 per cent. The rate is now plus 4.5 per cent. The number of working days lost was 36 per cent higher during the Liberal period of government. Australians are threatened with a Liberal Party and National Party industrial relations policy which is extreme and which reflects, if you like, the declaration of class war against wage and salary earners. It is designed to reduce the ability of wage and salary earners to bargain effectively to get a decent wage. We in this Parliament will see more and more people facing up to the fact that the extremists have taken control of industrial relations in the Liberal and National parties, which will disadvantage ordinary people. It has been pointed out that of the last 20 wage cases that have been held before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Liberal Party has opposed 18. Furthermore, the Liberal Party is now setting out with individual agreements to disadvantage ordinary working people to the extent that employers will have a tremendous bargaining advantage over them and they will not be able to get the guaranteed wages that they have had under successive Labor governments. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.03) —This matter of public importance brought forward by my colleague Senator Short highlights the policy failures of the Hawke Government. My only regret is that I have only some nine minutes in which to cover the Government's wide range of policy failures. It would be much easier if I had to talk about the Hawke Government's policy successes. There are so few of those that my speech could have been delivered much more quickly. The Hawke Government has failed the Australian people in numerous ways. Let me list a few. It has failed in regard to home ownership, interest rates, inflation, petrol prices, youth traineeships, the dependent spouse rebate, Medicare, the trilogy, the wine tax, the capital gains tax and all the other iniquitous taxes that it has foisted on the community. The Hawke Government has been a failure in each of those areas. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised in his policy speech in November 1984: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownerships once again within the reach of Australian families. The reality is that home interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent in December 1984 to a record high level of over 15 per cent at present. Monthly repayments have risen on a typical $50,000 home loan by $172 a month. Record numbers of young people are on public housing waiting lists. Record numbers have defaulted on their mortgages and are back in rented accommodation. Some are homeless directly as a result of being unable to keep up their home repayments. The Government does not have a clue what to do about interest rates either, or what interest rates are doing. Successive Ministers have said that interest rates would fall. Some said that they would fall significantly. The reality is that, over the past three years, interest rates have soared to record levels. The entire interest rate structure has risen to record or near record levels. For example, in 1984, the prime interest rate was 13.5 per cent; it is now 18.5 per cent. In 1984, home loan interest rates were 11.5 per cent; they have gone up to 15.5 per cent. In November 1984, the Bankcard rate was 18 per cent; it is now 22.5 per cent. In 1984, the small overdraft rate was 14.5 per cent; it is now 20.5 per cent. The slight falls currently noticeable in the market are doing little to reduce the cost of money for the homebuyer, the businessman and the farmer. Regarding inflation, which is another failure of the Hawke Labor Government, the Prime Minister said in late 1984: We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and we are determined to keep it below 5 per cent. If the Prime Minister lived in another country his words might have had some chance of success, but in Australia it will be difficult to keep our inflation rate below 10 per cent; 5 per cent is absolutely impossible in view of the current economic climate and present Government policies. Two of my colleagues mentioned fuel prices. The Government's hypocrisy is nowhere better demonstrated than with petrol prices. Last year, when the cost of fuel to the Australian motorist should have dropped by some 18c a litre, the Government introduced a change to its fuel pricing policy-a new excise of 10c a litre. So the reduction was less than half of what it should have been. We understand that a further rise will be announced next week, which will put the excise up to 20c a litre. The latest rise will add $10 a week to a family's car fuel bill. Those people about whom Senator Watson told us earlier in his story will be slugged once again by the Hawke Labor Government as a result of the failure of some of its policies. In the Prime Ministerial address to the nation in August 1985, Mr Hawke pledged 10,000 new youth traineeships. He said: Our aim of 75,000 young people in traineeships will be achieved in the Bicentennial year. By September 1986, 12 months after that promise was made, only 2,025 people had found work, and of those only 58 were in the private sector. By January of this year, only 3,600 young people had found work, with only 500 in the private sector. Youth unemployment is now higher than when Priority One and the youth traineeship scheme were announced. That is another failure of the Hawke Labor Government's policies. The Government promised to keep the Medicare levy at one per cent for the duration of the Hawke Government. It is now at 1.25 per cent and indications are that a further rise will be announced next week. That would be another failure of the Hawke Labor Government. Medicare is just one area in which we, the taxpayers, will have to pay more. This week in the Senate we have debated legislation which proposes an impost of yet another tax on the oil exploration industry, which lost some 3,600 jobs last year. I trust and hope that the Australian Democrats will stay with the Opposition so we can defeat that legislation in the next few days. The imposts on the rural community have been well argued in this chamber on several occasions this year. The imposts are crippling the whole of the rural community-not only the farmers and the people who work on the farms but also rural towns and villages and those who live in them. The Government should be well aware of the effects that high interest rates, falling commodity prices and loss of competitiveness have had on the farming communities. They have been carrying the burden for the Government for too long. They have suffered because of this Government's failure to recognise that our overseas borrowings must be curbed, its failure to recognise that we must stop living beyond our means, and its failure to realise that we must stop the handouts. I ask honourable senators to look at some of the handouts that have been given recently, such as to Wild Women Surfboards from the Office of the Status of Women. That was a grant of $11,000 to design and develop a special surfboard for women. Another is the Footscray swimming pool project fiasco. The original community employment grant was $1.97m, but the final payment will probably be $5.3m or more. I think that saga will continue tonight. We must use existing taxation legislation to better effect rather than just invent another tax, such as the fringe benefits tax, when we need more money. This Government has failed to recognise that we must bring incentive back into the work force. It is because of the Government's very ineptitude that the mini-Budget is necessary. It is because of those failings that cuts in the order of $4 billion will be necessary if there is to be any real improvement in the economy. If the present slight fall in interest rates is to be maintained, this Government must do more than just trim the edges. But of course the mini-Budget has already caused concern in the community and fear among many that we are heading for another depression. People see each month our balance of trade figures out of government control. Our inflation rate is so much higher than those of other countries and interest rates are so high that borrowing is outside the reach of most people. So many people are out of work with no hope of employment. They worry not whether the Australian economy will fall but when it will fall. This is all caused by the wrong policies of the Hawke Labor Government. The mini-Budget, to be effective, must be tough, but that in itself will cause further hardship to many who have already been squeezed for too long. The mini-Budget has been necessary only because of this Government's total economic ineptitude, its complete lack of awareness of what is happening in the economy and its complete ignorance of the warning signs that the Opposition has been trying to get it to take notice of for three years. It is a relief that the Government has finally admitted its failure to manage the economy. Now all Australians must suffer for the sins of the few. One can only hope that the Government gets next week's statement right. If, after next week, the economy does not start to change direction, Australia will truly be in a mess from which it may never recover, unless of course we have a change of government, to the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia, to lead this country out of the mess that it is now in. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment. Consideration resumed from 5 May, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.14) —Before debate on the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes entitled `Private Hospitals in Australia: Their Conduct, Administration and Ownership' was adjourned last Wednesday, I was making the point that it was not appropriate for any government, Federal or State, to set standards or to require any more from a private hospital than it does of its public hospitals. I think that some of the reporting that we have seen in newspapers, and which I might mention further in a minute or two, has not brought out the points that Senator Walters and I made in our dissenting report. Equally, I do not believe that this Government, indeed this Committee, has any right to dictate who is and who is not allowed to own a private hospital. That is why Senator Walters and I objected to that recommendation, and so also did Senator Haines. It seems extraordinary that no one in the media has chosen to mention the points that we made, preferring instead I think to highlight the majority recommendations, without making any comment about their lack of support from half of the Committee. Socialised medicine in the countries which have introduced it has dramatically increased health care costs, and Australia is no exception. Socialised medicine addresses only the cure of the problem rather than the prevention of it in the first place. For example, over 100,000 people are now on hospital waiting lists for elective surgery. It is important to remember that the majority view for the recommendation about ownership by doctors was obtained only by a casting vote of the Chairman, and it cannot be considered an opinion that was widely supported either within or outside the Committee. Given that it would not get majority support from this Committee, I would think it highly unlikely that this Government would introduce legislation that would clearly be unpopular. I do not believe this Committee's majority findings are an accurate assessment of the situation existing in the private health sector in Australia. Committee members appeared too often to be too preoccupied to an excessive degree with getting the medical profession. If honourable senators look at some of the headlines in the newspapers-for example, `Hospital report an ``attack on doctors'' ', and `Senate told doctors should not have shares in hospitals'-they will see that my assertion is not out of order. As I said, I think that some members of the Committee were a little too preoccupied with that part of the argument and with trying to have a go at the medical profession. This is indicated by the Committee's support for evidence from Professor Opit and Dr Morley. I think their evidence was in part wrong, and by their own admission they did not have statistical evidence to support some of their assertions. As I have said, I am angry that the media has refused to acknowledge that the Committee was clearly in disagreement over many of the more important recommendations. The fact is that it was necessary for Senator Walters and me to issue a Press statement correcting the inaccurate coverage and Senator Michael Baume had to give notice of a motion, to highlight the appalling lack of professionalism that the media had shown on that report. Senator Walters spoke after Senator Giles last week, and I think she made it quite clear what the minority report says. I think it is rather sad to think that it was not reported quite like it should have been if the back pages of the report had been studied more closely. It seems that either some persons never got to that part of the report to note where the dissenting reports were, or they might have chosen to seek a headline that was going to get attention-for example: `Tax evasion linked to private hospitals'. That is not the case whatsoever. I do not think that headlines such as `Private hospitals link to tax cheats' are the right sort of reporting. If the report had been read properly, I do not think that would have been the case. An article headed `Senate told doctors should not have shares in hospitals' is not the way that Senator Walters and I made our remarks, or Senator Haines made her remarks, in the dissenting report. Senator Walters and I believe our objections to be well founded. Any objective assessment of the evidence should support our views. I think that other senators are going to have a say on this subject as well. Since I spent quite a deal of time last Wednesday on this matter, I will now conclude my remarks. Just before I do, I make the point again that I hope the people in the community who have read some of the alarming reports in the paper get in touch with any of us in Parliament House so that they can get a copy of the report and read what the dissenting report actually had to say about the private hospitals. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.21) —I rise to address some remarks to the report from the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. It has been a marathon effort. This report is welcomed because there is a great deal of concern in the community-and quite justifiably so-on a number of counts in the whole area of health policy and delivery of services to people in the community. It is a very comprehensive report and one which will exercise our minds and our attention for some considerable time into the future, my attention in particular since I carry responsibility in the Australian Democrats for the health portfolio. I would like to look at some of the majority recommendations of the Committee and make some comments on them. I will also comment on some of the minority recommendations. Recommendation 1 from the majority of the Committee refers to the Australian Institute of Health and calls for the Institute to collect and publish private hospital statistics on a national basis. I believe that we will have coming before us legislation to change the status of the Australian Institute of Health for it to become an independent statutory body. I believe that that legislation will go a long way towards assisting the implementation of what I consider to be an excellent recommendation from this Committee. It is important that we do have collection and publication of all kinds of data in the health area. We have fallen behind. For the sort of country that we are, we are not very far advanced in this whole area. I certainly welcome that recommendation and also the proposals which will come before us shortly regarding the Institute of Health. I turn to recommendation 7. The majority membership of the Committee recommended that adequate medical records consistent with the guidelines of the Australian Council of Hospital Standards on medical records be required of public hospitals by State health authorities and requested of each private hospital by State health authorities. I think it is terribly important that, along with a number of the other recommendations of a similar kind, the private hospital sector comply with this recommendation in the spirit of recognising that we do need this kind of statistical information in order that health policies may be advanced in this country in the best interests of all members of the community. It really should not be too much to ask of private hospitals as it is really consistent with their role as health care providers in the community. The State health authorities can only make requests. I certainly hope that the private hospitals will look upon that recommendation favourably and comply with any such requests which the State health authorities might make in accordance with this recommendation. Recommendation 9 comes from that area of the Committee's inquiry which relates to patterns of ownership in private enterprise hospitals. Recommendation 9 (c) calls for prominent display in the foyer of the private hospital of the names of owners of the private hospital and, if the owners are companies, the names of the principal directors and shareholders of those companies and, if the owners are trustees, the names of the principal beneficiaries under the trust. This recommendation also calls for other information to be prominently displayed, but I stress this recommendation because I believe that if patients and members of the community are to have full knowledge of patterns of ownership and are to be able to make independent decisions about where they are being treated this sort of information is quite vital to them. This raises the whole issue of the ownership of private hospitals. It is quite a thorny issue and one which I am sure has exercised a great deal of the time of this Committee. It is one which also concerns members of the community. At this point I move on to recommendation 12, which comes from the chapter of the report headed `Medical Practitioners' Pecuniary Interests', and make some comments on this general issue. I point out that Senator Haines did have a dissenting opinion on recommendation 12 of the report which actually brings out part of the problem when one is addressing the issue of ownership of private hospitals in particular. It is a desirable situation that individuals in this community should be seen as individuals. I say this particularly from the point of view of being a female individual. All too often we are not seen as individuals; we are seen as part of a group. It is in that context that Senator Haines felt it necessary to dissent from the general recommendation of the majority of the Committee. She believes that it is impossible to make the sort of recommendation made by the majority in terms of medical practitioners or their families. I believe that if there is a resolution to this dilemma it lies with the medical profession itself. The Australian Medical Association code of ethics deals quite clearly with pecuniary interests of doctors in relation to pharmacies. Paragraph 11.1.3 states: A doctor should not have a financial interest in the sale of any pharmaceutical preparation he may have to recommend to a patient. Paragraph 10 talks about a doctor not having a financial interest in directing his patients to a particular chemist and a number of other aspects of the relationships between doctors and pharmacies. It seems to me that if the medical code of ethics can address the issue of pecuniary interests in relation to pharmacies it can, should and, indeed, must address that same problem in relation to pecuniary interests of medical practitioners in a number of other areas, not the least being hospital ownership and ownership of, shall we say, chains of medical practices. Legislation can do a certain amount, and legislation must be enacted in many areas, but we would prefer to see voluntary community action or, in the case of a profession such as the medical profession, action in terms of its own ethics. There is no doubt that there is concern in the profession and in the community about a disturbing trend in medical practice. From my reading of the report, the Committee obviously put a great deal of time into looking at what has happened in this area overseas and taking evidence from people here in Australia who have concerns about this issue. I note in a section of the report called `Business practices-v-medical ethics' that the Committee stated that Australia is rapidly moving down the United States path where health care services, including private hospitals, are run primarily as business ventures. This ought to be a major concern. The relationship between doctor and patient is, and should be, one of trust; the relationship in a business venture is based on the need to-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.31) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-This report on the administration of bilateral overseas aid is of some importance because it indicates the response of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and other areas of government to an efficiency audit on the administration of bilateral overseas aid from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. This has brought to our attention an area that has been widely criticised in the past. I for one, and the Australian Democrats, applaud the re-organisation of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and its evolution within the Government as a separate organisation which will administer bilateral aid projects which we believe to be the best way of allocating aid in any case. I note in a response to recommendation 5 that ADAB has not agreed that there should be a formal career stream specialising in aid assistance. I tend to agree with that. It is most necessary that Australian foreign aid should be as flexible as possible, as compassionate as possible, and address itself as much as possible to the real needs of the world rather than necessarily to our own interests, particularly our own diplomatic or political interests. That is an extremely cynical way of addressing aid projects. The response to recommendation 6 is interesting. The Government formalises the existing arrangement whereby the Director of ADAB advises the Minister for Foreign Affairs directly on matters affecting overseas aid. ADAB has advised that, in response to the report of the Jackson Committee of Review on the Australian Overseas Aid Program, the Government endorsed ADAB's responsibility for the management of the aid program. As a consequence of this decision, the Director-General of ADAB reports directly to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on all matters relating to the overseas aid program. That is a considerable step forward and it gives a green light for very important changes in Australian aid projects, changes of emphasis which would look towards the imaginative, the creative and the humane administration of aid rather than those concerning purely diplomatic functions. All is ready now for a strong policy redirection. I rose to speak to this point mainly because it is essential for our Government, which I believe to be basically a compassionate government, and for our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is certainly that, to give ADAB a green light to allow it to look carefully at what is needed in the aid program to assess the level of assistance that is required, which I would say-I think many others would agree-is very much at the village level. Whatever happens in our communities the bulk of the members of the human race still live in villages and their preoccupation is still whether they can get more to eat, whether they can have a roof on their hut that is capable of conserving water which is not contaminated, whether they can somehow get a fence to keep their animals in. These are some of the things which in spite of our preoccupations are the major concerns of the majority of the human race. There are more such people with every minute that passes. These are the people who are the worst off in the world and who need assistance more than anything else. If we talk to them they will say that they require assistance at that kind of level. I hope that the Minister and the Government will give some consideration to that. I suggest to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) who is at the table that this is a matter to which Cabinet could give just a few minutes at some time to see what our Minister feels. Australia should become one of the leaders in the foreign aid field instead of one of the errant draggers. We should be concerned not so much with throwing money at projects as with the idea of using our own expertise, our own people-heaven knows, in these days of high youth unemployment there ought to be room for more young people to work in foreign aid projects overseas-intelligently and humanely rather than throwing money at those projects. This becomes all the more important because we are in a very bad situation with foreign aid. This year, we are allocating to foreign aid the most parsimonious figure in 25 years, 0.39 per cent of gross national product-by far the lowest since statistics began over 20 years ago. That is an indictment. I noted in a newspaper cutting on the subject which I was reading before I came into the chamber that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said that he is embarrassed by that. He is embarrassed rightly and so should the Australian people be embarrassed. This year's aid is a drop in real terms of nearly 13 per cent on the previous year. We may think we have problems but they are nothing compared with the majority of the world's people. I am concerned too in this context about the geographical distribution of bilateral aid. This ought to be a cause of great concern. Nearly 44 per cent of that money is going to Papua New Guinea and nearly 31 per cent of it is going to east and South East Asia. These are parts of the world which although they have their problems and pockets of poverty, are by no means parts of the world where the real problems exist. The real areas of need and tremendous privation are in Africa and in South Asia. When we look at these figures of geographical distribution, we find that less than 8 per cent of our bilateral aid is going to Africa where real need exists and only 5 per cent to South Asia. If after looking at the television program a day or two ago about the appalling situation in Mozambique we believe that it is at all fair or right that we should allocate only 8 per cent of our beggarly aid to Africa, we need our heads read. I urge the Australian Government, as I have done before, to take a completely different approach to foreign aid and to turn its back on areas of multilateral aid in which it is virtually impossible for us to assess in detail how effectively money is being spent. I ask this because there is a growing volume of evidence that multilateral aid dollars are not well spent. After all, this is the money of the Australian taxpayers. It is important from their point of view that spending should be fully effective. It is probably even more important, since it is a matter of survival, that the needs of the recipients should be considered. The world is probably in a worse mess now with more poverty, more disease, more chronic undevelopment at effective levels than it has been since World War II. We are spending something like $108m of our overseas aid in the form of multilateral aid through such organisations as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation and other organisations which comprise the World Bank. These organisations do not have a good record for spending money partly, I think, because they are tied up with the same human problem that if money is to be spent helping somebody it is much easier just to throw it into some large projects such as a cement works or a dam without thinking carefully what should be done with it. It is much harder than that. That point is made very well in this paper. It is quite difficult to actually formulate these projects. I quote the report: . . . the delivery of overseas aid is a complex and difficult task and that because of the Australian Government's direct responsibility for the bilateral aid program, this program is probably the most significant and sensitive element. I would agree that that is so, but surely that would emphasise the need for careful thought. I would like to feel in that case, too, where we are going in for relatively large projects, especially things that look like development-such as dams and cement works, which can have the most disastrous effect on indigenous populations-that there should be specialist people in ADAB. Recommendation 11 of the report states: ADAB acknowledges the importance of having professionally qualified staff. I would ask that those professionally qualified staff include people with some knowledge of history and some knowledge of the social sciences, and that major projects be assessed for their impact on local communities before they are agreed to. Of course, all this is hard work for bureaucrats, and it is hard work for governments. As I said, it is much easier just to throw money at things. In the cause of common humanity and the spending effectively of our aid dollars I ask that this bridge be crossed and that the work be done. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Jones: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.42) —The Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment report on technology assessment in Australia was presented last week by the Chairman, Senator Jones. At that time I made a few remarks and pointed to the importance of consultation prior to the introduction of new technology. I pointed to the concern expressed by the trade union movement and others that adequate consultation take place between employers prior to the event. As I said, employers are sometimes reluctant to do this because of security; as they do not want to flag their new technology to their opposition in a particular field. However, the Committee felt that a model should be established whereby consultation should take place. I refer to page 87 of the Committee's report: The Committee is aware that the drafting of information sharing legislation, discussion of it with interested parties, its preparation and finalisation, will involve considerable lead time. An education campaign promoting information sharing is urgent, and in that light the Committee supports the ASTEC Technological Change Committee recommendations on its report, Computer-related Technology in the Metal Trades Industry, on this issue. That report states: That the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consult with the union movement, employees and employers to produce detailed proposals for the implementation of a voluntary scheme of firm-based consultation between management and workers on the introduction of new and improved technologies, to serve as a model from which other firms might develop more effective consultation mechanisms. A number of submissions to the Committee, including some from trade unions, said that unions themselves might not be able to participate effectively in the consultation that would result from more detailed information being available. There has been frequent reference to the fact that in any one enterprise there are often many unions. For example, we found that 28 trade unions are involved with Telecom Australia. So when Telecom, which is a very technologically progressive organisation, introduces new technology-which it does probably more than any other institution in Australia-it must consult with not one but 28 separate unions in order to convince them that the technological improvement will not jeopardise their work, and so on. Mr Mansfield, the Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, discussed this matter during public hearings and commented on the efficacy of the consultation process in Sweden, for example. I told him that the situation in Sweden is quite different from Australia and I highlighted the example of Telecom, where there are 28 different unions. I told him that in Sweden there are industry unions and he said that that would simplify the process. I think that this matter needs to be examined carefully. A few years ago perhaps I would not have agreed with that proposition, but having examined the whole question-- Senator Gietzelt —We can all learn, Senator. Senator JESSOP —Yes, we can all learn. I think we have to be prepared to learn, even at our age. In fact, I am learning every day. I can recall former Senator Reg Bishop standing up in this place a few years ago and advocating a move towards the establishment of industry unions. I think that that is a progressive move which should be taken. It would certainly simplify consultation and relieve unnecessary anxiety and concern in the work force. When I spoke to this report last week I said that it is quite natural for people to be conservative when it comes to change. When one suggests introducing new technology which may affect the employment of a section of the work force-- Senator Gietzelt —And your career as well, of course. Senator JESSOP —And one's career; that is quite right. That is a very serious matter which needs to be explained fully. Experience in Japan indicates to me that, if technological change is contemplated, consultation can alleviate concern in the work force. For example, in relation to computers, the Matsushita National radio and television company in Japan decided a number of years ago that, in order to compete with overseas pressure from Korea, Taiwan and other countries with low wage structures, it had to introduce numerically controlled tools on its production line. As a result, the company had to halve its work force in that particular area of its operation within three years. The company had had consultations very early before this change took place and it was able to convince the trade union people of that company-there was only one industry trade union, of course-that the work force would not be retrenched but would be retrained and fitted into other areas of the company's operation as a result of this new technology and that their jobs would be preserved along with their career structure. I think this is a very important report. We have tried to outline the major problems and we have pointed to the need for technological impact assessments to be made. It was suggested that this could be legislated for. However, because of the difficulties involved I do not think that that is possible. Page 74 of the report states: Mr Mansfield, representing the ACTU, told the Committee that, in view of the experience with voluntary guidelines, the ACTU had come to the conclusion that rights for employees to be consulted on change had to be established through the Arbitration Commission. Following that, on page 75 of the report, is a quote from the evidence presented by Mr Mansfield. That may be possible, but certainly all these matters should be examined and the Government should try to take the advice of the Committee and act on the recommendations that we have put forward. The principal recommendations are on page 93. They read: 1. That the Senate review the operation of the Grants for Industrial Research and Development (GIRD) and the National Industry Extension Service (NIES) within two years of its commencing operations; 2. That priority be given to establishing within, or in association with NIES, a Clearing House for Information Material on the potential of new technological applications, and on the various problems that are faced in ensuring rapid adoption of these technologies; 3. That a Technological Change (Sharing of Information) Act be introduced, requiring the provision of specific categories of information to employees and their unions in the course of consultation over technological change, and that such information also be lodged with a restructured `technological change council'. 4. That the Government act urgently to implement the following recommendation made by ASTEC/Technological Change Committee as part of an education campaign on consultation; I referred to that earlier. The principal recommendations continue: 5. That a feasibility study into the establishment of an industry data bank be carried out by the Government as a matter of urgency; 6. That a Technological Change Council be established by re-structuring the current ASTEC/Technological Change Committee to (a) carry out specifically impact-oriented assessments; and (b) manage a system of funding assistance to non-government organisations wishing to carry out technology assessments as a part of improving consultation in Australia. The Council should be provided with adequate resources; and 7. The membership of such a Council should ensure the representation of women's interests by women. It is a good report. I was very pleased to work with the Chairman of the Committee, Gerry Jones, and other members of the Committee. I have already acknowledged the help of the staff. I thank the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.52) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment I fully recommend this report to the Senate. An enormous amount of work has been done by the Committee secretariat, which has been untiring in serving the interests of the Committee. I commend the Chairman for the work that he has done in bringing this whole inquiry together. I believe the report is highly significant to the future of work in Australia. We live in a time of technological and social change which has been brought upon us by changes in technologies, some of which have been imported and some of which have developed here. On the one hand, these technologies are improving productivity in the rural, manufacturing and service sectors of the economy. On the other hand, it is having an effect on unemployment. However, the relationship between unemployment and the advent of technology is fairly tenuous. Unemployment is soaring and the only avenues remaining open for the dislocated workers are in the public and private domestic and social services areas rather than in the more traditional manufacturing and rural production areas. We seem to have moved into an information era in which many people are employed in managing and handling information. Understandably, employees are wary of proposals to introduce new technology and often do not have the expertise in those new technologies to be able to assess their impact. A lot of unions are afraid of facing and analysing new technologies and the effects on their unions because we have developed a union structure which instead of being industry based is trade based. So a number of trades are actually being replaced or pushed out by new technology. New technology is inducing a Luddite attitude into the relevant trade unions. This has been particularly noticeable with the printing unions which have decided that they do not want to be completely replaced. However, a lot of the aspects of the printing industry were very unpleasant to deal with. The casting of lead print face was very difficult, most unpleasant and occupationally hazardous. Yet the people clung on to this because they knew no better. That situation is changing. If people had had explained to them properly what the benefits were and what retraining was to be offered to them we would have seen a completely different attitude. Some of the unions interviewed, particularly the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, were seeking change and seeking to be involved in the consultative process with the organisations with which they were working. We were very impressed with the union-management interaction at the Mount Isa mine between the metal workers and the mining staff and mining company. They had a considerable amount of consultation. One of the considerations that the Committee looked at in some detail was the process of technological assessment. If we are going to manage properly the introduction of new technologies we have to solve the social and economic problems which could arise from inappropriate introductions of technology. Considerable benefits can be realised for people and for the economy generally if we have a properly managed process and proper consultation between the unions, management and the technocrats-the people who are introducing this type of technology. Currently, cost-benefit assessments, where they are made, tend to be done by institutions which are primarily interested in making profits from management from the new technology. In lots of cases this results in reactions from the employees in that industry. We saw that happen with the banking industry where the workers felt that technology was taking their jobs away and not improving their lot. It is very important that when we introduce technology we consider the appropriateness of that technology and the need for it in social terms as well as in terms of the bottom line and profits. The development of new industries and a new emphasis on industrial research and development is recognised as essential to Australia's future economic development, but no effective scheme for ensuring rapid modernisation of the Australian industry has, in fact, been adopted. The national industry extension service scheme-NIES-which the Government has put in place gives to manufacturing industry an extension service similar to that which has been available in agriculture for some time. We have not really grasped the nettle in the area of automation of office equipment and office procedures. A number of white collar workers are very disoriented in this respect. The Committee has made a number of recommendations as to how we can ensure that appropriate technology is introduced rapidly and successfully, with the full support of employees and with minimum bureaucratic interference. The Committee had also made recommendations as to how best the Government and the people of Australia can monitor technological change and its effects, minimise the cost and maximise the benefits of the introduction of technology in terms of improving occupational health and decreasing the number of hazards that workers face. Technologies such as office automation were introduced and appear to have produced an epidemic of repetition strain injury. We had submissions from RSI sufferers. This epidemic was due to the fact that proper conditions were not applied. With the advent of new ergonomic furniture, proper planning for the introduction of technology, proper planning for breaks in work and proper planning of work so that people are not at keyboards all of the time in a production environment but have diversity of work, this epidemic is now dying off and fewer and fewer cases are appearing in Australia. The main recommendations of the Committee have been canvassed by both the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman. It seems important that employers should be obliged to lodge technology impact statements or in-house assessments prepared through a process of management-union consultation before major technological changes are introduced in an industry. There should be an overall assessment and monitoring of this process through the recommended technological change council and we should implement the recommendations of the Australian Science and Technology Council in this area. The report particularly concentrates on specific groups such as business, unions, community groups, women and various disadvantaged groups within the labour market. There are some very important results in that area. I recommend the report to the Senate. I recommend the advent of a clearing house and a database on new technology applications within the ambit of the National Industry Extension Service. I recommend that the Senate continues to review this matter because new developments and the advent of more sunrise industries will be very important to Australia. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.02) —At the moment I am not able to speak very well; so I seek leave to continue my remarks on this report later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Bolkus. That the Senate take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Orders of the Day relating to the consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order, be not further proceeded with this day. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I present the seventh report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Defence Housing Authority Bill 1987, the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 and the Egg Industry Research (Hen Quota) Levy Bill 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 7, dated 6 May 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Maguire, I present the 265th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts entitled `Response to Report 232-Report of the Auditor-General-May 1983'. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator JONES —The Committee presented its 232nd report on the `Report of the Auditor-General-May 1983' on 28 May 1985. This report, the 265th from the Committee, sets out the response to its findings in report 232. For the most part, the items discussed in the Committee's earlier reports have elicited a satisfactory response, including the issue of pension overpayments by the Department of Social Security. This matter is currently being systematically addressed by the progressive implementation of the national overpayments action plan. The only remaining issue concerns the role of the Auditor-General and the bounds of his responsibilities, particularly in relation to commercially trading public enterprises. The Committee felt that this was an issue which needed further clarification. When the House of Representatives completes its inquiry into the general issue of efficiency reviews in the public sector, the Committee will decide whether to pursue the matter further. I commend the report to honourable senators. Debate resumed. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.07) —Before the debate was interrupted, I was talking about the cut-off date for postal votes. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform recommended 14 days, which appears in the legislation, although there will be a Government amendment to make it 13 days-I presume so that the period will end on a Friday rather than on a Saturday. There are three strong reasons for supporting this proposition. The first is the difficulty faced by the Commonwealth Electoral Commission in striking a Senate quota if there is an inordinate delay in receiving all votes. For instance, if one follows the process of waiting two or three months to get in every possible vote on the basis that some have gone missing and may eventually turn up, one cannot strike a Senate quota, which in certain circumstances may well mean that this chamber cannot meet if the Senate election is very close to the expiry of a term. The second reason really relates to the rulings coming out of the Nunawading case, which was in many ways a landmark case in determining disputed returns. On that occasion Mr Justice Starke agreed that there was really an unlimited time and that State returning officer Eric Richardson was in fact in error in putting a 10-day limit on it. Finally, I point out that there is a fail-safe mechanism in all of this. There is nothing to prohibit a Court of Disputed Returns overruling an election on the basis of excluded votes or counting those votes at a later point in time. The circumstances in which they occur historically may be one out of every three or four elections. In any event, if the count is so close and votes are excluded, I can guarantee that it would go to the Court of Disputed Returns in any event. I turn to a later clause of the Bill. We are reducing the amount of time for the lodgment of group tickets from 48 to 24 hours. That really is based on the 1984 experience. It does not really take political parties or other groups very much time to work out their ticket. It certainly does not require 48 hours; 24 hours is quite sufficient. We also recommend, and this is in the legislation to an extent, that group voting tickets be displayed prominently. That was our intention all along. Honourable senators will realise though that that is a fairly difficult assignment. But we had what I think are justifiable complaints from electors who did not know where party preferences were going. They put No. 1 in the top box for their choice of party, but they were not certain where the preferences would flow. Too often within a polling booth it was too difficult for the electors to have access to those posters showing where the preferences were going. Probably the most vital aspect of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill relates to the more esoteric area of the counting of votes. We are recommending two major changes to the Senate count. Honourable senators will recall that in 1983 we made two fundamental changes. First, we did away with random sampling and moved to the Gregory transfer method. Secondly, we provided for the taking into account of the preferences from candidates who were not elected on an initial quota, but who received surplus votes. Previously, only the surplus votes were allocated for preferences; now, all are allocated. Whilst that is perfect in theory, it became a counting nightmare. It took five, six or seven weeks to finalise the Senate count. That is probably an acceptable period, but if there is a double dissolution, or double or even treble the number of 56 candidates nominated, it may take six months to obtain a Senate result. That would be a disaster for this Parliament and for democracy. By two fairly simple expedients, which in no way alter the final result, those problems can be overcome by using bulk exclusion and delay transfer. I do not think that anyone in this chamber would disagree with the adoption of those two proposals. I come now to the provision to allow divisional returning officers to do a provisional throw of preferences, presumably on the Monday morning after the election. That is helpful both to political parties and to the public. By doing a quick provisional throw of preferences, we have an idea of what is happening in a seat. It has either been won or lost or it is too close to call. It takes a great deal of pressure off divisional returning officers by having scrutineers milling about the recheck for three, four or five days, trying to check the eventual results. In no sense will that provisional throw of preferences be binding, but it will make the life of both divisional returning officers and political parties a great deal easier. I understand that Senator Sheil intends to move an amendment condemning public funding. I have always supported public funding-it has worked well both overseas and in Australia. The basic rationale for public funding is that it lessens the dependence of political parties on their donors. Anything that does that-be it for the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia or the Australian Democrats-is a good thing. It puts a floor of expenditure under each political party to allow it to survive in the election. It is not based on a fixed grant to each political party; it is dependent on the amount of support that is obtained in the election. Currently, it is about $1 a vote-64 cents or 65 cents for a House of Representatives vote, and half that for a Senate vote. I do not think that that is too great a price to pay to stimulate and help democracy in this country. I note the shameless hypocrisy of the National Party in condemning public funding, yet taking it. If it is serious about public funding, its members should stand up here today and say that they will refuse it at the next election-- Senator Sheil —Do not be ridiculous. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Sheil wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to get up in the chamber, postulate, strut around and say that we should not have public funding-yet the minute it is available, the National Party snouts will be in the trough and it will accept it. That is monumental hypocrisy. I know that the Liberal Party has a philosophical objection to public funding. It stated that when it first occurred in New South Wales and then when it occurred in the Federal Parliament. But the Liberal Party does not try to eliminate it; it regards it as part of the democratic process. The most important part of all the laws is the disclosure laws. They are anathema to the National Party and, peripherally, to the Liberal Party. Yet most democracies throughout the world are quite happy to adopt disclosure laws, for the simple reason that the public has the right to know who is funding political parties in election campaigns. Once they know that, the possibility of large donors or interested groups-be they individuals, businesses or trade unions-donating to a political party and getting something back is considerably lessened. The public has a right to know who is making the donations-- Senator Sheil —The trade unions. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Sheil talks about trade unions. We had a public disclosure of trade union donations long before the 1983 legislation. Any person could go to the industrial registrar and find out which union had donated one cent to any political party. That has been the position for 50 or 60 years. What we did not know was what private individuals or businesses were kicking into the political parties. We have to go back to the basics-why does a business, an individual or a trade union donate to a political party? It has often been argued from the other side that it is pure altruism-the donors are in love with the democratic process; they like kicking in money to help the democratic process along. I gave up believing in the tooth fairy years ago. I do not believe that individuals, businesses or trade unions donate to political parties and expect nothing in return. It has been part of the political process for 80 years. However, I assert the public's right to know who has donated and to whom. The 1983 legislation brought in the disclosure laws in principle, but, of course, there were still donations that were not tracked down. Let us consider the National Free Enterprise Foundation in Queensland. It was set up one day and, within five working days, it had raised $300,000 to donate to the Queensland National Party. When required under the disclosure laws to reveal where the money had come from, lo and behold it had come from a bank loan. In other words, the company was set up one day and within five days it has a bank loan of $300,000. That money was sloshed into the National Party campaign in Queensland. How that money is being paid off, we do not know. I make the point that if honourable senators want disclosure laws that would pick up every nook and cranny in this area, we would have an Act two inches thick. It would be as complex and as detailed as the Income Tax Assessment Act. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform said that, in current circumstances, with time constraints and the ingenuity of political parties, it is not possible to write an Act that is absolutely watertight. Instead, it is giving a warning to all political parties-not just the poor old Queensland National Party, but every party-that if they contravene the spirit of the Act, a standing committee with the full powers of this Parliament, may investigate those breaches. That would include subpoenaing witnesses, papers, bank accounts and the lot. Therefore, if any Federal or State official of a political party is listening, and thinks that he can flagrantly breach the disclosure laws, I tell him that he may find himself before a committee of this Parliament having to explain himself, probably to his great embarrassment. The political parties are on notice now, they are being warned now-we have disclosure laws in this country and we expect people to abide by them. During the past few weeks, however, there have been two or three great examples of how people will not abide by those laws. Sir Robert Sparkes, President of the National Party in Queensland, said in the National Times on Sunday some six or seven weeks ago: `You don't have to take any notice of the disclosure laws, give us as much money as you can'. He was guaranteeing that when the National Party wins power in Canberra, it will retrospectively abolish the Act. What a staggering piece of information that is. For a start, it commits the conservatives to retrospective legislation-and how often have we been lectured about the evils of the philosophy of retrospective legislation? That statement was made at the same time as the Premier of Queensland was condemning the retrospective legislation that picked up the bottom of the harbour offenders. The great duo in Queensland is now saying that it is justified to introduce retrospective legislation to abolish the disclosure laws. I warn any business, individual or union that thinks that those disclosure laws will go by the board after the next election, that there is very little chance of that happening. For a start, the National Party would have to have a massive victory in the Senate, obtaining 60 to 70 per cent of the Senate vote, to establish a large enough majority, even a majority of one, in the Senate to do away with the disclosure laws. Just the other day in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, there was the great headline `Joh-I need money'. For a start, I can think of $400,000 that he can kick into his campaign. But leaving that aside, he describes the disclosure laws as devilish-apparently some Satanic influence descended over the chamber three or four years ago and made us pass the disclosure laws. He goes on to claim that the disclosure laws were specifically set up to stop his march to Canberra. I claim many things, but we on the Electoral Reform Committee and the Acting Special Minister of State, Mr Kim Beazley, do not claim to have the sort of foresight whereby four years ago we suddenly designed disclosure laws to prevent Joh, four years later, from coming to Canberra. Joh pleads for money for his campaign. He wants $20m. What sort of prostitution of the political system are we talking about when one party wants $20m to fight the next election? It has promised an advertising agency $5m and a direct mail group in Melbourne $7m, plus it has brought in a Canadian opinion poll organisation to do its polling. That is how Australian the Queensland Nationals are. The Queensland Nationals desperately want to abolish the disclosure laws so they can get the same sort of money into their organisation as the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation has in Queensland. I ask the question: What promises have been made in Queensland and what favours have been granted for that money? It seems that if one kicks in to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation in Queensland one suddenly gets rights to tender for business, one suddenly gets soft loans from the Government, one suddenly gets through rezoning laws which help oneself. The Nationals seek to bring to the national capital the sort of political chicanery that exists in Queensland. The only example I can find in history of this sort of perversion occurred in Louisiana in the 1930s when the Huey Long machine got going. There was a deduct box, and 10 per cent was taken off the top. We do not want Louisiana politics brought to Australia. We do not want Louisiana politics to exist in the national capital. I always remember the great line when Huey Long lay dying in the hospital, having been shot by an assassin. All his cronies could say to him was, not `Sorry, Huey, you have been shot', but `Where is the deduct box, Huey?' Maybe the same thing will occur in Queensland in some years to come. Many other allegations are going around about polling. Even the poor old Democrats fell in the other day. On the front page of the Australian someone made the accusation that they had received a $3,000 and a $5,000 anonymous donation. I put very little credibility in that statement. Considering the rest of the ratbag statements made by the Port Adelaide branch of the Democrats, that statement does not have very much credibility. But from time to time accusations are made against all political parties. The only way to clean up the situation is with disclosure laws. Tonight in the Melbourne Herald I read an interview of Mr Lindsay Fox, a prominent Liberal businessman and apparently a strong supporter of John Elliott. He was staying at the ultra-expensive Cipriani Hotel in Venice, or somewhere like that. He managed to pontificate on a variety of things concerning Liberal Party policy. The final part of the article reads: Mr Fox fudged when asked what direct input he and the other Elliott boosters had in the campaign. `Would you put up $1 million for an advertising campaign if you were asked?' `I'd consider it', he replied. It is Mr Fox's right to put $1m into the Liberal Party if he wants. I think he would be making a pretty bad investment. But the public has a right to know. He has a very large and efficient transport operation in this country which has relatively good relations with the unions. If he did donate $1m and suddenly a Liberal government started using his company, anyone would be entitled to know. So the disclosure laws act to protect democracy in this country. I feel a bit sorry for Senator Sheil. The boys from the north have said: `You are the spokesman. Go out on mission impossible. Try to get this knocked over'. I am afraid that Senator Sheil not only will not have the numbers; he will not have the logic. I turn to two or three other matters raised in this debate. Senator Archer is concerned with how complex the electoral laws are. Anyone who tries to read the Commonwealth Electoral Act can only agree with him. There is no way of simplifying electoral law. Political parties are ingenious groups. If a loophole is left they will walk through it. The very complexity of the Act is absolutely necessary. Senator Archer also says that elections may cost up to $50m a year. Considering that government expenditure outlays sometimes go as high as $80 billion and, over a three-year period, we are talking about $240 billion, $50m to protect democracy does not seem to me to be excessive. There are occasions when even the other side argues that we do not spend enough money. We only have biannual habitation reviews. Most of us would like to see annual habitation reviews. Senator Macklin said that if he could have a wish list he would have other things in the Bill, but recognises that everything balances out. I also have certain wish lists. I would like to see optional preferential voting. It has been in our Party's platform for many years. I believe that we should give electors a right to extend their preferences as far as they would like. I also understand that the Liberal Party is in favour of compulsory preferences. We are in favour of compulsory voting. So neither of us is in a philosophically pure position to argue the case. So we do not get optional preferential voting and the Liberal Party does not get its preference. Senator Michael Baume —You have got a blatant self-interest in optional preferential voting because there are two Opposition parties. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am afraid that Senator Baume, as always, simplifies things. There are not two Opposition parties; there are four Opposition parties. Let us be honest, we have the Joh Nationals, we have the southern Nationals, we have the wets and we have the dries. So really there are four parties. It would work to our self-interest and advantage on this occasion if we had optional preferential voting. Senator Michael Baume —You are concerned with self-interest and you have admitted it. Senator ROBERT RAY —I absolutely admit it. Of course I admit it. Why should I try to hide it? I can justify optional preferential voting in a theoretical and conceptual way. It is very easy to justify. In the current circumstances of the coalition parties, which are ripping each other's throat out and backstabbing each other on the front pages of the newspapers every day, we are now in an optimum position to have optional preferential voting. It would be of benefit to us. It may not benefit us in the long term. One cannot see into the future and there may be circumstances where optional preferential voting would be harmful for the Labor Party. Most of this legislation is not contentious. Most of it merely amends the Electoral Act to take into account the problems which occurred after the massive 1983-84 legislation. I commend the passage of this Bill to the Senate. It will mean a better electoral system. I conclude on this note: I agree with Senator Macklin that there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system. An electoral system needs to be kept under review and needs to be amended from time to time to meet existing circumstances. As much as possible this should be done in a bipartisan manner. If one political party is totally alienated from the electoral processes and the electoral system it does not benefit the country in any shape or form. We are now in the position we were in during the first decade of this century. We are a country which leads the rest of the world in electoral system and electoral reform. It is a position we held 70 years ago and we abrogated it through lack of action, mostly at the instigation of the conservative parties of this country. The passage of this Bill will continue the restoration of that position. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(6.28) —I compliment Senator Robert Ray on his chairmanship of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It was a massive job and a huge report. It is absolutely staggering to me that, with all the amendments to the legislation we have had in the 1980s, after the inquiry into the 1984 election the Committee has come up with 156 recommendations, most of which have been accepted by the Government and incorporated into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. However, when Senator Robert Ray spoke he sounded like Satan rebuking sin. I freely confess that all political parties have a great preoccupation with electoral matters. So they should have. After this thorough investigation and the 156 amendments which have been incorporated in the Bill, we are promised another Bill, designed, I suppose, to take care of the more contentious recommendations of the Committee, such as voting for prisoners and equality of electorates. On behalf of the National Party, I shall move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill in the following terms: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate deplores the Government's decision to continue to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money supporting election campaigns of political parties''. I can understand what Senator Ray said, that political parties will be in the hands of the people who give them money. However, to my mind there is an even more basic and fundamental objection. In Australia secret ballots are held and if any person or body donates money to a political party it is reasonable to assume that that person or body would vote for that party, so that immediately destroys the secrecy of the ballot. It is on that one fundamental issue that we object to the funding of political parties. I personally have another objection. I think that it is a blatant and heinous misuse of taxpayers' funds, particularly my funds, if the money is used to fund the Australian Labor Party. That is the last party in the world on which I would want my money to be spent. I object to my taxes going to the public funding of political parties. It is a great pity that the Labor Party, and many other social reforming parties, tend to regard elections as an exercise in arithmetic rather than an exercise in representation because, fundamentally, that is what it is all about. The quality of a person's representation is the important matter in electoral reform. Matters such as community interest, distances, terrain of the electorate, the character of its communications and the ability of electors to contact their representative are also important. Senator Robert Ray —What you are saying is that your representatives are not good enough to cope. That is what you are saying. Senator SHEIL —We are not saying that at all. Electorates such as Kalgoorlie, Maranoa, Leichhardt and Kennedy are difficult to represent. We believe in the zonal system, as did the Labor Party up until a while ago. Senator Robert Ray —You believed in slavery, once; do you still believe in it? Senator SHEIL —Do not be ridiculous. We believe in electoral weightage. It is absolutely obvious that if all the seats are in the main centres of population the Government will spend most of the money in those centres. Therefore, the country areas will be underrepresented and they will not share in the development of the country. Queensland has been lambasted in this debate today about the sort of redistribution and representation that exists up there. However, we have balanced development. Queensland is the most decentralised State in Australia, and that is because of the quality of the representation that exists in Queensland. We give the country a voice. The issue is as simple as that to us. Queensland has stable and steady government, as well as prosperity and development. I think that that is what is making the Labor Party so upset. Senator Robert Ray —Where do you live? Senator SHEIL —In Queensland. Senator Robert Ray —In Brisbane? Senator SHEIL —I live out of Brisbane. Electoral weightage was a subject that exercised the minds of the founding fathers of this country to an enormous extent when they formed this Parliament. That is why we have a Senate that has these electoral tumbleweeds of the Australian Democrats in it. If the founding fathers had not insisted that the States have equal representation in this House, there would not have been a Senate; there would not have been a Federal government in the country. A New South Wales senator represents 300,000 or 400,000 people; a Tasmanian senator represents 30,000 or 40,000 people. What are those opposite talking about with their equality of electorate sizes and so on? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! I remind Senator Sheil that he is required to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator SHEIL —I hope that I am doing that, Madam Acting Deputy President. I deny the charge of the socialists and the social reformers that there is any gerrymander in Queensland- Senator Haines —Ha, ha! Senator SHEIL —Let me ask one simple question: How does one gerrymander the Senate when the whole State votes as one electorate? One cannot gerrymander in those circumstances. What about the representation of the Queensland branch of the National Party in the Senate? I must address myself to the Bill because I want it to pass through the Senate tonight, if possible. We happen to think that preferential voting results in the selection of a candidate who is preferred by the most voters. Let us take, as an example, an electorate with 100 people and three candidates standing for election; one candidate receives 35 votes, another 33 votes and one 32 votes. With first past the post voting, the guy with 35 votes would be elected although 65 voters do not want him. We want preferential voting. The move towards optional preferential voting, as preferred by Senator Ray, is just a move towards first past the post voting. The fundamental question of whether we have preferential or first past the post voting depends on whether we have compulsory voting. Countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America do not have compulsory voting, so they have first past the post voting. In Australia we have compulsory voting, so we have preferential voting. Therefore, the candidate who is preferred by most of the people is elected. We have accepted that for many years. I do not see any reason why we should move to change that position. The fact that most countries encourage the right of their citizens to be enrolled and have the privilege, but not the compulsion, to cast a vote is no reason for Australia to move from its electoral system. Even if we cannot enforce compulsory voting, but merely attendance at a polling place-as was mentioned in the debate earlier-if people vote informally there is no indication that we should alter our voting system on the grounds that we are a free society. The fact that we are a free society and have compulsory voting is the primary issue. It is the responsibility of every elector to attend and cast a vote. The fact that some electors are apathetic, unwilling, resistant to compulsion or cast reckless, thoughtless and even punitive votes is still not sufficient reason to decide to destroy our electoral system. Even if elections in many electorates are decided very narrowly, possibly by margins no greater than the percentage of unwilling voters, that should not destroy our electoral system. It is all the more reason why candidates should try their hardest to satisfy their electors and work all the harder to attract their votes. Even if an elector abstains from voting as part of his religious or conscientious objection to voting, or even if he has other valid reasons of conscience, these are merely examples of how free our electoral system is and has allowed us to become and, further, should be grounds for maintaining the strength of our electoral system and not trying to weaken it. On behalf of the National Party, I move that the following words be added to the motion that the Bill be read a second time: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate deplores the Government's decision to continue to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money supporting election campaigns of political parties''. I have other amendments, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. The first concerns the tolerance of voting numbers between different electorates. The Government proposes a 2 per cent variation and it seems to think that it is doing great things by that. However, in a State such as Queensland, which is decentralised and is developing, one has only to start a new mine or a tourism business in an area, attracting more businesses to it, to completely throw the electorate numbers out. Originally the tolerance was 20 per cent, and that is what the National Party prefers. We would like it to move to 10 per cent rather than 2 per cent, which we think is impossible. Senator Robert Ray —I don't think you have understood that part. Senator SHEIL —I do not think I will get any support for it at all. Senator Robert Ray —You have misunderstood the Bill. Senator SHEIL —All right; I want to delete all requirements for the disclosure of donations-I have mentioned that before-because that is fundamental to the secrecy of the ballot box, which I think takes precedence over all other reasons, even my own of not wishing to fund the Australian Labor Party. Thirdly, I want to move an amendment to remove the three months residency requirement for enrolment to vote in a particular division because that will allow the manipulation of the rolls by moving people around, particularly on the Gold Coast and other tourist areas where people move in and out. These people will not be disenfranchised because they will be enrolled in their own electorates and they can vote there in any case. The fourth amendment proposes that the cut-off point for the receipt of postal and absentee votes be the declaration of the poll or 13 days, whichever is the later. In other words I am saying that people should not be disenfranchised and lose the value of their vote just because some public servant has made a mistake, whether that mistake be voluntary or involuntary. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.41) —I want to address the amendment moved by Senator Sheil to the second reading motion before the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) replies. The Australian Democrats will fairly obviously be opposing that attachment to the second reading motion. By way of explanation, I would like to foreshadow that if, as I expect, that amendment is not carried, I will move the following amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Act should be amended to require a party or candidate wishing to receive public funding for electoral expenditure to indicate this prior to the close of nominations by means of a formal declaration to the Electoral Commissioner by the registered officer of the party or by the candidate, and that in the absence of such a declaration the party or candidate should not be eligible for public funding''. The reason I say that is an explanation as to why the Australian Democrats will not be supporting the amendment of the National Party of Australia is that I do not think it is proper that a party can campaign around the traps saying how dreadful the public funding issue is and then put its hand out, take the money and run. I think if National Party members want to say that this is dreadful and it should not happen, they should have the opportunity of actually not getting all of that money. They can then keep their principles nice and tight and cheap. Senator Robert Ray —We'll protect their morality. Senator MACKLIN —We will protect the morality of members of the National Party and allow them to make the declaration. But I think that if they want the money, they should declare that they want it. In fact I would want the declaration to go further and say something like that it is nice to have it or that it is the proper thing to have it. But I am quite happy that a person should actually make a declaration that in fact the party wishes to receive the money. The electorate would then have clear and out in the open, before an election campaign, which parties had signed up and which parties had not. I think that would settle the dust somewhat because I expect that the National Party, as it did last time, would sign up, that it would take the money. Therefore, I think it is basically hypocrisy to campaign against something when in fact one is willing to accept the benefits of it. The reason the whole operation of public funding becomes so contentious-I think I concur with almost every item that Senator Ray has raised with regard to this-is that, quite frankly, I do not think the value of democracy ought to be a value which can be bought. The difficulty that the United States of America has experienced over the years, and the difficulty of its legislature in coming to grips with this problem, was exemplified to me when the last American delegation was here and I was discussing this matter of electoral reform and change with it. The point that the members of that delegation raised with me at the time was that money was the major item of concern to thinking American politicians. They were referring to the vast amount of money that was spent on electing candidates, sometimes in excess of $10m for an individual candidate. Every one of those politicians expressed his concern and his horror at what was confronting the American political system. Senator Sheil's amendment that the Senate should deplore the Government's decision in this regard, I think is entirely wrong-headed. What that public funding that Senator Sheil seeks to condemn does do is provide a bulwark to protect parties and candidates from that massive pressure which undoubtedly will start to build up not only from trade unions, as Senator Sheil suggests, but also from major companies both here and overseas. So the Australian Democrats will not be supporting that amendment, but I do foreshadow the amendment that I suggested. I will move it at the appropriate point. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.47) —I would just like to say that the National Party of Australia will not be supporting the Australian Democrats' amendment. The economy is in a parlous state and we all recognise that. That is why we will be here for an extra week next week-so that this Government can bring down a mini-Budget to try to rein expenditure in a bit. That has already been discussed in a matter of public importance this afternoon. Public funding is really all about a political party that cannot win sufficient public support to fund its election campaign getting its trotters and its snout in the public funding trough. That is what this debate on public funding is all about-pure and simple. In a bit of humbug Senator Macklin has given notice of a further amendment to be moved to the second reading motion. We will not be supporting that for this pure and simple reason: Why should we, or any other party that does not believe in public funding, be disadvantaged? That is really what it is all about. Why should we be disadvantaged when other political parties have got their snouts and trotters in the public trough, which gives them a tremendous advantage? Just because they cannot win public support out there, they go to the public trough. Just because we do not believe in that, why should we be disadvantaged? It has always been on the public record-it was when we debated this matter before-that we are against that part of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and we are still against it. In our second reading amendment, which has been moved by my colleague Senator Sheil, we are putting on record that we are against that. I am also saying here and now that we will not be supporting the Democrat amendment. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.49) —I wish to make a few brief points about these changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I particularly wish to look at the basic democratic principles which underlie it and to put on record the stance of the Australian Democrats with respect to this type of legislation. In a democracy the purpose of the Electoral Act should be to ensure that voters' wishes are accurately represented in Parliament. This requires effective representation for communities, not just for portions of them. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill, however, does very little to promote effective representation for Australian voters. It does not introduce for the House of Representatives a proportional representation system with multi-member electorates, which is the only fair system of election. During the Committee stage I will be moving to introduce such a system for the House of Representatives. This system parallels the system that exists in Tasmania. I am sure that Tasmanian senators will find that acceptable. We will also be going a little bit further and putting forward what our agenda for the electoral system would be by including in that set of amendments, amendments making certain that the filling of casual vacancies is carried out by a process which does not require by-elections with people returning to the polls; that is, that there is a re-examination of the vote in order to determine who shall take up the position as a result of a casual vacancy which might occur in the House of Representatives. To do this for Senate vacancies would require a constitutional amendment. The proposals that we are putting forward are slightly more advanced and more developed than the proposals currently in the Hare-Clark system in Tasmania. I recommend that honourable senators inspect them because they do represent a way in which one can ensure that the majority of people are not disenfranchised during an election. Some of the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill are geared solely for the convenience of party machines or for the administrative convenience of the Australian Electoral Commission. I believe they act to the detriment of the voters by removing a number of further choices which were available to them before this point. For instance, there has been a crackdown on how groups can fill in the voting ticket which can be lodged with the Australian electoral officer for their particular State. These group lists will have to be lodged within 24 hours of the close of nomination rather than the previous 48 hours. Through an ingenious device, the placement of a simple declaration on the nomination form, the opportunity for individuals to nominate in more than one electorate has been removed. It seems very strange that this should happen. The declaration which has to be signed is: I am not and do not intend to be a candidate in any other election to be held on the same day as the election to which the above nomination relates. There will be a possibility of individuals being able to lodge an order of preferences with the Australian electoral officer and being entitled to have a square above the names to enable voters to indicate satisfaction with that particular order. However, the only individuals given the same treatment as groups are incumbent senators. That is very convenient if one is an incumbent senator, but there is no reason why these people should have been particularly selected. That is my personal opinion. In addition, the opportunity for candidates to call themselves Independent is not available if they wish to group themselves in a column of the ballot paper. So Independents, unless they are incumbent senators who are registering an order of preference, are consigned to a column on the right hand side of the ballot paper and hence cannot in any way get the benefits of what is known as the donkey vote. I believe that we could make Senate voting procedures more democratic in this respect. We certainly make the scrutiny procedures more democratic. One item within the proportional representation amendments is a proposal to improve and make fairer the method of passing on preferences from one candidate to the next. I will canvass that when I deal with that amendment. It was possible, under the legislation originally introduced in 1983, for too many senators to be elected. The reason for this was a confusion between non-transferable and exhausted ballot papers. This conceptual confusion made it possible for more than the required number of senators to achieve the reducing quota during the scrutiny. Members of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia drew the Parliament's attention to the potential problems and there were last minute changes to try to avoid these particular problems. However, the Parliament did not deal with the fact that the use of a single transfer value makes it possible for some voters to get more than one vote. This is because the transfer value of ballot papers may increase during scrutiny. Such an increase is unprecedented in quota preferential systems of counting. Quite frankly, as soon as a transfer value rises we give people more than one vote's worth of influence. We say to them in such circumstances: `Your vote has just helped to elect someone else and we will actually increase the value of your ballot paper as a result'. I believe this is quite absurd. One of the proposals that we put forward for a proportional representation system in the Australian Capital Territory does, in fact, correct this. Yet we are still allowing that possibility in this Bill and that is why I would like to correct it. We lump all papers in together irrespective of value when they helped to elect the candidate. This failure to heed the relative value of papers at the point when surpluses are distributed opens up the possibility of manipulation of the electoral process. It opens up the possibility of tactical voting, of people actually going against their true wishes to achieve a better result in an election. That is really a perversion of the election system. Comprehensive evidence was produced to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform on this particular point, but it does not appear to have been taken up by the Committee. Certainly the responses to that evidence from the Australian Electoral Commission were fairly strident and far from the principles that ought to underlie a quota preferential method. We have another example in this Bill of how failures to adhere to principles can lead to unintended consequences. The changes in the scrutiny procedure, including the improvement of collating ballot papers of the same transfer value which are for continuing candidates at any stage of the scrutiny, are in fact flawed. This small change will result in a substantial saving of time and effort during the scrutiny and we will not have so many counts during an exclusion now that the Irish principle of dealing with papers in descending order of their transfer value is to be adopted. The opportunity of allowing the deferral of surpluses to be transferred in some circumstances appears to have been missed. The bulk exclusion procedures have a number of flaws. I will be dealing with this later when we come to the amendments. The costs of by-elections to this country are very high. We have had a number of by-elections since 1977, 16 in fact, the most recent of which has cost the Federal Parliament between $150,000 and $180,000. If we had a system which had no by-elections, this money would be saved, and I believe a better system could be applied. It is somewhat difficult with the single member electorates unless the parties are prepared to put up more than one candidate for their party at the election. It does give the voters real choice, though. In a proportional representation multimember electorate situation it can be handled effectively. It is important for Australians to get effective representation. I believe that fervently. We will be moving these amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in the hope that they will receive favourable consideration from the Senate. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(7.00) —I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the second reading debate. At the Committee stage there will be a lengthy consideration of the various amendments that have been foreshadowed. I indicate at this stage that the only acceptable amendment foreshadowed by Opposition or Democrat senators is that to be moved by Senator Macklin. There are a number of points which need to be addressed in reply although Senator Robert Ray's speech addressed many of the matters raised in the second reading debate. Senator Archer expressed concern about the width of the definition of `an electoral matter'. The definition is in two parts. Firstly, clause 3 (b) inserts the provision: `` `electoral matter' means matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in an election;''; This is a more meaningful expression than some of the present definitions which are expressed in terms of a matter likely to affect the result of an election. Secondly, clause 3 (e) inserts a new sub-section (9) in section 4 of the Act. The matters set out at paragraphs (a) to (f) are a legislative statement of matters that shall be taken to be intended or likely to affect voting at an election. The need for such a legislative statement of matters that may be encompassed in the more general definition is supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions as set out in the Australian Electoral Commission's submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It is not possible to provide the sort of itemised list sought by Senator Archer over and above what is in paragraphs (a) to (f) of new sub-section (9), but the sub-section would, for example, cover historical material such as an attack on the record of the Lang Government of the 1930s, or matters raised by a group of citizens who are not candidates for or supporters of a particular party, for example, a group of sugar cane growers who had complained about the closure of their sugar mill and the performance of either government or opposition or both in looking after the sugar industry. Concerns were also raised about the possible non-enforcement of the compulsory enrolment and voting provisions of the Act. The Australian Electoral Commission is also concerned that there may be shortcomings on its part on the enforcement side. On the other hand, on the enrolment front its main aim is to get potential electors on the rolls and not into court. This, in part, would explain the low statistics in this regard. On the failure to vote front, the Australian Electoral Commission is itself concerned that previous enforcement action may have been a little on the benevolent side. It is in the process of revising its procedures in this regard and laying down firmer guidelines for divisional returning officers to follow. Questions concerning the wisdom of the mail-out of voting information to electors in the pre-polling period have also been raised. Recommendation No. 87 by the Joint Select Committee follows its view that the direct communication approach of the Commission's trial leaflet used at the Scullin by-election in 1986 was successful. At the 1984 general election the division of Scullin had at 13.3 per cent the highest informal vote of all 148 divisions. After the mail-out, there was a consequential drop in the informal vote to 6.07 per cent, an improvement I am sure that all senators will agree was significant and which justifies, in our view, the proposals for the mail-out. As I said, other matters will be dealt with at the Committee stage. I thank honourable senators for their contribution and I recommend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Sheil's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M. Carrick, Sir John Parer, W. R. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. West, S. M. McIntosh, G. D. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Black, J. R. Teague, B. C. Colston, M. A. Puplick, C. J. G. Richardson, G. F. Messner, A. J. Evans, GarethAlston, R. K. R. Tate, N. C. (Senator Chaney did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Macklin)-by leave-proposed: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Act should be amended to require a party or candidate wishing to receive public funding for electoral expenditure to indicate this prior to the close of nominations by means of a formal declaration to the Electoral Commissioner by the registered officer of the party or by the candidate, and that in the absence of such a declaration the party or candidate should not be eligible for public funding''. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Aulich, T. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Macklin, M. J. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Mason, C. V. J. Coates, J. Morris, J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sanders, N. K. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Vigor, D. B. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. West, S. M. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. McIntosh, G. D. Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C. Baume, Michael Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. Collard, S. J. Sheil, G. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. D. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Black, J. R. Alston, R. K. R. Colston, M. A. Baume, PeterRichardson, G. F. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Chaney, F. M. Tate, M. C. Messner, A. J. (Senator Puplick did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes). Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —On clause 2 there is an amendment consequential on a later Australian Democrats proposed amendment. Is it the wish of the Committee that consideration of clause 2 be deferred? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Clauses 3 and 4-by leave-taken together. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(7.18) —In the course of the debate this morning I raised the question of the definition of `electoral matter'. Does the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) have any information on this issue? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(7.19) —I thought Senator Ryan answered that question in her response to the second reading debate. I do not know whether Senator Archer was here at the time. Would he like me to go through it again? Senator Archer —Yes, thank you. Senator BUTTON —I am advised that the definition is in two parts. Clause 3(b) inserts this provision: `electoral matter' means matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in an election. This is regarded as a more meaningful expression than some of the present definitions which are expressed in terms of matter `likely to affect the result of an election'. I take it that Senator Archer follows that distinction. Clause 3(e) inserts a new sub-section (9) in section 4 of the principal Act. The matters set out at paragraphs (a) to (f) are a legislative statement of matters that shall be taken to be intended, or likely, to effect voting at an election. They are the specifics of what I referred to a minute ago. The need for such a legislative statement of matters that may be encompassed by the more general definition is supported by the Director of Public Prosecutions, as set out in the Australian Electoral Commission submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. It is not possible to provide the sort of itemised list sought by Senator Archer over and above what is in new section 4 (9) (a) to (f), but new sub-section (9) would, for example, cover historical material such as an attack on the record of the Lang Government of the 1930s or matters raised by a group of citizens who are not candidates or supporting a particular party-for example, a group of sugar growers who had complained about the closure of their sugar mill and the performance of either government or opposition, or both, in looking after the sugar industry. I take it that answer is satisfactory. Clauses agreed to. Clause 5 (Times at which redistributions are to commence). The CHAIRMAN —Senator Vigor has an amendment to clause 5 and related amendments to clauses 7 and 15 and to Schedule 2. I think it would expedite the proceedings of the Committee if all those were taken together. If there is no objection to that course it will be followed. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(7.22) —All of my amendments are directed at giving proportional representation to the House of Representatives. This requires a considerable number of consequential amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. We must have a method of determining boundaries of multi-member electorates and the number of members of the House of Representatives to be chosen in the States and Territories. We must have a process for determining the number of members within electorates and making certain that we have a fair distribution between the various multi-member electorates. We must also have a system of monitoring the enrolment in each one of these areas. We will not have to do such regular monitoring of the enrolments under the proportional representation system because we will be dealing with much larger electorates. The relative changes in the size of these electorates will be smaller so the times at which redistributions commence can be further apart than under the current proposals. So there is a net saving for the Government and for the country as a whole by having larger electorates. This means that if people move into particular areas they are liable to have much less effect on the total population of that area and hence would not increase the enrolment in those electorates above the level necessary for the carrying out of a redistribution. The other proposals which have to be considered refer to the Australian Capital Territory and other Territories. They have special requirements. There is a whole section of the definitions which have to be changed because we are moving, with this set of amendments, from single member electorates to multi-member electorates. I will deal with the particular provisions and the sizes of multi-member electorates later. At this stage I will concentrate on just giving an overview of the provisions. Associated with the proposals for full proportional representation, the benefits of which I will go into in a minute, is a set of amendments which deal with how casual vacancies are filled. These are consequential on the adoption of proportional representation for the House of Representatives. Currently, casual vacancies are filled by holding by-elections. If a member resigns, leaves or dies we have to have another election in his single member electorate to determine who shall replace that person. It is highly desirable, if one has a multi-member electorate system with proportional representation, for the votes at the original election to be recounted. The particular method that we have chosen for recounting is to recount the votes of the person who is deceased or who has resigned from the particular seat, as well as the votes which were left in the unfilled quota at the end of the count at the main election-that is, the votes now without representation determine the replacement. There are a number of provisions in the proposals for a method of recounting which we believe will produce a fair and reasonable result by choosing the next person who would have been favoured by the voters in that multi-member electorate. This means that we can save an enormous amount of money-between $150,000 and $180,000 per by-election. Senator Button —In view of the savings you are now identifying, have you costed your total proposal? Senator VIGOR —We do not believe that the cost of our proposal will be any higher than the cost of the single member electorate system because there will be-- Senator Button —No, your total proposal. You never cost anything; that is the problem. Senator VIGOR —We have. Senator Button asks us whether we have costed our proposal. Indeed, we have looked at the relative costs of our proposal and those in the single member electorates. The fact is that there is no need-- Senator Button —Tell us the figures. Senator VIGOR —I can demonstrate the point at which money would be saved. We will be saving money because we will have fewer redistributions under our system. There will be less need for changes associated with setting the boundaries. Under the current scheme there has to be reallocation when there are boundary changes. Under the new scheme it would be very difficult to reach that point and I believe there will be very infrequent redistributions. The Tasmanian experience shows that. That will be much less costly. The counting of votes will cost the same and I believe we will also save in terms of the by-election system. The main achievement will be a better system which will be fairer for the Australian people. It will be much fairer in the sense that people's votes will count. Now, if there is an electorate with a 51 per cent to 49 per cent split, 49 per cent of the electors are in fact disenfranchised. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.31) —I do not want to take much of the time of the Senate this evening on the adjournment but I do want to say a few words about a matter on which I have spoken in the adjournment debate on previous occasions, although the last time was 12 or 13 months ago, namely, a community employment program project involving the redevelopment of the Footscray swimming pool into what is to be known as the Footscray Swimming Centre. I will not burden the Senate by recounting all the details of it. It has become a very sad and sorry affair. I think it has become the largest CEP project in the nation in terms of cost. In summary, the project to redevelop the pool was approved in August 1984. It was to be a project to cost $2.8m, of which $1.97m was to be supplied from CEP funds and $850,000 by the city of Footscray. The situation has now reached the stage where, almost three years later, the pool has not been completed. The cost has gone to $6.5m, $5.3m to be funded by the Commonwealth under the CEP scheme and $1.2m by the ratepayers of Footscray. The Senate will recall that when I first raised this matter in February 1986 the project was nowhere near completion-in fact, at that stage it was not even half completed-despite the fact that more than the initial allocation for the total project had been spent. I raised various questions with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and his representative in the Senate as to why this was the case, what problems there were with the project, how it would ever possibly be completed and what was the Government's intention in terms of outlaying further money on the project, which project may or may not be completed under the CEP guidelines anyway as I had been told by the project manager and the town clerk of the city of Footscray that it was highly unlikely that it could be so completed. As a result of my raising the matter in the Senate, the Minister, Mr Willis, in March 1986 convened an extraordinary meeting, which he personally chaired, to get together the various authorities involved to look at the problems that had arisen. As a result of that extraordinary meeting, the Minister commissioned an independent auditor to report on the pool, what happened to it and the financial and other circumstances surrounding it. That report was to be completed as a matter or urgency and made public. The report was completed and handed to the Minister on 15 May 1986. Despite a dozen specific requests from me since then for the release of that independent auditor's report, the report still has not been released. I inquired of the Minister's office as recently as yesterday and the Minister is still prevaricating as to whether or when he will release that report. The case raises several very important issues of propriety. At the moment it leaves several very considerable concerns in the minds of those who have been following this subject. For a start, when the Minister commissioned the independent auditor's report in March of last year, he told me through the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in the Senate that no more money would be expended beyond the $2.4m that had by then been spent, that no more CEP funds would be made available until the results of the financial audit and feasibility study were available. The report and the results of that study have still not been made available. They have certainly not been released publicly. I do not know whether they have been made available to the Footscray City Council, but the fact is that, despite that assurance that no additional funds would be spent, an additional $3m has been spent out of the CEP funds with no explanation at all as to the nature of the authorisation of that money, seemingly in total contravention of what was advised to the Senate at the time that the matter was raised by the Minister. This is a matter of very grave concern-not just because of the escalation of cost but also the way in which this whole matter has been handled. If the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, does not release the independent auditor's report as a matter now of great urgency, he will raise in the minds of the people of Footscray, the minds of the people of Victoria and the minds of the taxpayers of Australia very grave doubts as to what is being covered up by the non-release of the report. It is an extraordinary situation. It is a very disturbing situation and it is one that must be rectified. There are fundamental questions that I asked of Mr Willis in this place as long as 13 months ago. On 26 March 1986 I welcomed the Minister's decision to establish an independent audit but I said that the Minister's response to earlier questions that I had raised was gravely deficient. I raised then such questions as: `How did the project come to be approved as a CEP project in the first place?'. It is just not the sort of project that would normally be regarded as a CEP project. I asked: `Was there any original feasibility study?'. I asked: `Why is it necessary now, in March 1986, 20 months after the project was started, to have such a feasibility study when about $2.5m has already been spent?'. I asked many other similar questions. Not one of those questions has yet been answered by the Minister. That is an appalling and very disturbing set of circumstances. On a lighter note, but perhaps again illustrative of the terrible troubles that this project has run into, the pool, after $6m has been spent on it-which by the way does not include a ceiling for the centre-- Senator Button —Does it have a bottom? Senator SHORT —There was a question about that too, because after the $6.5m had been spent it was discovered that the pool leaked. It leaked for several weeks. I understand that at not inconsiderable extra cost the cause of that leak has now been found and corrected. But for a fiasco such as this to continue for so long and in such circumstances and still to be uncompleted is a matter of very severe concern. Indeed, there are reports circulating in Melbourne today that the Footscray City Council may be under consideration in terms of its continuation. Whether those reports are correct, I do not know. Whether there is any relationship between those reports and the apparent absolute scandal at the Footscray community employment program project, I do not know. It is, however, for those very reasons, that it is mandatory that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations-who is responsible for the CEP project and is also, significantly, the local member-to disclose all his information, the independent auditor's report and any other relevant information in the case at the earliest possible moment. By that I mean immediately. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(7.41) —I shall draw Senator Short's remarks to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), if possible tonight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.41 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Acts Interpretation Act-Statement relating to failure to furnish within specified period for presentation of the following annual reports- Barley Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86. Wheat Research Council-Annual Report 1985-86. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1552) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 November 1986: I refer to an article in the June 1986 Proceedings of the Naval Institute by Rear Admiral William Pendley, of the Office of the US Chief of Naval Operations. (1) In the article, Pendley states that ``. . . by altering . . . the nuclear balance . . . [the Maritime Strategy] seeks to make escalation unattractive to the Soviets.'' Has the Government assessed whether altering the nuclear balance during a conventional war enhances stability; if so, what were its conclusions. (2) Pendley states that ``Pacific operations are directly relevant to a European war''. Does this mean that the US alliance directly commits Australia to the defence of Europe. (3) Is Australian involvement in the defence of Europe consistent with the terms of the ANZUS treaty. (4) Has the Government assessed whether the Maritime Strategy's plan for horizontal escalation, in which a local war is spread to global proportions, enhances stability. If so, what were its conclusions. (5) Pendley states that the US Navy's role is ``controlling the sea, projecting power ashore, and bringing pressure on the Soviet Union''. Has the Government assessed whether this strategy is likely to lead to an increased Soviet naval presence throughout the Pacific Ocean, and whether this will increase the ability of the US or the USSR to engage in gunboat diplomacy in the region, including direct attacks on Third World states similar to the US attack on Libya this year; if so, what were its conclusions. (6) Has the Government assessed whether the exclusion of the naval forces of all nuclear-armed nations from the Pacific would be a greater guarantor of regional and global security than the Maritime strategy and the likely Soviet response; if so, what were its conclusions. (7) Pendley states that all US friends and allies ``contributed to [the] development'' of the Maritime Strategy; ``all have forces necessary to implement it; and all have forces which require its implementation in order to be effectively employed.'' What role has Australia played in the Strategy's development. (8) What Australian forces are necessary to implement it. (9) Which of our forces require its implementation in order to be effectively employed. (10) Given that the Dibb Review concluded that ``there is no requirement for Australia to become involved in the United States contingency planning for global war'', and that the US bases, warship visits and B-52 staging operations are a ``sufficient . . . contribution to the Alliance'', what role in the Strategy do the bases, warships and B-52s play. (11) Will the forthcoming Defence White Paper detail the role of our defence forces in support of the Maritime Strategy; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The article by Rear Admiral Pendley in Navy Proceedings, the journal of the US Naval Institute, in June 1986, is one of several discussing the Maritime Strategy Supplement of the journal which was published in January 1986. In the Supplement, Admiral J. D. Watkins, former US Chief of Naval Operations, explained the background to the development of the US Navy's Maritime Strategy and its objectives. The Maritime Strategy was developed by the US Navy in response to the growth in Soviet naval capabilities in recent years. As explained by Admiral Watkins, if conflict with the West occurred the probable centrepiece of Soviet strategy would be to concentrate on seeking a quick and decisive victory in Europe. An important element of the USN's Maritime Strategy is to deter superpower conflict by demonstrating that the USSR would face the prospect of prolonged global conflict and that it would not therefore be able to concentrate on a single theatre such as Europe where the USSR would be able to use its superiority in ground forces to greatest advantage. The Maritime Strategy is not a detailed war plan but instead provides the USN with a framework in which to develop the capabilities and doctrine necessary to maintain a credible deterrent against superpower conflict. Outside the European theatre, its focus is primarily on limiting Soviet naval activity and Soviet ability to project power in the North Pacific. (1) The Maritime Strategy reflects the USN's concern that Soviet doctrine places a high priority on changing `the nuclear correlation of forces' during a conventional conflict by destroying Western theatre-based nuclear assets. By demonstrating its preparedness to attack Soviet theatre based nuclear forces with conventional weapons, the USN's Maritime Strategy is intended to prevent a negative change in the nuclear balance. All this is posited on the failure of peacetime efforts to deter superpower conflict. `Stability', in circumstances of such conflict can only be enhanced by measures which seek to avoid escalation of conflict to nuclear war and to promote an end to hostilities. On the assumption that Soviet strategy would in fact be aimed at altering the correlation of nuclear forces during a conventional phase of conflict-and this is a reasonable assumption to make in view of published Soviet literature on the subject-implementation of the US Maritime Strategy could contribute to the avoidance of nuclear war by reducing the attractiveness of nuclear escalation to the USSR. At the same time it has to be recognised that if either side were highly successful in its efforts to destroy the other's nuclear assets by conventional means, a situation might arise in which the latter nation might choose to launch its remaining nuclear weapons before these too were destroyed. (2) and (3) Australia's alliance with the US does not commit Australia to the defence of Europe. In the unlikely circumstance of global war, Australia's primary defence responsibilities would be to protect our own interests and those of our friends and allies within our region. After attending to the priority requirements of our own area, Australia would then consider contributions further afield. (4) See the prefatory comments and answer to part (1) above. (5) In the Pacific, the Maritime Strategy relates primarily to the containment of Soviet naval forces close to their home bases in the North Pacific. It assumes that a critical role for the Soviet Navy would be the protection of Soviet territory and ballistic missile submarines in that area. It does not imply an increased Soviet naval presence throughout the Pacific Ocean nor an increase in gunboat diplomacy in the region. (6) A balanced reduction in the naval forces of nuclear nations in the Pacific would contribute to regional and global stability provided that it did not undermine other aspects of the strategic balance between the superpowers or between regional nations. (7), (8) and (9) Australia has not been directly involved in the development of the USN's Maritime Strategy nor are Australian forces committed or vital to its implementation. (10) As explained by Admiral Watkins in the article referred to above, the Maritime Strategy `does not purport to be a detailed war plan'. Moreover, our defence cooperation with the US in the operations of the joint Australia-US defence facilities, visits to Australian ports by US ships, and staging operations through Australia by USAF B52 aircraft-is not pursued as part of the Maritime Strategy as such but as part of our own effort to contribute to the maintenance of international security and the deterrence of superpower conflict. (11) No. See answer to (7), (8) and (9) above. (Question No. 1645) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 24 February 1987: (1) When was the decision to proceed with the Women's Health Clinic taken. (2) When will the clinic commence. (3) How many staff are to be employed. (4) What are the hours of operation. (5) What is the cost (a) to establish the clinic, and (b) to continue operation. (6) From where have the funds been allocated. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No decision has been taken to establish a Women's Health Clinic. A decision was taken to establish a Womens' Health Service. (2) The Women's Health Service will commence as soon as the necessary staff can be recruited. (3) Three. (4) Probably 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday but some evening sessions may also be necessary. (5) (a) $2,400; (b) $98,000. (6) From a reallocation of existing resources. (Question No. 1660) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) What progress has been made in the establishment of a biological research station on Christmas Island. (2) When is it anticipated that such a station will become operative. (3) What will be the primary functions of such a station. (4) How many people will staff such a station, and what proportion of the staff is expected to be drawn from the local population. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) Discussions between the Department of Territories and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service have been held on the establishment of a Scientific Research Centre on Christmas Island. Further progress is subject to the resolution of funding aspects, consultation with the Christmas Island Assembly, and issuing of appropriate leases. (Question No. 1666) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) How many air traffic controllers are rostered on for each shift at each airport in Australia, and how does this differ from 5 years ago, in each case. (2) Is there a Senior Operations Controller in charge of each shift; if not, what is the specified experience for the person in control of each shift at different airports throughout Australia. (3) Does the Department of Aviation specify the number of controllers on each shift at each airport, and the experience and/or qualifications of the controller in charge of each shift. (4) How many airports around Australia also have a Search and Rescue Co-ordinator. (5) At those airports which have a Search and Rescue Co-ordinator, is that person one of the rostered controllers or is that a separate position. (6) At those airports which have a Search and Rescue Co-ordinator, if that person held a dual role of also being one of the rostered controllers, is there an on-call controller who can be called in to take over when a search and rescue mission is being mounted. (7) Are there any airports in Australia where it is intended to reduce the number of controllers. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Answering this part of the question would require an unreasonable diversion of resources in the Department of Aviation to extract the information. (2) There is a Senior Operations Controller in charge of each shift at each Operational Control Centre during its hours of operation. For aerodrome, approach, en-route control or flight information functions the officer in charge is required to have or have had rated competence in providing the specific service(s) and experience appropriate to the scope of the shift management responsibilities involved. At all other air traffic control units the specified experience of the officer in charge of each shift varies depending on the function of the unit. (3) Yes. (4) Nine. (5) The Search and Rescue Mission Co-ordinator function is undertaken by the rostered Senior Operations Controller. (6) There is no nominated on-call controller. Off duty officers are called in to take over one of the dual functions (Senior Operations Controller/Search and Rescue Mission Co-ordinator) when a major search and rescue emergency has occurred. (7) Yes. As part of its Airways planning the Department intends to consolidate a number of Air Traffic Control functions into major centres. This will reduce the number of controllers required at some airports. (Question No. 1706) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 March 1987: (1) Which international military and defence exhibitions will-(a) private companies; and (b) government companies, from Australia be taking part in during 1987. (2) Were any Australian companies involved in the Defence Asia '87 International Defence Equipment Exhibition and Conference in Bangkok from 18-22 March 1987. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The Department of Defence is not necessarily aware of all defence exhibitions in which private companies from Australia will be participating. However, exhibitions at which private Australian companies are expected to be present during 1987 include: Paris Air Show-Paris in June 1987; COMDEF 87-Washington October 1987; and Australia's International Technology and Equipment Exhibitions (AITEX 87)-Sydney in November 1987. (b) COMDEF 87 and AITEX 87. (2) Yes. Those companies which participated were: Office of Defence Production; Inductoheat Pty Ltd; Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd; ATA Training Aids Pty Ltd; and Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd. (Question No. 1713) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 April 1987: (1) What are the terms of reference for the Review of Civilian Transport Infrastructure, being chaired by Sir Peter Abeles. (2) Over what time period will the review panel be meeting. (3) When is it anticipated that the review panel will report to the Minister for Transport. (4) Do the terms of reference of the Review include a specific examination of the capacity of existing civilian transport infrastructure to provide adequate support for the proposed increased military strength in the north of Australia; if not, what attempts are being made to assess the adequacy of northern transport infrastructure to meet the demands of an increased northern military presence. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Terms of Reference for the Review of Civilian Transport Infrastructure are as follows: 1. Taking into account related studies completed or in hand, assess the present and likely future capacity of the Australian civil transport infrastructure to meet Defence transport requirements in those lower level contingencies accorded priority for defence planning purposes. 2. Noting the relevance of current administrative arrangements to the above contingencies, examine how existing arrangements could be employed or developed to meet national transport requirements in lower level contingencies. 3. Assess the need for Defence to consult with civilian transport organisations to identify arrangements that might facilitate defence input to civil transport acquisition proposals and infrastructure development. 4. Assess the capacity of Australian industry to supply, repair and maintain, or adapt and modify civil transport equipment and related infrastructure to meet contingent defence transport requirements. 5. Identify the need for, and suggest approaches to, future studies of national transport requirements in the more credible lower level contingencies. (2) It is anticipated that the Review Panel, which is still in the process of selection, will meet over the period of May through to November 1987. The panel will aim to submit a draft report to the full Defence Industry Committee at the meeting scheduled for 16/17 November 1987. (3) This study is one of a series of reviews of sectors of industry with Defence relevance which have been undertaken by the Defence Industry Committee (DIC). As you are aware the DIC is the senior advisory committee to the Minister for Defence and, while the Department of Transport will be consulted when desirable, the Committee will present its findings to the Minister for Defence. It is anticipated that the review will be endorsed by the DIC and presented to the Minister for Defence, subject to amendments, early in 1988. (4) Yes, the review has in mind precisely this assessment. Already a number of possible Northern contingency scenarios have been prepared by the Department of Defence and forwarded to Sir Peter Abeles. These will enable an assessment to be made of the level of Civilian Transportation Infrastructure involvement necessary to maintain the Service and civilian populations involved. The Study will also cover broader aspects of Civilian Transport Infrastructure recognising that low level contingencies are not necessarily limited to Northern geographic areas.