Friday, 5 June 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 21 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 family 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 Senators Harradine (from 920 citizens) and Richardson (from 368 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned citizens, call on the Commonwealth Government to introduce a ban on smoking on flights of 90 minutes or less. This ban should be introduced irrespective of the stand-off attitudes adopted by the airlines at present. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 52 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 archaeo- logical 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 1,768 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate. The petition of the undersigned does respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Giles (from 103 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Maranoa Electorate respectively showeth that: The Social Security Amendment Bill 1987, Schedule 1, page 15, additional amendments of the Social Security Act 1947, part 1, omit- ``Subsection 6 (1) (definition of `de facto spouse'): Insert `and includes a person who, but for a law of a State or Territory prohibiting sexual intercourse between the person and another person by reason only of the age of either person, would be such a person' after `to that other person'.'', Substitute- ``Subsection 6 (1) (definition of `de facto spouse'): Insert `but does not include a person who is living with another person in a relationship prohibited by a law of a State or Territory' after `to that other person'.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Button (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 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 breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular, we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 16 citizens), Chaney (from 15 citizens), Reid (from 54 citizens) and Zakharov (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that . . . 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains a satellite communication dish, that sends to the United States the information, gathered by the ``joint high frequency stations'' in Australia and New Zealand, indicating the position of the Soviet naval ships and submarines. This information from Watsonia is combined with data from satellites and underwater sensors to calculate the location of the Soviet vessels with great accuracy. 2. This would make it possible for the US nuclear naval ships and submarines to destroy all nuclear Soviet naval ships and submarines, while the US nuclear submarines, naval ships and bombers launch their missiles in a ``first strike'' attack. 3. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 4. The ``joint U.S.-Australian'' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament Assembled should close the ``joint Australian-U.S.'' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 90 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 71 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens shows their concern that Senators George Georges and Norm Sanders who represent the Senate on its Select Committee on Animal Welfare have been publicly reported as being opposed to hunting which occupation is morally legitimate and in accordance with the prevailing law, and therefore your petitioners request and recommend that these Senators be replaced on the Select Committee in order to ensure the public confidence in it and the results of its proceedings and your petitioners as in duty bound will pray. by Senator Short (from 94 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for today for disallowance of an Australian Capital Territory determination of fees. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister whether he recalls the Prime Minister saying on 13 November 1984: We pledged ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australians . . . Is it a fact that, since December 1984, home loan interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to a record 15.5 per cent, with some major savings banks charging 16.5 per cent; that monthly repayments on a typical $50,000, 25-year home loan have risen by $172; that in December 1984 an average family spent 19c of every dollar paying off its mortgage and it now spends 27c in every dollar; and that there is now a record number of Australians-in other words, those Australians who cannot afford to buy a home-on the public housing waiting lists? I ask: Why should the Australian people believe anything that the Prime Minister says in this election campaign after the spectacular breaking of his firm promise at the last election? Senator BUTTON —With regard to the last part of the question, I do not think the people of Australia will have difficulty. As they will be required to do in a compulsory voting system, they will vote and exercise a choice in respect of housing between a government under which there are now 120,000 to 125,000 housing starts and a government, of which Senator Chaney was a member, which was defeated in 1983, and which had reduced housing starts to about 105,000 or 104,000. That is the sort of choice that they will make. They will also make a choice recognising that, in the period in which this Government has been in office, the rate of inflation has at all times been lower than it was under the Fraser Government in 1982. They will vote for a government which has managed this economy in a way which has produced, in difficult circumstances of a declining balance of trade-- Senator Chaney —Here we go again. Blame the world. Senator BUTTON —No, I am not blaming the world-not at all. I think those circumstances arose because for the first time, as a result of the floating of the dollar, the deregulation of the financial sector and the steps which the Government has taken in respect of industry regulation and tariff measures, the Government has brought the Australian people face to face with problems which, for seven years, the Fraser Government sought to hide. For example, in the words of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, he kept the dollar overvalued in order to keep inflation down. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point or order. The Minister was asked a series of quite simple, factual questions about what has happened to interest rates under this Government. For housing loans they have gone from 11.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent. He was asked a simple factual question about monthly repayments on a typical $50,000, 25-year home loan, which have gone up by $172 a month. He was asked a very straightforward, factual question about the rise in the percentage of incomes that is required to pay off a mortgage, which has gone from 19 to 27 per cent. He engages in debate on matters which have nothing to do with the question. Mr President, I ask you to call him to order and ask him: Does he admit that they are the very unhappy facts which have developed under the Hawke Labor Government? The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is tending to debate the question. It is usual for a fair amount of give and take to be allowed at Question Time, but I remind the Minister not to debate the question. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney concluded his question by asking whether the Prime Minister is not to be believed on anything. I was just telling honourable senators opposite why the Prime Minister is to be believed and why he is credible compared with the incredible lot who sit opposite us in the Senate. If I can come more to the details of the question, Senator Chaney asks why cannot people afford houses. There has been a dramatic reversal in housing commencements following the slump which occurred under the Fraser Government when, as I said earlier, housing starts fell to 105,000. The first home owners scheme will have assisted almost 250,000 first home buyers by the end of 1986-87. I remind the Senate that the May statement, which has been debated in this place in the last few days, was a further instalment by the Government in the process of seeing that interest rates are reduced. Interest rates have been falling; it is the view of the Government that they will continue to fall steadily. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What has the Government done to tackle the massive salinity and land degradation problems of the Murray River and the Murray-Darling Basin? As the Murray-Darling Basin covers about one-seventh of Australia's land area and contains some of our most productive land, does the Government believe it is sufficient to put these problems in the too hard basket as did the previous Fraser Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —Despite the vulgar guffaws emanating from my colleagues on the front bench opposite, we take very seriously the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin as do all South Australian representatives in this place. There are no vulgar guffaws coming from wimpy Senator Teague in the back row because he knows perfectly well that this is a very big issue. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I ask you to call the Minister to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I was about to call the Minister to order. The Minister will withdraw that remark. Senator GARETH EVANS —So, against that background-- The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, I withdraw those remarks. In stark contrast to our predecessors, we have spent considerable energy coming to grips with the problems and developing long lasting and equitable solutions to them. In 1985 we formed a peak council of water, land and environmental Ministers from the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia-the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council-to engender detailed co-operation and to formulate institutional arrangements which are now steadily being put into place. The co-operation has resulted in a major research programs being developed. A whole series of publications have flowed from it, and a whole series of strategies are now being put into place. We are looking at the best combination of something like 13 major salt interception and land protection projects over the next few years which will have a massive impact on the land, water and environmental problems of the basin. In addition, an amount of $21.2m has been provided by the Commonwealth since 1983-84 to three relevant States for salinity reduction and drainage programs in the basin. The Australian Water Research Advisory Council is also undertaking a very comprehensive program of research into the problems of the basin including salinity and waterlogging with over $1m being provided this year for that initiative. The institutional arrangements that are being put in place will ensure that these sorts of initiatives continue into the future with a formalised set of arrangements that the various States and the Commonwealth have been trying to put together in a comprehensive way since the turn of the century, so far with a conspicuous lack of success. We are committed to formally establishing by statute a Murray-Darling Basin Commission to replace the existing River Murray Commission. It is planned to come into operation on 1 January 1988. The role of that body will be to encompass the statutory responsibilities under the existing River Murray water agreement as well as providing advice and research backup to the Ministerial Council on all the other matters that I have spoken of. We have already established a community advisory committee to provide a channel of communication between the Ministerial Council, the new Commission and the River Murray-Darling Basin community on a whole variety of matters of mutual concern. This is an achievement of which we all ought to be proud. It is a classic demonstration of how co-operative federalism can work when we have governments of good will and competence working together, identifying problems of massive dimensions and producing constructive and creative solutions to them. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism to the ministerial statement which was presented to the chamber recently entitled `Tourism-under Labor', and note that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism took the opportunity to give himself a big pat on the back for all the good work he claims to have done for the Australian tourist industry in recent years. This is another broken promise. Does the Minister acknowledge that the statement ignored the problems which have developed with the tourism overseas promotion scheme, otherwise known as TOPS? Specifically, can the Minister say whether it is the case that moneys applied for and approved by the Commonwealth to be spent on the tourism overseas promotion scheme by private enterprise have not been reimbursed to a number of those organisations as they should have been under the Government's financial arrangement. How many private enterprise bodies are owed money by the Commonwealth under the tourism overseas promotion scheme? How much money is outstanding, and will it be paid? Is it a fact that the tourism overseas promotion scheme is being quietly wound down to such an extent that private tourism operators are having to continue to fund the joint Government-private enterprise overseas promotion scheme without any official advice that the scheme is defunct? Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to be able to inform Senator Kilgariff that the scheme is not defunct. The scheme will continue. Mr John Brown will be making an announcement shortly. No money is outstanding in terms of undertakings on money to be paid. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the report in yesterday's Age which quotes Singapore's Prime Minister as saying that 16 church workers detained under the Internal Security Act will not be tried in court? If this is the intention of the Singapore Government, will the Australian Government consider expressing to Prime Minister Lee its concerns about the denial of basic justice and human rights? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen media reports of comments by the Singapore Prime Minister that the 16 church workers detained under the Internal Security Act will not be tried. Under the provisions of that Act, a detainee can be held without commitment to trial for an initial period of 30 days and thereafter at the discretion of the State President. The Australian Government would be most concerned if proper judicial processes are not observed in this case and if the quotation attributed to Mr Lee is correct. I am referring to the quotation in yesterday's media which reported Prime Minister Lee as saying: It is not a practice, nor will I allow subversives to get away by insisting that I've got to prove everything against them in a court of law or (produce) evidence that will stand up to the strict rules of evidence of a court of law . . . If that is what has been said, and if that is the way in which these people are being treated and if it is the way in which it is proposed that they be treated, I repeat: It is a matter of concern to the Australian Government. If the Press reports prove to be true, the Government would certainly consider how best it might register its concerns to the Singaporean authorities. That is something to which we will be giving attention in the next few days when the facts of the matter become clearer. Senator HAINES —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment to a report in yesterday's Melbourne Herald headed `Labor bid to woo ``greenies'' ' in which it was stated that the Government intended finally to nominate the Daintree Rainforest in Queensland for the World Heritage List. Can the Minister say why it has taken the Government so long to do what environmentalists have been demanding for years and which is so necessary to protect Australia's rainforests? Does the Minister acknowledge that earlier action by the Federal Government would have prevented the desecration of part of the Daintree by, for example, the Queensland Government's decision to put a road through the Daintree? Will the Minister say why the Government has refused for years to support the Australian Democrats' Rainforest Preservation Agreements Bill, introduced into the Senate by Senator Mason in 1982, and the Queensland Rainforests Conservation Bill, introduced into the Senate by Senator Macklin in 1985, which would have protected the Daintree from the rapacious Queensland Government? Finally, does the Minister really believe that this cynical and belated move by the Labor Government will be sufficient to convince environmentalists that the sudden re-emergence of support by the Government for conservation issues will induce conservation-minded people to vote for it? Senator RYAN —Senator Haines's series of questions really amount to asking why do we not do what the Democrats tell us, and the reason is that we are in government and they are not. Our Government has an outstanding record in environmental matters. One of our first acts on being elected to Government in 1983 was to save the Gordon and Franklin rivers and the south-west forests in Tasmania, and we have maintained a great commitment to preserving Australia's natural heritage. Mr Cohen has been involved in the very close monitoring of the situation in the Daintree. He has sought at every opportunity to negotiate with the Queensland Government a plan which would preserve those forests. He has done everything possible to make sure that all interests would be balanced and that the rainforest could be preserved. Unfortunately, he has not received the co-operation he sought from the Queensland Government, but I can assure Senator Haines that she will be very pleased with the announcement that the Prime Minister will be making shortly on this matter. Senator ROBERTSON —I address my question to the Minister for Finance. I refer to Senator Hill's maiden speech on 9 September 1981 and in particular his excellent exposition of the deficiencies of the Liberal Government's taxation system under Treasurer Howard. What action is the Hawke Labor Government taking to address those deficiencies in the taxation system which Mr Howard did not address as Treasurer? Senator WALSH —I recall very well Senator Hill's maiden speech in 1981 and an excellent speech it was. It was certainly the best speech that I have heard from a member of the Liberal Party of Australia, let alone the National Party of Australia, since I have been in the Senate. In particular in regard to taxation Senator Hill said: The bias against the taxation of income remains, high marginal rates still act as a disincentive to economic growth as does double taxation on dividends and earnings to investment. Wage and salary income earners are still being prejudiced as against business and property income earners . . . He continued: These inequities, yet to be overcome by governments of either persuasion, call for action . . . We cannot forever remain the only highly developed nation without some form of capital or equivalent taxation at the Federal level. This Government has addressed all the questions that Senator Hill raised. We have introduced a capital gains tax which has put a net under the income tax system-something for which the Australian Labor Party has argued for many years and for which Senator Hill argued many years ago. That was something that was absolutely essential. We have abolished the double taxation of company profits. We have reduced marginal tax rates and so on. In other words, we have done all the things that Senator Hill said should be done back in 1981. I commend Senator Hill yet again for helping this Government set the agenda for tax reform. Senator Button —All the talent is on the back bench. Senator WALSH —Yes, all the talent is on the back bench. I hope that Senator Hill's contribution to taxation reform is something that the State Council of the Liberal Party will bear in mind when he seeks pre-selection for the Senate next week. It certainly has been an inspiration to those of us on the Government side who have long known that all these things must be done to know that Senator Hill helped us to set the agenda for the magnificent tax reform that this Government has now enacted. While appreciating Senator Hill's magnificent efforts, I also hope-again in the South Australian context-that the Liberal Party remembers the magnificent contribution made by Mr Grant Chapman-- Senator Bolkus —Who? Senator WALSH —Mr Grant Chapman, the former member for Kingston whose most notable parliamentary deed was to ask Ian Viner a question to enable Mr Viner to tip a bucket on Mr Peacock back in 1981 but he tipped the bucket on Costain Australia Ltd instead. We set the agenda for tax reform in Australia and Senator Hill gave us great support. We have now put that agenda into legislation. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It is timely because it follows the matter that has just been addressed by Senator Walsh. Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people on 29 November 1984 that `in our next three-year term of government the overall level of taxation will not increase as a proportion of gross domestic product'? Is it a fact that the total level of taxation as a proportion of gross domestic product increased from 24.4 per cent in 1984-85 to 24.8 per cent in 1986-87? Is it not a fact that the breaking of the trilogy promise raised about $1,000m additional tax in 1986-87? I ask the Minister: Why should the Australian people believe anything that the Prime Minister says in this election campaign after the spectacular breaking of his firm promise at the last election? Senator BUTTON —I ask Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle to put the question on notice. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —Let me make it clear that I have the greatest respect for Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. She is the only person on the Opposition side in this chamber who in the last three years has persistently asked questions relevant to the major issues facing this country. Senator Chaney —You cannot explain the broken promise. Senator BUTTON —I do not believe that we have broken the trilogy ceiling on taxation. But it is for that reason that I want to get Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle a proper answer, and I will do that. Senator SIDDONS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. One of the casualties of an early election appears to be industrial democracy. Senator Button will be well aware that the Senate passed my Industrial Democracy Bill in 1982. He may not be as well aware that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, indicated to me in 1983 that he would give priority to that Bill after forming a government. The long delayed paper on industrial democracy from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, finally surfaced, but with no indication of how, when or whether there would be any Government action. I believe Senator Button would agree with me that, if Australian industry is to be internationally competitive, sooner or later it must adopt modern approaches to industry management. Is the Government paying lip service to industrial democracy, or is it prepared to make some hard decisions on legislating for its encouragement? Senator BUTTON —As a government we have always been prepared to make hard decisions. I believe people recognise that. The industrial democracy issue is a very complex one. Except in enlightened firms such as the firm of which Senator Siddons is Chairman, the concept of industrial democracy is not widely understood, or in the past has not been widely understood in Australia. The White Paper which deals with these issues has been under discussion in a series of organised seminars and so on. It has been widely distributed. There has been a lot of discussion about it. After the election, the Government will be in a position to make decisions about it. However, I understand Senator Siddons's impatience with the delay in this issue because he is a person who grasped the concepts early and implemented them. He has been very diligent in this Parliament in pursuing these issues. If he is here, I hope he will support the necessary legislation that the Government will introduce in the next session of Parliament. Senator Puplick —Tell us whether you would rather have him or Mr Halfpenny. Senator BUTTON —I would rather have Senator Puplick because he is easy. If Senator Siddons is here, I hope that he will assist in the process, for example, by demonstrating the benefits that flow to productivity and general well-being in the work place, such as have happened in his company. Senator BROWNHILL —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether he has seen Wednesday's editorial in the Australian newspaper which is headed `Labor must produce new wages policy' and particularly the reference that the proposed industrial relations legislation has `set in cement a giant crack in the system we have: the excess power bestowed upon the trade unions'. It also states: By taking a bad system and making it worse, it was a piece of legislation which should never have been drawn up in the first place. From the Government withdrawing the legislation from the Notice Paper and letting it lie on the table in the other place, is the Australian public to deduce that the Australian Labor Party acknowledges the truth of the Australian editorial, or does the Government realise that, while it may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, it is unlikely to dupe the Australian people into believing the new industrial relations legislation is in anyone's best interests other than its mates in the trade union movement? Senator WALSH —I suppose it is quite legitimate for anybody to believe that we should have a new wages policy, although I did not see the Australian editorial. If I had seen it I doubt whether I would have bothered to read it, because I find that editorials in the Australian are rarely, if ever, worth reading. The belief that we should have a new wages policy is, I suppose, a belief that people are perfectly entitled to hold. Some people might even be able to give it some intellectual credibility, although I doubt whether the Australian editorialist would be able to. What I find quite astounding is that there are people who do not really want to implement a new wages policy. They want to resurrect one that has already failed dismally. I refer, of course, to the Opposition, which wants to return to free collective bargaining, market-place outcomes-to abolish the centralised wage fixing system and to return to the disasters of 1981 and 1982. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order to protest against yet another Minister wilfully misquoting the policy of the Opposition for political purposes. I object and I take a point of order on him. The industrial relations policy of the Opposition has been in printed form since May of last year, and there is no excuse for the Minister not knowing what is in it and for his misrepresenting it in this way. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I have no power as to how the Minister shall answer the question. However, he must deal with his area of responsibility, and I remind the Minister of that. Senator WALSH —I note for the record Senator Chaney's tacit acknowledgment that 1981 and 1982 were a disastrous mistake, and of course they were, because we had a wages explosion in both of those years. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise another point of order. If there is no standing order that stops the Minister misquoting the Opposition's policies, surely there is a standing order which prevents him from wilfully misrepresenting what I said in the chamber a minute or so before he resumed his feet. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —It is not entirely clear to me what Senator Chaney is for or against. When I said that he clearly recognised that 1981 and 1982 were a disaster, he denied that. I presume he is therefore saying that 1981 and 1982 were a great outcome and a test of a great policy. The outcome was a wages explosion of 13 per cent in 1981 and 14 per cent in 1982. That was the outcome produced by the Opposition's wages policy. Senator Chaney said that the Opposition has not walked away from that and that it does not acknowledge that it was a disaster. As I have observed before, it is often said that the higher anthropoids have a capacity for trial and error learning, and indeed it has been proved that even some animals that are not higher anthropoids have such a capacity-Pavlov's dogs, I understand, and whoever it was who used to put those rats in cages and give them a shock if they pulled one button-- Senator Ryan —Skinner. Senator WALSH —Skinner, was it? He gave them some food if they pushed another button. But it would appear that that capacity for trial and error learning does not exist in the Opposition, because having presided over that disastrous wages policy in 1981 and 1982, it now wants to give it another run. It was made perfectly clear by Mr Willis, I think two weeks ago, why the Government is allowing time for further consultation on the Industrial Relations Bill. I would like to make this observation regarding the IRB: Those people who are genuinely opposed to it, as distinct from those who are wilfully misrepresenting what it is or what is contained in it, should argue their case on merit. They should not go around telling lies, such as that the Bill removes access to sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. The other big lie is that it removes any access to common law action for damages. Both of those stories are lies. Those who are genuinely opposed to the Bill should put their case without resorting to such lies. If they think that they have a good case, they should not need to resort to lies in expressing their opposition to the Bill. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. When the Hawke Labor Government wins the 11 July election, will it adopt the Opposition's policy on tourism, and if not, why not? Senator RYAN —I am not entirely sure of the Opposition's policy on tourism, but I know that it has been very critical of penalty rates paid in the tourist industry. I am aware that a number of submissions to the inquiry into tourism called for the abolition of penalty rates. The inquiry reaffirmed what the Minister has said on a number of occasions, namely, that penalty rate provisions cannot be considered in isolation from the wider issue of employment conditions and wage structures. This issue has been the subject of numerous studies that have been inconclusive as to any adverse effects of penalty loading. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has reaffirmed its position that a case by case approach is the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. The Commonwealth Government has limited powers to determine the employment conditions of Australian workers, other than for its own employees. However, it is always possible for parties to an award to make application to the relevant industrial tribunal to vary penalty rate provisions. In that context, employer and union groups in the tourism industry need to consider whether there is scope for the restructuring of industrial awards in the industry. The aim would be to seek an award structure that is conducive not only to improving our international competitiveness and standard of service but also to developing an attractive, long term career opportunity in the tourism industry. I think that the Government's approach to this matter is typical of its approach to industrial relations and employment issues-considered, careful and constructive. In contrast, the Opposition's policy would be completely to destroy the gains and the growth that there have been in the tourist industry under the Labor Government. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does he recall the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people on 20 November 1984: We expect inflation will be less than 5 per cent in the year ahead and are determined to keep it below 5 per cent. Is the Minister aware that Australia's rate of inflation has almost doubled in the past two years, while inflation in other Western industrial economies has been falling? Is he further aware that our current relative inflation rate, compared with other Western economies, is now at its highest ever, being four times higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries? I ask, as did Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle a few moments ago: Why should the Australian people believe anything that the Prime Minister says in this election campaign after the spectacular breaking of this promise and many other promises made during the last election campaign? Senator BUTTON —First, let me remind the Senate that inflation under this Government has never reached the levels that it reached under the Fraser Government-- Senator Michael Baume —It is relatively the worst in the world. Senator BUTTON —It is no wonder that honourable senators are shouting in an attempt to silence me, but the fact is that inflation has never reached the level that it reached under the Fraser Government-- Senator Walters —That is not true. Senator BUTTON —I understand Senator Walters's concern, but it is a fact. The second matter of which I want to remind Senator Short is that on 20 November 1984 the Prime Minister said that he `expected' inflation to be less than 5 per cent. It was an expectation. Senator Chaney —He was 50 per cent right. Senator BUTTON —It was not 50 per cent. It was an expectation which was absolutely legitimate in November 1984 and it would have been attained but for the massive decline in the terms of trade, the loss of $9 billion in export income and the consequences which followed from that. The expectation of the Prime Minister in November 1984 was a perfectly legitimate one. We did not expect that massive decline in the terms of trade, and neither did anybody else. A steady decline in the terms of trade might have been expected, of course, but not the fall which was precipitated in the way it was. Senator Short knows those things to be true and the question, in those circumstances, borders on the ridiculous. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs relates to the banking arrangements of the Australian War Memorial. The Senate will be aware that Government policy is to encourage statutory authorities to utilise financial resources in an efficient and resourceful way. Will the Minister outline new arrangements in place at the War Memorial and likely benefits to the taxpayer? Senator GIETZELT —Almost two months ago Senator Zakharov and I met at the airport while coming back to Canberra. We met a senior official of the Australian War Memorial who gleefully told me of some of the developments taking place in respect of the Australian War Memorial's bank accounts-which, incidentally, involve an amount of approximately $10m. The problems associated with the banking arrangements at the Australian War Memorial were one of the principal factors for Mr Menzies, who was appointed by the Government to inquire into the problems associated with the administration of the War Memorial, finding against the Director. The officer told us on that particular night that some eight or nine banks had expressed interest as a result of the Acting Director having sought public interest in the handling of the sizable accounts of the Australian War Memorial. As a result of calling tenders and inviting interest, the Acting Director has been able to establish arrangements with the National Australia Bank which has, I am informed, offered an interest rate on cash holdings of 2 per cent below the prevailing prime corporate lending rate. Of course, that contrasts considerably with the arrangements with the Memorial's previous bank, the Westpac Banking Corporation. Approximately $50,000 per annum will be saved as a result of those arrangements and as a result of the competitive nature of the way in which the administration of the War Memorial is being carried out. I would therefore hope that the Opposition's so-called Waste Watch Committee notes as a result of the changes that have been made in the administration of the War Memorial that we are capable also of effecting considerable savings. Of course, that justifies completely the position that the Government has taken in respect of the administration of the Australian War Memorial. There are a lot of unsavoury aspects about the way in which the Memorial's bank accounts were handled, but I will say no more about that and will allow history to judge those events. Certainly even in the short term there have been considerable savings as a result of the competitive nature of the Memorial's administration, and of course that is the way this Government's policy generally applies to public administration. Senator PETER BAUME —Following the questions of Senator Chaney and Senator Short, I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Will the Minister explain, in terms that all Australians can really test, why it is that inflation has not come down in Australia after four years of Hawke Government, as it has in many of the countries with which we trade? Why have interest rates not come down over the same four years of Hawke government in Australia as they have in most of the countries with which we trade? Why have Australian citizens had to bear and why do they bear still the extra hardship which continuing high inflation and high interest rates put upon them? Senator BUTTON —The basic answer to that question is: Because before this Government came to power this country had 25 to 30 years of dopey conservative governments which, for example, kept the dollar overvalued in order to reduce inflation, thereby damaging our export capacity and the capacity of all our larger manufacturing concerns, and indeed the capacity of our rural exporters. It was because of those sorts of things that symptoms revealed in Senator Baume's question occurred when a government decided that some of these fundamental issues had to be tackled. To take up Senator Baume's question in relation to inflation, inflation fell very significantly and quite rapidly during the period of this Government until such time as the dramatic decline in the terms of trade occurred. It is a fact and everybody knows that to be true. The basic answer to the question is that this country is in difficult economic circumstances-- Senator Chaney —You don't know what you are doing. Senator BUTTON —Oh, yes we do. This country is in difficult economic circumstances because of a wide variety of fundamentals in the Australian economy which no conservative government had the guts to address and which this Government has. Senator JONES —I refer the Minister for Education to the Government's eight-year funding program for schools which has ended the divisive and destructive state aid debate. Is it a fact that this funding scheme has given to all schools in Australia unprecedented stability and security in their funding and planning? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government's funding scheme for schools will remain intact over its eight-year term? Senator RYAN —It certainly is the case that our four-year legislated funding scheme whereby per capita grants go to all schools in Australia, government and non-government, has given schools unprecedented stability and security. I think every section of the education sector has acknowledged this and welcomed this scheme. It has also been a very positive and constructive development in that it has indeed ended the divisive state aid debate which for so many decades in this country had put schools in some sort of rivalry and hostility towards each other instead of in the co-operative and constructive relationship in which we now find them. Because the scheme has been so successful and so widely welcomed by schools and representatives of schools throughout Australia I am very happy to confirm that we will be continuing the scheme for the next four years, as we indicated from the outset. The commitment was to an eight-year scheme and we will continue it. As schools know, we will be undertaking a limited review of the operation of the scheme during its first years. That is a proper and prudent course of action, given the necessary complexity of the scheme and the very large amounts of money involved. But let me put to rest any concerns: The review will focus principally on technical matters. We want to establish whether the 12-category scheme needs any adjustment, whether any schools should be moved between categories and whether our measures of effort and of funding remain as precise as they were in 1984. Other than that, I can confirm that the eight-year funding scheme will remain intact. Senator KNOWLES —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Prior to both the 1983 and the early 1984 elections the Prime Minister promised cheaper fuel for all Australians. As excise has in fact not reduced but gone up from 6c to 20c a litre and as the Minister said last year `There is a lot more room for taxation at the pump' can Australians expect further increases via his commitment? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Knowles knows anything about the course of petrol prices under this Government, she will be aware that there have been reductions in real terms over the life of this Government. It is the case that there have been increases in product excise over that period but that has been compensated for by quite dramatic reductions in the crude oil excise associated with the price of the crude oil component. As has been made perfectly clear on innumerable occasions, especially in the last year particularly with the collapse of crude oil prices from the beginning of 1986, as the Government's revenue from crude oil fell away from something like $5 billion to $2 billion there were compensating increases in product excise at the pump, increasing in turn in reciprocal proportion from about $2 billion to close to $5 billion. That is a matter of public record. It has been explained on innumerable occasions. There is no magic about that. It has not contributed in any significant way to price increases. There have been increases in the nominal price of petrol over that period certainly, but in real terms there has not been an increase. In fact, I think there has been a decrease compared with the situation 18 months ago before the current reduction in world oil prices. So Senator Knowles and other people who simply have not taken account of what is happening in the real world are perpetrating a spectacular furphy. Senator COLSTON —I refer the Minister for Education to an article which appeared in yesterday's Daily Telegraph reporting the annual meeting of the Youth Affairs Council of New South Wales. That Council produced the unbelievable resolution that the Labor Government had sold out on youth policy. Can the Minister respond to the charge that young people have been first in line for spending cuts? Senator RYAN —I am very pleased to respond to that charge by saying that nothing could be further from the truth. The Youth Affairs Council of New South Wales clearly is very badly misinformed if it really holds that view. The opposite is the case. If we look, for example, at school retention rates, we see that we have increased retention rates at the end of year 12 from a low 36 per cent in 1983 to over 50 per cent this year nationally and, of course, a much higher percentage than that in some States. That in itself means that those extra, I think, 85,000 young people in the school system are receiving much better opportunities and are preparing themselves much more constructively for their future lives than if they had opted to go on the dole. At the same time, we have made sure that young people from poorer families are able to take advantage of increased education opportunities in schools, technical and further education colleges and institutions of higher education by increasing and rationalising the Austudy payments. For example, when we came into government the allowance payable to a 16-year-old who stayed in the school system was something like $19 a week. Next year, under our Government, it will be $50 a week. That level is the same as the current youth unemployment benefit which, of course, next year will be replaced by a much more constructive measure-the job search allowance. I point out to honourable senators that the job search allowance will be $25 a week without a means test, but an additional $25 a week will be available to young people from poorer families, thus giving income support of $50 a week to 16- and 17-year-olds-exactly the same as the unemployment benefit available for that group this year. When we look at people aged 18 years and over, again we see that at every stage the level of the education allowance has been increased substantially to ensure that young people from poorer families are not deprived of education and training opportunities, but are encouraged to undertake them. In higher education, somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 extra students are enrolled in university or college education. It is very clear that with the expansion in educational opportunities at every stage, the expansion in vocational training courses available through the TAFE system, particularly traineeships, the rationalised and improved system of student allowances and benefits paid to young people, the opportunities for young Australians have been enhanced dramatically in the four years of the Hawke Labor Government. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I suppose that in passing I should thank Senator Walsh for his gratuitous commendation. I ask whether the Minister recalls the Prime Minister saying on 20 November 1984: Australia and Australians will, during 1985, reap the interest rewards that are flowing from successful policies of the past 20 months. We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the near future, we will harvest the crop. Opposition senators-Ha, ha! Senator HILL —It is rather amusing, is it not? Is it a fact that under the Hawke Government, the entire interest rate structure has risen to record or near record levels while, over the same period, interest rates have fallen in major Western economies, Bankcard interest rates have increased from 18 per cent to 23 per cent and small overdraft rates have increased from 14.5 per cent to 21 per cent? Why should the Australian people believe anything the Prime Minister says in this election campaign after the spectacular failure of his interest rate predictions? Senator BUTTON —This morning I do not recall everything the Prime Minister said on 20 November 1984, simply because my powers of recall have been influenced this morning by my recollections of Senator Hill's speech on tax. Senator Walsh did a great service to the Senate in reminding us of that speech, which is well worthy of recall. It is a bit unfair for a man of Senator Hill's integrity, probity and talent, being as he is on the back bench, to select the highest interest rate of any day in the last 12 months and pretend in his question that that is the current interest rate picture. He knows perfectly well that it is not. Interest rates declined before the May statement and have continued to decline since the May statement. It is not correct to say that there have been record interest rates at any time under this Government. I have, in substance, answered this question, which has been recycled out of Senator Chaney's office this morning, on a number of occasions already today. I do not intend to go further into the profoundly depressing analysis of the political history of this country. Senator CROWLEY —Mr President, my question is directed to you and is an appropriate question with which to finish the session, I suppose. It concerns the paintings in King's Hall. Any examination of King's Hall shows that it is very well hung with portraits of men. Can consideration be given to redressing the balance by setting Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Ryan in oils before hanging them in King's Hall? Senator SIBRAA —I can assure the Senate that this is not a dorothy dixer. It is a matter for the Historic Memorials Committee. I hope that when we return I will be in my present position so I will be able to do something about it. Senator VIGOR —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I would like the Government's response to aspects of the Task Force report on Alleged Shortcomings in Customs Legislation and Practice. In view of the Task Force's grave concern about the physical security of containers and its strong recommendation for a searching audit of current shipping documentation procedures, what steps has the Government already taken to clamp down on criminal activity in this area? Have the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Bureau of Statistics been asked to study and explain the gap which exists between their overseas freight figures, which is $500m and widening? Have steps been taken to integrate the various databases held by the Australian Customs Service and, simultaneously, to inhibit unauthorised access to the computer files held by Customs? Senator BUTTON —I ask the honourable senator to place the question on notice; it has many parts. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to recent claims by the Opposition that it could cut government outlays and produce a more efficient health system by dismantling the Medicare system. What comparative information is available which would indicate the likely aggregate economic and financial effects of destroying Medicare and returning to a predominantly private system of health insurance? What could be the effect on government finances of this measure, compared with current policies? Is a policy of funding tax cuts by dismembering Medicare the same as inviting the Australian people to buy a pig in a poke? Senator WALSH —The effect of doing what Senator Maguire outlined in his question-of course, he was not advocating it-would be a loss from a social perspective; that is, there would be a very big net loss to the community because we would be adopting a health system which would be vastly inferior and inefficient compared with the existing one. The longer that remained the worse it would be. It would also have some short term very undesirable macroeconomic effects. I will go into that in a minute. How such a measure would affect individuals, as distinct from how it would affect the community as a whole, would depend on whether the individuals were healthy or not and whether or not they had very high incomes. Certainly the sort of health system which Senator Maguire outlined and which the Opposition is advocating would deliver personal benefits to healthy people on high incomes, but of course would be adverse for everybody else and would remove the security which everyone, of course, now has that there is automatic insurance for basic health and medical cover. The macroeconomic effects of the cancellation of Medicare-that is, the withdrawal of the medical benefits and the health payments to the States for public hospitals, which is by no means, of course, the full extent of government funding of health services-would be to add about 3.2 or 3.3 per cent to the consumer price index. If government funding were to be entirely withdrawn from health, other than for pensioners, beneficiaries and so on-that is, State government funding as well as Commonwealth government funding-the CPI, or the inflation rate, would leap up by more than 6 per cent. That is the policy that the National Farmers Federation advocates. Its policy would push the inflation rate up by 6 per cent straight away. As I have remarked before, the National Farmers Federation's policy demonstrates that putting together a Budget is much too important to be left to right wing ideologues such as Ian McLachlan or ill-informed amateurs such as abound in the National Farmers Federation. I think I should supply a bit more data in relation to the remarks that I made earlier about the relative efficiency of different health systems. In 1983-84-that is, prior to the effective introduction of Medicare, which was in November 1984; in other words, the old system applied for effectively two-thirds of that year-7.64 per cent of gross domestic product was the total expenditure on health. That was not just public expenditure, but total expenditure on health. The estimate for 1985-86-and I expect that a confirmation of these figures will be available reasonably soon-is 7.50. For the first full year of operation of Medicare, 1984-85, the percentage of GDP for all health expenditures was 7.48. In other words, in the first two full years of Medicare's operation, total expenditure on health as a proportion of GDP actually fell. Those figures, of course, do reflect the fact that GDP was growing over that period. It had been growing at a very high rate after the depression Howard years. It is true that there was an increase in the rate of utilisation of medical services in the first year of Medicare, after which that rate settled down. I think it is around 3 per cent a year. The figure has returned to the long term trend. Service utilisation is now growing at the long term trend rate. The national priorities project, the National Farmers Federation health policy which the Opposition has gone a long way to endorsing, is based on the American system. That system involves a total expenditure on health of 11 per cent of gross domestic product compared with 7 1/2 per cent in Australia. If we were to spend 11 per cent on health services we would be spending an extra $9 billion. The cheapest rates of remotely comparable countries are as follows: The United Kingdom at 6 1/2 per cent and Canada, which has a very similar system to that operating in Australia though at a somewhat higher cost as a proportion of GDP, at 8.2 per cent. Senator BUTTON —At Question Time yesterday Senator Robert Ray asked me a question about investment in various industries. At the end of my answer he asked a supplementary question about investment in the food processing industry. I undertook to provide him with an early answer on current committed investment in that industry. I have a list of committed investments in those industries. Senator Durack —He does not seem very interested in it. Senator BUTTON —No, he is not here but I want this information in Hansard so that the honourable senator, who is such an alert chap, can read it. Current committed investment in that industry is in excess of $300m. This relates also to the question asked on an earlier occasion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. Senator Archer —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Leader of the Government in the Senate was also going to provide me with an answer to a question which I asked yesterday and I have not received it. He said that he would provide the answer either yesterday or today. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 5 June, from Senator Chaney: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- ``That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to place on record the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has failed to honour past promises and fails to offer any real hope for an improvement in family living standards.'' Yours sincerely (FRED CHANEY) Senator for the State of Western Australia Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- The PRESIDENT —Before I call Senator Chaney, I point out that, despite the Standing Orders, by arrangement between the parties the clocks will show 15 minutes for each speaker. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.08) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter or urgency: The need for the Senate to place on record the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has failed to honour past promises and fails to offer any real hope for an improvement in family living standards. In a week in which we have seen the Government breaking many of its promises in legislation we have been dealing with, it has allowed us one hour to debate matters other than matters which are under its control. The motion before the Senate is self-evidently correct. There is an urgency to place this matter on the record because this afternoon the Parliament will disappear. It will be dissolved because the Government has called an early election in breach of a promise made just a few weeks ago that there would be no early election. We want to put on record our concern about the Government's record with respect to the breaking of its promises and, most importantly, we want to point out that it fails to offer any real hope for an improvement in family living standards in Australia. The election that the Government has called on will substantially be decided by the response of voters to the decline in their living standards over recent years. In opening the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I would like to say something about those people who will not determine the result of the election. There are many groups of people who are also entitled to complain about the Government's breach of its promises to them. This week we dealt with legislation that concerned invalid pensioners. Last night Dr Don Grimes, a former Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this place and a former Minister for Social Security and Minister for Community Services, was in this building. I well remember the view that he put forward about what should be done for invalid pensioners in this country. This week we saw the promises that Senator Grimes made as an Opposition spokesman betrayed. This week we have seen widows betrayed, we have seen families betrayed and we have seen the promise broken to the teenage unemployed, who were promised as recently as a few months ago by the Labor Leader, Mr Mick Young, that one of the distinctions between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party was that the Labor Party would preserve the unemployment benefit for the 16- and 17-year-olds. The point that needs to be made is that the promises were not necessarily the right promises to make for Australia, but in almost every case they have simply been dishonoured by this Government. Today in Question Time the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, again tried to blame what has happened to Australia on external forces. I just say in this final debate in the Senate chamber this session that for the Government to do that is a lie. It is simply untrue to say that external forces are the cause of the Government's misfortune. We hear continual reference by the Government to the fact that the terms of trade have declined. Yet, when we were in government there was that same virtually continuous process of decline in our terms of trade. It is true that last year the value of our exports declined. In 1985-86 exports declined by about 9.8 per cent. But it is also true that in 1977-78, when the Fraser Government was in power, they declined by over 9 per cent. I do not remember the Labor Party saying then that any difficulties Australia had were difficulties caused by the terms of trade. What the Opposition says to the people of Australia is simply this: The Government's mini-Budget, the words of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his May statement just a few weeks ago, makes it quite clear that it is the Government that is responsible for the problems that Australia has. This Government has brought down the largest spending, largest taxing Budgets in our history. Now the Treasurer has come before us in the Parliament and said: By reducing the Government's call on Australian savings we free up those savings to go where Australia now really needs them, into plant and equipment for export expansion and import replacement. He said: At this time we need money going into investment, not into increased Government works and services. In this way each dollar released from the Government sector can ultimately be put to work in combating our trade problem. The fact is that the Government has now conceded that it has to reduce government expenditure. That is what the May mini-Budget was about. The Government has conceded that the excessive government expenditure that it undertook has been the cause of much of our misfortune. When I recite the broken promises of this Government, the interest rates which have risen for Australian householders, the queues in our hospitals, the increased cost of motor vehicles and the increased cost of petrol-all those matters which are broken promises by this Government-I just say to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, and to the people of Australia, that all of these things have been caused by the actions of the Government, by its massive expenditure in its early Budgets and by its preparedness to tax the Australian people to try to meet some of that massive investment. The second point that needs to be dealt with is that this Government is holding out no real hope for recovery. We have seen Senator Button again in the Question Times that have taken place this week talking about some optimism regarding new investment in some sectors of the Australian community. The fact of the matter is that the Government, by its high taxing and high interest rates policies, has pushed down the essential investment that is required for economic recovery. It has pushed down the essential investment that is required if the people of Australia are to have increases in their standards of living. Mr Ross Gittins, the economics editor for the Sydney Morning Herald and a writer who has often written very favourably of the present Government, as recently as 30 May said: Above all else, we need strong growth in investment in manufacturing. And the bad news is that the survey of expected investment shows manufacturing as the sector where the outlook is worst. We have very poor expectations for investment in the vital manufacturing sector in this country. It may be true that there are some sectors, as Senator Button has been at pains to point out, where there is some investment, but the reality is that overall the investment position is very gloomy. It is gloomy because of the anti-business taxation policies, high interest rate policies, high taxation policies and other policies of this Government. It is part of the charge of the motion which I have moved today that the Government has broken its promises to the Australian people. The early election was denied specifically by Mr Hawke as recently as 15 May. When he was interviewed on, I think, the Schildberger program, he said that he could not envisage any circumstances in which there would be such an early election. He was referring to an election before the next Budget. On the same day he said that the election could not be held, in any circumstances that he could imagine, in July. Just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister was untruthful to the Australian people about the very fact of this election and made the point that the Australian people would expect to have an election after they were in a position to judge the August Budget that the Government promised it would bring down. We will never see the August Budget of this Government. It is an impossibility not only because it will not be re-elected but also because the Parliament will not be able to meet in time to bring down an August Budget. That is the simplest and latest example of the Prime Minister's perfidy. There has been reference in Question Time to many of the promises in terms of Australian families that have been broken. In 1984 the Prime Minister pledged to bring home ownership again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. Since he made that promise we have seen an increase in home loan interest rates from 11.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent. We have seen monthly repayments on a typical 25-year home loan go up by $172 a month. We have seen average repayments go from 19.2 per cent of median family incomes to 26.9 per cent-an enormous increase-and, as I said in Question Time, we have seen great lengthening of the queues of people who are waiting for public housing. There is nothing more central to the welfare of Australians than home ownership. The costs which it imposes on them are an essential part of their outgoings. Those costs have risen enormously under this Government, in breach of the Prime Minister's promise. There is no breach of promise which goes more directly to the squeeze which is being felt in the suburbs of Australia. As I said before, the high interest rates are a direct result of this Government's high expenditure policies over the whole of its life. We had the promise of interest rate reductions which has been dishonoured. The promise was made again in 1984 and, since that time, overdraft rates have gone up by more than 6 per cent and the Bankcard interest rate has gone up by 5 per cent. Again, those are matters which go very directly to the disposable incomes of the men and women of Australia who face the prospect of this early election. There was the promise that the inflation rate would go below 5 per cent. The rate has almost doubled since that promise was made, again, in November 1984. Reference was made in Senator Knowles's question to the prospect of lower petrol prices. The Prime Minister promised a reduction in petrol prices before the election. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, said that any fall in Saudi oil prices must be passed on to the Australian motorist in lower petrol prices. Yet petrol prices in Australia have risen steadily at the same time as oil prices around the world have dropped steadily. In almost every capital city of Australia there has been an increase in the price of petrol at the bowser of over 10c a litre. Yet in that time there has been a massive fall in the international price of oil. When one looks for the reason for that price rise-a price rise which stands in contradistinction to the Prime Minister's promise that he would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre-one finds that there has been a massive increase in the excise which has been collected by this Government since it has been in office of over 10c a litre. We find the betrayal of young Australia. One of the things of which the Australian Labor Party has been proud is its purported simpatico with young Australians-its ability to communicate with young Australians; its preparedness to offer hope to young Australians. We saw the ultimate cynicism of this Government in the Priority One scheme. Priority One has been much debated in this chamber. Senator Vanstone brought forward a matter of urgency with respect to the Government's failure in that area. I remind the Senate that the Government promised tens of thousands of traineeships and failed to deliver. It promised to give the youth of Australia first priority. When we said that we thought young Australians should be offered work, education or training and that the unemployment benefit was not a satisfactory way for young Australians to be commencing their lives, we were accused of being hard-hearted and the Government promised that it would preserve the unemployment benefit for 16- and 17-year-olds. We saw the disposal of yet another disposable Labor promise in the May statement. We saw so much Labor rhetoric being cast aside and, just as the shabby failure of Priority One condemns this Government, the Government stands condemned for breaking its promises for young Australians as freely as it has broken its promises to Aboriginal Australians. We had a promise from the Prime Minister-the man who says `Trust me'-that there would be increases in the spouse rebate and sole parent rebate and that those people would be given tax cuts. There has been no change in the dependent spouse rebate over the four years of the Labor Government and that has caused a 26 per cent decline in its real value. The list of broken promises is endless. Mr Bob Hawke promised that there would be no increase in the Medicare levy. It has gone up since he made that promise. He promised that the overall level of taxation would not increase as a proportion of gross domestic product. He broke that promise. Senator Button demurred about it in Question Time today, but that promise has been broken. The amount of tax being collected by the Government has increased as a share of everything that Australia produces. What that means to the families of Australia is that when we lost office in 1983 they were paying something like 17c in every dollar in tax-well below the 25c in the dollar flat rate-and under this Government, after the so-called Keating tax cuts, they are paying over 20c in the dollar. The Prime Minister broke a promise in calling this election. It is one of the few breaches of promise for which I believe he will feel remorse. The Prime Minister, having called on this election, has called on his own defeat. We look forward to the campaign and we look forward to the people of Australia throwing out this lack-lustre and promise-breaking government. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.22) —First of all, I will make an observation about the enthusiastic response from the back bench to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). Fewer than 40 per cent of Liberal Party members are in the chamber. Sixty per cent could not bother to come in and listen to him. (Quorum formed) I observe for the record that Senator Chaney's rah, rah speech, which was supposed to fire up the troops for the coming election campaign, was listened to by eight members of the Liberal Party, which is about 40 per cent of the total. If that is an indication as to how rah, rah the campaign will get, it does not bode well for the Opposition. I ask the Senate to cast back in its mind to the dark days of early 1983 when John Howard was Treasurer. Inflation was 11.2 per cent. Unemployment was 10 1/2 per cent. We had a record current account deficit of 6 per cent of gross domestic product. A quarter of a million jobs had been lost in the previous 12 months-a quarter of a million people had got the sack in the previous 12 months-and the country was in the deepest depression since 1930. There had been massive industrial unrest in 1982 and a wages explosion in 1981 and 1982. Australian manufacturing industry in particular was internationally uncompetitive because the Fraser Government had maintained as a deliberate policy the overvaluation of the Australian dollar, and in 1982 there was a Budget with a huge structural imbalance. The last Howard Budget had absolutely no economic strategy; it was bereft of an economic strategy. It had only a political strategy designed to secure, so its architect thought, the re-election of the discredited Fraser-Howard Government. Its policy strategy was to buy up, principally by means of tax expenditures, the cost of which was deferred to the next Budget, a sufficient number of pressure groups to secure the re-election of that discredited Government, but that strategy failed as well. Then we come forward to mid-1985 when the following changes had taken place. Inflation had been halved, substantially due, it is true, to the Medicare blip, but the Medicare blip became the new level of inflation because of the success of the prices and incomes accord and the carry through of that Medicare blip into wages outcomes. Unemployment had fallen by more than 2 percentage points. Up to this point there are 780,000 more jobs in Australia, 780,000 more people in employment, than there were when we came into office. By mid-1985 the current account deficit had fallen to 4 per cent of gross domestic product, down from the record 6 per cent over which John Howard presided in 1981-82. We had had two years of growth at between 4 and 5 per cent, historically extraordinarily high by Australian standards, and we had the lowest level of industrial disputes in 17 years. Significant progress had been made in the restructuring of industry and real wages had fallen, as of course they needed to do, from the unsustainably high levels at the end of 1982 and 1983, which had been induced by the Fraser-Howard Government's mismanagement and the wages explosions of 1981 and 1982. All of the major economic indicators were moving in the right direction and had done so to a significant extent. Everybody, of course, would have liked them to move more. Some may argue that it was possible for them to move more, but that is unprovable. The plain, indisputable fact, however, is that in all those major economic indicators significant progress had been made in the right direction in those first two years. In that period we had also floated the Australian dollar and the exchange rate had fallen from the overvalued level of around US90c down towards the low 80s. Then, commencing in 1985 we had the beginning of the export price collapse or, as it is formally known, changes in the terms of trade. Export prices collapsed, and that process continued for almost two years. The most recent measurement by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of the effect of that, for the December quarter of 1986, is that in that quarter that export price collapse took $2.3 billion off national income or, as an annual figure, more than $9 billion has been taken off Australia's national income in the last two years. That had some other macroeconomic effects. We had halved the consumer price index between early 1983 and mid-1985. We had halved the inflation rate which we inherited from the Opposition when it was in government. It was above 11 per cent, but it bottomed at around 5 1/4 per cent in mid-1985. We halved the inflation rate that we inherited from Mr Howard but, because of the export price collapse and the subsequent devaluation of the Australian dollar and consequential devaluation of the Australian dollar, import prices increased, as they always do when there is a devaluation. That, of course, fed through into consumer prices and into the inflation rate. Obviously the collapse of export prices had an effect on the current account deficit. We had got the current account deficit down from 6 per cent of gross domestic product-the record that John Howard established-to 4 per cent but, with the export price collapse, that inevitably went up and there was also an effect on growth. Those problems have been addressed by the Government. It has faced the reality that in the short term because of the export price collapse there is no responsible alternative to a decline in average living standards. That is not denied. It has been freely stated by me, by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and by other people in the Government over many months. The Opposition's response to this is in Senator Chaney's motion. It offers hope. It offers hope all right! It offers false hope, as false as the fistful of fivers that John Howard handed out to the electorate in 1977 but snatched away in 1978. That is what the Opposition offers. It offers hope-false hope. The Opposition peddles a variant of the strong brand of snake oil that comes from the north. The Opposition would have the public believe that, notwithstanding the fact that the export price collapse has taken $9 billion off our national income, average living standards can go up via tax cuts. On the specifics of what the Opposition is offering, what is its answer to addressing the long term structural problems of the Australian economy, most of which can be traced to the 1950s and the 1960s? Bring back the free, boozy lunch and the tax deductible Mercedes Benz; start paying pensions to millionaires again; abolish the capital gains tax, thereby encouraging people to put their funds into speculation instead of real investment which would help overcome the structural imbalance and structural weaknesses of the economy. That is the Opposition's response-the tax deductible Mercedes, the free, boozy lunch and paying pensions to millionaires. As published in today's Australian, the National Party of Australia has a program of expenditure increases and tax cuts, which adds about another billion dollars to those which have already been irresponsibly proposed by the Liberal Party of Australia. Since Senator Chaney mentioned petrol prices, I say here for the record that since this Government came into office in real terms retail petrol prices have fallen by 3 per cent and diesel prices have fallen by around 5 per cent. I do not have much time left, but one of the other major changes that the Opposition proposes to make is to do a pea and thimble trick with Medicare, the same sort of pea and thimble trick that Mr Howard pulled when he stood up as Treasurer of Australia during the 1977 campaign and said: `Liberals offer tax cuts'. There were the full-page advertisements showing the big hand stuffed full of $5 notes-which were snatched away as soon as John Howard managed to get himself re-elected. He plans to pull the same sort of pea and thimble trick with Medicare by either allowing people to opt out of paying the Medicare levy or abolishing the whole Medicare policy; it is not quite clear which yet. The effect of that would be that a family on average weekly earnings which currently has no private insurance but which is covered by Medicare would finish up paying an extra $20 a week. Let that be known. That would be the consequence for certainly not an atypical family if the Opposition's health policy were introduced. Finally, I refer to the voodoo economics, the voodoo tax cuts, proposed by the Opposition. Fiscal pea and thimble tricks, false hopes and fistfuls of fivers offer no adequate answer to the nation's economic problems, nor would they provide a sustainable increase in living standards. That can only be done through a basic restructuring of the economy of the type that this Government has commenced and on which significant progress has been made. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.37) —We have just heard Senator Walsh being Senator Walsh right to the last, giving probably his last speech as a government Minister in this Chamber. Right to the last he was getting away with misrepresentations, not the least of which were the figures he gave on the gross domestic product. I remind Senator Walsh that in 1985-86, the current account deficit totalled 6 per cent of GDP, while in 1981-82-when we were in power-the figure was 5.8 per cent, 0.2 of a percentage point lower. He often refers to our performance. No matter how much he tries to get out of it, this Government still has that record. I suppose that it could be said, as we are dealing with this urgency motion which is all about government promises and the damage that has been done to families, that the Hawke Government stands for what it thinks the people of Australia will fall for. At this moment one thing we are considering and remembering is the promise about the Parliament running its full term. That promise was broken recently; but this is an opportunistic government. We know what the dissolution is all about. All of a sudden the Government decided that the polls were going its way and they were not likely to remain so for too much longer once the people woke up to the state of the economy. It decided that it had better run when it could. We are seeing it running and scurrying towards an election which it has no hope of winning. In talking about promises, I cannot help but remind honourable senators opposite, and anybody who is listening to this debate, of one phrase that will stand out forever, not so much for what was said but for the way it was said: `And here let me make one point so that even our opponents can understand it beyond all their powers of misrepresentation and distortion: There will be no capital gains tax'. Who needs to misrepresent it? Who needs to distort it? We do not have to; the Labor Government does it every day. It has almost been embarrassed by the money that has come in through this iniquitous taxation. This country is very short of capital-everybody admits it-yet we have this Government distorting and misrepresenting its own Prime Minister's promise not to bring in a capital gains tax in a capital short country. On 20 February 1983 our present Prime Minister said: At the outset of this campaign to elect another Labor Government, I make an unqualified commitment to maintaining the viability of Australia's great rural sector. What has this commitment consisted of? It has consisted of an increase in fuel excise of 212 per cent since 1983. Admittedly, all governments recognise the costs of production on farms, but what about expenses? The biggest expenses facing farmers these days are expenses beyond the farm gate. Transport costs have risen astronomically. These are costs over which the farmer has no control. The increase in fuel excise has been but part of it. The Government has reduced the depreciation allowance. It has completely gutted the income equalisation deposits scheme. If ever there was a good scheme brought in by the Fraser-Anthony Government, it was the tax averaging scheme, the IED scheme. That will have to be returned as soon as we gain the treasury bench. Then, of course, there was the removal of $10m from the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme. The Government then increased meat inspection charges by 200 per cent. It then removed sales tax exemption on oils and lubricants. How does all that fit in with making an unqualified commitment to maintaining the viability of Australia's great rural sector? With the massive current account deficit we are running, if there is one sector of the economy that can get this country out of its problems it is the great rural sector. Indeed, even with all the imposts imposed on it by this Government, it is still doing that. It is still bringing in much needed income, with very little of it being repatriated overseas, so that it is a net profit for this country. Then we had the great trilogy of commitments, one leg of which was, as stated by the Prime Minister on 29 November 1984: In our next three years of government the overall level of taxation will not increase as a proportion of GDP. Since then, this big spending, big taxing Government has increased its revenue grab by $1 billion over the Prime Minister's trilogy commitment. No wonder this Government does not have the confidence of the people. Then we have Medicare, that albatross that this Government has got around its neck by its own devices. On 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister made this promise: Now I give this undertaking that for the term of our next Government the Medicare levy will not be increased. Last year the levy went up from one per cent to 1.25 per cent of taxable income. It still does not go anywhere near covering the cost of this burgeoning monstrosity. We have probably never seen the health systems around this nation in such bad disarray, as they are now under this Government's mismanagement of the economy, Medicare, and the rest. Who, a few years ago, would have heard of strikes by nurses and doctors? Then we come to inflation. On 20 November 1984 our Prime Minister 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. It never fell below 5 per cent. It is now running at 9.4 per cent and is not likely to fall for a good time yet. What is worse, it is now about four times the average rate of the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They are all our trading partners, and we are trying to compete with them in their own markets and in other markets around the world; yet our inflation rate is four times their average rate. On 13 November 1984 the Prime Minister had this to say about home ownership: We pledge ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families. What a joke! What a tragedy home ownership is in this country now. It almost seems that a deliberate attack has been made on the Australian family and the possibility of obtaining home ownership. The cheapest interest rate for home owners is now 15.5 per cent. What is worse is that people have gone into home ownership in times past fully expecting to be able to meet their commitments and repayments but, through no fault of their own and because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy, their repayments have now gone up by up to $280 per month-something they would have never expected. Thus we have seen many tragedies where people who have saved a deposit and made repayments for months or years find that they can no longer meet their repayments. They are handing over their keys to finance companies, banks or building societies and just walking away. All that they have put into home ownership has come to nought. One has to recognise that this situation has been caused by the Government's financial mismanagement of this country. In their first couple of years there was a massive increase in expenditure. The Government talks about the great recovery it has given us. For all intents and purposes it was a government-led recovery until other nations woke up to the fact that they were lending us the money to buy their products. We then saw the value of the dollar go down and interest rates had to go up to keep the dollar at a reasonable level. I have just mentioned the tragedy that that has brought to home owners, farmers, small business and people who have Bankcard repayments. I have also mentioned all of the things people took so much for granted, thinking that they would be able to meet their repayments in the normal course of their lives. I mention the rental market. Because of what this Government has done, including its introduction of the capital gains tax, there are not nearly as many houses available for renting as there should be. People are being hurt; they can no longer afford to rent houses. Tragedy upon tragedy has been heaped upon the Australian people by the breaking of the Government's promises. Of course, the biggest tragedy is what has happened to families and family life in Australia. Nothing is new. I have just come across a saying by Bernard Baruch. He stated: Vote for the man who promises least. He'll be the least disappointing. With many of this Government's promises having fallen so cynically by the wayside, the people of Australia will be quite prepared to vote for the people who promise least because they will be the least disappointing. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.47) —The urgency motion before the Senate today was moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and it will be supported by the Australian Democrats. It reads: The need for the Senate to place on record the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has failed to honour past promises and fails to offer any real hope for an improvement in family living standards. I find it rather intriguing, therefore, that the Government is planning, apparently in the next few weeks, to combat concern in Australian families generally about this very drop in living standards by releasing its so-called family assistance package. If a report that appeared in the Sun yesterday is any indication, the package will be aimed primarily at low income families with young children. It is expected to be announced on 23 June at the Government's election campaign launch. Key elements are believed to include higher family benefits and amalgamation of child payments, including the family allowance, into one payment called child entitlement. A rent assistance scheme is also being considered, as is raising the income limits on pensions and benefits so that beneficiaries can earn more before their handouts are affected. These are all measures for which those people involved in the welfare sector and the Australian Democrats have been calling for some time. They also appear to include elements that were part of the Government's poverty traps legislation which were unnecessarily curtailed last year, with the enthusiastic support of senators from the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, for eight months in an attempt to cut expenditure thereby gaining the approval of international money markets and doing all sorts of wonderful things to our dollar. It is as cynical an exercise for the Government to be issuing a family assistance package at this time as it was for it to announce its conservation proposals after delaying, for so long, preserving significant areas of Australia's natural heritage which will now no longer be able to be preserved. When looking at the motion moved by Senator Chaney, we need to remember that families in Australia take a number of forms and, as the motion suggests, almost every one has been abandoned by the Australian Labor Party in its last two terms in office. The only exception to this is the very wealthy families in Australia who have been assisted by this Government's generous measures to help big business, entrepreneurs and corporate raiders. There are plenty of Liberal senators who would like to assist these families even more by abandoning measures such as the capital gains tax which, when they do not exist, help the wealthy in the community far more than they help struggling Australian families. Those low and middle income families with children at school or university, those low and middle income families with children in need of health care, those families in which a member is disabled, elderly or out of work and, in particular, those families which are headed by sole supporting parents are all significantly worse off after two terms of a Labor government than they were beforehand. A quick glance at the 1986 social security review table of the decline in family allowances is a very telling point indeed. In real terms, family allowances for families with between one and five children have declined dramatically and this must be being felt quite significantly by those families in which there is a single breadwinner and, in particular, where the female parent receives no other income than that which is provided by family allowances. Families in the rural sector and, in particular, families in areas of South Australia such as the Riverland, which are dependent on industries such as the wine or citrus growing industries, have also been particularly hard hit in the previous two terms of the Labor Government. The fact that interest rates are now higher than at any time since the Fraser years in the early 1980s means that more and more families have to pare back their living standards simply to keep a roof over their heads. With mortgage repayments increasing and income from wages not keeping pace, families in Australia who are trying to buy their own home have no choice but to cut back in other areas. Sadly, as we all know from looking at the legislative program in the last few years, in many of these areas the damage has been done with the connivance of the Liberal and National parties in the Senate. Most of the damage could not have been done had the legislation to implement those procedures and proposals been defeated. Delays in the November consumer price index increases for pensioners passed this Parliament with the support of Liberal-National Party senators. An eight-month delay in the implementation of the Government's poverty trap legislation, aimed at increasing living standards for the poorest families in Australia, was achieved with the support of Liberal-National Party senators. Wine taxes, fruit juice and milk products taxes were introduced in 1984 and again in 1986 with the support of Liberal-National party senators. Deregulation of interest rates has led to an increase in mortgage repayments for Australian families and this too was supported by Liberal and National Party senators and members for whom the word `deregulation' is something of vital importance. Fees for university students and cuts to English as a second language program funding were achieved by the Labor Party only because the Liberal and National Party senators in this place supported them. So far, neither I nor anybody else is aware of any promises to repeal those measures should the Liberals win government either with, or without, the support of the National Party. If Senator Chaney wants to complain about the drop in living standards for Australian families in the last few years, he must shoulder a significant part of the blame in very many areas that have affected those families. Promises broken by the Hawke Labor Government have been broken only because the Opposition parties in the Senate aided and abetted it. I might add that those promises include an increase in the Medicare levy which has been slammed by at least one speaker in this debate. We need to look not just at how badly off Australian families are under Labor, but also at how much worse off they will be and how much worse off this country will be under a future Liberal government. This Opposition, either in coalition or as two separate parties, talks constantly about general expenditure cuts. We all know that, if we do not spend money, we cannot provide such things as roads, hospitals, schools and defence forces. It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party's promises relate very much to cuts in taxation and hence to general expenditure cuts. It is interesting to reflect therefore on a comment from the New South Wales Education Minister, Rod Cavalier, in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday in which he defended the attacks made on him in Orange by the local Parents and Citizens Association, the sitting National Party member and the endorsed Labor candidate, who were all-according to this article-howling for his blood. This occurred because Mr Cavalier was unable to offer them the proposed multi-purpose assembly hall at the local high school. The justification for this is something that we will hear more and more often during the next few years if stringent expenditure cuts become the order of the day. Mr Cavalier conceded the value of such a facility but in a letter to the local Parents and Citizens Association, he said: The problem is, however, that I cannot conjure such facilities. Their provision depends on the funds available to the public sector. The funds available to the public sector depend on taxes raised. Taxes raised depend on the tax base. If one does not raise it, one cannot spend it; if one cannot spend it, one cannot give it to people. That is basically what we will face in the next few years in this country either if the Labor Government continues with its present policies or if the Liberal Party gets in with its support for general expenditure cuts. I do not have time to go through all the details involved in what is likely to happen under a possible Liberal government. However, I think it will be sufficient to draw attention to two areas-education and health. It goes without saying that, without a well educated, healthy population, Australia need not worry about such esoteric matters as balances of trade being out of whack or our position on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development listings for one thing or another being too high or too low or the need to restructure our economy. We simply will not have an economy if we do not have a well educated, healthy generation down the track. We will not have a future worth thinking about. Yet the Liberals' proposed policies will hit these two areas particularly hard. Education and health care are not luxuries that individuals and families can do without and they are certainly not matters that a civilised country should treat as being of no significance. As my colleague Senator Macklin said yesterday, governments must treat education expenditure as part of the solution to Australia's economic ills, not as part of the problem. When times are tough, education should be the last area in which governments cut expenditure. We all agree that Australia must shift resources to new brain-based industries and to competitive existing manufacturing and tertiary industries. These will provide Australia's sources of export income and replace more imports with Australian made goods. We cannot achieve this if we cut education. On the question of health care, the Opposition plans to dismantle Medicare. That will mean, as Kenneth Davidson said in the Age, that basic private health insurance for a family will cost $27 a week and full private cover will cost $31 a week. Therefore, families on average weekly earnings and basic Medicare cover through the levy will be a net $21 worse off per week under the changes proposed by the Liberal Party. Kenneth Davidson said: In effect, the Opposition is proposing a shift from a proportional tax to a flat tax to pay for medical cover and families would need an income of $72,000 a year or more to be better off under the Howard proposals. Either that, or they run a very real risk with sickness and ill health generally in the family. I intend to finish by referring to as much as I can of the Australian Democrats policies, particularly those relating to families and children, which I will release in an hour as part of our platform '87. Senator Button —You might win if you keep going like this. Senator HAINES —I could not do a worse job, Senator Button. Senator Button —You might have to handle all these issues you are pontificating about. Senator HAINES —There is no doubt in anybody's mind, I would have thought, that Australia needs in this Parliament a party which cares about people; a party which acts to support families with dependent children in particular. Australia needs a party that is not beholden to big business or to big unions, as both the other parties in this place are. It needs a party that is not prepared to tolerate 800,000 children in poverty; a party that is prepared to fight against pollution and for the preservation of the environment so that our children have some heritage in the future. The Australian Democrats is the only political party in this Parliament that the Australian people can trust and depend on to work for values and principles that will ensure a future for our children. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —I call Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.02) —Mr Acting Deputy President, since you are in the chair, I take this opportunity to say-and I am sure I speak for many people-that you have graced that chair with dignity. You are due to retire after this election. I appreciate the time that you have spent in this place and the contributions that you have made, particularly to the dignity of the chair. I thank Senator Collard for cutting short his address to enable me to make a few comments. After losing the by-election for the Central Highlands seat in Victoria in March, the Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, said in the Sun newspaper on 3 April: I am saying there is a very large number of people in the $17,000 to $23,000 mark with a single income, two or three kids at school, paying off a mortgage, living in outer suburbs where times are tough and they're the people that spoke to us two weeks ago, I think. Mr Cain was clear on the reason for the defeat of the Australian Labor Party in that by-election-that single income families are feeling the unfair tax burdens that have been visited upon them constantly over a period. This Government has failed to recognise the importance to these families and to society of raising children. I illustrate the point by describing the position after 1 July-that is, after the tax cuts-of a taxpayer earning only 90 per cent of average weekly earnings and with a dependent spouse and four dependent children. Between 1967 and 1987-88 his wages increased by 160 per cent. But his effective rate of tax has increased by 657.9 per cent. That indicates the extraordinary burden of taxation that has been visited upon such a family. By comparison, the two-income aristocracy such as in Canberra, where both partners earn large sums of money, has in fact gained from the taxes that have been imposed over the period, particularly under the tax regime that has been decided by this Government most recently. The sad fact very often is that, therefore, in order to make ends meet, those families have to ensure that they have two incomes. There is, therefore, no freedom of choice for many homemaker spouses who have to work to supplement the family income and who have swelled the part time work force from half a million in 1970 to 1.2 million in 1987. What is the result of that? The problem is compounded by youth unemployment. One in four teenagers cannot get a job to assist the family income, partly because the work force is flooded with a surplus of labour. Teenage unemployment results in high dole payments, juvenile delinquency, drug problems and additional health costs-all paid for by the family tax. It is very important for society to understand that the economic costs to the family will dwindle into insignificance compared with the social and even political disruption and dislocation that will occur if this continues. Families in Australia deserve a fair go. Those mothers who are supporting children are entitled to have the lost family allowances restored to them. The purses of the mothers have been stolen; the money has been taken out of the purses. Family allowances have not been indexed and over the last 10 years $10 billion has been taken out of the purses of the mothers. It is no wonder that they are concerned about the situation. I am pleased that 1987 appears to be the year of the family revisited. I am very happy to fight this election on a fair go for the family. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —I table a paper on the textiles, clothing and footwear industries and seek leave to make a statement relating thereto, to incorporate the statement in Hansard and to move a motion relating to the paper. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I do not wish to go into the details of this paper. I have discussed it with the representatives of the other major parties in the Senate. In November or December of last year the Government announced some decisions relating to the future of the textile, clothing and footwear industry. I undertook at an appropriate time to make a statement to the Parliament. I just remind the Senate that the current plan for the textile, clothing and footwear industry finishes in 1988 and that this is a post-1988 plan, so there has been no compelling urgency about the matter. But I wanted, before the Parliament rose, to get the document on the record. It encompasses the detailed matters, filling in the details of announcements that were made, as I have said, late last year. I believe the statement provides a basis for future development of the textile, clothing and footwear industry and it is in that light that I present it to the Senate. The statement read as follows- In its four years in office the Government has sought to revitalise the manufacturing sector in Australia, much of which had become lethargic in outlook and performance. Over these four years, a new priority has been placed on the development of industry. And while my interest and initiatives have covered the whole period that we have been in government, the deterioration in prices for our primary exports and the consequent effect on our balance of payments have heightened the urgency of the need to revitalise manufacturing. The Government has been concerned to encourage the development of industries which are more internationally competitive and export oriented, innovative and better able to adapt to changing circumstances and capable of operating in the longer term with low levels of community support. In pursuit of these objectives industry policy is moving away from over reliance on protection as an industry assistance measure and focusing more on improving the efficiency and competitiveness of Australian industry. Changes in the structure of industry are a dynamic and natural process reflecting developments in both national and international economies. Attempts to prevent change, will be at the expense of the nation's economic growth, all Australians' living standards and ultimately to the individual industries themselves. We have approached the formulation of industry policy on two major fronts. One has been in the provision of incentives available to industry at large so as to encourage desirable developments across the range of industries. The other type of policy formulation has been in the context of industry specific packages. Many of these policy developments have occurred in the context of a periodic review of tariff or other barrier protection. It is in this latter context we have developed the policy for the TCF industries which I announced in broad outline late last year and the details of which are enclosed with copies of this statement. The TCF Industries The Australian TCF industries have been significant employers since the mid 19th century and even today still employ nearly 10 per cent of the manufacturing work force. The TCF industries as they presently stand are highly fragmented and comprise a large number of small firms and several large concerns. Altogether there are some 2,500 TCF enterprises of which the 11 largest account for nearly 30 per cent of TCF employment. Total TCF factory employment is about 120,000 and the industries account for 7 per cent of manufacturing value added. The industries, while concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney also have a significant presence in a number of country and provincial areas. They are major employers of females, often migrants. Local producers' share of the Australian market is approximately 70 per cent. Only some 5 per cent of production is exported, although exports have increased significantly in the past two years. The Australian TCF industries `prospered' until the early 1970s when the combination of significant low cost competition from the newly industrialised countries of the East Asian region, along with increasing internal cost pressures, lead to a major decline in the industries' competitiveness. As a result their share of the Australian market fell significantly. Australia was not alone in this experience. The TCF industries in most other developed countries also experienced increasing competitive pressure from these sources. The general response of the developed countries was the negotiation of bilateral restraint agreements with the exporting countries under the auspices of the multi-fibre arrangement. In Australia the response to the rapid import penetration was the imposition in the mid 70's of quantitative restrictions on a broad range of imported TCF products. These restrictions aimed at winding back import levels and stabilising the local industry. Current Assistance Arrangements The Australian TCF industries are still protected by quantitative restraints in addition to tariff duties which are extremely high by comparison with those assisting most other Australian industries. Under the current sectoral plan commenced in 1982 it was intended that the Australian market would be progressively but very gradually opened up to import competition through the expansion of quotas. The effectiveness of this mechanism has varied between segments of the industry. The current plan's stated objectives were to encourage the industries to concentrate on the more efficient areas of local production through the gradual exposure to increased import competition. In practice, there has been some rationalisation and specialisation within the industry, considerable investment by some companies to improve their manufacturing efficiency but not the extensive restructuring and movement towards areas of greater efficiency that was envisaged. Insofar as the current plan has achieved its objectives, it has largely been in the area of improving manufacturing efficiency through spending on new equipment. Other aspects of competitiveness have generally been less than fully addressed. The high levels of protection around these industries has probably diminished their entrepreneurial and competitive spirit. A significant portion of the industry has chosen to concentrate in areas in which they are least competitive on the world scene (i.e. the low cost, standardised products in which low wage sources predominate). They have often been content to continue with long established manufacturing and marketing practices. Insufficient attention has been paid to use of design skills, product innovation, research and development, timely delivery, responsiveness to buyers requirements, and attention to quality and effective promotion. Those firms which have addressed these factors have in many cases achieved significant advances in both the local and export markets. Changes in economic policy by this Government have benefited the industries. The floating of the dollar, and its devaluation to a more realistic level has stabilised the level of imports of TCF products. The local industries have actually increased their market share in a number of areas. An unfortunate feature of the industries has been their dependence upon Government decision making. I recognise that this has in part been fostered by Government's past willingness to provide support almost whenever requested by the industry. This Government is prepared to face up to its responsibilities in respect of past mistakes in policy for the TCF industries. It will provide financial assistance to encourage desirable developments in attitudes and practices within the industries and to reduce adjustment costs. Process of Consultation I accepted that for reasons of predictability, consistency and stability the present plan should run its course until its expiry on 28 February 1989. However, I have been concerned to ensure that the TCF industries should be given adequate notice that a change in attitude and an improvement in performance is required. Accordingly in October 1984 I sent a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission-IAC- asking the Commission to inquire into the TCF industries. The Commission was to report on what assistance arrangements should apply from the expiry of the current plan. In the reference I requested the Commission to pay particular attention to the Government's desire to encourage the restructuring of these industries through a combination of gradual reductions in protection and the provision of specific positive adjustment measures to encourage firms to modernise, invest in reconstruction, and to take other steps to improve their productivity and efficiency. In taking such an approach this Government was conscious that substantial restructuring and adjustment would be necessary if the industries were to make real progress towards becoming more efficient and internationally competitive, and less dependent on public support. The IAC was therefore also requested to assess the structural and employment effects of its options for post 1988 assistance, along with considering measures that could smooth and minimise problems associated with the adjustment process. In the course of the process of consultation I and members of my Department liaised closely with the TCF Industry Council in an attempt to solicit solutions to the problems the industries face. The Council provided a valuable forum for consultation, communication and exchange of views between participants representing government, unions, employers and importers and retailers. I appreciate the considerable time and effort the members of the Council devoted to this process. While within the Council there was widespread recognition on the nature and extent of the industries' problems there was much less agreement on the methods of solving them. This is not surprising in view of the range of interests represented within the Council and the complexity of the industries and the assistance arrangements. The Council did provide a list of recommendations on possible post 1988 assistance arrangements which were of assistance in providing a framework for the Government's consideration of future assistance arrangements. I also visited a number of non-metropolitan regions where TCF has a major presence and is an important employment source. I met with employers, workers, union representatives and various local Government bodies. While there was concern about the possible impact of reductions in assistance upon regional areas, discussions were in general constructive and were appreciative of the Government's desire to minimise dislocation. Encouraging Change It is the dynamic and creative industries which grow and thus create income, wealth and employment. Industries which lose their dynamism inevitably become lethargic, slowly decline in all aspects of competitiveness until eventually they are eliminated by obsolescence or international competition, or both. Protective barriers may delay the demise of an industry but will not restore it to healthy growth. Industry policy and industry restructuring are about change. They are about restoring dynamism to industries which have lost their competitive edge and ensuring the emergence of new and dynamic industries. Change occurs continuously and on many fronts in industry: in design, technology, equipment, management and work methods, ma- terials, quality, marketing and financial management to name some. Successful national industries are those which are at least abreast of the rest of the world in all aspects and ahead in some. Continuing success requires ongoing development of product, manufacturing method and management in all its aspects. The Australian TCF industries harbour the skills, management, fashion design, technology and equipment to efficiently make and skilfully market quality products of good design. A number of our fashion houses and some garment and textile companies have been successful in harnessing the best available skills, synthesising them into quality products and breaking into international markets. Unfortunately the success stories have been the exception rather than the rule. This plan for the TCF Industries is about building upon our strengths, skills and opportunities. It seeks to encourage our TCF industries to raise the quality of their products and their manufacturing and marketing performance in Australian and international markets. The strategy we have developed for TCF recognises that changes in attitudes within and towards the industries will have a greater bearing upon future success than mere changes in barrier protection or program provisions. The TCF industries are exciting industries which provide scope for employment of Australians possessing a wide range of skills and expertise as well as considerable scope for investment. The Development Strategy will assure both potential investors and employees that the industry is one worth being involved in. Government Strategy for TCF Industries There were several principles which guided the Government during its consideration of an appropriate future strategy for these industries: Predictability and stability of policy would be essential in such complex industries if they are to restructure and rationalise operations and the process of adjustment must be over a period of years. Concentration on the strengths of the industries, with an associated view to encouraging exports. Development of greater market orientation in these industries. The encouragement of a move to higher value added products including increased utilisation of Australia's natural advantages in the supply of raw materials. The encouragement of rationalisation and costs reduction so as to progressively reduce the high level of community support accorded these industries and to bring it into line with the assistance accorded manufacturing industry generally. The need to minimise the level of dislocation in view of the importance of these industries for employment, as well as their social and regional significance. Satisfy Australia's international obligations. This Government considers that if the strategy is received with a commitment to change by the TCF sector then the industries should be both considerably more efficient and competitive in the 1990s than at present. That efficiency should be reflected in a more responsive sector displaying increased design and marketing orientation. an improvement in managerial and entrepreneurial skills within the industry a move by the local industries towards the higher value end of the market where the industry possesses some competitive advantage lower cost disabilities against imports, lower real prices for TCF products and an ability to compete without quota restrictions stability of production and secure employment in the industry industries which have concentrated efforts towards their strengths, and are active exporters In order to achieve these results major changes in industry attitudes, practices and structure will be necessary. I consider selective positive assistance measures will play a major role in facilitating these changes. Reduced protection will provide a stimulus to desirable restructuring, rationalisation and improved competitiveness. However a comprehensive sectoral development program will be crucial to ensuring that the industries improve their internal efficiencies including developing new products and processes, make effective use of new technology and upgrade their business infrastructure. Assistance aimed at helping the industries overcome problems and take advantage of areas of opportunity will also reduce the period of time the industries need to become less dependent on community support. I turn now to the major policy measures to be implemented by the Government in the post 1988 TCF Assistance Plan. Industries Development Strategy A key element of the new plan is the industries development strategy which will provide incentives and opportunities for the industries to restructure and capitalise upon areas of opportunity. The strategy will commence operating from 1 July 1987 in order to place firms in the best possible position to meet expected challenges and opportunities as barrier protection is reduced. The strategy will provide comprehensive programs aimed at encouraging raw materials processing, lifting industry efficiency, enhancing the skill base of TCF workers and increasing penetration into export markets. The strategy will consist of four main programs. Raw Materials Processing Program The raw materials processing program is designed to facilitate greater domestic processing of Australian wool, cotton and skins and hides. The program will help develop areas of relative natural advantage and support further value-added production of Australian natural fibres. This will provide scope for significant improvements in export incomes with accompanying benefits to the balance of payments. Finance for raw materials processing will be channelled through the Australian Industry Development Corporation-AIDC. The Corporation will shortly commission detailed market feasibility studies for suitable processing ventures and will be reporting later in the year on a recommended approach to this program. An amount of $27m will be provided to the AIDC to finance investment in resource processing. Industries Efficiency Program The industries efficiency program seeks to improve the efficiency of existing TCF firms by diminishing those internal factors which have limited their ability to compete with imports and on the international market. The program, which is positive in nature, aims to encourage firms to assess their current position, including strengths and weaknesses and to formulate and implement long-term business strategies which capitalise on identified strengths and developing market opportunities. A number of strands are proposed for this program. The TCF general industries sub-program, will provide the industries with a range of generally available measures directed at improving a firm's business efficiency through, for example, assistance with formulating and implementing business plans etc. This sub-program will increase the industries access to the consultancy and extension services available through the national industry extension services-NIES-scheme. The second strand of the program introduces a scheme to assist bounty recipients with financing investment in modernisation projects by allowing part of future bounty payments to be capitalised. Funds are not expected to be available for this strand in 1987-88 but the Development Authority will be considering proposals for funding in succeeding years. I also proposed a third strand, tentatively named the advanced TCF sub-program. At this stage, no commitment has been made by the Government to this proposal and further examination of the idea will occur during the coming year. The TCF Development Authority will develop criteria for access to the various sub-programs, in consultation with the industry and other interested parties. Industries Infrastructure Program The TCF industries have in the past not availed themselves to any great extent of the range of generally available industry support measures. I, in part, attribute this to the industries' protected and inward looking nature. As protection is reduced, and TCF firms seek to improve their international competitiveness, it is this Government's view that they will need improved specialised infrastructure support which is more closely related to their present and future needs. The aim of the industries infrastructure program is to improve and co-ordinate the infra- structure support for the TCF industries, including training and skills upgrading, information services, design, research and development, and extension and consulting services. In conjunction with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, I will be shortly commissioning a major study into the existing and future training arrangements for these industries. The study should be completed by mid-1988 and will provide information on future skill requirements. An upgrading in the industries' skill levels, particularly management, and in fields such as design, will be a necessary condition of these industries improving their international competitiveness. The training study will also consider the possible need for a design centre to help forge links between the designers and manufacturers and to move the industries' focus away for the basic end of the market, where design considerations are less important. TCF `teams' comprising personnel experienced in business analysis and planning will be established within the major TCF States to facilitate both the administration and support of the industries infrastructure program and the TCF industries efficiency program. The `teams' will co-ordinate activities of firms involved in the various sub-programs and will be linked to the State government industry departments. State governments will be making a contribution towards the running of the TCF `teams'. Export Development Program Exports of manufactured and semi-processed TCF products have historically been dominated by the early stage processing of wool, cotton and hides and skins. However in recent years exports of finished textile products and certain clothing and footwear items have experienced solid growth. Certain medium to high fashion textile and apparel products have gained significant export successes. Three measures are proposed to enhance the export of TCF products; Austrade support, related sector support and a specialised TCF trading company. Austrade will establish a self contained TCF unit with a data base of export market intelligence covering overseas market conditions, requirements and prospects. The unit will also promote TCF products in overseas markets, working closely with the industries and State governments. The TCF Development Authority in consultation with the AIDC and Austrade will investigate the feasibility and merits of establishing a TCF trading company on a co-operative basis with industry. Such a company could assist many small to medium size businesses who may be potential exporters, but have problems in surmounting the difficulties associated with exporting (i.e. stock, financing, freighting, insurance, warehousing and overseas distribution). I consider that the above range of export measures should result in a more outward looking culture being engendered within the industries, allowing innovative segments of the industries to penetrate overseas markets on a reasonable scale. Protection Changes The Government has decided that the existing costly and highly fragmented quota system will be progressively phased out under the new plan starting from 1 March 1989. This will be achieved by gradually phasing out duties applying to imports entering outside of the quota arrangements. Quotas will lapse at the end of the Plan and clothing and footwear production will be assisted by tariffs of 60 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. Tariff quotas applying to some fabrics will phase to 40 per cent by 1996. Such a mechanism has a precedent in the passenger motor vehicle plan and has received support from manufacturers, unions, importers and retailers in the TCF sector. Major reforms will be made to the assistance arrangements for textile products so as to achieve rationalisation, simplification and greater uniformity of assistance to the activities within this sector. Bounty arrangements for yarns will be phased to a uniform 30 per cent through the course of the plan. Eligibility for bounty payments will be extended to overheads associated with export production. The current tariff quota on certain textile items (primarily finished products) will be phased out over seven years by reductions in out of quota duty rates while the cotton sheeting quota is to be phased out over four years. The existing tariff quotas on certain sleeping bags and curtains are to be removed from 1 March 1989. Changes to the administration of the TCF tariff quota system will be kept to a minimum in order to avoid unnecessary complication and confusion during the transitional period. Rather than the annual additions to quota for market growth being determined administratively, quota in each category will be increased by a fixed and predetermined factor. Full allocation of quota by tender will be progressively phased in by 1992. This will result in a more equitable arrangement than the existing system, more closely aligning the quota system to the realities of the market place, while avoiding the disruption to both the industry and the market that an immediate move to full tendering could cause. The quota year will also be changed to bring it more into line with the seasonal nature of the TCF market (March to February). The changes in the protection arrangements will compel the industries to become less dedicated to basic merchandise and instead place more emphasis on fashion, quality and responsiveness to the market. Higher priced and fashion oriented market segments are less vulnerable to imports from low wage cost countries and will assume a more prominent role in the future industry structure. Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Development Authority The TCF Development Authority will be established, following passage of the legislation later in 1987 with responsibility for developing and administering the industries development strategy and monitoring the overall operation of the plan. It will also provide me with advice on any administrative changes necessary to ensure that the plan is operating as intended. The Authority will report regularly to the Government and the Australian people on the operations of the Plan and progress towards achievement of the Government's policy objectives. The Authority will administer directly a number of the sub-programs under the development strategy and liaise closely with those bodies such as Austrade, NIES and AIDC which will have responsibility for delivering some of the sub-programs. I see the Authority's broad role as being a catalyst to promote desirable change and improvements in the competitiveness and market orientation of the industries. The Authority will also conduct a major review by 1992 of the operations of the plan. If the Authority believes that despite industry initiatives the plan is likely to cause aggregate TCF production to contract by more than 15 per cent, or 10 per cent, 20 per cent and 20 per cent for textiles, clothing and footwear respectively, it may recommend a revision of policy provisions. As part of its functions the Development Authority will take over the responsibilities of the TCF advisory committee which was abolished as of 31 December 1986. Labour Adjustment Measures There has been much concern within the industries in regard to the employment impact of a reduction in the assistance accorded these industries. The Government is conscious of this concern and recognises that there are likely to be some workers who may be adversely affected by the introduction of the new TCF plan. To minimise adjustment difficulties the Government will introduce a package of labour adjustment measures specifically developed to assist workers to become re-employed in jobs outside of the TCF industries. The package of measures developed has paid particular regard to the employment characteristics of the industry including the high proportion of females and migrant workers. The re-employment assistance package will become available on 1 January 1988 with an initial allocation of $1m for the first six months. The package will then run to coincide with the course of the TCF industry plan. The early start date will ensure that workers who are retrenched from firms which contract in size in anticipation of the Plan and who meet the eligibility criteria are able to receive assistance. Measures to improve skills within the TCF industries are covered in the Industries Infrastructure Program. Several innovative measures will be implemented as part of the labour adjustment program. A special training allowance of $100 per week will be available for eligible TCF workers from two income families, which represents a relaxation of the family income testing arrangements. The special allowance provides displaced workers with a financial incentive to undertake training and recognises the existence of a large number of married women workers in the TCF firms. The assistance includes immediate access to training allowances for up to 12 months, vocational training wage subsidies to facilitate re-employment and relocation assistance for those willing to move to become re-employed. In addition the provision of work oriented English language training will be increased in those areas where there are migrant workers. The delivery arrangements will focus on on-site delivery information and counselling assistance and the use of industry and community services. Regional Adjustment There has been considerable concern in certain TCF areas about the potential impact from reductions in assistance on the TCF industries located in the country regions. Because of the gradual nature of the reductions in barrier assistance Cabinet noted that the extent of the adjustment problem was likely to be less severe than originally anticipated, at least in the early years. Furthermore, the reaction communicated to my Department by the industry to the outline of these tariff and industry development measures strongly indicates that the contraction of activity will neither be as extensive nor rapid as many feared. Reports from larger companies with substantial country or provincial city operations indicate that new investment could be more likely than contraction. In the light of this, the Government has decided that no specific provision will be made for regional adjustment in 1987-88. However, the TCF Development Authority and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services will monitor the impact of changes on regions. Should it be considered that restructuring will adversely affect a regional area, then the Government will help develop adjustment strategies for the affected regions and provide financial assistance for such strategies. The benefits of regional location are many: a reliable, experienced and stable work force probably being the most important. In most instances, the benefits of a non-metropolitan site significantly outweigh the costs. I believe we will see more TCF companies locating outside the major cities. Funding The Government made an in principle decision last November that funding of up to $200 million would be made available over the life of the TCF policy package for a combination of industry development, labour and regional adjustment. The sum nominated for industry development was up to $120m, up to $50m for labour adjustment and up to $30m for regional adjustment. As noted earlier, the Government will make its commitments to regional adjustment in the light of identified regional impacts. As a start, the Government proposes to provide $7.2m in 1987-88 to allow the establishment of the Development Authority, to fund the raw materials processing feasibility study and the study into training arrangements and to initiate most of the elements of the program. This funding will enable the Authority to make a substantive start on the development strategy and the labour adjustment package to be initiated from the beginning of 1988. International Obligations This Government considers the new plan offers major benefits for Australia's TCF trading partners. The current arrangements and the high levels of protection accorded the TCF industries have been a constant source of friction in trade relations. As the Australian industries restructure to concentrate on more competitive sectors new opportunities will open for foreign suppliers. By 1996 the assistance accorded these industries will be more in line with that accorded the TCF industries in other developed countries. Australia provides special access for TCF goods from developing countries and, under special bilateral agreements, for New Zealand, Canada, Papua New Guinea and the other Forum island countries of the South Pacific. There are also special provisions for handicraft goods. Under the new plan these special access provisions will be retained and additional opportunities will be provided for Papua New Guinea and Pacific island countries to participate in the Australian market, consistent with Australia's trade agreements with these countries. My Department in conjunction with the Department of Trade and the Australian Customs Service is conducting a review of the provisions relating to the importation of handicraft goods. A report will be presented to myself and the Minister for Trade shortly. In respect of New Zealand, apparel will now be brought within the provisions of the CER agreement which provides for the progressive introduction of free trade both ways across the Tasman. There will be progressive and reciprocal bilateral trade expansion for clothing from 1988 of $10m per year between New Zealand and Australia. Duties and access restrictions will be phased out progressively by 1995. The expansion of trade in apparel with New Zealand will provide valuable opportunities for the Australian industry to gain experience in developing its export awareness. Conclusion The barrier changes and the industries development strategy are the essential elements of Government policy in respect of the TCF industries. They are designed to provide a framework in which the industries can restructure so as to provide a more positive contribution to the economic well being of the nation. These measures recognise the importance of the TCF industries and also the problems they face. In this respect I believe there is a fair degree of consensus among the varying sectors of the industries as to what the problems are. This Government is confident that the comprehensive range of measures provided under the IDS will make a positive contribution to the industries' overcoming existing problems. In addition the measures will facilitate the process of structural change. The plan is also designed so that greater attention will be given to the further processing of those raw materials in the supply of which Australia has a competitive advantage. The gradual nature of the reductions in barrier protection will progressively reduce the cost to the community of supporting these industries while minimising the disruption to those adversely affected. In a more open and competitive environment it will be up to the industries to forge new linkages directed at improving management, product development, design, technology and marketing. The increasing internationalisation of trade in TCF products, presents both competitive pressures and opportunities. The plan is designed to allow this important manufacturing sector to demonstrate that it has the capacity to change and to adapt and do well in both the domestic and international markets. Ultimately the Plan will result in industries that best contribute to national wealth. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.10) —I will not delay the Senate for long on this matter. I merely want to thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for providing us with a copy of the paper a couple of hours ago so that we had an opportunity to go through it and at least pick up the main thrust of it. There do not appear to be significant differences from the original plan as outlined by the Minister some six or eight months ago, but there are a number of very serious ramifications that flow from the implementation of this decision. For instance, we know that the Government intends to spend some $200m on the restructuring process and that that restructuring process will have a significant employment impact in regional areas. I have not yet had an opportunity to examine the report in detail in respect of those labour adjustments, but on the surface it appears that a package is provided which allows for people to find new employment and to retrain into new vocations out of the textile industry. That appears to be a desirable objective. As with any plan of this kind, I suppose there will be problems with the changes. Certainly, not everybody's interests can necessarily be accommodated. In the next few weeks and months we will endeavour to talk to the industry to discover its views about the nature of the changes and, of course, to make appropriate representations on the industry's behalf where that is necessary. I will say just a few words about the actual adjustment process of the tariff. We note that the Government has brought forward the planned reduction of the tariff from 1988 to 1992 in a very significant fashion. It will be a substantial change. Of course, we in the Opposition have supported the principle of phased, gradual and predictable change in the tariff structure. Consequently, this would fit our normal approach to such changes. However, I have to note that there does not appear to be any accompanying relief for business from the cost burdens imposed on it as a result of this Government's taxes. We note the existence still of things like the fringe benefits tax which have imposed enormous cost on businesses operating not only in this area but also generally. If the Government is serious about reducing tariffs and protection, it ought also to be serious about reducing the burdens on industry. One of those burdens is the taxes it has introduced in recent times. Another very significant burden on industry is the high regulatory controls that are imposed by this Government. Whilst the Government is seeking to expand the role of the Business Regulation Review Unit, which we support, we would like to see a little more speed in achievement in that area. Certainly, the adjustment process for the textile, clothing and footwear industries could be speedily enhanced if there were changes in that area. Obviously, the whole area of industrial relations is also part of this change that the Government foresees in the textile industries in the years ahead. Yet just in recent times we have seen the introduction, and then the quick withdrawal because of the early election, of the industrial relations legislation, following the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. That legislation will give to the unions even more of the privileges which they seek for themselves. That process is at odds with what the Government might think is the right approach in phasing down protection for industry. Surely, if the Government were doing its job properly, it would be attempting not only to phase down protection but at the same time to lessen the burdens on industry that will obviously flow from more powerful and more privileged trade unions as a result of the legislation being proposed by the Government until a week or two ago. I finish by referring again to the taxation measures which the Government could do something about. It has raised the rate of company tax from 46 to 49 per cent in recent times. It has certainly brought about the highest interest rates in this country's history, which are again another very high burden on this country and on these particular industries. Of course burdens such as the fringe benefits tax also are very significant. On the whole the Opposition welcomes the statement. We will be examining it closely in the weeks ahead and we look forward to future debate on these issues in the next Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Button for Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House to be presented to the Senate, namely: The installation of traffic control signals in Parkes at the intersection of Kings Avenue with King George Terrace and Macquarie Street. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision to protect the privacy of natural persons, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- As Honourable senators will recall, the Government did not proceed with its Privacy Bill when the Australia Card Bill was defeated. Another casualty of this exercise was, of course, the Data Protection Agency which was incorporated in the Australia Card Bill. The Australian Democrats considered that the Government's approach on this issue was seriously deficient and we would have moved amendments to strengthen it. However, we were appalled by the Government's cynical abandonment of these much-needed measures to protect the privacy of Australian citizens. We were not prepared to just accept this, and, in part at least, the introduction of this Bill is an attempt to retrieve something from that situation. However, I want to stress that the introduction of the Bill is also the first step in the process of achieving worthwhile privacy protection in this country. We want this Bill to be used as a basis for discussion and consultation, a basis which will be amended and improved as a result of that consultation and discussion. We believe, for example, that the powers of the Data Protection Agency, which is included in this Bill, can be improved and strengthened and we would welcome proposals to achieve this, Similarly, we believe that the OECD privacy guidelines could well be included in the legislation and, again, this is a matter on which we invite comment. As the Bill stands, it details 12 information privacy principles and establishes the Data Protection Agency and the Data Protection Advisory Committee. In these areas, the Bill is an improvement on the Government's proposals, but we are very anxious to set in train a consultative process to ensure that we see an appropriate outcome in this very important area. The reality today is that our privacy is increasingly intruded upon. The Australia Card, had it been successfully introduced, would have been a significant addition to the plethora of information recorded about us by both governments and private corporations. By the time we reach adulthood, we are all the subject of dozens of personal information files. The volume of this information has increased enormously and, even worse, accessibility to it has also multiplied at an alarming rate-particularly with the expansion of electronic data recording. The advent of computer technology has added an entirely new dimension to the privacy problem. It is the foundation of a vast new communications network. Miniaturisation has made it possible for enormous quantities of information to be easily stored. This capacity to store, correlate and interrelate information has grown at a rapid rate and vast, organised collections of related information are increasingly accessible to a range of people. Governments, in particular are insatiable, indiscriminate collectors of data and makers of files. This reality quite rightly gives rise to great cause for concern and has done so for a long time. One of the most important elements in the fight for liberty in Western societies has been the attempt to ensure that restraints are placed on the power of political and other authorities to place individuals and groups under surveillance. In the battle between the individual citizen and institutions seeking to exercise control over him or her, that individual has little hope of protecting himself or herself. Over the years, there have been some eloquent advocates for the need to protect privacy-notable among them were Sir John Barry of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Professor Zelman Cowen in his 1969 Boyer lectures and, more recently, Justice Michael Kirby-but despite a great deal of discussion and numerous conferences, the problem remains unresolved in Australia. Indeed, overall, the decisions of courts of law in English-speaking countries have not gone very far in affirming the right to privacy, although the problem has been widely recognised in a range of international instruments-the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR among them. As early as 1890, one of the most famous pieces of writing on privacy was an article in the Harvard Law Review by two lawyers-Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis. In the context of unwarranted intrusions by the popular press, the authors argued for a legal remedy to protect individual privacy-for securing for the individual `the right to be let alone' as they termed it. Cowen noted in his lectures that nearly 40 years later, Brandeis, then a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, returned to the issue in the context of telephone tapping and reiterated the right to be let alone. He described it as the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilised man. Another 40 years were to pass before his dissenting judgment became law of the land-although some State jurisdictions had formulated limited protections during that time. Why, then, should we value privacy, that `right to be let alone'? Is it not the case that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from governments and other bodies maintaining files of information on you? In reality, it is difficult to imagine that even those who make such statements would actually want their private affairs open to all and sundry. Those who put the `nothing to hide, nothing to fear' argument tend to confuse possible wrongdoing with the simple proposition that some things in a person's life are nobody else's business and that there is no legitimate basis on which other people can claim a right to know. Quite apart from that, the fact that information is held on a person may not be known to them, that information may be inaccurate or misleading and have an impact on the subject's life quite unknown to them. Our credit rating, for example, if inaccurate, can affect our ability to get a loan without us even knowing why an application was rejected. In many ways, our success or failure in certain aspects of our lives can depend on what other people put into our computer files and an unknown programmer's ability or perhaps inability to process and evaluate information. While many people may not be fully aware of the dangers involved in this process, it is important for us to recognise that it is an enormous potential source of arbitrary impersonal power and an instrument of control. Australia cannot afford to keep lagging behind to the extent that it does. In reviewing progress in this area recently in the past ten years, Justice Michael Kirby recently pointed out that: ``The melancholy fact is that the past 10 years have seen the further erosion of individual privacy in Australia without effective response. There are powerful forces who urge more and more invasions. But who speaks up for privacy in our country? Parliament once again has failed to put in place the necessary protections for our citizens. The issue of individual privacy, so precious to the future shape of our society and of our liberties, has instead become ensnared in Australia in party political warfare. Where most other developed countries have already established legal protections, we in Australia lag seriously behind''. How true, but let us finally take steps to change that. I am not, of course, arguing here for the protection of privacy in absolute terms. Democratic institutions and processes are such that we cannot demand that. But we can demand far more than we have at the moment. We can demand that those areas of our lives that are nobody else's business remain nobody else's business. We can demand that protections are built into the law and that investigatory mechanisms are set in place. We can demand that the compilation and accessibility of information is controlled. Finally, we can resist the demands of modern society which in its unceasing quest for efficiency and conformity, poses such a serious threat to our privacy. Bureaucratic zeal in both its governmental and corporate manifestations must not be allowed to blind us to the need to preserve basic dignities and freedoms-that precious right to be let alone. This Bill is a starting point and I have no doubt that at the end of the consultative process that will follow its introduction a very satisfactory Privacy Bill will have emerged. I urge all honourable senators to put aside partisan political differences on this issue and to work together in the interests of all Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That the order relating to the luncheon suspension of the sitting this day be varied to enable the Senate to sit between 12.45 and 2 p.m. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —by leave-I inform honourable senators that, as from the conclusion of the sitting this day, Senator Jones will be Acting Government Whip. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I present the following petition, which is not in conformity with Standing Orders, from 900 citizens urging the Government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton Island by supporting the Moreton Island preservation legislation: 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. Petitions received. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-On behalf of Senator Chaney, who has written you a letter, Mr President, I inform the Senate that Senator Margaret Reid will be the Opposition Whip in the Senate. This appointment has been made, of course, due to the retirement of Senator Kilgariff. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984, which in part relates to the release of Senate committee evidence and documents which are 10 years old or more, I report to the Senate that I have authorised the release of the transcripts of evidence and other related material of the Senate Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force to Dr Peter Edwards, Official History Unit, Australian War Memorial. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present four reports of the Auditor-General on efficiency audits; two dated 3 June 1987 and two dated 4 June 1987. The PRESIDENT —For the information of honourable senators I table a report from the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House relating to the proposed installation of traffic control signals within the Parliamentary zone, together with the minutes of proceedings. The PRESIDENT —In response to a request from the Leader of the Opposition, I table a summary of questions on notice for the period 11 February 1986 to 3 June 1987. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. This list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard. The list read as follows- PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Title of Report Date Tabled Government Response A. LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. Commonwealth Law Making Power and the Privilege of Freedom of Speech in State Parliaments 30.5.85 6.12.85 (I) 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 2. Commonwealth Ombudsman Special Reports 4.12.86 - Education and the Arts 1. Tenure of Employment of Academics 9.9.82 15.12.83 (I) 22.10.84 (I) 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 2. Examination of Annual Reports (Fifth Report). Another Look at Children's Television 20.3.86 5.12.86 (I) 3. Examination of Annual Reports (Seventh Report). The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland 17.9.86 - 4. ABC/SBS Amalgamation (Interim Report) 24.2.87 - Finance and Government Operations 1. Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth-Fifth Report 16.9.82 11.11.82 (I) 15.12.83 (I) 22.10.84 (I) 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 2. Non-Statutory Bodies 7.10.86 - Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Land Acquisition in NSW by the Australian Army-First Report 30.5.86 5.12.86 (I) Industry and Trade 1. Australia-China Trade 23.8.84 31.5.85 (I) 11.9.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) National Resources 1. Development of the bauxite, alumina and aluminium industries 25.11.81 15.12.83 (I) 16.10.84 (I) 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 2. Adequacy of Quarantine in the Torres Strait Area 19.11.86 - Science, Technology and the Environment 1. Land Use Policy in Australia 21.2.85 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 2. Examination of Annual Reports. Australian Libraries and Information Council 11.9.85 5.12.86 (I) 3. Shelburne Bay 4.12.86 - B. JOINT COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Australia and the Philippines 20.11.86 - 2. Disarmament and Arms Control 25.11.86 - 3. Visit to Papua New Guinea 28.11.86 - Publications 1. Review of the Cost and Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series 26.11.86 - C. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES 1. Statutory Authority Financing Volume 1 8.9.83 15.12.83 (I) 22.10.84 (I) 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) Volume 2 13.10.83 15.12.83 (I) 22.10.84 (I) 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 2. Video Material 28.3.85 31.5.85 (I) 6.12.85 (I) 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 3. Animal Welfare: Dolphins and Whales in Captivity 29.11.85 13.6.86 (I) 5.12.86 (I) 4. Human Embryo Experimentation in Australia 8.10.86 - Note (I): Interim Response Only As at 3 June 1987 Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —For the information of honourable senators I table guidelines concerning the handling of Government business during the election period, including guidelines for pre-election consultation with officials by the Opposition. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that these guidelines be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The guidelines read as follows- Handling of Government Business during the Election Period In a general sense, the business of government continues during the election period, and this applies to ordinary matters of administration. The following is a summary of the caretaker conventions which apply: (a) following the dissolution the Government assumes a `caretaker' role and by convention avoids (i) taking major policy decisions likely to commit an incoming Government; (ii) making appointments of significance; (iii) entering major undertakings or contracts. (b) in the case of appointments of significance due to take effect after the date of dissolution, Ministers should: (i) defer appointment; or (ii) if an appointment needs to be made for continuity purposes, appoint for a short term only to carry through until after the election period; or, (iii) if a short term appointment is not practicable, appoint for the full term following consultation with the relevant Opposition spokesperson. (c) in the period between the election announcement and the dissolution there may be some major initiatives or appointments of significance which Ministers judge should not proceed. (d) some Government advertising campaigns may need to be suspended or curtailed depending on the nature of the campaign. (e) consultation by the Opposition parties with departmental officers should be consistent with the attached guidelines which are substantially the same as those tabled in the House on 9 December 1976. (f) particular cases where Ministers may be in doubt on the application of the caretaker conventions would be raised with the Prime Minister. Guidelines for Pre-election Consultation with Officials by the Opposition (i) The pre-election period is to date from three months prior to the expiry of the House of Representatives or the date of announcement of the House of Representatives election, whichever date comes first. It does not apply in respect of Senate elections only. (ii) Under the special arrangement, shadow Ministers may be given approval to have discussions with appropriate officials of Government Departments. Party Leaders may have other Members of Parliament or their staff members present. A Departmental Secretary may have other officials present. (iii) The procedure will be initiated by the relevant Opposition spokesperson making a request of the Minister concerned who is to notify the Prime Minister of the request and whether it has been agreed. (iv) The discussions will be at the initiative of the non-Government parties, not officials. Officials will inform their Ministers when the discussions are taking place. (v) Officials will not be authorised to discuss Government policies or to give opinions on matters of a party political nature. The subject matter of the discussions would relate to the machinery of government and administration. The discussions may include the administrative and technical practicalities and procedures involved in implementation of policies proposed by the non-Government parties. If the Opposition representatives raised matters which, in the judgment of the officials, sought information on Government policies or sought expressions of opinion on alternative policies, the officials would suggest that the matter be raised with the Minister. (vi) The detailed substance of the discussions will be confidential but Ministers will be entitled to seek from officials general information on whether the discussions kept within the agreed purposes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, I table the Law Reform Commission report No. 38 on evidence, and in doing so, Mr President, perhaps you will allow me the indulgence of drawing the Senate's attention to the presence in the gallery of the President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Hon. Xavier Connor, AO, QC, who I think deserves the congratulations and commendation of the Senate for the work of the Commission generally and more particularly for the three very substantial reports that we have had tabled this week in this Parliament. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, I present two reports-a supplementary report on the committee's seventh report on the examination of annual reports and the report on the proposed amalgamation of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service-dated June 1987, together with the transcripts of evidence. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. It is often said that one of the strengths of this chamber is its committee system. When a report is brought down and a committee chairman is obliged, by arrangements made in the chamber, to incorporate in Hansard a speech about the report, I have doubts about the importance placed on committees and their reports. Thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours are devoted to the preparation of committee reports. They deserve some attention when they come before the Senate. In the next Parliament this chamber will have to determine whether it is going to take its committee system seriously. It is not doing so now. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my speeches on the two reports. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- EXAMINATION OF ANNUAL REPORTS: SEVENTH REPORT THE ABC'S RADIO RACING SERVICE IN QUEENSLAND SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts that I have tabled to-day is supplementary to the Committee's report entitled Examination of Annual Reports: Seventh Report, the ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland. That report was tabled in the Senate on 17 September 1986. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts resolved to inquire into the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland on 5 December 1985. The resolution was pursuant to Senate Sessional Order 7, which empowers Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees `to pursue or not pursue inquiries' into annual reports referred to them by the President of the Senate. In its submission to the inquiry, the ABC informed the Committee that it was willing to answer questions about its relationship with the Parliament and the general processes by which program decisions in radio are made. It was not willing to give evidence on the adequacy of the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland, which it regarded as a programming matter. The Committee conducted public hearings for the inquiry in Queensland in February 1986. At a hearing in Brisbane on 25 February 1986, summoned witnesses from the ABC refused to answer questions put to them by the Committee. The Committee reported the matter to the Senate in its Seventh Report on Annual Reports. Following debate on the Committee's report, the Senate resolved: That the Senate take note of the report and (a) agrees with the Committee's conclusion that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's approach to the Committee's inquiry was incorrect and that the ABC and any summoned officers of the ABC should have answered the Committee's questions; and (b) asserts that the ABC and any other witnesses to Senate committees have an obligation to co- operate and to answer questions within the terms of reference of Senate Standing Committees and Senate Estimates committees alike; and (c) requests the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to consider in the light of its own evidence and the answers subsequently given by the ABC to Senate Estimates committees whether further investigation is required. In accordance with the resolution by the Senate, the Committee met and decided that further investigation was required so that it could finalise its report to the Senate. It resolved to conduct a further hearing with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Mr David Hill, Managing Director of the ABC, subsequently gave evidence to a Sub-Committee of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in Sydney on 13 February 1987. At the reconvened hearing Mr Hill answered all of the Sub-Committee's questions about the changes to the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland. The Corporation now accepts that it must be accountable to the Parliament. Mr Hill stressed, however, that the ABC's programming integrity and editorial independence are of crucial importance to its credibility and reliability. The Committee agrees. The Committee welcomes the approach adopted by the ABC at the reconvened hearing and in particular its willingness to provide frank and comprehensive answers to the Committee's questions. The ABC's approach is in keeping with the accountability expected of statutory authorities established and funded by the Parliament. With the benefit of the evidence provided by the ABC at the reconvened hearing the Committee was able to complete its report on the ABC's radio racing service in Queensland. The Committee concluded that the ABC's decision to change its radio racing service in Queensland was made mainly for financial reasons. Because of the way in which the ABC implemented changes to the racing service it did not, however, make any financial savings. The evidence also confirms the Committee's initial conclusion that the changes to the racing service were not sufficiently researched and were not efficiently implemented. The Committee suggests that when changes are made to establish programs in the future, the Corporation should take account of the needs of its audience in the various regions in which it broadcasts. I commend the report to the Senate. THE PROPOSED ABC/SBS AMALGAMATION In the Budget Speech delivered on 19 August 1986, the Treasurer announced that the ABC and the SBS would be amalgamated. When making this announcement, the Treasurer stated that the specialised charter of the SBS would be preserved under the amalgamation. He estimated that gross savings from shared facilities, accommodation, equipment and administration in the amalgamated organisations would be about $2 million in the 1986-87 financial year and much greater in future years. The ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986, which was to give effect to the Government's proposal, was passed in the House of Representatives on 17 November 1986 and was introduced in the Senate on 18 November 1986. On 5 December 1986, during the second reading debate on the Bill, the Senate resolved that: (a) this Bill not be read a second time; (b) a merger of the ABC and the SBS not proceed without explicit legislative authority; and (c) the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts report on the Government's reasons for proposing to amalgamate the ABC and the SBS. On 24 February 1987, the Committee tabled an interim report on the reference in the Senate. In that report, the Committee suggested that the words of the Senate's resolution might be open to more than one interpretation. In the circumstances, it had decided on the following interpretation of the reference: The impact of the Government's proposed amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS, with regard to: (a) financial savings; (b) administrative arrangements; and (c) possible advantages or otherwise of a single national broadcaster in Australia. The Senate agreed with the Committee's interpretation of the reference and adopted the Committee's interim report on 18 March 1987. Following the tabling of the interim report, the Committee invited interested organisations, including Government Departments, the ABC, the SBS, trade unions and community groups to make submissions. Other organisations and individuals who indicated an interest in the inquiry were also invited to make submissions. Public hearings were held in Sydney on 16 March 1987 and in Canberra on 25 March 1987 and 1 April 1987. The public hearing on 1 April 1987 was noteworthy because of the appearance before the Committee of the Minister for Communications, the Hon. M. J. Duffy, M.P. This was one of the few occasions on which a Minister of the Crown has given evidence before a Senate Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee. The Minister's informed and frank testimony, particularly on matters of Government policy, was particularly welcome and useful. On 26 April 1987, the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided not to proceed with the amalgamation. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, the Hon. L. F. Bowen, M.P. confirmed to the Committee the Government's intention not to proceed with the amalgamation in a letter dated 22 May 1987. In view of the Government's decision of April 1987, the Committee considered whether it would be appropriate to make a detailed report to the Senate on the proposal of August 1986. After deliberation, the Committee decided that it had a duty to report on the reference unless otherwise directed by the Senate. Moreover, the Committee's report on this matter could be useful if a proposal to establish a single national broadcaster again came before the Parliament. In the unanimous report tabled to-day, the Committee has outlined the main features of the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill 1986 and the proposed organisation of the amalgamated body. Those parts of previous reports of inquiry which have dealt with the possible integration of the ABC and the SBS have also been reviewed. Two key reports on the ABC and the SBS, the Dix Report and the Connor Report, both supported the proposition that there should be one single national public broadcasting organisation. The Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts also has concluded that in the early 1990s there should be a single national broadcaster. In the Committee's view, if multilingual radio and television were brought into the mainstream of Australian broadcasting, the nation's commitment to multiculturalism and the cohesion of Australian society would be enhanced. In its report, the Committee has also outlined the options proposed by the Connor Report for bringing the ABC and the SBS into a closer relationship. Two of these options are discussed in some detail, namely, an option for a National Broadcasting Organisation and another for a separate SBS but with statutory obligations imposed on the ABC and the SBS for close co-operation. Some witnesses suggested that a more appropriate form of amalgamation would be to bring the ABC and the SBS into a partnership under a national broadcasting organisation which would own the hardware and broadcasting equipment. The evidence indicates that this would be an expensive way of establishing a single national broadcasting authority. Other witnesses suggested that the ABC and the SBS should continue for a time as separate authorities, but with statutory obligations for co-operation. This was the option recommended by the Connor Committee. The Senate Committee has found that despite the Connor Report's support of this concept, the ABC and the SBS failed to co-operate successfully until the Government announced the proposed amalgamation. If the ABC and the SBS are going to remain as independent organisations, they will be competing for Government funding and for audiences. Moreover, each has its own methods of operation. The Committee considers that it would be difficult to require the two organisations to co-operate in the absence of an amalgamation, or the prospect of amalgamation in the near future. Critics of the Government's proposals for an amalgamation argued that it would have a deleterious effect on multicultural broadcasting. This argument assumed that the ABC's past neglect of multicultural programming would continue in the new organisation. It also assumed that the management of the SBS would have little influence on programming in the amalgamated body. The evidence submitted to the Committee indicates that it cannot be assumed that the ABC's attitudes to multicultural broadcasting would continue in a new organisation. It is, however, impossible to conclude on this issue in the absence of any programs emanating from an amalgamated organisation. Some witnesses suggested that the current ABC would not be in a sound managerial position to amalgamate with the SBS. Mr Dix, the Minister for Communications and the Managing Director of the ABC, suggested that concerns of this nature are not now as valid as they may have been a few years ago. Other witnesses were concerned that the legislation intended to establish the amalgamated organisation did not contain safeguards and guarantees for the continuation of multicultural broadcasting. The Committee has examined the ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill and has spoken to the Minister about it. Short of giving the Board of an amalgamated organisation directions about programming matters, the Committee considers that the Bill is almost as prescriptive at it can be with regard to ensuring the continuation of multilingual radio and television in Australia. During the inquiry, concerns were expressed that, although multicultural broadcasting might continue in an amalgamated organisation, it would be diminished. The committee has reproduced in the report the reasons why the ABC/SBS Steering Committee advised against including a provision in the Bill for the maintenance of a certain level of multicultural broadcasting. The three reasons were, firstly, that there were insuperable drafting difficulties in trying to specify the quantum of programming; secondly, that the new organisation should not be committed for all time to a particular strategy for providing multicultural services; and thirdly, that the Parliamentary reporting requirements of the Bill would be a more effective way of ensuring that the new organisation adhered to its obligations. The Committee has also reported on the concerns of the organisations of ethnic communities about representation on the new Board. The ABC/SBS Amalgamation Bill does not guarantee that there would be `ethnic' representation on the Board, but the Government gave public assurances that this would occur. A representative of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA) indicated to the Committee that a minority of `ethnic' representatives on the Board would not satisfy the community councils. The Bill makes provision for `ethnic' representation on the ABC Advisory Council, although it does not specify any particular level of representation. Another criticism of the Government's proposal was that it would lead to serious industrial disputation. The evidence shows that industrial difficulties would probably occur as a result of an amalgamation of the ABC and the SBS. These difficulties would be most severe in the area of union coverage. It is likely, however, that industrial difficulties would arise irrespective of when an amalgamation took place or what form it took. Some witnesses also suggested that the proposed amalgamation would not achieve the savings claimed by the Government. Estimates of possible savings were submitted to the Committee by the Minister for Communications. The estimates were sent to the ABC and the SBS for comment. Evidence given by the Minister, the ABC and the SBS indicated that some savings might occur within six months of an amalgamation but that there might also be some short-term costs. The figures for long-term savings, although greater than those for the short-term, were necessarily more speculative. The Committee therefore concluded that it could not determine the precise savings that might be possible in the future. The Committee has also reported the views of witnesses about when a single national broadcasting organisation might be established. The Minister, the Managing Director of the ABC and Mr Dix supported an early amalgamation. The SBS and Mr Connor, although agreeing that there should be a single broadcaster, considered that the time is not yet right, whilst FECCA saw an on-going role for the SBS. The Committee has recommended that there should eventually be a single national public broadcaster, and this should be further considered in the early 1990s. Finally, on behalf of the Committee I should like to express appreciation to those who made written submissions to the inquiry, especially in view of the short period allowed for the lodgment of submissions. The Committee also thanks the witnesses who assisted during the public hearings. Those who made submissions but who did not appear before the Committee may be assured that their contributions were taken into account during the Committee's deliberations. The Committee is grateful for the co-operation of those officers of the ABC, the SBS and the Department of Communications who assisted by providing, at short notice, additional information requested by the Committee. On behalf of Committee members, I record thanks to the Committee staff, the Secretary, Mr T. Brown, the Committee's two Research Officers, Mr N. Bessell and Ms B. Allan and the hard working Stenographer, Miss S. Drysdale. Without their invaluable assistance, the Committee's report would not have been ready for tabling prior to the dissolution of the Senate. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present the 275th, 276th, 277th, 279th and 280th reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I seek leave to make statements in relation to the reports and to incorporate those statements in Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: 275TH REPORT The Committee's 275th Report details the Government's response to the Committee's 238th Report on public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. The 238th Report outlined the findings of the Committee's inquiry into an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General on the administration of public hospitals by the Capital Territory Health Authority. The Committee made 27 recommendations for action to improve planning of hospital services, clinical administration and hospital resource management. The Authority has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, 25 of those recommendations. For example, the Authority has implemented the Committee's recommendations on admission arrangements with the result that: new admission and discharge policy and procedures have been adopted; guidelines on elective admission priorities have been introduced and all clinicians and service related staff are involved in priority setting; and the Authority is encouraging further use of day beds. Two new committees have also been established in the clinical administration field. The Patient Care Review Committee is responsible for the monitoring of hospital services provided and the Clinical Record Committee has been established to monitor the adequacy of clinical records. With regard to the planning of hospital services, community representatives are now included on the Authority and its Boards. Progress on the Authority's planning activities will be reported in its Annual Reports. The Authority is also installing two new computer systems, i.e. the Computerised Administrative Hospital Information System and the Human Resource Management System. When these systems become fully operational the Authority will be able to compare length of stay figures and resources used to detect inefficiencies and to review staff usage in relation to work load. In conclusion, the Committee is satisfied with the response to its 238th Report. In particular, the Committee is pleased that the Authority has adopted the Committee's first recommendation and is introducing management and service practices which will enable its hospitals and nursing homes to apply for accreditation by the Australian Council of Hospital Standards. The Committee feels that there is high value in the accreditation process because of the self examination required of a hospital and associated remedial action in preparation for an assessment. I commend the Report to honourable senators. JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: 276TH REPORT This Report examines the formal response to the Committee's 250th Report, Australia Post-An Audit Discontinued, which was tabled in the Parliament on 17 September 1986. That Report examined the events surrounding the discontinued efficiency audit of Australia Post-Administration of Counter Services. The Committee is generally satisfied with the response. However, the Auditor-General has taken a different view to the Committee in respect of the reporting provisions of section 48f (1) of the Audit Act 1901. The Committee concluded that the previous Auditor-General should have reported under Section 48f (1) and that the Auditor-General should comply with that provision. In the response the Auditor-General states that he considers that there are no unfulfilled requirements imposed on the Auditor-General by the Audit Act in relation to the discontinued audit. The Committee notes the circumstances surrounding this particular audit and acknowledges that a number of operational and administrative changes have occurred in the Australian Audit Office since that time. However, the Committee is of the view that, as a matter of principle, all efficiency audits should be the subject of a report and accordingly reiterates its initial conclusions. I commend the report to honourable senators. JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: 277TH REPORT This Report covers four early efficiency audits of the Auditor-General. The audits ranged from a limited scope audit of the administration of the Export Market Development Grants Act 1974 to the prolonged audit of the administration of the disability and service pensions schemes by the Department of Veterans' Affairs A significant period of time has elapsed since the Auditor-General tabled his findings in these reports. A number of events occurred in that period, which have meant that the Audit findings are of less ongoing relevance. However, it must be noted that, in the case of the Special Youth Employment Training Program, Audit's findings and recommendations regarding the deficiencies of that program appear to have had considerable impact on the revised Jobstart program. The Committee considers that, given the above events and the Committee's conclusions in the Report, it will not be necessary for the Departments and Authority concerned to respond to this Report via the Department of Finance Minute. I commend the Report to honourable senators. JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: 279TH REPORT The Committee presented its 253rd Report, on a proposed computer acquisition by the Australian Audit Office, on 11 June 1986. The report was the first to be presented by the Committee under the terms of its standing reference to investigate and report on proposed acquisitions of automatic data processing facilities by Commonwealth departments or authorities staffed under the Public Service Act. This Report, the 279th from the Committee, documents the Finance Minute which was submitted in response to the Committee's 253rd Report. While the Committee concluded that the proposed acquisition was justified, the recommendations of the 253rd Report emphasised the need for greater scrutiny of ADP acquisition proposals both by the senior management of the proponent agency and by the co-ordinating agencies involved in the approval and acquisition process. The report also stressed the responsibilities of the heads of acquiring organisations, and of the Department of Finance, to ensure that the performance and benefits of these facilities were monitored and periodically reviewed. The Committee is generally satisfied with the response to its 253rd Report. The Department of Finance has agreed to the recommendations on the general issues of benefits and post implementation review. However, the Committee is concerned that the Department of Finance does not see a greater role for itself in monitoring the performance of ADP projects once funding has been approved. The Committee also felt that the measures outlined by the Australian Audit Office for post implementation review were insufficiently detailed and expects the Department of Finance to pay close attention to the conduct of this review when further funding is requested. Report 253 also contained recommendations concerning the `Guidelines for ADP Acquisition' promulgated by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. These are still being revised and the Committee will consider them at a later date. I commend the Report to honourable senators. JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: 280TH REPORT The Committee's 280th Report outlines the findings of the Committee's review of an efficiency audit by the Auditor-General on task cost management in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). The Auditor-General's report, tabled on 19 March 1986, revealed inadequacies in procedures for estimating, allocating and controlling the use of resources within DSTO. These inadequacies, combined with the absence of an effective management information system at DSTO's Central Office, reduced management's ability to monitor and control the deployment of resources effectively at laboratory level. DSTO has been the subject of several reviews since 1979 with the result that at the time of the audit DSTO was addressing a number of shortcomings identified by the Auditor-General. The Committee notes that the Department of Defence has taken action, or is taking action, on the eight recommendations the Auditor-General made in his report. To gain a better appreciation of DSTO's administration and facilities, the Committee inspected the five major DSTO research laboratories in Melbourne and in Salisbury, near Adelaide. During the inspections several matters were raised with the Committee including the commercialisation of DSTO's research and development, recruitment and retention of staff, and the provision of advice by DSTO to the armed services. All DSTO laboratories raised the issue of the gap between the research and development conducted by DSTO and the marketing of the results of that R & D. The Department of Defence does not have the entrepreneurial expertise or overall cohesion between its marketing areas to maximise the commercial potential of DSTO's R & D. There are several options which would assist in closing this marketing gap. One is a proposal suggested by the Aeronautical Research Laboratory (ARL) that a private company, to be called Aerotech, be set up to act as an agent for ARL. Aerotech would seek contracts with national and international aerospace industry and would have the skills in marketing and in legal and financial administration that ARL lacks. Aerotech would retain a percentage of the gross revenue generated by the contracts it obtained and the balance would provide the resources for the Aerotech programs undertaken by ARL and other subcontractors. The Committee is impressed with the Aerotech proposal, however, the Committee believes that it is essential that Aerotech be self-sufficient. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended the implementation of the Aerotech proposal with the proviso that Aerotech must be commercially successful, ie able to cover its own costs and provide income for ARL. The Committee believes companies similar to Aerotech could lead to greater commercialisation of the R & D efforts of the other DSTO laboratories. However, the Committee does not think it should be mandatory for the other laboratories to set up their own technology transfer companies. Without motivation and commitment on the part of the laboratories' staff such companies would fail. The second solution suggested to the Committee during its inspections was the introduction of a `ferret' system similar to that adopted by the UK Ministry of Defence. Under this system representatives of private companies would be installed in DSTO laboratories to search for R & D tasks which have commercial potential. The companies would then make arrangements with industry to develop and manufacture the technology with a percentage of the resulting profit going to the investing laboratory. The Committee sees merit in the `ferret' system but considers that the success of the UK system and its applicability to Australian conditions should be investigated. The Committee believes that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce would be the most suitable organisation to examine the `ferret' system and has made a recommendation to this effect in its report. The Committee believes that the commercialisation of DSTO's R & D would be increased if there was a single marketing body involved instead of the present fragmented structure within the Department of Defence. Since the Department of Defence's main concern is not the export of goods and in view of its lack of expertise in this field, the Committee thinks the marketing body should be within AUSTRADE rather than Defence. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I present reports on the Parliament House Construction Authority annual report 1985-86, the circumstances surrounding the various court actions relating to the Film The Return of Captain Invincible, and the list of Commonwealth bodies, dated June 1987. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator COATES —I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports and to incorporate my tabling statements in Hansard. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. The statements read as follows- REPORT ON THE PARLIAMENT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 1985-86 The Annual Report of the Parliament House Construction Authority for 1985-86 was referred to the Committee as a result of concerns about the apparently incomplete nature of a report by the Auditor-General. The Committee considers that the matter is adequately resolved by the fully explanatory response from the Acting Auditor-General and that the Authority is not in breach of its governing legislation or of the Audit Act in regard to its reporting obligations to the Parliament. CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE COURT ACTIONS INVOLVING THE FILM `THE RETURN OF CAPTAIN INVINCIBLE' The Committee's report deals with issues arising out of the application for judicial review of a decision in 1982 by the then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Tom McVeigh, MP, not to grant a final certificate for income tax concessions for the film `The Return of Captain Invincible'. The Committee has concentrated on what lessons can be learned in all areas of government concerning the legal defence of administrative decisions. In this case, very substantial legal costs were incurred which the Commonwealth will have to pay. The Committee considers that the Department should have alerted the Minister to the course of the case and the consequent mounting costs. This would have allowed early withdrawal from the case and reconsideration of the decision not to approve a final certificate for the film. An early announcement could then have been made of proposed legislative changes to clarify the Parliament's intentions. The Committee believes that Parliament should more often be involved in clarifying its Acts, rather than the Courts doing so, and the report contains a discussion about this issue. LIST OF COMMONWEALTH BODIES The Committee on Finance and Government Operations has had a long standing interest in the activities of Commonwealth Government bodies. The Committee has tabled many reports on inquiries into the activities of statutory bodies and companies, and non-statutory bodies (NSBs) and has, from time to time, produced lists of these bodies. However, the Report I have just tabled today is the first time that a comprehensive list of these types of Commonwealth bodies has been compiled in one report. This Report lists, by ministerial portfolio and also in a single alphabetical index, 463 principal statutory authorities and statutory office holders (as at 1 January 1987), 156 wholly owned, subsidiary and associated companies of the Commonwealth and its statutory authorities and (as at 1 July 1986) 531 NSBs. The Report not only lists together for the first time all Commonwealth bodies identified by the Committee, but also includes more information than previously about each statutory authority and company. For each statutory authority and office holder, 18 types of information have been included in the Report. These include information on management bodies and officials, associated bodies, subsidiary companies, the remuneration of members, staff arrangements, budget dependency, auditing arrangements and annual reporting requirements. The Committee believes that this information will enable the Parliament and the public to gain a clearer picture of the activities of statutory authorities and statutory office holders. The information about each company and incorporated association has also been expanded. Each entry shows the place of incorporation, shareholding, whether the company is limited by guarantee, whether the financial statements are audited by the Auditor-General, whether the company has any subsidiaries and, where applicable, any legislation that establishes, recognises or relates to the company and the parent. As for NSBs, the Committee has merely reproduced in the list those NSBs contained in its 1986 report on NSBs. No up-dating of NSBs has been carried out as another survey of each Commonwealth Government department would be required. This is, at the present time, beyond the Committee's resources. However, the Committee is hopeful that the Government will take up the recommendation in the report on NSBs and establish a central NSB register. This will make the task of keeping track of NSBs much easier. Finally, I would like to inform the Senate of the establishment of a data base for the Committee's inquiry into statutory authorities and government companies. This data base contains the information reproduced in this Report and additional information concerning annual reporting by statutory authorities and some companies and their financial statements. The Committee intends to continue expanding and up-dating the data base. The Committee believes that the data base will allow it to increase the effectiveness of its scrutiny of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of Commonwealth bodies. Senator COATES —Because of the dissolution of Parliament, the Committee was unable to have the list of Commonwealth bodies printed in time for the tabling, so it is not being generally released at this stage. The report, which runs to 327 pages, should be available in two or three weeks. A statement will be issued drawing attention to its general release and copies will then be provided to honourable members, honourable senators and the media. The formal tabling today will allow that early distribution to happen, rather than there being a delay until September. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the supplementary report relating to the development of the new utility helicopter facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Townsville and the provision of 15 new married quarters. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I table five volumes of additional information received by Estimates Committee E. Senator BLACK(Queensland) —I table volume three of additional information received by Estimates Committee B. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of Senator Childs I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-I table the report of the Australian delegation to the seventy-sixth conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in Buenos Aires in October 1986. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —I seek leave-and in doing so my earlier comments are pertinent-to make a brief statement in relation to the report and to incorporate my statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- During the 76th Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, members of the Australian Delegation were particularly active, both formally and informally, in bringing to the attention of other delegates Australia's views concerning the subsidisation of agricultural production and exports, and related issues. The Delegation had sought to bring the matter before the Conference as a supplementary agenda item, but, when that strategy was unsuccessful, we managed to have the matter unanimously accepted as a main topic for debate at the 1987 Conference in Managua. The Delegation will be reporting on the results of that Conference in the next Parliament. I wish to acknowledge the assistance the Delegation received through the Ministers for Trade and Primary Industry and to record the Delegation's thanks to Australia's Ambassador to Argentina and his staff for their ready assistance and support throughout the Conference. I commend the Report to the Honourable Senators and Members. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —by leave-I wish to comment on the Inter- Parliamentary Union Conference report that has been presented by our leader at that time, Senator Colston. I compliment him on the way that he led the delegation. He was supported by Ian Wilson from the House of Representatives, and I compliment them on the contribution that they made to the debates. The speeches that they made are well worthy of consideration. I contributed to one part of the debate. I was a little disappointed at the preoccupation of delegates in criticising South Africa, when they could have been doing something more constructive by considering ways to advise and help the smaller nations on the troubles of their economies. We could have made a much more positive contribution towards assisting the smaller nations of the world. In conclusion, I again congratulate and thank Senator Colston for his leadership. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I wish to take just 30 seconds to say that Senator Colston has been the Parliament's leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and Ian Wilson the Deputy Leader, during the life of the Parliament. Indeed, he may be the leader again in the next Parliament. For the work that he has done and for the manner in which he has represented us at the conferences that he has attended during this Parliament, I wish to place on record our thanks for a job well done. I attended one of the delegations. At that stage, when we tabled the report, we were rushed and there was not time to do all the things that should have been done. I thank Senator Colston. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-The proclamation today dissolving both Houses will bring the work of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, and all of the other committees, to an abrupt halt. The timing of the election is unfortunate because the Committee is close to finishing a long inquiry into kangaroos, a report on which was due to be presented to the Senate in this sitting period. The work on kangaroos has been done concurrently with work on other subjects-first, live sheep exports and dolphins and whales in captivity and, later, animal experimentation and animal husbandry. The work on kangaroos was also disrupted by the retirement from the Senate of three members of the Committee on 30 June 1985. The Committee had to go over some of the same ground again for the benefit of the new senators. Firstly, let me make a few remarks about this difficult and complicated subject of kangaroo management. I will then talk about other matters being investigated by the Committee and the future of the Committee itself. The present arrangements for the control and conservation of kangaroos are unsatisfactory. There is, in my view, justified criticism, both in Australia and overseas, of kangaroo management under the present system. If governments in Australia do not try seriously to deal with the problems of kangaroo management, governments overseas may act by imposing bans on the importation of kangaroo products. This would have a significant effect for the management, welfare and conservation of kangaroos. It is highly desirable that reforms are instituted by government decision in this country rather than by action overseas. However, the Committee does not deny the overseas or international interest because of the unique nature of the species. The Committee, in its report, addresses these matters. Substantial changes may be recommended, but great care needs to be exercised in recommending such changes. The effects of changes have to be examined carefully as to their effectiveness and feasibility. I believe the report, when it is finally tabled, will lead to some further debate and controversy, and it is to be regretted that the Parliament is dissolved before it could be tabled. The Committee secretariat will continue to work on the draft, which leads me to make the point that it is absolutely necessary for this Committee to be reconstituted when the Senate reconvenes. Senator Powell has placed on the Notice Paper a notice of motion in that regard, and she is to be thanked for that. It has emerged from our examination that the protection of wildlife and associated areas may be a national responsibility, and the view developed within the Committee that eventually a standing committee of the Senate on animal welfare may be necessary. I turn to other matters. When the Committee began work on animal experimentation, there was very little information publicly available on the use and care of animals in research and teaching. Most institutions were also reluctant to provide such information to the public, which gave rise to many allegations of cruelty to and abuse of animals. That response was quite natural as it is well known that secrecy breeds suspicion. Since that time, some three years ago, there has been a considerable change in attitude by many institutions towards the use of animals in research and teaching. The Committee takes some of the credit for this change of behaviour. Institutions were required to supply detailed information about their use and care of animals by way of a questionnaire. As those institutions have appeared before the Committee in public hearings, that information has been published. Many institutions have taken the initiative to improve their controls over the use of animals, to reduce the number of animals used, to reduce suffering of animals in experiments and to improve the facilities and care of animals. Some members of the Committee still question whether experimentation should take place at all. The Committee has also been examining intensive and extensive animal husbandry. At this stage, it has restricted its investigation to on-farm husbandry. Other issues, such as the transport, sale and slaughter of livestock, will be examined later in the inquiry. Within animal husbandry there are a number of contentious issues, some of which are international in nature, such as the intensive housing of animals, and others which are national issues that have been raised in overseas forums, such as the mulesing of sheep. Another contentious issue is the production of `white veal', which involves keeping vealers under intensive conditions and feeding them a milk substitute diet. The vealers may become anaemic before they are slaughtered. Hot branding, spaying, dehorning and other topics have also generated debate in recent years. These are important topics for consideration by the Committee and all points of view need to be aired in public hearings. So far, some parties in the debate have had the opportunity to put their cases while others were scheduled to be heard later in the year. It is important that their side of the argument be heard. I repeat: It will be absolutely necessary for the Committee to be reconstituted in the new Parliament, not only to address these issues but also to continue the work in the other areas, such as companion animals; animals in sport, recreation and entertainment; wildlife protection and harvesting, other than kangaroos; and the management of animal welfare in Australia. As I have already stated, the Committee also has in mind a final recommendation for the establishment of a standing committee to continue the parliamentary surveillance of this often controversial and sensitive area of public concern. The Committee has provided, among other things, a national forum for animal welfare issues to be debated by all interested parties. The fact that there has been a parliamentary inquiry into animal welfare has probably helped to keep to a minimum the acts of violence against users of animals which have plagued other Western countries in recent years. I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(11.40) —When I became a member of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare I was literally thrown in at the deep end, with the inquiry into dolphins and whales in captivity. The Committee's work never seems to fit in with elections. When I came to the Committee it had to publish its report on dolphins and whales, and very early in the piece I had to oppose the findings of the rest of the Committee members and come down with a dissenting report. However, I believe that since then I have worked well with Senator Georges. On numerous occasions we have had trips around the country to look at, for example, the kangaroo culling program, and I think on those trips I have come to learn that Senator Georges definitely does have his heart in the animal welfare debate. Senator Georges mentioned in his statement the present work of the Committee, and I agree substantially with his comments. However, I do not necessarily want to panic or alarm any people in the community just because I agree with what Senator Georges has said. I understand why he has made the comments he has about the kangaroo report and has taken the position he has. He has had the liberty of seeing the draft report, and as the rest of the Committee members have not seen it at this stage I am unable to say what my impressions of the draft report are, or what my impressions of the final report will be. I agree that a great deal of evidence has been given; the inquiry has been going on for a long time. Some of that evidence is very contentious. Many of the facts need to be established and it would be wrong of me at this stage to say any more than that about it. I do agree that there need to be changes in some areas of kangaroo management but I do not want anyone out in the community to construe from that that I will support any particular attitude before I have seen that final report. Senator Georges referred to a standing committee on animal welfare. There should be, through the Senate parliamentary committee system, some way of looking at the welfare of animals. There needs to be a forum in which people in the community under attack by militant animal welfare groups can make their comments. Whether this committee would be a standing committee or a select committee or would involve just a reference to an existing standing committee is for the Senate to determine. There are fears in some quarters, especially amongst the productive animal industries and any people who work with animals, that such a committee would be used as a forum for some of the ratbag elements that want to change the world overnight. I think some of these fears are basically unfounded. Everyone should have a chance to come before a committee and have his say. Some bias has been evident in questions asked and in attitudes displayed during some of the Committee's inquiries, and I can understand that such questions have made some people who have come before the Committee unnecessarily hostile. Senator Georges has done a good job as the Chairman. As I have said, I do not necessarily agree with all he says, but his heart has been in the right place. As he said in the final part of his statement, the Committee's inquiries have probably helped the welfare of animals and have kept to a minimum the acts of violence against users of animals which have plagued other Western countries in recent years. I think that the Committee should continue in some form or other, and the work already started by this Select Committee has helped to improve animal welfare in Australia. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.45) —I am a member of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare. I heard part of the remarks of Senator Georges. He has brought a humane and compassionate approach to the Committee and has led it well. He has been ably assisted by Senator Brownhill and by Senator Sanders. They have all been outstanding members of this outstanding Committee. This is a very emotional area. I think that the way in which we treat animals is an indication of the sort of society we are. The treatment of animals affects people who exhibit kindness and compassion about animals and other people and emotions can be raised high about these matters. It is important, therefore, that whatever conclusion the Committee reaches in its report is on the basis of the evidence before it. The report on kangaroos will be delivered on the basis of the evidence before the Committee. If the Committee is reconstituted in the new Parliament, I hope it continues the good work it has been doing. I hope the report it then brings forward on kangaroos is satisfactory to all who have an interest in this matter. Very many people are interested in kangaroos and other animals generally. That is a good thing for the sort of society we want to pursue. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.47) —My membership of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare is a strange departure for me. I have been into anti-nuclear matters and saving trees and rivers and I was hijacked to be on this Committee. From sitting on the Committee I learned that there is a lot to be done on behalf of animals in Australia. I have been acting on behalf of the environment but I find that animals also are in grave danger. There is a lack of respect in Australia for native animals and for animals in general. I think we tend to take them for granted. The Committee has done a number of things. It has presented some reports. More importantly, it serves as a forum for the `ratbag element' to which Senator Brownhill referred. Of course, anybody who does not agree with him or the National Farmers Federation is a member of the ratbag element. On that basis I think it is wonderful that we have this Committee as a forum for those who put the welfare of animals ahead of their personal gain. The Committee travelled from town to town to hold hearings. It attracted the media and the animal welfare people who do not have the resources of the exploiters, the kangaroo shooters and the farmers. They are just interested people and the Committee gives them the forum in which to speak. Unfortunately, we have not accomplished as much as we wanted to. Had the Government chosen to release the report on wallabies in Tasmania we might have been able to analyse it. The report has been prepared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and it has been presented to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, but this Hawke conservative Government refuses to release the report, knowing that it is a bombshell. The report says that things are being done to wallabies in Tasmania which simply would not be tolerated anywhere else in Australia. The Government does not want to tangle with Robin Gray, apparently. It does not want to tangle with the Tasmanians again, so it is going to sit on the report until after the election. It is a horrendous report. It tells, apparently, of the snaring of wallabies, the driving of wallabies and the use of small bore ammunition against wallabies, which wounds and does not kill them. It is an indictment of the attitudes of the people of Tasmania and the conditions in Tasmania in regard to wallabies. Where is this report? Why do we not have it before us? Because the Government is sitting on it and hiding it. A number of instances were brought before the Committee of the Government and its agencies-the State and Federal agencies; the National Parks and Wildlife Ser- vices-giving misinformation, hiding information, and in fact acting on behalf of those who would exploit the animals, the kangaroos, rather than on behalf of the wildlife. This is particularly so if people overseas seek information. They get a very biased view from the Government and its agencies. Also, when the animal welfare groups make claims-substantiated claims-the various government agencies just laugh them off; they do not investigate them. People have come before the Committee with evidence that kangaroo meat was being used in the substitution rackets, that there were permit scams going on in various States, but nothing was ever done. The various governmental agencies just sat back and took no action. Of course, they are controlled by the resource exploiters; that is the problem. Why is the Government hiding the information? It is obviously in its best economic interest to do so. The report on wallabies in Tasmania should be released immediately. If the Government really has any guts, if it really thinks it can go to the people with an environmental message, it must release the report. The Committee should be reconstituted. It is a Select Committee constituted for only a short period. It has done a magnificent job. It is breaking new ground. To my knowledge, there is no committee like this anywhere else in the world and Australia is gaining kudos for this. The Committee was originally set up by the Australian Democrats and the Democrats will be very pleased if the Committee is reconstituted. The Australian Democrats senator for Victoria, Janet Powell, yesterday gave notice of a motion to allow the Committee to continue. I support that move. I think the nation will be far poorer if the Committee is allowed to lapse, and certainly the animals of this nation will suffer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Watson, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard statements concerning the Public Accounts Committee. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL REPORTS As members are aware, Commonwealth Government departments are required to prepare annual reports on their operations. These reports are prepared under sub-section 25 (6) of the Public Service Act and must be in accordance with guidelines from time to time presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister after approval by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. They provide information to the Parliament and the public, and are one means by which public accountability requirements are fulfilled. The Committee in its role of the `watchdog of the public purse' not only examines reports of the Auditor-General but plays a part in establishing the guidelines by which departments themselves report to the Parliament, and the Committee welcomes the opportunity to perform this role. On 27 November 1986 the Public Accounts Committee tabled its 262nd Report on Guidelines for Annual Reports. This Report was prepared after the Committee received a new set of guidelines from the Prime Minister, to replace the 1982 Guidelines. The Committee has now received revised draft guidelines in a letter from the Prime Minister to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee requesting that the Committee consider the revised guidelines. I seek leave to table that letter. Mr R. E. Tickner, MP Chairman Joint Committee of Public Accounts Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Mr Tickner The 262nd Report of your Committee made a number of recommendations regarding the draft Guidelines for the Preparation of Departmental Annual Reports which I submitted for consideration pursuant to the Public Service Act requirement that departments produce annual reports in accordance with guidelines presented to the Parliament after approval by the JCPA. A revised set of guidelines has been drafted incorporating the Committee's recommendations. Departures from those recommendations are for the most part matters of detail or wording. The most significant arises from concern expressed by the Auditor-General and the Department of Finance that new financial reporting requirements will need to be phased in, as departments may take two or three years to develop the capacity to meet them fully. It is likely that the guidelines will need further modification during or after that period, but that process should await developments-in particular passage of the Government's proposed amendments to the Audit Act and completion of administrative work dependent on those amendments. In the meantime, I should like to be able to present to the Parliament an agreed set of guidelines which meets present needs. Accordingly a copy of the revised draft is attached and I should appreciate it if you would arrange for the Committee to consider it. Since the Government and the Committee are in general agreement regarding the guidelines, copies of the revised draft have also been sent to departments, so that in commencing work on their 1986-87 reports they may have an indication of the sorts of requirements they may expect when a final text has been agreed. Yours sincerely R. J. L. Hawke DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORTS General Principles 1. Reports should be accounts of departmental operations during the year under review. Special attention should be given to changes that occurred during the year, and departments may wish to foreshadow expected developments in some areas. 2. The orientation of reports should be towards performance, and the administrative and managerial aspects of departmental activities. 3. Reports should be concise, and achieve a balance between the need to avoid undue repetition of material available to the public elsewhere and the need to provide a comprehensive overview of operations. 4. There should be consistency with information provided by departments in other forms (e.g. in Budget Papers). Any material inconsistencies should be explained. 5. Care should be taken in presenting any comments with a bearing on the operations of other departments or of authorities. 6. The structure and layout of reports should be designed to ensure clarity and public acceptability. AGPS guidelines on standards of production must be observed. Consideration should be given to the advantages of camera-ready production. 7. The detailed content and structure of reports are the responsibility of Secretaries of departments, who should consult their Ministers as appropriate. 8. Reports should be prepared on a financial year basis and be available for the estimates debates in the Budget Sittings. When reports are not available in time, departments should provide an interim statement in A4 duplicated form (not including financial statements which have yet to be audited) for the information of the Parliament. In any case reports should be available within 6 months of the end of the reporting period. Contents 9. Each report should contain (but not necessarily be limited to): (a) a reference to the legislation requiring the preparation of a report, that is, sub-section 25 (6) of the Public Service Act 1922, and an indication (in either the letter of transmittal or in the contents pages) of reports made pursuant to other Acts, which are included in the annual report: (b) a clear statement of the department's goals; (c) a description of the department's structure, with an organisation chart, showing senior officers, regional offices and associated bodies; (d) an account of the department's significant activities during the year, showing the legislation it administers and, in respect of each of its programs: (i) objectives; (ii) results achieved and progress towards the achievement of objectives and targets; (iii) resources used; and (iv) reasons for any significant delays, amendments, deferment or cancellation; (e) an account of the management of the department during the year, including the operation of any major trust funds/trust accounts and other trading and/or cost recovery activities, and, as appropriate, financial and staffing information of the kinds listed in the attachment to these guidelines; (f) information on significant changes to business regulations for which the Minister has responsibility, setting out costs and benefits, including changes in public service resources; (g) an account of activities in the field of occupational health and safety; (h) a report of the implementation and operation of the department's industrial democracy plan, as required under s.22c of the Public Service Act 1922; (i) a summary of the department's equal employment opportunity plan, with performance assessed against it; (j) information on post-separation employment cases handled by the department during the year (in compliance with guidelines issued by the Public Service Board); (k) information relating to the Freedom of Information Act, including information required under s.8 of the Act (covered by separate guidelines issued by the Attorney-General's Department); (l) information on any significant judicial decisions affecting the department or the users of the services provided by the department, and any consequent changes in departmental procedures; (m) information concerning any major reviews of the objectives or structure of the department during the year, the outcome of the reviews and changes or proposed changes resulting from each review; (n) where appropriate, information on the extent and main features of client complaints, indicating any services improved or changed as a result of complaints or suggestions made by clients; (o) reference to other sources of information concerning the department, including publications, policy information and policy discussion papers, submissions to advisory bodies or inquiries, major Ministerial Statements printed in Hansard and major Ministerial or departmental news releases, with bibliographical details and addresses and phone numbers of information officers; and (p) reference to the activities of smaller statutory bodies which are responsible to the Minister and do not produce reports of their own, and information (in line with the response by the Government to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations' Interim Report, or any relevant Government decision announced subsequently) on non-statutory bodies in the Minister's portfolio. 10. Reports of departments providing laboratory services should include information on facilities such as that contained in Volume 3 of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories (the Ross Report). 11. Reports of all departments should reflect the general thrust of the Government's package of administrative reforms and should show the impact of those reforms on departmental operations. Some aspects of the reforms are adequately treated above; the attachment to these guidelines is designed to indicate the bearing of other aspects of management issues likely to need coverage in annual reports. ATTACHMENT A. Management Issues 1. Where appropriate departments should include in their annual reports reference to: (a) their approaches to financial and staff resource management; (b) recent and planned developments, and initiatives instituted, in financial and staff resource management, and progress in implementing the aims and requirements of Program Budgeting (treated in the body of the Guidelines), Staff Budgeting and the Financial Management Improvement Program; here should be included such aspects as: (i) corporate planning structures and resource management strategies; (ii) the impact of consolidation of appropriations and cash limits; (iii) developments in management information systems; (iv) the extent of delegations granted and functions devolved to managers and others; (v) management of staff resources (i.e. comparative data on recruitment, retention rates, exit rates and mode of separation-e.g. resignation, invalidity, retirement); (vi) the relationship between organisational structure and program structure (with specific reference to the allocation of responsibilities between program and functional managers); (vii) cash management reviews; and (viii) developments in financial/staff resource management training; (c) performance measures used, or being developed, in evaluating financial and staff resource management; (d) performance-monitoring activities undertaken by internal units and external agencies; (e) progress made during the financial year in achieving economies; The Committee notes that until certain amendments are made to the Audit Act 1901 it would not be possible to incorporate some of the Committee's recommendations on financial reporting requirements as set out in its 262nd Report. As it is likely that the guidelines will need further modification during the phasing-in period of the new financial reporting arrangements, the Committee will comment further on those modifications at the appropriate time. Further, the Committee is strongly of the view that departments and authorities should report in their annual reports on reviews by the Auditor-General and parliamentary committees, with these reports including recommendations made by these bodies and any action taken to address the recommendations. Such a requirement would enhance the public accountability of the administration and perform a particularly valuable and timely follow up mechanism. The Committee recommends that this requirement be included in revised guidelines and forwarded to departments prior to preparation of 1987-88 annual reports. The Committee has approved the revised guidelines as they currently stand and will continue to monitor future amendments. (3 June 1987) Margaret Guilfoyle was elected as a Senator for Victoria in 1970 and began her first term in 1971. She led a distinguished accounting career before entering politics-background that was to be of great benefit to the Government in which she served and to the Parliament. Margaret's first front bench post was in 1974 and in 1975 Margaret Guilfoyle headed one of the most complicated and demanding Departments of State, Social Security where her accounting and auditing experience were invaluable. From 1980 to 1983 Senator Guilfoyle was Minister for Finance. Margaret's parliamentary career has not been limited to Cabinet work however, she has served on 8 Select, Standing and Joint Committees and this unsung contribution together with her experience as an administrator has been extremely beneficial. Margaret served from 1971-75 on the Public Accounts Committee and resumed membership at the end of 1983. Her grasp of complex financial arrangements has been greatly helpful in the deliberations of the P.A.C. Her firm approach, her charm and dignity and ability to work as a team to improve accountability has endeared her to all members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts across all Party lines. Margaret has decided to spend more time with her family in Melbourne but I am sure that her departure from the Senate will not end her contribution to the public life of Australia. Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Vigor: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-The review of the Australian National Line's performance is the outcome of an agreement between the Australian Democrats and the Government in which we agreed to support the provision of the additional capital of $70.5m for the Australian Shipping Commission provided we received an independent report on ANL's financial performance and future prospects. The report was tabled last night. I appreciate the opportunity to make the contribution I was able to make to that review by discussion with Mr Justice Everett before the inquiry began and I am delighted that the Australian National Line's prospects have considerably improved with the better capital base. I congratulate Mr Justice Everett on his report. Australia is an island continent far from many of its markets and suppliers. Freight costs are a major component in our balance of payments account and contribute heavily to our deficit on invisibles trade. Australian National Line is publicly owned by the Australian people and is a vital link in our coastal shipping and communications. It has suffered over the years from inadequate capitalisation and high costs, and from poor productivity and poor industrial relations. It has also had restraints and obligations on its trading which have restricted its freedom and tied its operations unduly. These restrictions have not yet been solved and I look to the Government to relax the legal constraints which currently form an inescapable strait-jacket for the Australian Shipping Commission. It has been uncompetitive in the market-place and has been obliged to bear a bureaucratic burden which is unrealistic in modern shipping practice. In particular, it has failed to make adequate provision for replacing its ships and lacks the dynamism to compete in the international market. Australian National Line suffered a major loss in 1982-83, caused by an international shipping slump and required government capital of $70m to tide it over. At the same time, Australian National Line began a massive overhaul of its management operations. This report brings good news and is optimistic for the future of Australian National Line. In particular, the line has achieved a remarkable improvement in profitability, in returns on funds and on retained earnings, for the future replacement of ships. It has achieved a turnaround in return of total assets from a 10 per cent loss in 1984 to a 12.3 per cent gain last year and has set its sights on a 21 per cent return on total assets in two years' time. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short table from the report, which gives the profit turnaround. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 7.1 ANL'S PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING COMMERCIAL OBJECTIVES Planned objective 1989 Actual performance 1984 1985 1986 6 months to 31.12.86 Budget 1987 % Return on funds- Return on total assets... 21.2 -10.0 9.9 12.3 Return on capital outlay... 25.1 -32.1 22.6 23.5 Return on net worth... 18.4 - 22.2 20.0 Retention of earnings- Retained earnings/total assets... -41.9 -32.0 -24.6 -27.0 Gearing ratio... 57.5 107.3 91.2 81.8 ($'000) Payment of dividends- Dividends paid... nil nil 5,000 5,000 Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The profit turnaround has been from a $67m loss in 1984 to a $26m profit in 1986. It has also returned to the Federal Government, since its $70m cash injection, $21m in the form of taxes and dividends, which does not include the side benefits of pay as you earn tax from employees and other social benefits which have been derived. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short table from the report. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 8.2 ANL OPERATING PROFIT BEFORE TAX ($'000) 1984 1985 1986 Before abnormal adjustment profit/(loss)... (67,748) 18,824 26,994 After abnormal adjustment profit/(loss)... (11,700) 9,760 18,977 Source: Data compiled by Australian National Line. Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. I commend the Australian Shipping Commission and Australian National Line on their performance and look forward to a long and profitable future for Australia's flag commercial fleet. Question resolved in the affirmative. Assent to the following Bills reported: Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1986-87 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1986-87 Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 Supply Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 Supply Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 Aboriginal Land (Lake Condah and Framlingham Forest) Bill 1987 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 1987 Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented, not in this place but in statements made outside the Parliament. Today's Brisbane Courier-Mail contains an article in which the ex-President of the Queensland Australian Medical Association, Dr Joan Lawrence, claims that I slammed down the telephone during a conversation yesterday about salaries for visiting medical officers at the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital. I phoned Dr Lawrence to take her to task for comments she made in the previous day's Daily Sun in which she claimed that the Federal Government is attempting to close down repatriation hospitals. I spoke to her for about 15 minutes and I repeat to the Senate; that her claim is a malicious fabrication. The Government has committed considerable extra resources to overhauling and revamping the repatriation hospital system to enable it to meet the treatment needs of the veteran population for many years to come. Since 1983, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on capital works, specialised equipment and salaries. We have increased staffing levels and further increases are in the pipeline as a result of the recently completed staffing review involving various departments of the Government. To say that we have done all this merely to close down the hospitals, as Dr Lawrence has said, is a complete furphy and lie. I gave her an unqualified assurance, and I repeat it, that there will be no repatriation hospital closures under this Government nor will any staff be laid off as a consequence of doctors' withdrawal of services. I repeated this message several times to Dr Lawrence but I note that this has not prevented her from repeating in today's newspapers this utter falsehood. Dr Lawrence is the representative of a small group of specialists who are holding sick veterans to ransom in attempts to obtain outrageous pay increases. I put on the public record that the Opposition has appreciated the Government's difficulties in these times and the Government appreciates the co-operation that has been extended to me by the Opposition in attempting to resolve the difficulties about salaries for visiting medical officers. The statements of Dr Lawrence are thoroughly cynical and demonstrate a complete lack of concern for the peace of mind of the frail and aged community. To the extent that her statements have received wide publicity, it needs to be restated in the Senate how unscrupulously she has attempted to use her position to create such concern amongst the frail and aged. I have offered to visiting specialists $69 an hour, an increase of 33 per cent, and agreed also to match any rates offered by the States, so that we do not appear to be, at any point, in conflict with the States on hospital administration. In offering those matched rates or the increase of 33 per cent-whichever is the greater-we will ensure that the doctors receive adequate compensation. Yet these greedy individuals are demanding even more than that which has now been offered by the Queensland Government. These doctors have been trained at the expense of the Australian taxpayer yet their gratitude is shown by their suggestion that whichever government is in power in the next few months will be confronted with the same problem. It would be irresponsible for the Government to move from the offers that have been made in an attempt to get all our repatriation hospitals functioning and to keep our responsibilities to the Australian taxpayer. I have asked Dr Lawrence to withdraw her untrue assertions. She has refused to do so. In the circumstances, I can only conclude that her greed has overcome her common sense. To suggest that the Government or I would be callous enough to close our repatriation hospitals is not only untrue but a reflection on the Government's and my integrity. In Dr Lawrence's Press statements she has lied to the people of Queensland and to veterans. I can only say therefore that she is an unmitigated liar and is unworthy of the respect entitled to a person holding a professional position in the Australian Medical Association. The PRESIDENT —Order! It is with some feeling of regret that I inform the Senate of the impending retirement of a person known over a large number of years to many senators and members. Before the opening of the new Parliament Jules De Smet, `Smokey' to his many friends and acquaintances, will retire after being a Commonwealth car driver since 11 November 1941. On that day, a month before the attack on Pearl Harbour, `Smokey' undertook his first duty in his new career-to drive the recently elected Prime Minister, John Curtin, to the opening of the War Memorial here in Canberra. In the true spirit of the service provided by the Commonwealth car drivers he drove the former Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, back to Parliament House. After such a distinguished and bipartisan start to his career he went on to drive for most subsequent Prime Ministers including Gough Whitlam and, for seven years, William McMahon. His family must have been impressed with `Smokey's' life as a driver as two of his sons, Jules and Rodney, have also become Commonwealth car drivers. I am sure all senators will join with me in wishing `Smokey' and his wife Barbara a long and healthy retirement after a working life dedicated to providing a service to the many senators and members who have passed through the Parliament in the last 46 years. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Mr President, on behalf of the Government I concur with the statement you have made. All honourable senators know the driver in question and we all wish him well in his retirement. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave to make a statement in relation to retiring senators and other matters. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —Very late last night I finished a bottle of whisky in my Parliament House room. I did that to stop my staff drinking it while I am away from here for the next four or five weeks. I wrote some notes on some departmental files in case the worst should happen and, for example, Senator Ron Boswell, the Queensland National Party spokesman on industry matters, should take my place in the next parliament. I want him to have a smooth transition if that should occur. I tidied up a few matters like that and there are now a few things that have to be tidied up, as it were, in relation to the Senate. If I might speak personally for a moment, I think it was 10 years ago that I gave to the political studies conference here a paper in which I drew the analogy between Parliament House and a boarding school. Some senators have come to the end of the term, the end of their lives in this Parliament, and it is appropriate that we should say something about them. Mr President, I would like to begin by referring to your elevation to the high office you now hold. It was a noteworthy elevation in that you are, I think, one of the youngest senators ever to occupy the presidential chair. You have brought to that role a considerable depth of experience on Senate committees, parliamentary delegations and so on which has prepared you for the responsibilities of your position, which you have, in my view, and, I think, in the view of most senators, discharged with considerable distinction. I would also like to mention, in regard to those who are leaving, my former esteemed colleague in the Government, Senator Don Grimes, who was appreciated by all senators from both sides for his great political skills and wit. He retired on the grounds essentially of ill health. I have never seen him looking worse than since he retired! But perhaps that is something he can fix up in the immediate future. His successor as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Evans, continues that difficult task with equal success. As I said earlier, a number of senators here will not be returning to this place. I want to mention today only those who are not returning on a voluntary basis. There will, of course, be others. Those senators who are retiring on a voluntary basis I wish well in their post-parliamentary careers. On our side of politics Ted Robertson is leaving after ably representing the Northern Territory since his election in 1975. He has been a great Territorian and a great representative of the Territory in the Senate. He has been our Whip since 1980 and his approach has been, I think, appreciated by all senators. He has had extensive involvement in a wide range of Senate committees as well as providing considered advice to many senators in relation to the running of this chamber. Gordon McIntosh leaves after representing Western Australia since 1974. Gordon McIntosh and I arrived here together-it was a great day for the Parliament. He, too, has served on numerous committees and his characteristic good humour will be missed. I want to give honourable senators one example of that. Some six months ago there was a vacancy on the High Court. I think that is about the right time. Gordon McIntosh approached my colleague, my Deputy Leader, Senator Evans, and said `Gareth'-I cannot imitate his accent-`have you ever thought of going on the High Court? You would be a very appropriate person for that position'. I use Gareth's words because he told me the story. Gareth felt very flattered by Gordon's knowledge of the legal profession. He felt that at last his talents as a lawyer were being recognised by Gordon McIntosh and felt very warm about the question Senator McIntosh asked him. He was enjoying that feeling when Senator McIntosh said: `After all, you are not going anywhere in politics'. It has to be said that some three months later Senator Evans become Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and some six months later Senator McIntosh is leaving. Ruth Coleman has represented Western Australia since 1973. She served on many Senate committees, including chairing the very important Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce. In 1985 she was absent from the Senate because of ill health. I think every senator admired her courage through that very difficult period. We were very pleased to welcome her back when she returned from her illness. Ron Elstob leaves after serving South Australia since being first elected to the chamber in 1977 and again in 1983. His experience includes chairing the Senate Standing Committee on Publications, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare and, because of his considerable interest in the area, he probably served on the Trade and Commerce Committee as well. From the other side of the chamber Senator the Honourable Sir John Carrick leaves after a distinguished parliamentary career which began in 1970. He was a senior Minister in the Fraser Government-a very good Minister, I think. He was Leader of the Government in the Senate for some time. In that role I did not regard him as good largely because he was singularly successful in getting under the Opposition's skin. As I say, he leaves after a long period of very distinguished service. Sir John Carrick was once described in a profile in what was then the National Times as the nearest thing to an intellectual the Liberal Party had. If the stringent approach and the intellectual discipline he adopted to many issues had been applied to the Opposition with such fervour in the last year or two as it was in his heyday as a Minister, the Opposition would be in much better shape today. Senator the Honourable Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was also a Minister in the former Government, representing Victoria since 1970. There is always debate in the Liberal Party about whether one can get the perfect businessman to come into politics and represent the views of the business community in an articulate way. It is my personal view that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has been that person for the Liberal Party for a long time. She brought great skills and, again, intellectual stringency to her role as a Minister. She was a very fine Minister for Finance. Throughout her career she brought both dignity and good humour to this chamber. I certainly will miss her very much if only for no other reason than that we have enjoyed a mild flirtation across the chamber for a very long period, which is pretty refreshing when I have to look at the rest of you from day to day! I was tempted by that into an excursion into the world of art in 1977 or 1978 when a number of politicians were asked to do a drawing for an exhibition. I did a drawing which depicted about 25 crude pigs, drawn with concentric circles, and with trotters and tail on them. In the middle of those pigs I had placed a cutout photograph of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, looking very pretty, if I might say so. I called that picture `Still Life in the Senate-a View from the Opposition Benches'. I do not like to boast on this occasion, but it won first prize in the Warrnambool Art Gallery exhibition of drawings by politicians. I have never drawn anything since and I never will because it was a hole-in-one and I do not believe I could do it again. That drawing is my personal tribute to you, Senator. I know where the original hangs. Perhaps I will buy it back and give it to you one day. Reg Withers represented Western Australia continuously for over 20 years, holding major parliamentary and ministerial positions. At various times he was Chairman of Committees, Government Whip and Leader of the Government in the Senate. I suppose that I will remember Reg Withers best because he was a tough, shrewd politician-a professional politician, in a sense. There are two experiences in my life when I have run into tough politicians. I remember once when I was a minority of one in the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party in the late 1960s one of the power brokers there said to me: `You're not a bad bloke. Just never ask any favours of me. They'll never be delivered.' I remember that conversation. I remember also a conversation with Reg Withers in 1976 after the Labor Government had been defeated and he had become Minister for Administrative Services. In that role he had all sorts of functions, such as allocating pencils, blotting paper, typewriters and all those sorts of things. In the first conversation we had I said: `Reg, would it be possible for me to get a new typewriter in my office?'. He looked at me and he said: `I think so. You are now where you ought to be, and I intend to see that you stay there. I see no reason why you shouldn't be happy'. I do not forget those sorts of conservations and I have not forgotten that one. I want to say one other thing about Reg Withers. This is a political opinion, but I think that, with all the people in this chamber who ought to have pimples on their tongues for one reason or another, Reg Withers is a politician who was most unfairly treated when he was removed from the Fraser Ministry. If I might be anecdotal again, I said to him on that occasion: `Reg, you know the line from the T. S. Eliot play: This last thing is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason'. I said: `That's what happened to you, Reg'. And he said to me: `Who's T. S. Eliot?'. I have referred to three distinguished Liberal Party senators. I must say that this week and last week, when foreign journalists and visitors to this country would ask me `Where is the talent in the Liberal Party?' I used to say: `On the back bench; they've been put there'. Now I say: `They're on the back bench or they are leaving'. The Liberal Party is losing three great contributors to this chamber in the three senators whom I have mentioned. Bernie Kilgariff leaves after representing the Northern Territory since 1975. He has been Whip in both government and opposition. Again, his contribution to the Senate is well recognised. I do not know why we always have two Northern Territory Whips, but we seem to manage it. Colin Mason has represented New South Wales for the Australian Democrats since 1977. He has been Deputy Leader of his party and has served on several Senate committees-and he has driven us all mad about the ozone layer. We will remember him for his very strong contributions to the things he believes in and we wish him well in his retirement. George Georges has represented Queensland for many years with the Government and, more recently, as an Independent senator. He knows a lot about the Senate chamber. I have said on previous occasions that, in the time that I have been in the Senate, George has been the man who has been capable of making the most dignified speeches at times of great difficulty. I will remember him for that. I am very angry with him at the moment. He should not be sitting there as an Independent senator, but that is his choice and we want to remember the good times and the times when George made a great contribution to the Labor movement and the Senate. The people I have referred to are all retiring voluntarily. There will, of course, I remind honourable senators again, be involuntary retirements, about which we cannot speak. I must say that we are on radio at the moment, not colour television. If we were on colour television viewers would have been able to see the faces of Opposition senators when I mentioned involuntary retirements. One needs to see it in colour-faces going from yellow to green and back to yellow like a set of traffic lights half broken down or a big gorgonzola cheese. Whatever the fate of those who are involuntarily retired, I wish them well, too. Many people contribute to the work of the Senate. Mr President, your own role as President has justified the trust of the Senate in electing you to that position. You have been most ably assisted by Senator Hamer, in his capacity as your Deputy and Chairman of Committees, and by the various other honourable senators-including several retirees from both sides of the House-who have served as Deputy Chairmen of Committees. I would also like to pay tribute to the officers of the Senate for their efforts to deal effectively with all the matters that should properly be considered by the Senate. I would like particularly to express my gratitude, and that of the Government, to the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and other parliamentary officers. I mention in the same context the Hansard staff for their diligent and painstaking work in listening to us; the Parliamentary Librarian and his staff for the service they have provided to honourable senators; and the Secretary and various members of staff of the Joint House Department. These people have all contributed to the smooth working of this place, and I thank them on behalf of all senators for that. As this is a time when things distance us in some ways-although that gap can be bridged-I would like to wish all senators and parliamentary staff well in the future. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I wish to join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) in most of the remarks that he has made in thanking you and many other people in the Senate who have served us during the current Parliament. I express the regret that the early election which has been called by the Government has deprived a number of distinguished senators from serving out the balance of their terms. Indeed, all of the senators who are retiring are retiring a year earlier than was expected. I must say that I got great satisfaction from Senator Button's kind view of the Liberal senators who are retiring. Indeed, it seems to me that he has had a conversion about those members which is nearly as great as John Singleton's conversion on Medicare. I hope that Senator Button has the same kind feeling towards those of us who come back here and who will occupy the Government benches in five or six weeks time. May I refer to those very notable Liberal senators who are leaving the Senate today. The fact is that two leaders of my Party in the Senate, Senator Withers and Senator Sir John Carrick, and a leading senator, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who was the first woman to hold both Cabinet office and portfolio responsibilities in an Australian government, are leaving us, as is a Whip for whom we all have the most enormous affection, Senator Bernie Kilgariff. That makes the otherwise joyous business of leaving the Parliament for the time being a matter of great regret for us. All of the honourable senators I have referred to have given particularly distinguished service to Australia, to their respective States or Territory, to this Senate and, of course, to the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Reg Withers was the President of my Party when I was a relatively youthful member of it. He succeeded a notable Western Australian, Sir Shane Paltridge, to this place when Sir Shane died. He has served since 1966, with a brief break because of the gap between his temporary appointment and his eventual election to this place. I think that what has been said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate about Senator Withers is substantially in accord with my own views of him. I think Senator Button left out some of the other aspects of a most complex man. Senator Withers had a great affection for history and I think, among senators in this place, he had more capacity to see what was happening in a longer term way than perhaps the rest of us did. He was unfailingly amusing. Indeed, one of the things he had to say during the difficult days of 1975 was a tribute to one of the other retiring senators, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I was Whip at the time and I well recall that, as we were going through that process which caused some ill-feeling between senators on the two sides of the House, Reg Withers, when talking about the nervousness of some people, making a comment which would not be permitted in these non-sexist days, said: `The trouble is, Fred, the only men in this place are the women'. I think he was referring to the response at that time of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. This typified his approach to both the honourable senator and to his colleagues in this place. Reg Withers is also one of the minority of people in this place who have seen war service. He served Australia as a member of the Royal Australian Navy. He served his Party with very great distinction. He was President of the Liberal Party of Australia in Western Australia and he was the Senate leader during some historic times in this place from 1975 through to 1978. I share the view that the Leader of the Government in the Senate expressed. I put that view very publicly at the time of the loss of his Ministry in 1978. I thought that was very unfortunate. It was a check to his career which I thought was not at all appropriate. I think it is worth noting at this time that when Malcolm Fraser came back to this place for his farewell dinner he acknowledged a small number of things about which he felt great regret, and that particular episode was one of them. I regret that Senator Withers's career in politics received that very substantial check in 1978. I thought it was wrong at the time and said so. I hope for Senator Withers what I hope for all retiring senators, and that is that they will enjoy the same happy post-political life as my father has enjoyed since he retired involuntarily from this Parliament in 1969. So I say to Reg Withers, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Senator Sir John Carrick and Bernie Kilgariff, that I hope that they will enjoy with their respective spouses many of the things which we complain about not having time to enjoy when we are here. Yet, for some peculiar reason, we fight so hard to retain all the disadvantages of office. I do not wish to speak at length about Senator Sir John Carrick because he was not anxious to be the subject of discussion in this sort of fare- well speech. But I want to pay tribute to him. Like Senator Withers, he continued to serve in the Senate after being leader in this place. I think that is a particularly difficult task to undertake. I would like to acknowledge the very considerable assistance and support that I have enjoyed from Senator Sir John Carrick. I would like to express my personal admiration for him. Again, I agree with what Senator Button had to say about John Carrick. Again I point out that he served his country with distinction in a number of ways. He saw war service. I think his leaving means that only Tom Uren remains among the ex-prisoners of war who are members of this Parliament. Sir John Carrick's record is there for all to see. He, too, served his party with distinction before coming to this place. He was for a very long time the General Secretary of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party. He served with great distinction in that way. I think, in government though, he would be remembered, and would want to be remembered, not so much for the fact that he led in the Senate, although he did that with great distinction, but for his contribution to education. I think it was a life-long interest of his to see improvements in the education system in Australia. He devoted an enormous amount of time and attention to that subject. I would like to acknowledge his contribution to the education system of Australia and, perhaps to a slightly lesser extent, his assiduous work in trying to improve the operation of the Federal system in this country. There are many things that can be said about most politicians in common. But one thing that I think was outstanding about John Carrick was his patriotism. That may seem an odd thing to say about a politician and I suppose all of us should be patriots but it seems to me that in Sir John Carrick there is a burning patriotism which I certainly found to be a very great inspiration. I am very sorry that he is lost to this place. Mr President, I would again like to refer to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who has had an outstanding career in this place. It was noticeable that Government Ministers were much less likely to respond in any unkind way to any proposition that she put forward in debate. This was no doubt a clear indication of the respect for her that is evident from the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I share the views which he has expressed about her. I was in government with her for some time. Her contributions within Cabinet were always of the same order as her contributions in this place. I believe that her retirement will be a great loss. I am glad that it appears that she will be replaced in this place by another female representative from Victoria. I look forward to seeing a similar contribution from her successor. May I say on behalf of all of us that we have found Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle an improving influence upon us. I hope that it will be a lingering influence and not one which will terminate with the dissolution of this Parliament. I think Senator Kilgariff should spend the next two years sitting down and talking to one of Australia's oral historians. I think one of the pleasant changes which have occurred is that now a good deal of history is collected on tape. Having on a number of occasions talked with Senator Kilgariff about the early days in Alice Springs, I can only say that those accounts should not be lost to Australia. If anything, Bernie has had probably the longest career in politics of any of those senators who are retiring. He was first in the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory in 1960. He served in that place for eight years. He was a member for Alice Springs in the Legislative Assembly from 1968 to 1975. He was the Speaker in 1974 and 1975 and the Executive Member for Finance and Law in 1975. He then came to this place as a senator in that year. He has long served as our Whip. I think he has brought to that task personal qualities which have caught the affection of all of us. I would like to acknowledge his support and assistance over the time that I have led my Party in this place. I would like to thank him very sincerely for an outstanding personal contribution. He will be very sadly missed. I will be more brief about senators from the other side of the chamber who are leaving. I am brief not out of any disrespect but because they have already been spoken of by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I will do little more than wish them well in what I hope will be a very long and happy retirement. I believe that Senator Gordon McIntosh is a loss to this place because he represents a strand of the Australian Labor Party which is now less well represented here. I do not refer to his faction-I do not mean that at all. I refer to the fact that he came into this place as a skilled tradesman. I know that there are other skilled tradesmen here representing the Labor Party. But there will probably be fewer now than there have been in the past. I have always found what Senator McIntosh has had to say about industrial relations and attitude to the work which is required in a modern society of great assistance. I hope that he will find in retirement some outlet for the very considerable skills which he had as a tradesman and the experience which he brought to this place-experience which I think should be represented here. Senator Coleman is regarded with great affection and great admiration by us all, not least because of her courage in recovering from her illness and coming back to this place under very great difficulties. That in a sense is an indication of the character which she brought to the Senate-a great toughness and, I think, a concern for individuals. Again, we will miss her. I wish Senator Robertson well. I got to know him well when for a time we were members of a committee which was concerned with Aboriginal affairs. I think it would be true to say that those of us in this place who have shared an interest in the subject of Aboriginal affairs enjoy some bonds even if at times we take violent exception to each other. As Whip for the Government, Senator Robertson has had a lot to do with the Opposition, in terms of the negative and positive aspects of our dealings together. Ted, I just say to you that I wish you well in retirement. I want to acknowledge the enjoyment that I had in those early years when we camped in the Territory and helped to inform ourselves about the plight of Aboriginal Australians which we then tried to tackle in this place. I was going to say something about Senator Georges. However, I am told that he is going to tell us later about whether or not he will seek to come back to this place. The final person I should mention is Senator Elstob. Senator Elstob caused a great deal of suspicion in our Party through his obvious affection for and close relationship with Senator Shirley Walters because of their common interest in committee activities to do with welfare and other matters. I think Senator Elstob will always live in our memory as the senator for brown dogs. All I can say is that I am very glad that it was a Labor senator, and not a Liberal senator, who said that. I suspect that the trade union movement is such that its members would have been out for a very long time had it been a Liberal who had cast aspersions on the work of the staff in the kitchen rather than a member of the Labor Party. We wish him well in his retirement. I also join with the Leader of the Government in thanking the very many people in this building who make the Senate function and who provide services for senators. The Hansard staff I always feel are to blame for the endless discussion that goes on here. If they stopped writing it down we would probably stop talking. I acknowledge the very heavy burden they bear with the extended sitting hours which have been inflicted on us by the Government. I thank them for their patience and for the level of their performance. I thank the Parliamentary Library staff and the others who service our requirements, in the transport area and so on, the attendants and the very many others, including `Smokey' De Smet, who is retiring as a Commonwealth driver after 46 years. I hope that he is not retiring to write his memoirs. I am sure that he could seriously embarrass many senators and members if he did. Senator Button —Particularly you; speak for yourself. Senator CHANEY —I have managed to avoid that difficulty. I have omitted to mention Senator Mason. I simply wish to say of Senator Mason, in addition to wishing him well on behalf of the Opposition, that I am sure that he retires with a feeling of satisfaction that the inquiry into the Chamberlain matter has been concluded. I suppose each senator tends to be identified with particular issues, and I acknowledge Senator Mason's very great interest in the Chamberlain case. The fact that that case has now been dealt with in the way it has was no doubt contributed to by Senator Mason, and I am sure that he will take that knowledge into his retirement with considerable satisfaction. I want to give Senator Mason the satisfaction of knowing that he has always managed to annoy me quite intensely in a way which, on reflection, I have never been quite able to explain to myself. However, in common with other senators, I have found him more irritating when he is disagreeing with me than when he is agreeing with me. I suspect that in his retirement there will be few occasions for disagreement, and I look forward to enjoying his company on a more general basis. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —As everybody is aware, the Thirty-fourth Parliament is drawing very quickly to its conclusion because of the election which is upon us. I say at the outset that we in the National Party, particularly I, will not be telling any lies about the Government. We find that the truth does us just fine. When we talk about people in this place at times such as this, in our traditional valedictories, the truth also does us just fine. We can fight like Kilkenny cats, as the saying goes, across this chamber and yet still build up a respect for each other as people. One of the salutary lessons to be learnt in this place and, one of the lessons that I have learnt, and I have said it before, concerns the ability to treat people and talk to them for the qualities that they have and not for the political beliefs that they espouse. This is one of those times when that precept is to the fore. I shall briefly mention those who are departing voluntarily. Many fine things have already been said about Senator Sir John Carrick, and I could not but endorse them. He is one of the people whom I looked on with awe when I first came here-a man who has served his country well in both peace and war. I never cease to be amazed at his mental capacity. Indeed, Senator Button alluded to that. He has an ability at very short notice to speak at length and with great depth on any subject, and an ability to quote Shakespeare quite accurately and quite devastatingly, which he does quite often. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is another person on whom I looked with awe when I first came here as a very new and very junior member of the then Government. She had the ability to put her case with firmness and in such a manner that nobody dared tackle her afterwards. I do not know whether it was because of the qualities that Senator Button attributed to her, whether everybody thought they might like to have a secret affair with her across the chamber or what, but nobody was under any illusion about the fact that she was fair dinkum in what she said and knew all about it. For that reason she played a very good part in her Government and, indeed, in opposition has helped us with her vast knowledge of the business community, accounting procedures and the economy in general. Senator Kilgariff is also leaving us. I notice that both the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip are from the Northern Territory. Whether that ability to stare down buffaloes and wrestle crocodiles equips them better to handle the troops or either side of this place, I do not know. Bernie has been a good friend of mine. We both came here in 1975. We both did some trips in the Territory together. I can still see the nose locker coming undone on the Beech Baron on takeoff point at the Galliwinku airstrip. I remember my suit carrier flying out over the top of us as we came screechingly to a halt. We had some good times in the Territory when we were both just back benchers and had a little more time. Both Senator Kilgariff and Sam Calder taught us a lot in those days when we were trying to come to grips with the Aboriginal problem. His and Sam's input meant that better legislation resulted. I do not say that any of us were completely happy with it, but their knowledge contributed greatly to what was done at that time. Senator Withers is not here; he has already gone. Much has been said about his contribution and the circumstances which overtook him halfway through what was a very good career. One thing that I always admired about him was his knowledge of the Standing Orders. I remember that at a time such as this, when the Parliament was about to rise and the then Opposition, predictably, was doing what we have been doing for the last week-trying to hold things up-through some quirk and his very good knowledge of the Standing Orders, he caught the then Opposition like a football team, running completely the wrong way, and he had the legislation and us out of this place in 10 or 15 minutes flat. It was a lesson for young back benchers. As for Senator Mason, I have always had a love-hate relationship with the Australian Democrats. It still continues, quite often with more hate than love. As a matter of fact, my staff tell me that my best speeches in this place are made when I follow immediately after a Democrat, because I am completely riled and ready to go. Senator Mason has made his contribution. It has been good working with him, not just as a senator but as a person. I come to members of the present Government. Much has been spoken about Senator Ruth Coleman's courage and I could not but reiterate that. I recall that when she returned to this place after her illness I gave her a peck on the cheek and said: `It is great to see you back'. Having done that, I asked: `Could you have imagined when you first came here as a red hot left wing firebrand that a National Party senator would deign, or even be allowed, to peck you on the cheek?' She said: `No way'. That is indicative of the trust and the appreciation that builds up between us on both sides of this place. Senator Gordon McIntosh was indirectly responsible for teaching me a very early lesson, particularly on parliamentary delegations. It was this: `Watch how much you drink and never pass up a loo'. I was in the delegation in 1976 to South East Asia. Gordon was part of that delegation, as was Keith Johnson. Timor has always been one of Gordon's passions. On one morning we had gone from one place to another. At every place we visited we were given either a fruit drink or a cup of tea, and we had no rest breaks on the way. We spent an hour with President Suharto. That was just after Indonesia had invaded Timor. The next visit after that was to the then Minister for Defence. Gordon and Keith Johnson were just waiting to get into him and I was just waiting to get out. As I say, I learnt very early. Interestingly, we were both members of a delegation last year when liquid was involved in a different way. Most honourable senators are aware of my drinking habits, or lack thereof. I was the deputy leader of the delegation to Poland. We used to have two toasts in warm temperature Vodka before lunch and two afterwards. That was quite an experience for me. Senator Robertson is from the Northern Territory. As one of those exclusive members of the ex-Whips club, I know what it is like, as do a few others, to be a Whip and put up with the turmoil, travails and plain shenanigans of one's colleagues as they sink to whatever depths to make the job harder. The Whips have to get on well together; otherwise this place does not function. Even though Whips do have their differences they soon have to overcome them for this show to keep on the road. I have had experience of working with Senator Robertson and Senator Kilgariff in that role. My old wharfie mate, Senator Elstob, and I are members of the early breakfast club, are we not? We are usually the only two people in Parliament House for such an early breakfast. We generally solve the world's problems before many of our colleagues are out of bed. It has been good to work with all those who are retiring. I am not sure what to say about Senator Georges because he has not indicated what he intends to do. However, those honourable senators who are aware of the Queensland situation, and the fact that my pre-selection has not been settled, know that what I might say about Senator Georges could well have a bearing on that. Suffice it to say that Senator Georges's philosophy and mine do not touch in many places, but he has build up a respect in this place as being a hard working senator and a man of integrity. Indeed, it is probably because of his integrity that he is in such a position today. No matter what happens, I wish him well. Undoubtedly we will see him up in the Maleny district at some stage. However, when I am in full flight making a speech, I ask him not to pull me up again with some remarks about Collard's curse. That is a joke between Senator Georges and me. To all the staff who have served us faithfully and well, I could do nothing else but agree with the statements made by Senator Button and Senator Chaney. This place could not function without the efforts and dedication to this place of staff. It certainly calls for effort over and above the call of duty. If we are here for long hours, they are generally here for longer hours. They do a tremendous job. I thank the attendants, the staff in the refreshment rooms, the Parliamentary Library, the printers, the transport officers and the drivers. They make a tremendous contribution. As we come to the end of the Thirty-fourth Parliament for an election I have noticed in the past few days that Senator Button, with his usual leadership qualities, sought divisions on our amendments more often than he should have done. I can only take comfort from the fact that he did so to allow Government senators to get used to sitting on this side of the chamber. I wish all honourable senators on this side of the chamber all the best for the coming election. I wish Government senators a little less of the best in the next few weeks. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —Mindful of the travel arrangements that a number of honourable senators have made, I shall speak briefly. I wish to associate the Australian Democrats with the views put by Senator Button, Senator Chaney and Senator Collard about those honourable senators who are leaving this place. One of the aspects of this place is that, regardless of the political party of which we are a member, we tend to meet most honourable senators in various places. For example, I have served for the last two parliaments on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform with Senator Sir John Carrick. I have always found that his understanding of the electoral system was matched on the Government side by Senator Robert Ray. Listening to the two of them has always been an interesting exercise. I suppose that all honourable senators could have an individual debt of their own to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Senator Coleman, Senator McIntosh, Senator Elstob and other senators whom we meet time and again in various places. The two senators I wish to mention are Senators Kilgariff and Robertson. Having sat with them in the Government Whips office every day that the Parliament has met for the past six years to work out a program-sometimes we wondered why we were doing so because nobody seemed to be taking any notice of what we were doing-I am very much aware of the enormous amount of work which those two senators have put in behind the scenes. Both Senator Kilgariff and Senator Robertson, who changed places half way through my time as the Democrats Whip, have done that job with a tremendous amount of efficiency and expertise. When one wanted anything they were always there. Honourable senators probably do not realise that being on the job all the time that the Senate is meeting is a pretty strenuous and demanding task. Hence I make special mention of the role that they have played in assisting this chamber in its work. I also wish to make special mention of Senator Mason who is retiring. Senator Mason was elected in 1977, along with Don Chipp. They were the first two Democrat senators. Their hard work enabled the Democrats to obtain a balance of power in a subsequent election. Colin is known for a number of things in our Party, not the least of which is his sense of timing in party rooms. He was a writer of international standing before he entered Parliament. With his impeccable sense of timing he will have a book out on the stands two weeks after the election. Having spoken to Colin about that project, I am confident that he is back into his former career with a great deal of swing and expedition. He is a multi-talented man, a person who can get under people's skin but at the same time, as we Democrats know, he has tremendous compassion and thoughtfulness and, whenever the going gets tough, will always arrive in one's office for a quiet word of support and encouragement. That is something which I and other Australian Democrats will long remember him for. On behalf of the Democrats, I also thank the staff of Parliament House from the Clerks downwards. The Australian Democrats, as a small party in this place, obviously rely much more heavily on the staff than the major parties do. Staff members have always been willing to supply us with information and assistance. Indeed, they go out of their way to do so. I would like to thank Hansard. I have often thought, sitting in this place, that the Hansard reporters should have a compulsory test for brain damage at least once a year because they have to listen to all our speeches, whereas we can retire to our rooms and not listen to the other speakers. I also thank the transport officers, who always manage to get us where we need to be on time, and all of those who manage to make this place work. The Australian Democrats expect to be sitting in these seats after the election staring across at whichever party is in office. Having asked questions now of the conservative Fraser Government and the conservative Hawke Government, I have received exactly the same answers from Ministers, irrespective of the party to which they belong. It might have something to do with the seats rather than the people. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish people well in the coming election. As Senator Button has said, undoubtedly some people whom we have not mentioned here today will be missing after the election but, with next year being the bicentennial year and with the opening of the new Parliament House, I expect that with any luck we will see our old friends back here again during that period of celebration and we will be able to renew old acquaintances and find out how their careers in retirement have been going. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I am very conscious of the time constraints that have already been mentioned with regard to travel arrangements. I am also conscious of the number of my retiring colleagues who also wish to speak to the Senate today. However, I cannot let the occasion pass without expressing my thanks to those who have made very generous comments about the voluntary retirees. Perhaps I ought to say first that the comments of Senator Button amused me because we always have had a friendly relationship, across the chamber, and his prize winning entry was something that flattered me when I first saw it in print as being his concept of those who sat opposite him. I can remember many more things than that of my association with Senator Button. I also thank my leader, Senator Chaney, for his generous comments. It is not a time to reflect on all those things that have been said so generously. But it is a time to reflect on my coming here in 1971 and the fact that I was conscious then of the many people who had made a magnificent contribution to the Senate prior to my arrival. There has been almost a complete turnover of membership of the Senate since I came, so I have served with some who had already had long careers and others who have passed through for a briefer time during my term here. Today I am even more conscious of those who will serve in the future. The time that I have been here has been a very rewarding personal experience, one that at times stretched the capacity; but I say without undue modesty that I think I worked within my capacity. That meant that it drew the best from me of whatever I could contribute, and I hope that my concept of that is shared by others who worked with me. During the time that I have been privileged to be a member of the Senate I have had established in my mind a very remarkable degree of understanding of the work that goes on behind the scenes to make this place function effectively and, as a former Minister, I am very well aware of what goes on behind the scenes to produce sound government in this country. In saying both of those things, I pay tribute to the people who either serve the parliament or work to government as officers in the departments. It is a complex process, but it is one that we ought to treasure in working to produce sound government, regardless of whether it is my Party or another party that is chosen by the people. The officers who served in the departments that I administered contributed their talents, ability and experience, and I am very grateful to them. I am also grateful to all those in this place who have helped, whether it is those who send cars to bring us to work or those who make our jobs possible throughout the working day in the life of the Senate. A lot of gratitude is to be expressed today to all those who, on my way through, have assisted me. I am conscious of the fact that when I came here I was one of two women in the Parliament, but now there are many more women in this place and the other House. To me that has the significance that it will be more acceptable in the future to understand that ultimate responsibility is able to be handled by women. It was said that I was the first to hold a Cabinet post and administer a department-that might be true-but it had to be very important that I was not the last. I have watched with great interest the way in which Senator Ryan has handled her difficult and interesting portfolio, and I will be even more interested in watching the women who follow in the future to see that their contribution is recognised and is not in any way segregated from the overall contribution that must be made by people handling extensive portfolio work. On a personal note, I simply express my thanks to my family for their support and to my personal staff for the way in which they have supprted me; some of them have been with me for a very, very long time. Without their unselfish support I would not have been able to do the job that I have been able to do. I use this occasion to express my gratitude for all the support that I have had, whether it has been at a professional level or at a personal level or from the members of my family. Now, I will have an opportunity at this election to watch with more interest than I have for so many campaigns when I have been part of them. I am often amazed at what people have seen on television-programs that I did not even know had been produced. On this occasion I might be able to see a little more of it. My instinct is that it will be a most interesting election and one that I see as vital. I hope that the people of Australia identify the issues and vote in the way that I think will be best for the future of Australia. In conclusion, I use this opportunity to express my gratitude and offer my congratulations to those who have served and my best wishes for them in their retirement, and every good wish to those who are the contestants in the forthcoming battle. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate for their comradeship, especially over the last few weeks. I would like to make special mention of my electorate staff and all the staff in the Parliament, particularly the research staff. In reflecting on when one came into the Parliament, one thinks of many things and wonders what one should say. Something that stuck in my mind some time ago was that a person in a position of power and responsibility said that in government one cannot afford the luxury of the principles one holds in opposition. I felt very sad for that person because I think he lost a bit of his humanity. Then I began to think more about it and about what had happened. I remembered a book that I had read by Aneurin Bevan, called In place of Fear, in which he talks about the time he first walked into the House of Commons. As he walked along those passages and corridors of power he noticed the portraits on the walls and the statues, and he said: `They were not my forefathers. My forefathers were in the fields ploughing for them'. To think further about that, when the House of Commons was first brought into vogue by Cromwell, it was not the common people who were in the House of Commons; it was the privileged people; it was people who wanted to perpetuate the Establishment. They were the people who were in the House of Commons, and it was many years before the common person entered the House of Commons. By that time the bureaucracy was in place, complete with the Sir Humphreys, and the perpetuation of the Establishment continued-diminishing, yes; I do not think there is a better system than the Westminster system, and I do not know of anything to replace it-but it is still there and it manifests itself in many ways, in, for example, the field of human rights. I have heard many people in this Senate talk about the rights of the blacks in South Africa, and rightly so. I agree with them. But it seems rather selective when we think of the people in Timor who were robbed of their rights. I hear people talk about what happened in Afghanistan, and I agree with them. But they do not say too much about Nicaragua. We do not give dejure recognition to the incorporation of the Baltic states. I think that is sound. But it is rather ironic that on the fortieth anniversary of the removal of the colonial yoke of the Dutch from Indonesians, we gave dejure recognition to their placing it on someone else. I do not wish to end on a cynical note. I will be retiring from this Parliament because of an age limit in Western Australia. But I have a vision for the future. As was said by someone at one time: `Even old people have a right to have a vision'. My vision for the future is expressed in the words of Robert Burns, and I would like to end on that note. He wrote: Then let us pray that come it may, (As come it will for a' that,) That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth, Shall bear the gree, an' a' that. For a' that, an' a' that, It's coming yet for a' that, That man to man, the world o'er, Shall brithers be for a' that. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I have some satisfaction in speaking on this valedictory debate today because, as has already been mentioned, in 1985 it was not possible for me to attend any of the sittings of this place. My satisfaction stems not only from having been able to come back after three severe aneurysms on my brain, but also from coming in while the Australian Labor Party was in government and going out while the Labor Party is in government. I have great feelings for the Party. I have some disappointments from the Party, and I will touch on those in a moment. I take this opportunity to sincerely thank my husband and family for the support they gave me. When I came into the Senate it was a very hard time for women in Western Australia and for women throughout Australia. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was sitting on the opposition benches and she was joined by Senator Kathy Martin. Senator Jean Melzer and I were on this side. It is heartening to know that we now have 22 women members of parliament. I would like to think that after the next election there will be a significantly increased number. But in those days-and I am sure the person concerned will realise to whom I am referring-at my very first Senate Caucus meeting when we were determining the membership of various committees alphabetically we came to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. Senator Jean Melzer and Senator Don Grimes nominated. One of my colleagues turned to me and said: `Ruth, that's an ideal committee for you'. I said: `Why do you say that? Is it because it is a typical woman's committee?' He said: `Yes'. I said: `Well, I want the next one which is industry and trade'. He was quite shocked and, I think, even more shocked that not only did I become a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade but also that I became its chairman. He was not terribly sure how to handle it. He is still in the Parliament, but he is now one of the best champions of women's rights that we could have on this side of the House. So perhaps all can be forgiven. I also take this opportunity to thank sincerely my electorate staff, two of whom are in the gallery today and two of whom are working hard back in the electorate office, I hope trying to clean out all those desks and filing cabinets that contain 13 years material. I also thank the members of the committees on which I have served. Senator Collard mentioned that we had been on the Industry and Trade Committee together. We wandered around vineyards when doing an examination on the wine industry. The Committee then decided to look at the fishing industry. Senator Collard took me down into the bowels of every ship that we could find. Not being a water type person I found it extremely difficult, and on more than one occasion had to say to him that he might have to lift me back on to the wharf. It never quite reached that point. We made many friends on the committees, both from our own Party and from the Opposition parties. I thank the staff of the Parliament-the Clerks, the Hansard writers and those people who work in the background whom we tend to forget are there, the people in the records section, the computer section, and all of those people who do everything to make this Parliament run very efficiently. I am conscious that we rely on the Clerks a great deal. We also rely on the transport officers, the reproduction people and, to a certain extent, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation people. I thank them for their co-operation and friendship over the years. I have made what I hope will be continuing friendships with people in the ABC. I said earlier that there were a number of issues on which I was disappointed with the Labor Party. I think everyone is aware of my stand on things nuclear which has created some controversy. There are people in the Party who have more weight than I have because they were able to change the anti-uranium stand to a different tack which upset me greatly. I have been disappointed with what has not happened in Aboriginal affairs. I have been disappointed with what has not happened with human rights. In leaving this place I will not stop applying pressure. I assure those who are remaining, particularly those who are remaining as Ministers, that they will either be hearing my voice or reading my words in the future. With the additional time available to me I will be able to keep a closer watch on what they do not do that I would like them to do. I will take every opportunity to remind them that there are many things to be done. Mr President, I thank you and your deputy for the kind assistance that you have brought to this Parliament. It had been my intention to oppose you for that position, but I was talked out of that. I am not sorry having seen the number of hours you work and the amount of time you have to spend, perhaps doing things that you dislike. I am not sorry that I was talked out of it. I would have liked to have been the first woman President of the Senate, but that is the only thing that I will miss about my departure. One of the greatest politicians in this place is Senator George Georges. We have shared accommodation for 12 of my 13 years. My husband frequently refers to him as one of the men I live with in Canberra. I am no closer to knowing whether it is George's intention to renominate for this election than is anyone else. He leaves this Parliament with my very best wishes for the future and my thanks for the friendship he has extended in the past. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —To have come from the Northern Territory to the Senate has been a rich experience. To have gone from the bush, where I spent much of my childhood, into the Army and into public life, has been a rich experience. In the Senate I have been fortunate enough to represent the people of the outback, the people of the north. To be able to do that has been a tremendous thing. I have had tremendous support over the years from the people in the outback, whether they be from the bush, from small towns, from the coast, or in the sandhill country. I have been fortunate. As a member of the back bench and as Whip one has a great appreciation of one's colleagues. Living and working so closely together over long hours, weeks and months we reach a very good understanding of each other. I remember Peter Durack once saying: `What was that you said?' I said: `Looking after senators is worse than trying to look after my large family'. Looking after a large family has its very rich moments and working with my colleagues in the Senate has been equally rewarding. People have asked me: `What are you going to do?' My life has been quite interesting, coming from the bush. I spent my youth in the Northern Territory. I then went through the war period and later into public life. Looking back down the track, I have never really planned my life because something has always happened which has directed my life and I have usually taken the decision on the spot. I liken my life to seeing a tram going past. I have hopped on the tram to see where it takes me; that has been the pattern of my life. I will leave the Senate with some regrets, but I believe the time has come for me to do other things. I do not see myself as the retiring type, but perhaps next Monday, when I have closed down my flat and my wife and I head for Alice Springs, I will be looking for a tramcar to hop on to see where it may take me. Working in the Senate has been a great experience. I have mentioned working with my colleagues and my many friends on the other side, some of whom are close friends. I look upon them as friends and some as close friends. Quite often I think of the dedicated and hard working people who support us here. People say: `Parliamentarians have a hard life. You work long hours'. Perhaps we tend to forget the people who are around us. The Hansard staff finish much later than we do. The staff include the Library staff, the drivers, the printers, the dining room staff, the Clerks and the attendants. When one meets all these people in the passageways each morning or evening they are as pleasant as ever. Perhaps they have to put up with some fairly grumpy senators at times but, regardless of that, they look after us and serve us very well. We are very fortunate to have these friends around us to help Parliament work. I also thank my staff in Darwin, Alice Springs and Canberra. Some have been with me for 10 years and they have given me tremendous support, as have the people of the Northern Territory and my Party in the Territory, including its branches in the bush and in the towns. I thank those who have sent me telegrams today. I thank my family, particularly my wife, who is here today. It is very difficult for a wife who sees her husband and a family who see their father wandering off into the political world. It is very demanding on them and at times they are not too sure where he is. Once I came home at about midnight off a plane. I thought: `Good, I am going to go to bed and I will sleep in in the morning'. However, it did not quite work out that way because I had to get out of bed and go to the toilet. While I was in the toilet the phone rang and I heard my son say: `My father? He is in Darwin. No, he is not; he is in Canberra'. I said `I am in the toilet' and he said: `No, he is not, he is in the toilet'. Aileen does all the rearing of the family because I am away so much. In fact, I have been accused of even forgetting the names of the family-so the story goes. Once when I had arrived home and was sitting at the table, the news came on. Honourable senators know what it is like trying to keep a family of 11 quiet when listening to the news. I was getting a bit exasperated. One child kept on making a noise and I thought the news was important. The child's name would not come to me and I said: `Ho, you, you. Aileen, what's her name?' I did find out her name-and I did hear the news. Mr President, it has been tremendous serving the Senate with you as President. You have been a very good and fair President. I look back to the various delegations on which we went together to Third World countries. If there is a tram that takes me into contact with our northern neighbours-the Third World countries-I would like to hop on that tram, because we have a duty and a responsibility to our neighbours, the poorer people. We must have due regard to their living conditions-as well as those in Australia. However, no matter what our financial problems are and our particular difficulties in times of financial stress, we must not forget those people to our north and those in Third World countries. We are lucky people; they are deprived people. I hope that in the years to come honourable senators will continue to remember them because they certainly need our attention and our love. Thank you, everybody. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —Mr President, you might recall that when Don Grimes left us some time ago he said that the nicest thing about political life was the people we met. He then went on to say that the worst thing about political life was also the people we met. I subscribe to the first half of what he said. I have not met any of the people in the latter category. I certainly agree that the people whom I have met in the Senate-not only the up-front actors to whom Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred, but also those people who work behind the scenes-are in the first category. I will have very warm memories to take away of the people I have met in this place, the people who work with the Senate and the people I have met outside it, not the least of course people throughout the Northern Territory. That will be one of the warm things I will take away with me. While I am talking about things to take away with me let me squash a rumour. The scar I carry on my nose was not put there by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans). Those of you who know him will know that he hits only where it does not show. I associate myself with the thanks that have been expressed to those people already mentioned by other speakers. Because the Whips always speak towards the end and are always told to be brief, I will not go through them again; they have already been mentioned-the staff right through to the people who help us to do the job we do. However, I say a special thank you to those people who have helped the Whips, the people who really keep the place going from day to day. If I continue Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's analogy of the theatre, I suppose they are the script writers, the managers, the directors, the producers and so on. They are the people who make sure that the show gets on the road first thing in the morning and keeps going with a minimum of hiccups during the day. I refer to Peter Murdoch and his staff from the Table Office and to Paul Conn and his staff. Mr Conn is the Parliamentary Liaison Officer. I also express my appreciation of the work of the other Whips and their staffs. It has been tremendous to work with the people from the various parties over the past six years. I also make particular reference to Gordon McIntosh and Gerry Jones, who have been my deputies over the years and have been a tower of strength. They have helped very much in what Senator Macklin referred to as the `not always exciting time' of sitting in the Senate for several hours a day. I take a great deal of pleasure in expressing my special gratitude to Joan Harvey, who is the Whips' Clerk. I am not sure which role in the world of the theatre equates to Joan's. Who is the person who knows everything that is going on in the theatre? Joan is the equivalent in the Whip's office of whoever that person is in the theatre. I must confess to one disappointment in my brief time in the Senate-and that is that change has come so slowly. I suppose that over the years senators have become suspicious of change. Perhaps experience has taught them to be cautious. Perhaps they feel that their rights might be put in jeopardy. We have been moving far too slowly in bringing about changes which should be made in this place. There have been some changes, but nowhere near enough. I have been very pleased to be associated with some of those changes. I refer particularly to the Staffing and Appropriations Committee, which is one of the most valuable committees and one which I suggest senators should fight to retain and work to its utmost in the coming years. I refer also to the Standing Orders Committee where the changes are thought about and then thrown out by the rest of you lot when they come back to the chamber. I also refer to the closed circuit television because years ago I had battles with some of my colleagues who thought these television sets might have been spying on them. Over the years I have had a dream-like Gordon's vision perhaps-and that is that we could change the Senate so that we would have fewer speeches on the second reading and not have people-may I use this word-indulging themselves at great length. If we have speeches on the second reading we should have them on Bills of real significance because not all Bills have the same relevance and significance. I would hope that we could make changes whereby we spend much more time on the Committee stage, where we could thrash out meaningful, not political, amendments to Bills in order to improve the quality of the legislation. Perhaps we could hone down the real role of the Senate, which I believe has changed over the years. If we are to have a role, I believe it is to review carefully the legislation coming from the other place, keeping in mind the rights of the States. This will require a change of attitude because it will mean that we need people who are prepared to put up meaningful amendments and governments, of whatever colour, which are prepared to accept those amendments and build them in because they improve the legislation. If I were one for anecdotes I would relate my earlier experience in this place with a person who holds a very high office on the other side of politics. I proposed a small amendment to a Bill which would have improved it. That gentleman met me in the corridor and said: `Next time we revise, we will build in that amendment'. I asked `Why can't you accept my amendment?'. A look of horror came over his face and he said: `Governments don't accept Opposition amendments'. That needs to be changed. We need to make changes in this place. I thank everyone for their comments. I wish to mention particularly Senator Macklin, who has a keen appreciation of the role of the Whips and who made some very kind comments. I acknowledge the outstanding contribution made by my wife and family, particularly my wife, who, coming from a good solid Country Party background in Western Australia, has become one of the best workers for the Labor Party in the Northern Territory. Without doubt she is a campaigner par excellence. She did some wonderful work. To those who are returning, I hope they will find satisfaction in their work, as I have found satisfaction in mine. To those who are not, I wish them the enjoyment and fulfilment of their retirement. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I remember a former colleague of mine, Senator Jim Cavanagh, making his farewell speech in this place. At the time he said that the saddest word in the English language was `goodbye'. When one analyses it one finds this is true. I have spent a very enjoyable time here in the Senate. The Senate committees have a great deal to recommend them. I have served on several. I chaired the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, the Publications Committee and a committee revising the Style Manual. I also served on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. All those committees entail a great deal of work. I do not believe that the public really understands just how much work goes into those committees. As previous speakers have said here today, without the staff those committees could not function. I believe that that is a great tribute to the staff of this Parliament. I congratulate you, Mr President, on gaining the high office of President. The former President served this Senate with great distinction and I acknowledge that you are following that path. Without a fair President this Senate cannot operate. Similarly, without the hard work of the staff of this Parliament we could not serve this country as we do. I feel sad about leaving but I think it has been a great opportunity to have served in this Parliament. I do not believe that the public appreciates the hard work of politicians in this country. The public is very well served. Comparing ourselves with politicians in various other countries, I think the Australian politician is very honest, hardworking and also underpaid. It is about time something was said on this matter because on both sides of politics people only look at the top line of our pay. That is not the way to look at it. A lot of people in the community believe that politicians do not pay tax or superannuation. When these things are taken away there is very little left. This is especially so if a young politician is trying to provide education for his children, pay off a house and fight in a very tight electorate. It is totally unfair and I do not believe that we have said enough about it. We have never defended ourselves. My assessment of it is that this is keeping good young people out of this Parliament. There are a few people I would like to thank. First, my wife. Three years ago I kept an accurate account of my working hours. In serving in this Parliament and on committees and so on, I was away from home for 70 per cent of the time. Any spouse of any politician makes a great sacrifice. I will try to make that up now. My personal staff-Pat Hansberry, Maryanne Perna and Gary Orr-have served me loyally and worked very hard. Without the staff, no politician would be able to operate. I appreciate the help that I have received from the Clerks, the transport operators and the attendants. One attendant has just brought me a glass of water that I needed. I will miss this place. I will miss it when Senator Peter Baume criticises smokers. I will not be here to defend them and that will be sad. I have friends on both sides of the Parliament. For instance, I will never forget when I led a delegation to Senator Tony Messner when he was Minister for Veterans' Affairs. During the war I served on a ship as a merchant seaman. Until a few years ago merchant seamen were not recognised as returned servicemen. I led the delegation to Senator Messner and told him about the number of merchant seamen who had been killed in the course of their service. He gave a promise that he would do everything in his power to obtain recognition for them. That finally came about and they are now so recognised. As I have said, many of my colleagues here from both sides, especially those from South Australia, are very good friends. I have a great admiration for my friend from South Australia, Senator Dominic Foreman. He will lead the next fight for Australian Labor Party representation in the Senate from South Australia. He will do a magnificent job and I am certain that we will return six senators. Nevertheless, if that does not happen, that is the way of it and the politics of it. I am very proud to be Australian and to see our democracy at work. Democracy is very important. It is probably not the best system, but it is the best that we will ever know. It is important that democracy continue. The politicians have served the Parliament very well. A lot of work has been done by the Standing Committee on Social Welfare. For over 3 1/2 years that Committee has investigated retirement incomes. The report is almost ready to be brought down and I hope that the new Committee in the new Parliament will present it. It was a lot of hard work but it has been worth while. The committee system in the Senate works exceptionally well. If I have caused any heartache or discomfort to anyone in my term, I am sorry. I know that some people in the dining room got upset about the `brown dog' remarks, but I am certain that the food improved as a result of those remarks. I wish all honourable senators and members of parliament well. I hope they are all returned, but I certainly hope that the Australian Labor Party remains in government. I thank you, Mr President, and all honourable senators. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —As I am sure is happening with other senators, at this moment a kaleidoscope of memories and faces of people who have contributed to and helped me in my time in this place is appearing before me. It is impossible in a few words to include all those people, such as staff members and people who work in this House. I remember when `Smokey', who is also retiring, drove me to Tidbinbilla early one morning-at about 4 a.m., and has complained about it ever since-to look at kangaroos. I remember so many things. I have listened to what has been said about the people who have contributed so well to this place. I do not need to repeat what has been said by others, but I simply say that I reinforce it. I ought to mention Senator McIntosh because of the courage and tenacity that he has shown in so many areas and because at this moment he suffers a particular trauma. We ought to send through him our regards to his wife who has just recently suffered a heart attack. I am sure honourable senators will agree with me that it is a terrible time for him, particularly when his career and all his plans have also been suddenly cut short by one year. But that has happened to us all really. Special mention was made of me by Senator Coleman. If any mantle of courage or greatness is to be placed on anyone, it should be on Senator Coleman, who is a person of great courage. I will always remember her. I remember one particular moment when she made a stirring speech in King George Square, and I and 500 others were arrested. She repeated such stirring speeches on a variety of occasions on matters that are of essential importance not only to some of us but also to society. Another person I wish to say something about is Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, with whom I worked closely on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Many things have been said about Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle both in this place and the other place. When one is looking at something so fine, it is very difficult to find words to describe effectively that fineness. I appreciate the work that she did on the Public Accounts Committee, which is a very important committee of this Parliament. In referring to the Public Accounts Committee I have to say that it was perhaps a mistake for me to have taken on the responsibility of chairing that Committee because it diverted me from the normal parliamentary program. We have had fights in the Senate over that. But it also took me away from and separated me from my colleagues in that there was little time for me to participate with like-minded colleagues in the various Caucus committees which established policy and so on. That connection was broken, which perhaps led to my subsequent resignation from the Party in a fury. Perhaps that might not have occurred. Senator Button said in his remarks that he was angry with me. Well, I am angry with the Party, not with Senator Button or with any single person in the Party. I am angry with the Party as a whole, but I am not here to express too much of that. I would like particularly to thank all those people who have had an impression on me and an impact on what I have done and thought. They include my staff, who are in the gallery at present, and honourable senators on both sides of the House. I have tried to look back to find out what I have done. There are a couple of small physical things that I have achieved. One was to get flashing lights put in the toilets, which resulted from a brilliant speech I made on the adjournment about the difficulties that one faced in those days. I also got a couple of signs put up in King's Hall saying: `Take care on polished floor'. I succeeded in getting those after breaking a rib. But perhaps the most important thing that I have done is to place on the Notice Paper a motion concerning the status of the Senate and the restructuring of the Parliament. I came into this House as a representative of a party whose policy at that time was the abolition of the Senate. The Party has changed its view and that has gradually disappeared from the platform. But there are still some people of that mind. My view is that the parliamentary system is changing, as the parties are changing, as the democratic forms within the parties are changing and as the executives of the Parliament take greater control. That has been discovered in Queensland. I think there then needs to be some pause in the parliamentary legislative process. To endeavour to do that correctly and properly in this Parliament we should maintain the independence of the two Houses. I think it is essential that that should be so. This Parliament is one of the few parliaments that are not strictly independent of the Executive. But there has been a separation of the administration of the two Houses. I trust that the matter will be properly debated when all the information is before the Senate, and that honourable senators pause to assess the position. I have thanked a lot of people, and I want those thanks to go throughout the precincts of the East Block and other places and to take in all the people, including the staff in the dining room. But I want particularly to thank my wife, in case this is the last opportunity that I will have to do so. Without her I doubt whether it would have been possible to maintain any sort of political program, especially with me, because I do not believe she ever knew when the next trauma would occur or when the next tension would suddenly develop. It would have been impossible to cope with that, except with a special understanding, and she has that. Let me now get to my future intentions. I am reminded of a book called The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy-The Fourth Book of the Trilogy. That is the title. It says: `So long, thank you for all the fish'. That was said by the dolphins who had decided to leave Earth. Perhaps that is what I should be saying to the House: So long and thanks for all the fish. But because there is a faint chance that I may return, I could use another phrase out of the book: `If I so do, I apologise for the inconvenience'. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I think it is appropriate that in my final speech in the Senate as a Minister I should pay tribute to the departure of approximately a dozen members of the Senate. I do that with sadness in respect of my own position, but particularly with sadness in respect of those members of the Senate who will not be here when Parliament resumes in several months' time. As I said there are probably about a dozen honourable senators who are not going to return as a result of their voluntary decisions and of course there may be one or two others who, in the political processes, may not be re-elected. I want to put on the record some of my own more mature thoughts as a result of having spent more than 4 years as a Minister, and to appreciate how the Parliament works, how the Senate works and how individual reactions are able to be changed when one has had that experience. I agree with what was said by the Leader of the Government, Senator Button, about the toughness of Senator Withers and Senator Sir John Carrick in their respective positions. I suppose that in a certain sense their very toughness created a reaction that was inevitable in the political process. When I reflect on it, having been in the front line for four and a bit years, I can perhaps look at things in a more enlightened way and respond to those who had the responsibilities of leadership in the periods under review. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle of course held a very difficult portfolio and I can now appreciate that when honourable senators, such as former Senator Grimes and I, were subjecting her to harassment she was, of course, defending decisions of the Government as distinct from individual decisions which so often we are forced to find ourselves subjected to by higher disciplines. I worked with Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle on the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I can say now, without any doubt at all, that I have grown to admire her and to regard her with a great deal of affection for the way in which she has performed her functions. I would now regard her as a friend. Senator Withers was a tough character, a tough leader, and I think in the political processes he carried out his functions very well. Of course, in the political processes we believe that we advance by sometimes destroying one another. I think I am mature enough to say that Senator Withers suffered a very unfair experience when, as a result of circumstances at that particular time, he lost his ministerial position. But I have seen him in the patient years that have followed, the very patient years, when he has sat here unable to, or perhaps not wanting to, perform. In those difficult years, when we were in Opposition, and he was performing so well on behalf of his Party, quite accidentally one day, while going through my library, I read one of Jack Lang's books Things I Remember. I found out that in 1929 a Mr Withers from Western Australia had moved the socialism objective of our party for the 1929 Federal Conference. I thought: `Ah! I have got Senator Withers at last. I have established the fact that his father was in fact involved so heavily and extensively in the development of our socialist policy in the Australian Labor Party'. Very soon after Senator Withers was removed from office and I decided therefore that I would not participate in the debate to the extent of trying to disadvantage him. I went to him one day and said: `Well, Reg, you must be the black sheep of the family, having read what your father did at our Federal Conference in 1929'. He said: `No, Arthur, he was the red sheep of the family'. So our relationship has improved over time as he understood the various differences that exist within the parties. Senator Sir John Carrick, of course, is another tough person. But I look at him in a benign light. Because in the 1971-72 period, when we were discussing the abolition of capital punishment, he joined with the rest of us to abolish capital punishment in the Australian Capital Territory, which at that time was a progressive move. Of course, a lot has been said about Senator Kilgariff. I support those remarks because he has been assiduous in the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities. I would now like to refer to some of my own colleagues. I have been upstaged somewhat by Senator McIntosh's remarks on East Timor, because I would have mentioned that earlier if I had been able to get the call before this stage. One thing that I admire is Senator McIntosh's devotion to the cause of self-determination for the people of East Timor. I regard him with a great deal of affection for that, and we will remain friends until the end of time. Senator Coleman, of course, did not tell us the very important experience that she had when she became a senator and attempted to enter the senators' toilet, only to be told that she could not enter because is was the male senators' toilet. I remember how, in the evolution of time, we succeeded in having two toilets provided, one for male senators and one for female senators. That was a campaign in which there was a joint effort by the two sexes. Senator Robertson knows that I voted for Senator Georges in the ballot that caused him to become the Whip of our party. Over time, we have enjoyed a close and personal friendship. I know that that will prevail. Not only has he carried out the responsibilities of his position assiduously and properly, but on all occasions he has acted with a great deal of integrity. I wish him well and I hope that, in the fullness of time, some recognition is given to him. I came to know Senator Elstob in the bleak years from 1975 to 1983, when some of the members of the Caucus established an organisation called LOGS-Labor's Old Guard Socialists. I was subsequently invited to join that organisation and I came to appreciate his friendship. In recent times, when I moved from another seat to this seat, I have enjoyed the interjections from Senator Elstob sitting behind me as he responded to some of the provocations from the other side of the chamber. Senators may have political differences, but they do not have personal differences, and that is important. In my final speech as a Minister it is nice to be able to say kind things about honourable senators who are retiring, and not leave it until they pass on. I prefer to do it in the much more pleasant environment today. I have enjoyed the co-operation of Senator Mason when, for a period, he was the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I shall miss the friendship that he has given me in the efficient functioning of this place. I suppose that I am not entitled to regard Senator Vigor as departing. I shall certainly miss him, and the Senate Estimates committees will miss him, for the methodical way that he has carried out what he regards as his responsibilities in those committees. I wish to place on the public record my appreciation of the co-operation that has been extended to me from both this side and the other side of the Senate in my ministerial responsibilities and in my previous responsibility as a back bench senator. It is with some regret that I note that Senator Withers, Senator Kilgariff and Senator Sir John Carrick will, in their departure, leave me as the only World War II veteran in the Senate. Tom Uren, in the House of Representatives, will be the sole survivor there, although there are a couple of Vietnam veterans on the other side of politics in the House of Representatives. It is a matter of great regret to the veterans' movement that time moves us on to that extent. One has to move only one letter in the word `Senate'-get rid of the `n' and insert a `d'-to express the way in which this place operates, sedate, as distinct from the happenings in the other chamber. I have enjoyed meeting and working with the various people in the Parliament. I hope that those who are retiring have a long and enjoyable retirement. They deserve it because they have worked very hard for the views and the parties that they represent. I wish well all those who still have preselection problems on their plate in the coming weekend. Finally, I wish to mention my very great colleague, Senator Georges. He and I have been very close friends for a great number of years. Indeed, we have discovered that our parents have had a relationship going back 60 years. I said to him last night, and I wish to put it on the record, that in a few months I hope to be in the position to move for his readmission to our Party. I think that he is a valuable person. He stands for values many of us share. I hope that, in those circumstances, I will be able to move for his readmission to the Party. I hope that he will take cognisance of the fact that we admire him for all of the wonderful values for which he stands. The struggle has not ended, and will not end with this election. I hope that he will seriously consider the views of his many, many friends and colleagues and the tributes that have been paid to him in the Senate from both sides of the chamber. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-In my comments I omitted any reference to you, Mr President. I recall that, on your appointment to the presidency, all senators who spoke at that time, other than Australian Labor Party senators, read you something of a lesson in what was expected of you. I thought that, in those circumstances, I would like to acknowledge your efforts as President and your clear attempts to be the President of all the senators. I thank you for your contribution to the Senate over your term as President. It has been of a quality that we urged upon you, and I thank you for it. I am afraid that I have been called away, and if other senators now intend to speak I hope that they will understand that I mean them no discourtesy by leaving. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I wish to express my appreciation of the help that so many honourable senators who are leaving today have given me during my term in this place. I first choose Margaret Guilfoyle because she has set a standard which all of us, especially the women, try to live up to. My husband has often said to me: `Why do you always interject so much; why don't you behave like Margaret?' I look at him and he says: `Yes, I know, you could not.' That is true-it is the difference between us. I simply find it impossible to control myself in the way that Margaret always has done. Senator Sir John Carrick is a very private man and I can almost hear him reprimanding me, as honourable senators know only too well, for even standing up and mentioning his name. He is still working harder for the Liberal Party than he has ever done. He was the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and I agree with Senator Button that he was a very effective leader. He was the Director of the New South Wales Liberal Party for many years and, as a result, knew my father very well. They were very close during those years. I will not say much about him because I know that he would be appalled to hear that I am even on my feet mentioning him. Reg Withers, when he was leader, would never answer any questions relating to matters in the newspapers. He always said that he did not read newspapers; he only knew facts. I agree that it was most unjust when Reg lost his ministry in 1978, and at that time I wrote a letter to that effect. Bernie Kilgariff is, perhaps, the kindest and most loyal man in the whole of the Senate. He has helped us all on the back bench so much through his sheer understanding of our family lives and the problems that our time in Canberra imposes on us. He has always been able to manage a pair for those of us who had to go home for something particularly urgent. Last night, he told me that he had been very lucky with the co-operation that he had had from the Party. We all know that that is a lot of rot. It is not luck-co-operation from so many senators, especially with their ambitions in this place, must be earned. I can assure him that the co-operation that he has had has been only because he has given us kindness and loyalty to a degree far more than we could ever have expected. Ted Robertson was the chairman of a committee I was on, and I appreciated the way he carried out that task. I believe his was a very fair chairmanship, and as honourable senators know, we put out a unanimous report. I asked Ted last night why he gets so mad with me, because he had been showing how annoyed he was during one of our debates. He said: `I don't know; you just make me so mad'. As he said at that time, that applies only in this chamber. Although I have worked with him on only one committee, I did appreciate that chance. I have not worked with Gordon McIntosh on a committee but certainly those of us on this side of the chamber will miss his accent in this place. I wish him every success in his retirement. Ron Elstob and I have worked together for a long time, ever since he came to the Senate and joined the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. He will remember our report on homeless youth. We travelled around and we agreed on most occasions on what should be done to help those children who often had been thrown out of their families on to the streets. He has been a very good chairman, a very fair chairman and a very dignified chairman, and I do congratulate him. We will remember him in that way. We did miss Senator Ruth Coleman during her illness. It was only her courage that pulled her through that very long illness. I have probably chatted to her more in the lounges while we waited for aeroplanes than in this place because sometimes it is very difficult to get to know members unless one works with them on committees. The women in this Senate will certainly miss her, and I wish her and her family the best for her retirement. That brings me to Colin Mason. He knows how much I love the Australian Democrats, and I am sure he will be very happy now that the Chamberlain trial is over. As Senator Chaney said, he really can take a lot of credit for bringing the inquiry into that matter to fruition. There is no way I will say goodbye to Senator Georges; I am quite sure that he will be back. If he does retire, I commiserate with his wife because she will never know where he is. She will not know whether he is in gaol following one of Ruth Coleman's stirring speeches, or whether he will be home at night. Senator Georges is possibly one of the most honest men in the Senate. He has principles that he will abide by through thick and thin. He had better come back; if he does not, we will miss him tremendously. I thank him for all the help he gave me in my first year. I will never forget him calling me Little Red Riding Hood because he felt I had been thrown in amongst a pack of wolves. He did help me on many occasions and I did appreciate that in that first year. I thank him for it. We will have a very different Senate when we come back. The Senate will be missing a lot of old faces. I guess the younger members of the Senate now will become the older members as the new ones come up. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I pay tribute as an Independent to some of the voluntarily retiring senators. I will not mention all of them because I have not had the privilege of getting to know all of those who are retiring. I would like briefly to mention Senator Sir John Carrick because I have admired his interest in the subject I was elected to represent-nuclear disarmament. I have found his views very challenging and worthwhile. I have appreciated his interest in and concern for that issue. Apart from the good work Senator Colin Mason has done on the Chamberlain inquiry, and his great perseverance with that, I have enjoyed working with him in the Australian parliamentary disarmament group as one of the co-ordinators. I have valued his friendship and his advice in helping me get to know the ropes of this place. I also thank Senator Ted Robertson and his staff for the helpful way in which they have made my entry into Parliament relatively hassle free. I would like to spend a little more time talking about Senator Gordon McIntosh and Senator Ruth Coleman, the two Western Australian retiring senators. We will miss their contributions. I guess I was first aware of Gordon McIntosh's fervent stand on issues of principle because of his stand on East Timor. That has been a long-standing interest of Gordon's, and I have certainly appreciated that, as have many fellow Western Australians. More recently, of course, his work on the Senate inquiry into safety procedures relating to nuclear armed and nuclear powered warships has been greatly valued by the peace movement in Western Australia, and I am sure that that inquiry will continue. I will certainly be following its continuation with great interest, and I am sure he will too. I thank him very much for his efforts as far as that is concerned. I will miss Ruth Coleman very much in the Senate chamber. I was first aware of her great principled stand and her bravery when she spoke to a rally in Forrest Place when we were struggling, with great difficulty, against a very conservative government in Western Australia on the issue of section 54b; that is, we were trying to assert the right of people in Western Australia to assemble peacefully and in public places. I was very impressed with her stand at that stage, long before she knew that I existed and long before I ever thought I would be in this place speaking as a fellow senator. Her principled stand has been greatly admired. She has been for me a fine example of a woman senator from Western Australia. I really appreciate all her efforts, and I am so glad she has said she will be continuing with her interests in the future. That really is good to hear. Also as an Independent senator it has been important for me to have the help and support of the various staff in Parliament House, the people at all levels who make this place operate. I have been fed valuable titbits of information without which my contribution would have been far less effective. That goes for people from the Parliamentary Library, for the drivers and for the people who rush around the corridors making sure we have all the right bits of paper. To all of those people: Thank you. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I have affection and admiration for all the senators leaving us and on whose account we are making these valedictories. Given the time, I shall confine my remarks to those two fine women whose departure from the Senate will be a very great loss-Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Ruth Coleman. When Dame Margaret was elected to the Senate she was one of the few women in Australia in such a public position. It happened also to be the time at which the second wave of feminism was breaking on these shores. We, the women who were looking for models, had before us the example of Dame Margaret. She had a style, a degree of articulateness and sincerity, that could only inspire all of us. Not long after that, Senator Coleman was elected for the State of Western Australia. Those of us in Western Australia then had somebody much closer to home with whom we could identify. On behalf of Western Australian women, and all Australian women, I pay this tribute: We could not have had better models than Senator Coleman and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, or the other women who joined them soon afterwards. We have been offered time and time again by journalists the opportunity to make comparisons between the way in which women act as members of parliament and the way in which men act in regard to issues, and we are also asked whether women on both sides of politics have issues and feelings in common. Whenever I have been asked that question I have thought particularly of Dame Margaret, and of the many issues on which we would have no disagreement whatsoever. It is only in the last few months that I have had the opportunity to operate on a committee with Dame Margaret, and that has certainly reinforced all the admiration I have developed for her over the years. It was no surprise to any of us that Senator Coleman recovered so remarkably from her very serious illness. Intestinal fortitude has been one of the remarkable attributes of Senator Coleman over the years. She came into the Senate with a strong background in the consumer movement. She brought with her a strong and abiding commitment to peace, an issue for which her activities are known not only in Australia but also in other countries. She has developed over the years, deservedly a strong and wide constituency of people involved with human rights, particularly with the Aboriginal community. So there is no possibility of her influence being any the less as she makes her voice heard on those and other issues in the future. On the issue of women being part of the Senate, I think some of today's contributions would have reminded us in a salutary fashion that there is still a great deal to be done, still a long way to go. I can only hope that those women senators who are left and the women who join us continue in the very fine tradition that has been set for us by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Ruth Coleman. In conclusion, I should like to quote very briefly from the poet Cowper. This is a result of some fine work by the Public Accounts Committee in finding this quote for us. It refers particularly to those two women. I quote: . . . past the bounds of freakish youth, But strong for service still, and unimpair'd. Senate adjourned at 2.17 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed. The following Papers were tabled: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 93. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 87, 88. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Order 1987-M32/87-Corporation's Forms 4, 9 and 10: Meat. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 89. Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 81. Companies (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 82. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 109. Criminology Research Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 84. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 97, 98, 101, 102, 103. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 108. Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act-Order pursuant to subsection 6 (1), dated 29 May 1987. Family Law Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 85. Futures Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 83. Honey Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 107. Honey Levy Act (No. 1)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 105. Honey Levy Act (No. 2)-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 106. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 92. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1). Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 91. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 86. National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 100. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations-Marine Orders 1987-No. 3-Part 16 (Load Lines). Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos. 95, 96. Pig Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 104. Public Service Act- Determinations 1987- No. 15. No. 24 (in substitution for paper presented on 26 May 1987). Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 90. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 110. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1987- No. 19-Traffic (Amendment) No. 20-Building (Amendment). Securities Industry (Fees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 80. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment to the schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States, dated 1 June 1987. Sugar Cane Levy Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 94. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 99. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1266) Senator Sheil asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether his Government has received any information concerning the use of prison camp labour in the Soviet Union for part of the manufacture of the Lada Niva 4-wheel drive vehicle. (2) If not, will the Minister ascertain with certainty that this is not the case, and inform the Senate accordingly. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. The Government has noted that certain community groups have alleged that prison labour has been used in the USSR for part of the manufacture of the Lada Niva. Senator Harradine has also cited similar sources of information. A visit to the Lada Niva factory by Australian officials revealed nothing to substantiate the allegations. The Government does not believe further action through official channels would add anything further to the report by Australian officials who visited the plant. (Question No. 1591) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 10 December 1986: (1) Is it correct that 7 items totalling $926.324m are included in Table 4 (pp 18, 19) Budget Statement No. 5 for 1985-86 as attributable to the annual revenue estimate for income under the terms of the Superannuation Act 1922 and 1976. (2) Is it also correct that an amount of $213.865m or any amount from that total is not included in the relevant Program Budget Statement, Finance Portfolio Paper No. 6 (pp 129, 130); if so, would the Minister advise- (a) whether the additional amount is a simple omission from that Program Budget Finance Portfolio table; or (b) whether it was taken up in some other part of the Budget Program Statement to offset some other category of expenditure; if so, what is the nature of that expenditure. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. There are 6 items totalling $918,282,000 included in Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 5 (pp 19 and 20) as estimates of revenue in 1986-87 under the terms of the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976. The item ``Superannuation-Contributions by the Australian National Railways Commission for former South Australian and Tasmanian Railway employees'' does not refer to amounts received in accordance with the Superannuation Acts 1922 or 1976. (2) Yes. An amount of $577,550,000 in estimated revenue under the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976 does not appear in the relevant Portfolio Program Estimate, Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 6 (pp 129 & 130). (a) and (b) The Portfolio Program Estimates, Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 6, presents information on appropriations and outlays in program terms for each portfolio. Outlays show the net extent to which resources are directed from the Commonwealth Public Account to other sectors of the economy through the budget, after offsetting recoveries and repayments against relevant expenditures. Of the items appearing in Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 5 only those revenues that are offset against outlays also appear in Table 4 of Budget Paper No. 6. Of the estimated revenue of $918,282,000 under the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976, $340,732,000 is offset against outlays, $524,687,000 is treated as financing transactions and $52,863,000 as a receipt. (Question No. 1610) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 17 February 1987: (1) How many copies of the 1987 edition of the Australia Post Calendar were produced. (2) What was the expense of this product. (3) To whom are the calendars distributed. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following amended answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post: (1) 10,000. (2) $19,674. (3) The calendars were produced by Australia Post's South Australian Administration. Twenty-eight calendars were distributed to Federal Parliamentarians, approximately eighty were distributed to representatives of South Australian and Northern Territory media organisations and the remainder has been distributed to Australia Post customers throughout South Australia and the Northern Territory. (Question No. 1657) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: What were the names and addresses of all companies which have successfully sought DIFF support for tenders for the supply of goods or services to Third World countries in the years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, given that in respect of answer to Question on Notice No. 1488 (Weekly Hansard, 10 December 1986, p. 3774) the Minister for Defence referring to 70 applications made for DIFF grants, while naming the 19 companies which were refused grants, only named 11 which were successful. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The names and addresses of the companies having been provided with DIFF in principle but without commitment support over the individual years 1982-1986 are as follows: Companies Offered DIFF Support in 1982 1. GATX-Fuller Australia Pty Ltd, 113 Alexander Street, Crows Nest, N.S.W. 2065 2. Hydro Systems (Tas.) Pty Ltd, 441 Macquarie Street, Hobart Tas. 7000. 3. M. G. Kailis Exports Pty Ltd, 17 Mews Road, Fremantle W.A. 6160. 4. Versatile Toft Ltd, P. O. Box 932, Bundaberg Qld. 4670. 5. Plasser Australia Pty Ltd, 2 Plasser Cres., St Marys N.S.W. 2760. 6. Fanner-PLP Pty Ltd, 150 Briens Road, Northmead N.S.W. 2152 7. Massey-Ferguson (Australia) Limited Inc. in Vic., 2 Devonshire Road, Sunshine Vic. 3020. 8. Noyes Bros. Pty Limited, Frederick Street, St Leonards N.S.W. 2065 9. Australian Overseas Projects Corporation (AOPC), Export House, 22 Pitt Street, Sydney N.S.W. 2000 (2 offers) 10. Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd, 87 Wickham Tce., Brisbane Qld. 4000. 11. R. J. Nairn & Partners Pty Ltd, MTIA House, 214 Northbourne Avenue, Braddon A.C.T. 2601. 12. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, Trading as BHP Engineering, 140 William Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. 13. Westinghouse Brake & Signal Company (Aust) Ltd, Stephenson Street, Spotswood Vic. 3015. Companies Offered DIFF Support in 1983 1. The Permutit Company of Australia Pty Limited, Cnr. Wattle Road and Short St., Brookvale N.S.W. 2100. 2. Western Australian Overseas Projects Authority (WAOPA), 11th Floor, Elders House, 111 St. Georges Tce., Perth W.A. 6000. 3. NEI Bruce Pebbles (Australia) Pty Ltd, Brascon House, 25 Burwood Road, Hawthorn Vic. 3122. 4. Sulzer Australia Pty Ltd, 77 Pacific Hwy, North Sydney N.S.W. 2060 5. Sabemo Pty Ltd, 221 Miller Street, North Sydney N.S.W. 2060 6. NEI Power Engineering Limited, 39 Waterloo Road, North Ryde N.S.W. 2113 7. Bourne Sales (Aust.) Pty Ltd, 133 Beatty Road, Archerfield Qld. 4108. 8. Merz and McLellan and Partners, Northpoint, 100 Miller Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060 9. Sagric International Pty Ltd, G.P.O. Box 1671, Adelaide S.A. 5001 10. McGowan International Pty Ltd, Agricultural Consultants, 435 Wilson Street, Albury N.S.W. 2640 11. Dulmison Australia, A division of Dulmison Pty Ltd, Dulmison Avenue, Wyong, N.S.W. 2259. 12. Versatile Toft Ltd, Maryborough Street, Bundaberg, Qld 4670. 13. Massey-Ferguson (Australia) Ltd, 2 Devonshire Road, Sunshine, Vic. 3020. 14. Bonel Brothers Pty Ltd, 49-53 Hanbury Street, Bundaberg, Qld 4670. 15. Transavia Division, Transfield (NSW) Pty Ltd, 73 Station Road, Seven Hills, N.S.W. 2147. 16. Australian Overseas Projects Corporation (AOPC), Export House, 22 Pitt Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. 17. Neumann Equipment Marketing Co. Pty Ltd, Nuban Street, Currumbin, Qld 4223. 18. Ausda-Tripal Consulting Engineers, 60 Albert Road, South Melbourne, Vic. 3095 (2 offers). 19. Fox Manufacturing Company Pty Limited Inc. N.S.W., 106-128 Woodpark Road, Smithfield, N.S.W. 2164. 20. Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd, 1 York Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. 21. Gutteridge Haskins & Davey, 97 Franklin Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. 22. Reliance Automation Pty, 32 Sirius Road, Lane Cove, N.S.W. 2066 (2 offers). 23. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, 60-70 Parramatta Road, Summer Hill, N.S.W. 2130. 24. Prok International Ltd, 98 Fairbank Road, South Clayton, Vic. 3169. 25. Airport Consulting & Construction Australia Pty Ltd (ACCA), Level 29, Northpoint, 100 Miller Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 26. Dravo Australia, 30 Atchison Street, St Leonards, N.S.W. 2065. 27. Clyde-Carruthers Pty Limited (Inc. in N.S.W.), 140 Arthur Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 28. Australian Overseas Project Corporation (AOPC) & Vocational & Technical Training (VTTC) Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd, c/o 22 Pitt Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. Companies Offered DIFF Support in 1984 1. Vickers Keogh Pty Ltd, cnr Hunter Street and Great Eastern Highway, Kalgoorlie, W.A. 6430 (2 offers). 2. Walkers Limited, 23 Bowen Street, Maryborough, Qld 4650 (2 offers). 3. Pandrol Australia Pty Limited, 7 Bessemer Street, Blacktown, N.S.W. 2148 (2 offers). 4. Hydro Systems (Tas) Pty Ltd, 445 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tas. 7000. 5. The Clyde Engineering Company Pty Limited, Factory Street, Granville, N.S.W. 2142. 6. Dulmison Australia, Division of Dulmison Pty Ltd, Dulmison Avenue, Wyong, N.S.W. 2259. 7. International Combustion Australia Limited, 38-46 South Street, Rydalmere, N.S.W. 2116. 8. Aiton Australia Pty Ltd, Yennora Avenue, Yennora, N.S.W. 2161. 9. Transfield Pty Ltd, 100 Arthur Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 10. Longworth-CMPS Engineers, 3 Eden Street, Crows Nest N.S.W. 2060. 11. Bundaberg Foundry-A Division of the ANI Corporation Ltd Inc. in N.S.W., cnr Gavin and Perry Streets, Bundaberg, Qld 4670. 12. A Goninan & Co. Limited, Broadmeadow Road, Broadmeadow, N.S.W. 2292. 13. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, Mittagong Road, Cooma North, N.S.W. 2630. 14. BTR Rail Fasteners (Australia) Pty Ltd, 71 Down Street, Welshpool, W.A. 6106. Companies Offered DIFF Support in 1985 1. Goldfields International Pty Ltd, 142 Chesterville Road, Moorabbin, Vic. 3189. 2. Jacia Natural Resource Consultants, 14th Floor Griffin Centre, 28 The Esplanade, Perth, W.A. 6000. 3. Richter Drilling Pty Ltd, 14 Cribb Street, Milton, Qld 4064. 4. Merz-Meunsell (in assoc. with the State Electricity Commission of Victoria), c/o Merz & McLellan, 11 Queens Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004. 5. Mini Computer & Electronic Services Pty Ltd, 36 Wollongong Street, Fyshwick, A.C.T. 2609. 6. Leeds & Northrup Aust. Pty Ltd, 18 Mandible Street, Alexandria,, N.S.W. 2015. 7. Airline Support Industries Australia Pty Ltd, 12a Lennox Street, Mosman, N.S.W. 2088. 8. Connor Shea, Fourth Avenue, Sunshine, Vic. 3020. 9. Vickers Keogh Pty Ltd, cnr Hunter Street and Great Eastern Highway, Kalgoorlie, W.A. 6430. 10. The Australian Mineral Devel. Laboratories, Flemington Street, Frewville, S.A. 5063. 11. M. G. Kailis Gulf Fisheries Pty Ltd, 17 Mews Road, Fremantle, W.A. 6160. 12. Transfield Pty Ltd, 100 Arthur Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 13. McGowan International Pty Ltd, 435 Wilson Street, Albury, N.S.W. 2640. 14. Bourne Sales (Aust.) Pty Ltd, 133 Beatty Road, Archerfield, Qld 4108. 15. Warman International Ltd, cnr Ipswich Road and Franklin Street, Rocklea, Qld 4106. 16. Pandrol Australia Pty Ltd, 7 Bessemer Street, Blacktown, N.S.W. 2148. 17. Dulmison Australia, Division of Dulmison Pty Limited, Dulmison Avenue, Wyong, N.S.W. 2259. 18. Fluor Australia Pty Limited (Inc in Vic.), 616 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004. Companies Offered DIFF Support in 1986 1. Airport Planning Pty Ltd, 601 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic. 3004. 2. Austpower Joint Venture, 100 Arthur Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 3. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, 220 Sharp Street, Cooma, N.S.W. 2630. 4. Robertson Research Australia Pty Limited, 14th Floor, 77 Pacific Highway, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060 (2 offers). 5. JACIA Natural Resource Consultants, 14th Floor, Griffin Centre, 28 The Esplanade, Perth W.A. 6000 (2 offers). 6. Vickers Australia Limited, Vickers, Hoskins Division, 170 Railway Parade, Ashfield, W.A. 6054. 7. Heavy Engineering Projects Corporation of Australia (HEPCA), 4/25 Giles Street, Kingston, A.C.T. 2604. 8. Standard Telephones & Cables Pty Ltd (STC), 252-280 Botany Road, Alexandria, N.S.W. 2017. 9. Australian Trade Commission Overseas Project Group, 22 Pitt Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. 10. Vocational & Technical Training Corporation of Australia Pty Limited (VTTC), Unit 23, ``Norberry Terrace'', 199 Pacific Highway, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 11. Bulk Materials (Coal Handling) Services Pty Limited, 77 Ridge Street, Gordon, N.S.W. 2072. 12. Australian Shipbuilding Industries (W.A.), 781 Cockburn Road, South Coogee, W.A. 6166. Of those listed above, the following companies were not only successful in obtaining DIFF support but were, as indicated in answer one to Question 1488, also successful in being awarded a contract by the overseas government:- 1. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd., trading as BHP Engineering, 140 William Street, Melbourne. 2. Connor Sea, Fourth Avenue, Sunshine, Vic. 3020. 3. Vickers Keogh Pty Ltd, Cnr Hunter Street & Great Eastern Highway, Kalgoorlie, W.A. 6430. 4. AOPC/VTTC, 22 Pitt Street, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000. 5. Pandrol Australia Pty, 7 Bessemer Street, Blacktown, N.S.W. 2148. 6. Transfield Pty Ltd, 100 Arthur Street, North Sydney, N.S.W. 2060. 7. Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, Mittagong Road, Cooma North, N.S.W. 2630. 8. Australian Shipbuilding Industries (W.A.) Pty Ltd., 781 Cockburn Road, South Coogee, W.A. 6166. (Question No. 1667) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 April 1987: (1) Is the Australian Government aware of recent reports of the presence of anywhere between 18 and 30 Indonesian battalions in East Timor as indicated in The Bulletin of 3 March 1987. (2) Does the Australian Government have any information to verify this claim and the further claim that fighting is still continuing in East Timor. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Government is aware that Indonesian Government spokesmen have denied the figures quoted in The Bulletin but the Indonesian Government has acknowledged the presence of 12 battalions, or 13 thousand to 15 thousand men, in East Timor. Information available to the Government, including the findings of a party from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta who visited East Timor in January, is that while fighting continues in some areas, especially in the east of the province, the security situation remains stable. (Question No. 1693) Senator Jones asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: (1) What action is being contemplated by the Federal and State Governments to tighten up on the sale of dangerous and easily concealable knives now proliferating in such retail outlets as disposal stores in view of reports that knives were responsible for 483 stabbings in Sydney alone during the past year. (2) What were the comparative figures for knife attacks and those involving concealable firearms in each of the States and Territories in the 12 months to 30 June 1986. (3) What measures are being taken by the Commonwealth in a bid to halt the rise of violent crime through negotiation with the States and Territories. (4) Have any measures been taken to monitor the level of imports of all concealable firearms from various overseas countries now readily on the market. Senator Tate —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government is concerned at reports of the number of crimes involving the use of knives or resulting in stabbings. However, as most knives, including many designed for domestic use, are dangerous and easily concealable, restrictions on the sale of certain types of knives can be only a partial solution to the problem. In the A.C.T. there are controls under the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 in relation to the possession, and possession with intent, of dangerous weapons which under certain circumstances would include knives. In addition, there are provisions in the proposed Dangerous Weapons Ordinance for the A.C.T. which will make it an offence to import into the Territory, sell, possess or use flick knives. (2) Statistics are not maintained by Australian Police Forces in the form requested. The information is included in the statistics covering Assaults and Armed Robberies. The number of such offences reported for the period 1985-86 was as follows: N.S.W. Vic. Qld W.A. S.A. Tas. N.T. A.C.T. Aust. Assaults occasioning grievous bodily harm... 570 696 303 180 87 36 45 10 1,927 Other non-sexual assaults... 12,957 8,541 5,953 4,629 7,259 1,190 1,425 591 42,545 Armed robberies... 1,699 800 234 149 232 1 7 32 3,154 (3) It needs to be recognised that the majority of criminal offences involving violence are the responsibility of individual State jurisdictions. Within those constraints, the Government encourages appropriate Commonwealth/State law enforcement co-operation at all levels. Regular meetings of the Australian Police Ministers' Council provide a vehicle for continuing consultation by Ministers on law enforcement issues of concern to all Australian jurisdictions. National common police service units such as the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, the National Police Research Unit, the Australian Police Staff College and the National Exchange of Police Information have been established under inter-governmental agreements. Other initiatives to increase Commonwealth/State co-operation, particularly at the operational level, have been through the establishment of the National Crime Authority and the creation of joint task forces to investigate specific criminal activity that concerns two or more jurisdictions. In regard to the level of violent crime in the community, the Government notes evidence that an increasing percentage of such crimes have some connection to illegal drugs. In recognition of the Commonwealth Government's specific responsibilities in relation to the Customs Act, the emphasis of Commonwealth/State co-operation at the operational level is largely directed against narcotics-related offences. (4) The control of firearms is primarily a State and Territory responsibility and is therefore exercised by the relevant State or Territory police forces. However, in conjunction with this control, the Commonwealth does have a responsibility in relation to Items 9, 19 and 27 in the Second Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, which restrict the import of pistols and revolvers and other items considered to be dangerous. Permission to import such items is not granted unless the relevant police force advises the Australian Customs Service that it has no objection to the importer possessing the weapon. (Question No. 1774) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 11 May 1987: (1) Has the Minister for Primary Industry's attention been drawn to a Background Brief issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London dated March 1987 and headed `World Fisheries', which paints an appalling picture for fishing and in consequence for the populations of underdeveloped and developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia. (2) In view of the interpretation by the United Nations Development Program that there is likely to be a 1 per cent growth in the supply of fish in the coming years as against a 2 per cent increase in demand, what effect is this unhappy statistic likely to have on the already serious plight of the world's hungry and, in particular, those of parts of Africa and Asia where reliance on fish is high. (3) In the light of the British report which states many popular species of fish have been over-catched, what measures are being taken by the Australian Government to eliminate uncontrolled indiscriminate fishing within our territorial waters by local and overseas commercial fishermen and over enthusiastic amateurs. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. I have seen a copy of the Background Brief issued in London in March 1987. (2) The Background Brief is supported by a paper prepared by FAO and considered by the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) at its May 1987 meeting. The FAO paper reviewed the current situation in the world's fisheries and provided an assessment of trends to the year 2000. It outlined the state of the resources, demand and supply projections and suggested some implications for development policy. The paper concluded that the projected increase in demand might be answered by better fisheries management, possible increases in aquaculture and improved utilisation of resources. FAO has stated that without sufficient government infrastructures to undertake fisheries management the fisheries sector will fail in providing increased supplies of fish at reasonable prices without endangering stocks. Governments who have not assigned the same priority to improving the capability of their fishery institutions as they have to other sectors may now wish to consider the dangers to their fisheries in not undertaking the complex tasks of fisheries management. A significant contribution to increased supplies of fish could result from making better use of what is already caught. An estimated quantity of between 5 and 16 million tons of fish per year is caught and discarded at sea by trawlers principally engaged in prawning. Some governments have taken steps to link joint venture licensing to participation in schemes to land discards as a contribution to national food supplies. Also approximately 10 per cent of food fish supplies in developing countries is also lost from a lack of facilities to preserve fish or from lack of training. To reduce these losses investment is needed in better infrastructure for landing, storage and distribution and the training of staff. The future growth of the aquaculture industry and its successful establishment as a viable enterprise throughout the world will also contribute to improved supplies of fish. However development in this industry depends principally on the continued effective application of financial assistance and private investment, rather than on such other factors as advances in technology. (3) The Australian Government is particularly conscious of the need, through proper conservation and management measures, to ensure that the living resources of the Australian fishing zone are not endangered by over exploitation and that they are used to the best possible advantage by the Australian community. In response to biological and/or economic concerns comprehensive fishery management plans have been implemented or are in the process of being introduced, in a number of key areas which are designed to conserve resources and promote the long term economic viability of the fishing industry. The Government is particularly conscious of the need to co-ordinate our management actions with those of our neighbours as well as to ensure that conservation measures are not jeopardised by the sections of foreign fishing vessels operating in the Australian fishing zone. This is being achieved through our active participation in the work of a number of regional and international agencies such as the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency, the South Pacific Commission, and the FAO and its subsidiary bodies such as the Indian Ocean Fishery Commission and the Indo Pacific Fishery Commission. Australia, through FAO/ADAB is also contributing towards improvements in post harvest fish handling techniques in developing countries in an attempt to reduce losses of valuable food supplies. The Australian Government shares the concerns of the international community for fish stocks and is taking every opportunity to promote better fisheries resource utilisation with the aim of alleviating pressure on the world's marine resources. (Question No. 1792) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1987: Will the Federal Government continue to support UNESCO while it fails to fulfil the high ideals of its Charter, remains biased and continues to promote anti-Western propaganda, given the recent press reports that the Secretary-General of UNESCO, Dr M'Bow, may seek a further term in office and the fact that large sums of money allocated to UNESCO have been unaccounted for under Dr M'Bow's Secretary-Generalship which, together with the poor administration, has caused both the United States and the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Organisation. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As a founding member and supporter of the ideals of UNESCO, Australia will continue to participate in the work of the organisation, with the object of encouraging good management, efficient and effective program delivery, sound priorities and budgetary restraint. The withdrawal from UNESCO of both the United States and the United Kingdom was due to the professed concern of both governments at significant managerial, budgetary and policy problems within the organisation. Australia recognised that there were grounds for these criticisms, but still considers that there is no justification at present for withdrawal by Australia and that the correct approach is to continue to work for change from within UNESCO. Australia believes that some progress has been made in adopting priorities for programs, containing the growth of the budget, placing greater emphasis on operational programs and decentralisation of authority. The reform process is being overseen by a special committee of the Executive Board of which Australia's representative, Mr Whitlam, is a member. On 6 October 1986, the Director-General, Mr M'Bow, announced that he would not seek a third term following the expiry of his appointment in November 1987. In concert with other UNESCO member states and consistent with Australia's support for the principle that Directors-General of UN agencies and other bodies should serve only two terms in office, Australia is actively seeking a candidate to replace Mr M'Bow. Australia would like to see a candidate from the Asia/Pacific region succeed him, as this region has not previously held the position. In Australia's view the next Director-General should also be a person of international repute, high administrative and managerial capacity and capable of restoring the universality of the organisation's membership. Elections for the position of Director-General will be held during the 24th General Conference in November 1987. (Question No. 1805) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1987: (1) Has the Government established an inter-departmental committee to examine Australia's participation in, and financial contribution to, all or any multilateral government organisation(s). (2) If it has done so, what multilateral organisations or organisation are or is under consideration. (3) If such a committee has been set up, why has it been established. (4) If such a committee has been set up, what are its terms of reference. (5) If such a committee has been set up, is it, or will it, examine the experiences of Australian citizens working in all or any multilateral government organisations or organisation, and the personnel practices of all or any multilateral government organisations or organisation. (6) If such a committee has been set up, when is it expected to report to the Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (6) The Government has not established such an inter-departmental committee but the Department of Foreign Affairs is currently undertaking a review of all United Nations bodies for which Australia is legally bound to make assessed contributions. The review addresses the performance of and Australian interests in these organisations. The Department is conducting the review in consultation with other Departments relevant to the various organisations involved. The review is expected to be completed later this year. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau also regularly reviews voluntary contributions to multilateral organisations. Senator Tate —On 14 May 1987 (Hansard, page 2833), Senator Jessop asked me the following question without notice: I refer the Special Minister of State to the success of the foreign company Genting-Berhad in obtaining a casino licence in Australia in competition with other foreign companies and only one wholly Australian owned company. Is the Genting-Berhad company the same one that is established in Malaysia? If so, is the Minister aware that, according to newspaper reports in that country, this company has been involved in prostitution and money lending in association with casino operations in the Cameron highlands and has been involved in kick-backs and other incentive payments to officials during the establishments of its business in those highlands? Does the National Crime Authority take any interest in prospective casino operators from overseas and their previous history? Also, do State governments responsible for issuing casino licences consult with or seek advice from Australian Federal Police authorities who may have a knowledge of the backgrounds of foreign operators seeking to manage casinos in Australia? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: In my response to the honourable senator on 14 May 1987 I undertook to provide, insofar as I was able to, further information concerning consultation between the Commonwealth Government and its law enforcement authorities and State Governments and their law enforcement authorities. I am advised that the Australian Federal Police has assisted State authorities as necessary in the investigation of the background of foreign operators seeking casino licences. Arrangements have also been facilitated through the various AFP overseas liaison officers for State authorities to have access to foreign casino regulatory and law enforcement agency information. In addition, at the Commonwealth level, similar liaison arrangements exist e.g., the Department of Territories, which has responsibility for the proposed development of a casino on Christmas Island, is also consulting closely with the AFP in checking the backgrounds of persons connected with this development. The honourable senator also asked whether the National Crime Authority takes any interest in prospective casino operators from overseas and their previous history. I am advised that the Authority would take an interest in such matters if they were deemed relevant to one of its investigations; in addition, the Authority is consulted as required by the AFP and other bodies. In his question the honourable senator has referred, in particular, to the company Genting-Berhad. I subsequently received a letter from the Director of that company referring to the honourable senator's question which rejects as untrue allegations that the company has been involved in prostitution, money-lending and kick backs. I am willing to provide the honourable senator with a copy of the letter if he requires it. Senator Walsh —On both 27 May 1987 (Hansard, page 3001) and 1 June 1987 (Hansard, page 3274), Senator Durack asked me questions without notice in my capacity as Minister representing both the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. His questions concerned union bans on the shipment of wheat to Fiji. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The bans which were placed by the maritime unions on the shipment of wheat to Fiji have been lifted and the Australian Wheat Board advised that loading of the ``Capitaine Wallis'' was due to commence on 3 June 1987. The Australian Wheat Board has confirmed that Fiji had less than 7 days supply of wheat. As a result of the rationing of the release of flour by millers in Fiji disruptions to supplies should be minimised. Senator Walsh —On 29 May 1987 (Hansard, page 3249) Senator Childs asked me a question without notice in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. His question concerned the action being taken by the Government with respect to the so-called interstate milk war. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied me with the following additional information: The so-called interstate milk war commenced in April this year when the Midland Milk Company of Shepparton, Victoria, began selling milk supplied to it by the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority to the NSW supermarket chain Jewel Food Stores. This milk was sold by Jewel at a discount of some 10c/litre on the NSW price. Following negotiations between the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority and the NSW Dairy Corporation a ``truce'' has been reached under which NSW will allow a specified amount of Victorian milk to be sold in NSW, subject to the NSW Dairy Corporation processing the milk and controlling its sale price. The prospect of an all out ``milk war'' has therefore been averted. A special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council will take place on 5 June 1987 to consider the interstate trade in milk issue with a view to formulating strategies for the long term settlement of at least some of the tensions which gave rise to the recent events. (Question No. 1671) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) Is the Treasurer aware of the reported comments of Mr John Mark, Managing Director of Brick Securities Limited, to a meeting of the Building Owners and Managers Association to the effect that a realistic appraisal of the impact of the capital gains tax and imputation tax will result in a strong mood of confidence for the property market and property trusts. (2) What steps can the Government take to ensure that investors are made aware of the advantages arising from the new taxation package. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No, but your bringing this to notice is appreciated. (2) The advantages of the imputation system have already received much publicity as a result of my press release of 10 December 1986 which set out details of the operation of the new system. In addition, the Australian Taxation Office has published booklets explaining the Government's tax reforms and their benefits. The advantages of the Government's taxation package, including the imputation arrangements for investors, have also been explained by me and officers of my department in a number of public forums, workshops and conferences. The significant advantages of the new imputation arrangements, in terms of previous double taxation of dividends being reduced to a single layer of tax generally at shareholders' marginal rates, will themselves, of course, be a major factor ensuring that investors-with the assistance of investment advisors and brokers-rapidly become familiar with the arrangements. (Question No. 1697) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 March 1987: In view of the present stability of the Australian dollar does the Treasurer believe that the introduction of imputation for company tax will improve the comparative advantage of domestic equities over overseas portfolio investment; if so, what effect will this have on domestic interest rates. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The imputation system of taxation of company dividends will substantially reduce the tax imposed on dividends paid by Australian resident companies to their resident individual shareholders-from a maximum rate of 78.4 per cent under the classical system to a maximum of 49 per cent under imputation-and is expected to enhance significantly the attractiveness of domestic equities to resident individual investors, making it easier for resident companies to raise equity finance. Non-resident shareholders will benefit from the removal of dividend withholding tax (DWT) in respect of dividends paid to non-residents out of taxed income. This will reduce the current combined rate of company tax and DWT of 54.1 per cent (where DWT at the 15 per cent rate applies) to 49 per cent. Imputation will do much to enhance the position of domestic equities in relation to other investments and debt financing. However, in view of the complex financial interactions involved, it is not clear what impact, if any, this will have on domestic interest rates.