Thursday, 24 September 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To The President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 109 citizens), Button (from 17 citizens), MacGibbon (from 17 citizens) and Puplick (from 116 citizens). To the Hon. the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That In view of the number of expert witnesses and government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card and In view of the radical change in the proprietal relationship between Australian citizens and the bureaucracy implied in the Australia Card Legislation and In view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general and the Health department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them and In view of the contrast between the openness daily shown in media by our U.S. cousins in their open and televised inquiry into the ``Contragate'' arms for Iran scandal, and, the almost total absence of debate during the recent election on what was supposed to be the constitutional trigger for that election. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the bill to an open Senate enquiry That that enquiry be held in public And that every assistance be given to the broadcast media, both public and private to record and/or broadcast the proceedings of that enquiry in its entirety. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 255 citizens). Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sitting of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation. Some of the amendments made by this Bill tidy up, correct and update existing legislation. Other amendments are of minor policy significance or are matters of routine administration. None of the amendments made by the Bill has any significant financial impact. The amendments proposed in this Bill are, for the most part, a reproduction of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1987 which lapsed after the second reading debate in the House of Representatives earlier this year. The current Bill is different from Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 1) in two respects. Firstly, it contains some further changes to amendments previously included in the Bill. Some of these are necessary because of the effluxion of time, for example, the amendments to the Honey Industry Act 1962, and some are minor drafting amendments. Secondly, this Bill includes amendments to the following Acts which were not present in the earlier Bill: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; Acts Interpretation Act 1901; Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979; Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; Currency Act 1915; Customs Tariff (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1987; Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966; Foreign States Immunities Act 1985; Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981; Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Consequential Amendments) Act 1987. Many of the proposed amendments will be self-evident or sufficiently explained by the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with the Bill. I propose to confine my comments to addressing mainly the new amendments included in this Bill, and amendments that were queried in relation to the lapsed Bill. Acts Interpretation Act 1901 The amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act are intended to advance the policy of simplifying the language of Acts of Parliament. For this purpose the amendments will permit some standard forms of words to be shortened, or omitted from Acts, by making appropriate amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act. The amendments will also make it clear that regulations may be expressed to commence at the commencement of a specified Act, even if the Act is to commence on a proclaimed date. It is also necessary to provide that regulations may be expressed to commence at a specified time on a specified day. Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970 The Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act currently restricts the functions of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board to those specified in the Agreement annexed to the Act. The United Kingdom and Australian Governments have now agreed that it is desirable for the Board to assume from the United Kingdom authorities responsibility for the future management of some additional facilities already in place at Siding Spring. The amendments will enable the Board to undertake other functions as prescribed by regulations and so assume those res-ponsibilities without the need for amendment of the Agreement. Audit Act 1901 The amendments proposed to the Audit Act in this Bill are aimed at improving the efficiency of the Commonwealth's financial administration and allowing the Auditor-General a discretion in reporting minor breaches of legislation. From the point of view of financial administration, one amendment will simplify the pro-cesses by which funds that have already been appropriated by law are subsequently distributed to Departments and will save administrative effort. Financial administration will also be improved by another amendment to enable the Minister for Finance to approve methods of performing accounting functions which do not involve written signatures. The amendments will ensure that Departments report to Parliament on their special ope-rations-a requirement which has not existed previously. The Auditor-General will also be given some discretion on which matters are included in his reports. The Auditor-General, when so requested by a Minister, will be able to audit the financial statements of bodies such as incorporated companies controlled by the Commonwealth. Currently there is doubt whether the Act permits such an audit, as the existing provision refers to the audit of accounts and records only. Other amendments will enable regulations to be made to re-establish a policy, adopted by previous Governments and arising directly from the policy of self-insurance, that the liability of Commonwealth drivers for the cost of replacing or repairing damaged vehicles should be the same as for a driver in the private sector who is covered by motor vehicle insurance. Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 Amendment to the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 is proposed in order to extend the current marketing arrangements for canned deciduous fruits undertaken through the Australian Canned Fruits Corporation (ACFC) for one year until 31 December 1988. The Government is aware of current efforts by canneries to amalgamate their activities in order to improve efficiency and reduce costs, and extension of the marketing arrangements by one year will facilitate industry discussions on cannery amalgamation. Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 The proposed amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act is designed to put beyond doubt the power of the Electoral Commissioner to direct Australian Electoral Officers, Divisional Returning Officers and other officers as defined in that Act. The amendment also puts beyond doubt the power of Australian Electoral Officers to direct Divisional Returning Officers and they in their turn to direct officers under their control. Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 The amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is intended to remove doubts about the certification of rule alterations. The Act requires that certain rule alterations made by organisations registered under the Act do not take effect unless certified by an Industrial Registrar as not contrary to law, the Act and regulations, an award or the rules of the organisation. Some doubt exists about the power of a Registrar to certify only part of a rule alteration submitted to him. The proposed amendment is intended to remove any doubt as to the validity of any partial certification made by a Registrar in the past and any doubt as to the validity of the rule alteration. The provision will not operate to alter any prior decision made by a court regarding any such certification or to pre-empt any decision in a proceeding before a court at the time the sub-section takes effect. A court will, however, be able to hold that a partial certification was valid if the court considers that it is just and equitable so to find. Currency Act 1965 The proposed amendment of the Currency Act will permit the issue of coins of the same denomination with differing characteristics and dimensions. This will facilitate the issue of special commemorative coins in 1988. Dairy Produce Act 1986 The amendments to the Dairy Produce Act will prevent persons who are members of the Executive Council of the Australian Dairy Conference, which is the peak policy council of the dairy industry, from being appointed as members of the Australian Dairy Corporation. This change is in accordance with the Government's policy that, where a statutory marketing authority is required to account to the peak industry body, the members of the executive council of that body are not to be eligible for appointment as members of the authority because of the possibility of a conflict of interests. Honey Industry Act 1962 The proposed amendments to the Honey Industry Act will enable the Minister to reappoint the immediate past members of the Australian Honey Board to hold office until the end of 1988. The Board is to be restructured with the new membership. Under the Bill which lapsed at the end of the last sittings, the tenure of Board members was to be extended pending the restructuring of the Board. However in the intervening period the Board members' appointments have expired. Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965 The Bill proposes a number of minor amendments to the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965. The most important of these fall into two areas. The first will allow greater flexibility in the appointment of a person to act as Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation. Under the proposed amendments, the Treasurer will be able to appoint someone to act as chairman in the absence of the Chairman. This will overcome difficulties that have arisen when the Deputy Chairman's position has been vacant. The second area of amendment will allow the Corporation to enter into reinsurance contracts with a subsidiary of an approved lender in respect of loans made by the approved lender and insured by the subsidiary. A recent trend for some lenders to insure their loans through their own newly established subsidiaries, and the fact that the Corporation is currently prevented by its Act from offering reinsurance, have restricted the Corporation's ability to compete for business it has traditionally serviced. The proposed amendments will enable the Corporation to respond to developments in the mortgage insurance market. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986; Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986; Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Act 1986 Several consequential amendments are to be made to these Acts following on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. The amendments will also make it clear that the Inspector-General may inquire into an act or practice of an intelligence agency that is or may be contrary to any human right, may constitute discrimination or may be unlawful under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 where it has been referred to the Inspector-General by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act 1981 The Minerals (Submerged Lands) Act provides a regime to allow exploration for, and exploitation of minerals from the seabed. Administration, pursuant to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, is to be shared between the States and the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth. Although passed in 1981 proclamation of the Act has been held pending passage by the States and the Northern Territory of complementary legislation. The proposed amendment is to allow proclamation of only portions of the Act. Governments are working on the full set of legislation and administrative arrangements required to implement the regime. Meanwhile, however, while the States and the Northern Territory can consider applications to explore areas to the outer limit of the territorial sea-the ``three mile limit''-in accordance with their existing onshore mining legislation, the Commonwealth is unable to consider applications for the much larger area of continental shelf outside the limit. There have been several expressions of interest by companies in respect of exploration in the Commonwealth's area. The Government is disposed to encourage commencement of mineral exploration activity, though mining would not be authorised until all arrangements are in place. It is proposed to proclaim only so much of the Act as is necessary to allow exploration to proceed. Given the role of the States and the Northern Territory in the administration of the Act, their views on partial proclamation have been sought. None of them has raised objections in principle. Discussions between officials are taking place. Navigation Act 1912; Shipping Registration Act 1981 The most noteworthy amendments of the Navigation Act will benefit the maritime industry by eliminating unnecessary duplication of certificating of ships. The amendments of the Shipping Registration Act are intended to promote the prompt provision to the Registrar of Shipping of accurate information on ships entitled to be registered in Australia. Pig Industry Act 1986 The amendment to the Pig Industry Act provides that if the Australian Pork Corporation requests that a company auditor be appointed the auditor of the Corporation, the Auditor- General shall advise the Minister on the suitability of the proposed company auditor. At present the Auditor-General is required to decide on the suitability of a company auditor. Another amendment removes the restriction on the Australian Pork Corporation selection Committee which prevents it from nominating for appointment to the Corporation anyone who is a member of the executive of an eligible industry body, that is, the Australian Pork Producers' Federation or the National Meat Processors Association. A person will still be ineligible for actual appointment to the Corporation if he or she is such a member. Removal of this restriction will mean that such a person will need to resign his or her position in the Federation or Association only if and when offered appointment to the Corporation by the Minister. This amendment will bring the selection procedures for the Corporation into line with those for other statutory marketing authorities. Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act 1979 The proposed amendments to the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Act update the penalties and revise some of the offences. The amendments as they now appear differ from the original version of the Bill introduced earlier this year to rectify a defect in a provision removing the right to refuse to provide information on the grounds of self-incrimination. This matter was raised by the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. I have not dealt with most of the amendments proposed by this Bill which were contained in the lapsed Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum has been revised and expanded in relation to all these amendments and Honourable Senators will be able to find details of these amendments, and the new amendments, in that memorandum. I table the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Referral to Committee Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That, for the purposes of the referral of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1987 to a committee on 17 September 1987, the committee to which the Bill stands referred be the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1987-88 together with the associated prospective deficit in the consolidated revenue fund. Legally, payments from the consolidated revenue fund cannot exceed moneys available to that fund. In order to meet any prospective deficit in the consolidated revenue fund it is customary to seek legislative authority to charge defence and other consolidated revenue fund expenditure to, or reimburse the consolidated revenue fund from, the loan fund. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow money in 1987-88 for defence and other purposes and to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the loan fund rather than from the consolidated revenue fund. In addition, and for the first time, the Bill provides for continuity of that authority by the inclusion of a supply clause. In the past, borrowing authority under the annual loan Act ceased to be available on 30 June until the next loan Act was passed; usually by urgent passage in the Budget sittings. Borrowings authority during the supply period for next financial year will be limited to the amount included in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1988-89 for defence purposes; that Act having been passed by the Parliament prior to the end of the 1987-88 financial year. Apart from a comparatively small amount attributable to the expenses of raising loans under the authority of this legislation, the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by Parliament under annual appropriation Acts and under Acts providing for special or standing appropriations. The Bill is simply a machinery financing measure-the provisions of the Bill in fact explicitly prohibit borrowings for expenditures additional to those authorised by the Parliament. Successive governments have, for many years, introduced legislation in the form of an annual loan Bill to authorise the issue of moneys from the loan fund to meet defence expenditures or to reimburse the consolidated revenue fund from loan fund in respect of certain non-defence expenditures. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the Budget deficit in prospect for 1987-88 is estimated to be some $27 million. This gives rise to a prospective deficit in the consolidated revenue fund of around $2.4 billion-the consolidated revenue fund differs from the Budget deficit as some CRF expenditures and receipts are classified as financing transactions in the functional classification of Budget outlays and, for purposes of the Budget figuring, certain Budget outlays are met direct from either the loan fund or the trust fund. Existing standing authorities enable some $1.2 billion of expenditure to be charged to loan fund in 1987-88 leaving a shortfall of some $1.2 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill seeks authority to borrow moneys accordingly. The amount of borrowings that may be undertaken pursuant to the proposed legislation is, in the case of defence expenditure, the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1)-some $7.1 billion in 1987-88-and any moneys for defence purposes that may be appropriated in the Supply Act (No. 1) for next financial year. The effective limit in 1987-88 is likely to be significantly less than appropriations as defence expenditures cannot be charged to loan fund until the legislation is enacted. The legal limit for borrowing for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the Loan Council. It is estimated that the 1987-88 limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the consolidated revenue fund deficit. In concluding, I emphasise that the Bill does not in any way impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to appropriate public moneys but simply provides a mechanism for financing expenditures previously approved and appropriated by the Parliament. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating Senators Colston, Devlin, Schacht, Michael Baume, MacGibbon and Reid to be members of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That Senators Michael Baume, Colston, Devlin, MacGibbon, Reid and Schacht, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution agreed to by both Houses, be appointed members of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of General Business for consideration this day pursuant to Sessional Order be as follows: (a) consideration of Government Papers (b) General Business, Notice of Motion No. 19, Nuclear Missiles Agreement Debate resumed from 21 September, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add `, but the Senate notes: (a) the failure of the Budget to: (i) reduce the level of Commonwealth spending on its own programs and therefore the Government's call on national resources, (ii) address underlying causes of our chronic uncompetitiveness, in particular the reasons for our extremely low productivity and excessive wages growth, and (iii) create an economic environment conducive to a substantial lift in business investment; (b) that because of these failings, the Government expects to see continuing growth in Australia's foreign debt; and (c) the criticism of the Minister for Finance in his speech to Labor Lawyers in Perth on 19 September about the Government's lack of courage in not further cutting spending, and his warning about the dangers of Australia heading further down the ``Argentinian road'', and calls on the Government to introduce a Mini Budget during the current Parliamentary sittings to address these deficiencies in the 1987-88 Budget.'- Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.06) —This Budget is a fraud. It has been revealed as such. Its cover has been totally blown, not only by the Opposition but also by commentators in the newspapers. People such as Mr Ross Gittins have exposed the nonsense of the so-called balanced Budget and have revealed the divisions between members of the Government-for example, between the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-over the pace of economic recovery and the appropriate nature of the reconstruction required to get Australia out of the mess. The Government was guilty of a fraud with this Budget. The Treasurer set out once again to deceive the Australian people and, in particular, to deceive those foreigners on whom he depends to balance his books in what has now been clearly shown as a monumentally phoney way. Let us look at the extent to which it is now clear that this Budget is a fraud and the Government has set out to deceive the Australian people. We saw in the Treasurer's Budget Speech self-satisfaction and excessive confidence. As Senator Walsh said, the Budget was clearly over-sold-not by just a touch; there was an immense dose of complacency. Australia, according to the Treasurer, in the only nation in the world in step, the only nation with the capacity to do it right. According to the Treasurer in his Budget Speech: . . . our economic strategy is now bearing fruit. He said: Our external deficit, although falling, remains too high. He admits that. He said also: To reduce permanently our debt burden we must go further in reducing our dependence on overseas savings by lifting the level of Australian savings. He said further that if we are: to sell more abroad-and if our manufacturers are to win a greater share of the domestic market-we must ensure the goods we produce are priced competitively. Well, that is accurate, but the Government is not doing anything about it. But here is the irony. He said: . . . we must make sure that labour costs in Australia are competitive with those of our trading partners. Of course, the figures that are available in the Budget Papers on page 29, table 7-an international comparison of compensation per employee-show just how inadequate and how short of these targets the Budget falls. The targets set by the Treasurer himself are, in fact, not being met because this Budget does not do what the Treasurer claimed it would do either in achieving a real balance-he has claimed it is a balanced Budget-or in setting an appropriate pace of reconstruction. I did not have the opportunity before to show this document to the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Evans), since we have just begun today's sitting; but I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard table 7 from page 29 of the Budget Papers which is an international comparison of compensation per employee. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 7: International Comparison of Compensation per Employee Japan (a) United States (a) Federal Republic of Germany (a) United Kingdom (a) New Zealand (b) Major OECD trading partners (c) Australia (d) (Per cent change on previous year) Year- 1983-84... 2.6 4.5 4.3 6.3 0.4 4.4 4.9 1984-85... 3.7 4.9 3.0 6.3 4.5 4.7 7.5 1985-86... 3.9 3.9 3.8 8.3 14.7 5.2 6.3 1986-87... 2.7 2.6 3.6 7.4 17.9 4.4 6.3 (a) Compensation per employee (ie total costs per worker to the employer) in the business sector. OECD figures, including some forecasts for 1986-87. (b) Compensation per employee. Estimates are for the New Zealand fiscal year which ends in March. (c) Calculated using weights based on the share of Australia's imports from Japan, USA, Federal Republic of Germany, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy, France and Canada in 1985-86. In 1985-86 these countries accounted for around 71 per cent of Australia's imports. (d) Australian average earnings data have been made as comparable as possible with OECD data by the inclusion of payroll tax and, in order to exclude distorting pay-day effects, seasonal adjustment (see Table 4). Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the House. It will be evident from that table of official figures that back in 1983-84 the increase in wages in Australia-this is according to the statistics-was 4.9 per cent compared to the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of 4.4 per cent. So Australia was only 10 or 11 per cent worse, in terms of increasing labour costs, than the rest of the world. I say `worse' in an environment where we are having to compete strenuously, struggle to survive, in a tough trading world. This Government has set out to improve our capacity to compete. It has done so `well' at that-I use the word `well' in inverted commas-that instead of being only 11 per cent worse in 1983-84, it got up to 21 per cent worse in 1985-86. Last year, 1986-87, as a result of this Government's ludicrous economic policies, ludicrous wages policies and ludicrous inflation policies, instead of being 11 per cent worse as it was in 1983-84, it was 43.2 per cent worse. This is regarded by the Government as an incredible victory. Australia's compensation per employee has increased by 6.3 per cent in the last year as against the OECD average of 4.4 per cent. This is because Australia is, according to the Treasurer, the only nation in step. He makes the point clearly in the Budget Speech. He says: We could have reacted to this trade deterioration by pushing all the economic policy levers into reverse. That has been tried in the past, both here and in other countries. And where it has been tried it has not produced the quick results hoped for and it has resulted in sharply higher long-term levels of unemployment, declining living standards and destructive social conflicts. We have rejected that path and the events of the past 18 months have shown that we were right. We have turned the corner and the big gaps in the trade accounts have begun to close. Australia is the only nation in step, according to the Treasurer. It reminds me of a booklet about the achievements of the accord which was put out a couple of years ago in which the Government said: In following this course- that is the accord- in contrast to many other countries, the Australian Government is determined not to revert to the orthodox response to devaluation of using contractionary economic policies to reduce inflation. It also rejects calls for the dismantling or destruction of our wage indexation system. Wage indexation systems overseas have been recently interrupted or suspended, with no one system escaping unscathed through the 1980s. The reality is that while we may be the only nation in step, it has meant that we are going broke, that we are unable to compete and that, in fact, we have a situation here in terms of compensation per employee which is far worse now in relation to the average of the OECD than it was in 1983-84, than it even was in 1985-86. This is damaging our capacity to lift our economy out of the crisis that it has been brought into under this Hawke Government. If we are going to be able to compete-as the Government says is our policy; its strategy is to get us to compete more-we have to become far more realistic about what we are entitled to, what all of us are entitled to in Australia, than we clearly have been in the past. That is a point that was made by Senator Walsh. I shall return to it in a few moments. It is interesting that Australia is the only nation in step, according to the Treasurer. We can see the consequences of that by looking at the International Comparison of Consumer Prices which is available from the Monthly Economic Social Indicators put out by the Parliamentary Library. We see that Australia, as a result of being out of step, as a result of deliberate Government policy, has an inflation rate of 9.3 per cent-according to the figures available for the last 12 months-compared to Germany, one of our trading partners, which has a rate of 0.2 per cent; compared to Japan which has no inflation rate whatsoever; compared to the United Kingdom which has a rate of 4.2 per cent which is less than half that of Australia's; compared to the United States which has a rate of 3.7 per cent, just over a third of Australia's; compared to the average of the European Economic Community which has a rate of 3.1 per cent, exactly one-third the level of Australia's inflation rate and the OECD average of 3.4 per cent, just over a third of the Australian average. That is the price of being out of step. Of course, that raises the interesting question of the extent to which, within the Government, there is conflict over the reality of whether the Government is adopting the appropriate policies to fix up this mess. We have heard from Senator Walsh quite a bit in defence of his very interesting speech to the Labor lawyers in Western Australia. That defence from Senator Walsh has been total bunkum. It would be worth while to examine in detail what he really did say and get it on the record in this place so that Senator Walsh will no longer with a straight face be able to pretend that he did not express strong disagreement with the policies or the rate of change, and indeed the bringing into effect of the policies that he says are his Government's. I quote from the transcript of what Senator Walsh said in Perth: On the macro situation Australia is certainly not out of trouble. Indeed I'm a bit worried that the Budget might be oversold and that it will, even if the Government's not complacent, make the public complacent, and think that we can ship back into our old slothful ways and we don't have to worry any more. He goes on: Certainly, if there was another commodity price slide, the International Monetary Fund will be knocking on the door again. And I think we all know what would happen to the welfare sector if we are pushed to that point. Julian Disney . . . correctly identified our problem with the current account deficit. A country which has a high level of foreign debt and a continuing large current account deficit is a country which has few options. I interpose there to say that under this Government foreign debt has trebled as a result of deliberate Government policy and, of course, the balance of payments crisis just blew out under this Government. Senator Walsh went on: The private borrowings- which were referred to by Mr Disney in a previous paper at this conference- are a symptom of our problem and not the cause. The fundamental cause is that current account deficit. The fact that for a number of years Australia has been consuming more from abroad including, of course, the interest that we have to pay abroad, than we have been selling abroad. He then went on to say that Mr Disney had mentioned in his paper the analysis that the Economic Planning Advisory Council recently did about who gets what out of government expenditure. The conclusion was that the middle class or upper middle class couples tend to get more from total government expenditure than a lot of poor people on welfare. Senator Walsh went on to say: That could be, I suggest, an argument for the introduction of means-tested fees for tertiary education because that is where a great deal of the money spent by governments and collected by the upper middle-class finishes up-in the provision of free tertiary education. I wanted to put that on the record to make certain that Senator Walsh does not seek to wriggle out of that as well. He went on: The suggestion, however, that wasn't made here but has been made before, that there should be a billion dollars collected in tax from the earnings of superannuation fund income and transferred to the welfare sector, has a very serious macro-economic flaw, and it is this: It is, of course, a proposal to divert a significant stream of savings into consumption-in other words, the precise opposite of what the country must do if it's going to get out of its economic problems. If there are to be greater payments to welfare, they have to be payments which divert somebody else's consumption, not somebody's else's savings. That is a very sensible comment from Senator Walsh and I think it is important to get it on the record. He continued: Around about 1970, there was a middle-class push for non-profit, taxpayer-subsidised child care, preferably and usually, centre-based child care. Since the Hawke Government has been in office and when the 20,000 places child care policy has been completed, the number of child care places in the taxpayer-subsidised total will have almost doubled. Many honourable senators opposite would congratulate the Government on that achievement; Senator Walsh does not. I will go on to say how he handles that problem. He stated: As this industry becomes more unionised and professionalised- that is the child care industry- there will, without doubt, be demands to employ speech therapists, trained nurses, and whatever you can think of. And the costs per capita will increase as long as they remain on the public chit. I ask the welfare sector to think about this. The sort of money that's going to be required to make this service at its present cost universal will not be available. The money could be found for a means-tested voucher system-that is, which people could present at private child care centres-which would then remove child care from the public sector and send it back to the private sector from whence, I believe, it should never have been enticed away. Senator Walsh is now on the record in this place about privatising child care, and he is right. Senator Walsh continued: We've been a lucky country for a long time, not so lucky any more and if we don't challenge most of the absurd notions that the majority of Australians have about what they are entitled to and what's essential to them and what isn't then we are going down the Argentinian road. In effect Senator Walsh is arguing strongly for the sort of taxation and government spending policies that the Labor Government rejected when they were put up by the Opposition in the recent election campaign. The Labor Government viciously attacked the sort of concept that Senator Walsh presented. I think that underlines the extent to which there is major division and recognition within the Labor Party that its performance has been abysmal, that to a large extent the economic problems we now face are the direct result of the Labor Government's own indolence and, according to Senator Walsh, its lack of guts. Senator Walsh recalled the following anecdote of the Federal Labor Party Conference held last year. He said: I was being proselytised and some bloke said what this is all about is to identify all those areas of government spending where . . . economic efficiency and social justice didn't justify the program . . . the Government should set up a unit to assess it. Well I said in the Federal Government we have a unit already that does that, it's called the Department of Finance and if you want it, I can give you 200, a list of 200 bloody programs off the top of my head that can't be justified by social justice, equity or economic efficiency grounds, and the reason we haven't abandoned them is because we don't have the political courage to do so. Senator Walsh said that and it is something from which he cannot escape and let us recognise this. As I outlined the other day in a notice of motion, when Senator Walsh refused to acknowledge in this place that there were still `200 bloody programs' that he could establish off the top of his head that should be cut and when he refused to outline what they were he was, in effect, admitting to this chamber that, in essence, they remain and that the Government still has not acted on them. If the point Senator Walsh made last year was accurate then, it is equally accurate now, and until he does something to demonstrate that action has been taken on these matters we, as an Opposition, have every right to regard Senator Walsh as a phoney when he pretends that he is no longer seen to be in conflict with the Government because this statement was made over a year ago. Senator Walsh says, `We have cut a lot of things since then'. I ask Senator Walsh, as Senator Newman asked him the other day: will he reveal to the Senate the extent to which the Government has rejected or accepted his recommendations to cut the 200 programs he has targeted? If he is fair dinkum, will he indicate to the Senate the impact that such cuts would have made on the 1987-88 Budget and on Australia's economic outlook? We now know that this Budget is inappropriate, that it does not do enough. Even worse, the Budget decisions are in conflict with what is required as outlined in the Budget Papers. The Budget Papers give clear indications of the things which should be done but which will, in fact, not be done. Mr Ross Gittins, in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 September, when talking about Budget Statement No. 2's conclusion, which he described as a `she'll be right' conclusion, made the following point: This is an example of a Treasury trick used several times in the white paper on tax reform: a rigorous and highly persuasive exposition of the case for doing something, followed immediately by a conclusion that there was no need to do it after all. We can see this kind of argument, for example, in the stated need to do something about the very slow rate at which improvement is expected in the current account deficit in the balance of payments which dominates Australia's economic situation and which may well pose an enormous risk to our economic future. The current account deficit has fallen as a percentage of gross domestic product from 6 per cent-an intolerable figure-in 1985-86 to about 5 per cent last financial year. This year it is projected by the Government to fall to about 4 per cent. The Treasury Statement asks whether this pace of improvement is adequate and, in particular, whether practical policies could be implemented to achieve more rapid adjustment. The Treasury Statement then says that the more rapid the adjustments of policy instruments, the greater the risk of wage break-outs, of businesses being too uncertain to invest, and of short term recession and rising unemployment, which could make the strategy unsustainable. Ross Gittins refers to Treasury's `two-handed economists' who say one thing, and then give the totally opposite view. The Treasury Statement says: . . . the longer the adjustment period, the greater is the build up in foreign debt and the greater the call on future income to service the debt. Prolonging the adjustment period also means greater vulnerability to further shocks that are adverse to Australia's external performance (for example, a further deterioration in the terms of trade or export demand), and involves a more searching test of the patience of foreign creditors. In other words, the Treasury outlines very clearly just how disastrous and serious is the failure of the Government to proceed much more rapidly down the correction road and how much more likely Senator Walsh's Argentinean road is to be followed if the Government continues with this failure, this masquerade, this dishonourable style of pretending that the Budget is solving the problems when the Treasury's own statements clearly indicate that it is not. However, let us not depend just on the Treasury or on Senator Walsh for an analysis of what is wrong. Let us consider the annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia, a most revealing document. One of the things that it certainly reveals very effectively is just how phoney the balanced Budget is. The balanced Budget depends on a $2.6 billion payment from the Reserve Bank to the Commonwealth. That, of course, is an extraordinary amount. It is extraordinary because, in fact, it is unlikely that the Reserve Bank's profit will total that amount this year. Not only is it unlikely; it is certain it will not. Let me instance why. Out of its total profit of $2.6 billion in 1986-87-that is, last year-$1.9 billion came from net gains from sales of foreign currency. That is a temporary addition to the revenue of the Bank which will not be repeated if the Bank has anything to do with it, and that is shown very clearly in the bank's report. For example, the report states: In the result- that is in 1986-87- the scale of the Reserve Bank's participation in the markets, and the consequent impact on the free operation of those markets, was much greater than the Bank would think appropriate as a continuing practice. In other words, it does not want that level of intervention to continue. The report reveals-and this is even more dramatic-the Bank's gross turnover in the foreign exchange market was $US13 billion, compared with only $US1 1/2 billion in 1985-86. The report states: Total market turnover doubled in 1986-87. Those sorts of volumes are incredible and are of a once-off nature. They will simply not be repeated unless, of course, the Australian dollar comes under massive pressure. Maybe that is why the Government is expecting the Reserve Bank profit to remain high-because the Australian dollar is going to come under massive pressure. The Reserve Bank says: In the course of providing a steadying influence- that is, to the value of the Australian dollar- the Bank's involvement in the market can be very high at times of strong pressure. This was the most important factor in the high volume of the bank's foreign exchange operations in 1986/87. So, according to the Bank, it does not want, nor does it expect, that kind of volume to take place in the current financial year-a year from which the Government is expecting to bleed slightly more profits out of the Reserve Bank than it took last year. Not only that, but at this stage there is no profit in the currency holdings of the Reserve Bank to be taken in the event of sales. This, of course, is a vital issue. In its annual report the bank says: Over recent years these increases have been substantially due to gains from the sale of foreign currency by the bank at prices (in Australian dollar terms) higher than those at which it was acquired. The average price at which the bank's present portfolio was acquired is close to the average market price and transactions at current prices would accrue little or no profits. In other words, if the Bank went into the foreign exchange market now and sold its holdings of foreign currency, it would make no profit whatsoever. For the Bank to be able to earn a profit in foreign exchange dealings it has to be able to sell now at the current price, buy again later if the Australian dollar collapses and, if and when the Australian dollar rises again, sell those and make a profit. In other words, the only method by which the Reserve Bank can earn the sorts of profit that this Government is relying on is for it to take advantage of massive fluctuations in the value of the Australian dollar. If the Australian Government, the Commonwealth Treasury, the Treasurer, and the Minister for Finance expect that kind of massive fluctuation in the Australian dollar, let them come forward and honestly say so. Otherwise let them not take in a profit which will depend on massive Reserve Bank intervention in the foreign exchange market. I now comment very briefly on some of the other things the Reserve Bank said about the Government's economic policy. It says in respect of the latest financial year: With other policy instruments less readily adaptable, for most of the year a heavy burden fell on monetary policy. Let us just stop there. That means that the Go-vernment was not doing its job. Fiscal policy was inadequate, the Government's economic policies were a failure and, as a result-I repeat the bank's words- With other policy instruments less readily adaptable- in other words, the Government was not doing it- for most of the year a heavy burden fell on monetary policy. The Reserve Bank had to do the job again. The bank goes on: High interest rates, and at times substantial involvement by the Bank in the foreign exchange and domestic money markets, were prices that had to be paid for this. Let us get this clear. The Reserve Bank is saying that the huge interest rates of last year were the result of a failure of the Labor Party's economic policies. Let us also recognise that the reductions in interest rates that have taken place this year have nothing to do with Government policy. The Reserve Bank says: Australian interest rates and exchange rates consequently are increasingly influenced by developments abroad. Do not let the Government try to fool the people of Australia that the current reduction in interest rates is the result of some reward for good behaviour by this Government on an economic level. It is not. It is the result, as the Reserve Bank says, of pressures from overseas, of the fall in the American dollar and of the need for international people to find a temporary home for their money. That temporary home at the moment in Australia. When that international situation is reversed-as it must be-we will face the risk of massive outflows, and the Government's sham in this Budget will be totally exposed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(10.36) —It is a pleasure to speak in a Budget debate after Senator Michael Baume. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber will remember how well he assisted us during the election campaign just past. This is a sound Budget. It is far better than any Budget which would have been brought down had there been a different result at the last election. I do not intend to speak about the actual details of the Budget. I want to use this opportunity to speak about some educational matters. Education is mentioned in the Budget and it was mentioned recently in a statement by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), so it is pertinent that it be mentioned in this debate. In the last decade Australia's education system has experienced a period of considerable growth and change. I intend to remark on some aspects of the changing educational environment, especially in relation to tertiary institutions. Before I address matters pertaining to universities and colleges, however, I shall make some remarks about the secondary level, where schools have been forced to adapt to the changing requirements of students. Secondary schools once had a comfortable existence and a well defined role. That role was to educate students to year 10, offering them a choice of courses-academic, manual, commercial or home science. Better students were then taken to years 11 and 12 and prepared for higher education. That role is now altered. As retention rates have increased more students, especially those at years 11 and 12 level, have required non-academic courses. The schools and their teachers have faced a period of adjustment, a process in which there is often a certain degree of discomfort. From my observations, teachers have adjusted to their new role and some are providing exciting courses which were unheard of some years ago. The higher education sector has undergone a similar transformation. Enrolments in institutions of higher education have increased by approximately one-third, and a large proportion of this growth has occurred in advanced education. The number of students participating in full time study has increased, but there has also been significant emphasis on part time external study. Graduate and post-graduate studies are receiving more attention. There has been a movement away from teacher education towards business studies, science and the technologies. These changes in the numbers of students and types of courses they undertake have been reflected in changing patterns of participation in higher education. For instance, there is now a higher proportion of women students enrolled in institutions of higher education. Progress has also been made towards increasing participation rates for disadvantaged groups. The new patterns of enrolment are the result of changes in community expectations and demands being made of higher education. The primary role of institutions of higher education has been to teach the able and for teaching staff to engage in research. This, too, has been a comfortable role. Unfortunately, some staff made their role even more comfortable by concentrating on neither teaching nor research. But the vexed question of tenure is not a matter I should pursue today. Increased enrolments, however, have focused attention on the quality of teaching and the types of courses being offered by universities and colleges of advanced education. The Australian community has a substantial continuing investment in higher education. About $2 billion to $3 billion is provided by the Australian Government to fund 19 universities and 45 colleges of advanced education (CAEs). This is over $7m a day, 365 days a year. The investment in buildings and equipment approximates $5,500m. The interest on this investment would be almost $2m per day. This is a massive expenditure and is often overlooked when people criticise the Commonwealth contribution to higher education. The Commonwealth Government is indeed being asked to provide even more funds to build universities and colleges and to extend existing facilities. As student numbers increase, the recurrent funds required to operate institutions of higher education also rise. Before providing additional funds it is essential that the Commonwealth ensures that existing facilities are being used efficiently and effectively. Funds for tertiary education come from the taxpayer and it is incumbent on governments to use those funds wisely. As well, any funds made available for education obviously are not available for the many worthwhile purposes to which money may be directed. Therefore the Government should be congratulated that in 1985 it requested that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-CTEC as it is normally known-initiate an inquiry into ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the higher education sector. A committee was established to assist the Commission in the review, and last year that committee released a report entitled `Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education'. The committee's task was to inquire into ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education in Australia. The committee approached this task by first reviewing the nature and extent of changes in the utilisation of resources since the Commonwealth assumed full funding responsibility for higher education in 1974-at a time of a previous Labor Government, it should be recalled. It then considered a number of areas identified in the terms of reference in which further improvement in efficiency and effectiveness may be possible. These included the utilisation of facilities, use of new technologies, staffing mechanisms and delivery of courses, as well as measures to monitor performance and improve accountability. I intend to comment on the committee's examination of the potential for achieving better utilisation of resources. This topic is covered by Chapter 4 of the committee's report. By way of introduction the committee described the nature of higher education facilities and their patterns of utilisation. Higher education institutions operate a vast number of facilities to accommodate a range of activities. Approximately half the total floor space takes the form of classrooms and laboratories. Teaching facilities range from conventional classrooms or lecture theatres to various types of laboratories and workshops. Offices for academic staff account for some 10 to 20 per cent of space. Academic services, encompassing areas such as libraries, central computing, audio-visual facilities and the like, account for a further 10 to 15 per cent of the space. The remaining space, some 20 to 30 per cent for most institutions, is used for central administration, maintenance areas, student and staff facilities and sporting facilities. Table 4.1 of the committee's report summarises the way in which space is used at universities and CAEs. On average, the teaching activities of higher education institutions extend over 58 hours per week with some institutions operating for up to 70 hours a week. The academic year operates from February to November and normally includes between 30 and 35 weeks of teaching. Facilities are used more intensively over the academic year than during the period between academic years, since most students are absent over the summer months. Activities which cannot be undertaken or which would be difficult to undertake during the academic year are scheduled for this period. Teaching staff revise and update course material, develop new courses, arrange for course accreditation and prepare teaching aids. Technical staff set up laboratory experiments. Maintenance is also carried out. With the reduced demand on library facilities, culling, reclassifying and recataloguing is scheduled for the summer period. The time of peak activity in student administration also occurs between the academic years. To investigate the potential for increased use of teaching facilities during the academic year, the Committee commissioned a study to: determine measures of utilisation, to assess levels being achieved by institutions and to examine time-tabling procedures and other factors which may affect utilisation. The purpose of the survey was to `collect the information necessary to calculate utilisation measures for each institution'. Such measures can be used to assist institutions in assessing how well they are managing physical facilities. Two measures are in use in the United States of America: room utilisation, to indicate the degree to which rooms are used, is measured by the average number of hours for which rooms are in use; seat utilisation, to indicate the level of occupancy when rooms are in use, is measured by the proportion of seats occupied for rooms in use. General teaching space in Australian institutions is used on average for 27 hours per week. Specialist teaching space is in use for 21 hours per week. Seat utilisation in Australian institutions averaged 57 per cent for general teaching space and 56 per cent for specialised teaching space. Table 4.2 of the committee's report outlines a comparison between measures for Australian higher education and equivalent institutions in three areas of the United States. The committee went on to outline those factors which affect rates of utilisation and which could be manipulated to improve the use of facilities. It was, in fact, discovered that certain institutional characteristics affected levels of utilisation, and some of those would not be surprising. Institutions located in or near large population centres have a greater potential for higher room utilisation than do regional institutions. The former usually have longer hours of operation because they are readily accessible for students through public transport systems. Larger institutions can generally attain a higher room utilisation than smaller ones, through the added timetabling flexibility which arises from having a larger number of teaching facilities with a range of room sizes. Relatively new institutions are more likely to have lower room utilisation rates than established institutions. The potential for evening use of class rooms depends in part on the extent of part time enrolments. The committee also found that other factors can be influenced by the management practices of the institution. The study showed that the pattern of room usage over the days of the week can affect utilisation. Usage is significantly lower on Friday than on mid-week days. In fact, in similar institutions in Queensland hardly anyone can be found on Friday afternoon. Table 4.2 of the committee's report indicated the room utilisation for each day from Monday to Friday and for the weekend. By extending the hours of operation into the evening it may be possible to increase utilisation. In fact, a cost analysis suggested that use of evening classes is a cost-effective way of obtaining additional capacity. Already many institutions use evening hours extensively to conduct classes, largely to meet a demand from part-time students. The committee argued, however, that a greater use of evenings to schedule classes for full-time students may not be feasible or even desirable. This would involve a departure from the standard working day. There may also be transport difficulties for students to gain access to the institutions in the evening. These considerations would also apply to extending teaching activities to Saturday and Sunday. Currently teaching facilities are rarely used at the weekend. The committee recommended that where practicable: Institutions should seek to meet a demand for weekend classes from part-time and external students where this exists, and endeavour to provide access to libraries and computing services. By more effective timetabling, institutions would be able to offer a wider choice of subjects and to schedule classes at times most suitable for students. One surprising finding of the committee was that only a quarter of the institutions use computer-assisted procedures for timetabling. I suggest that it is surprising because many universities and CAEs offer courses in computer studies. The application of computer techniques to timetabling may allow institutions to achieve more effective utilisation. The committee concluded that while `there may be potential for increased utilisation in some institutions, this will not, for the most part, ease the pressure for additional capital expenditure'. It stated that the Government's program for growth in higher education needs to be `planned carefully and directed to locations of greatest need'. The priorities for growth include `outer metropolitan areas which have large populations with relatively poor access to tertiary education, and certain States and regions where it is necessary to overcome relative deficiencies that have developed over many years'. I have no doubt that the State which I represent suffers in its provision of higher education because of neglect in years gone by. The committee also examined the possibility of achieving better utilisation of facilities through `year-round teaching'. Since the length of the teaching year for most universities and colleges is between 30 and 35 weeks, an extension of teaching activities over a longer period of the year would appear to offer the potential to achieve better utilisation of physical facilities. Three possible approaches to year-round teaching are considered in the report. They are continuous study, staggered teaching and summer term. If a program of continuous study is adopted courses run continuously through the year with no summer break. If widely adopted, the very nature of higher education would be altered. Many students depend on the summer period to generate income to support their studies. Few students could cope with the concentrated educational load. After the first two years the more rapid growth of graduate numbers could cause unemployment to rise. For these reasons the committee considered that this approach-that is, the approach of continuous study-was not a feasible option. In the staggered teaching approach, courses remain at their current length but with an additional teaching period introduced within the year. Units are then repeated during the year to achieve a balanced pattern of teaching. There are two forms of staggered teaching-the trimester and quarter systems. Any one student would not attend a continuous sequence of terms or semesters, but on average would be free for one term or semester each year. In the case of the trimester system there are two principal methods. The first assumes three groups of students, equal in number, with group X attending trimesters A and B, group Y trimesters A and C, and group Z trimesters B and C. The second method would admit students by trimesters and simply continue on the assumption that the normal student year is two trimesters. These two methods are represented on page 124 of the committee's report. Certain benefits could be derived from the staggered teaching approach. Institutions and government could gain from the more intensive use of facilities and, to a lesser extent, service facilities. Some students may be able to complete a course in a shorter time than is possible at present. The economy could benefit to a small degree through a reduction in the time taken for higher education to respond to demands and trends in the labour market. The committee did, however, highlight certain negative consequences of staggered teaching. Unemployment would rise unless graduates were absorbed into the work force at a more rapid rate. Institutions would also incur additional teaching costs. More lecturers may be required. Staggered teaching would also involve significant administrative difficulties as the student intake would need to be distributed over the year. For these reasons the committee saw little merit in the introduction of staggered teaching arrangements to Australian higher education. It argued that the `potential financial benefits through a more intensive utilisation of facilities are likely to be illusory, being more than offset by additional teaching and other salary costs'. Furthermore, `such a change in teaching arrangements would generate significant administrative and social difficulties as well as interfering with many essential activities.' A third approach, the summer term, was also examined. In this case the current semester or term system would be retained, as would be the existing pattern of teaching over the traditional academic year. An additional teaching period would be introduced during the long vacation to meet particular teaching needs. Activities currently being undertaken during summer term include: continuing education, external studies, remedial courses, bridging courses, language courses, professional upgrading, special interest seminars, cultural, sporting and community activities. While there is a wide range of activities, the overall utilisation of teaching facilities over the summer period is low for most institutions. The committee therefore recommended that `institutions examine the potential for offering additional courses outside normal academic periods to facilitate academic progress and improve access, particularly for disadvantaged students.' The major conclusions drawn by the committee, with regard to the utilisation of resources, may be summarised as follows. On the issue of year-round teaching it was found that there was `no scope for major economies in institutional operations'. The introduction of year-round teaching would `increase costs rather than produce savings'. The committee argued, however, that there is scope for institutions to use their resources more efficiently if they `continue to take advantage of opportunities to extend teaching activities beyond traditional teaching times, where this is appropriate.' The committee concluded that improved performance by higher education institutions in the management of their resources could be achieved only if they engaged in `forward planning on a systematic basis.' The reaction to the report has been favourable. A number of higher education institutions have established committees to consider various aspects of it. Others have begun studies into the management and utilisation of resources. As the committee considered that year-round teaching offered no scope for major economies in operations, nothing more has been done in this regard. However, certain recommendations concerning the extension of teaching activities beyond the traditional times have been adopted. For instance, the committee suggested that the Commission review its policy on the calculation of student load-which is, of course, the basis for funding-in relation to enrolments in bridging courses. I understand that this recommendation is being acted upon. I have concentrated my remarks on the teaching role of universities and CAEs. It should not be interpreted that I regard the research roles of higher education institutions as unimportant-far from it. But with more and more students going on from Year 12 to universities and CAEs, it is important that the teaching role and the utilisation of teaching facilities comes under scrutiny. Although the committee did not make any breakthrough in the way in which institutions of higher education can manage their facilities, it did identify areas where the institutions' administrators should direct their attention. It is important for each institution to gain value for the funds it receives. Similarly, it is important for the public to obtain value for their tax dollars which are used to fund universities and CAEs. The Government should therefore expect that, before calls are made upon it for more funds, institutions are doing everything possible to use existing funds efficiently and effectively. The committee appropriately remarked: How well institutions manage and use the resources available to them affects the number of places which can be provided for Australians to participate in higher education and influences the quality of teaching and research activities. Mr Acting Deputy President, before I conclude, I take this opportunity, albeit probably late, of congratulating you on taking the chair for the first time. I did not do so at the beginning of my speech because at that time you were not there. Now that you have taken the chair, it is pleasing for me, as a Queenslander who ran on the same Senate team in the last election, to be able to be the first to congratulate you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Thank you, Senator. Senator COLSTON —In conclusion, I look forward to institutions of higher education making increasing efforts to use their existing facilities efficiently and to allocate their recurrent funds wisely. I also look forward to the Federal Government stressing that additional funds will be provided only when it is persuaded that current funds are being applied in the best possible way. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(11.02) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been basking in the sunshine of some favourable Press interpretations of the Budget that Australia is now on the road to recovery. A few simple but very worrying facts tend to query this smug assumption-or at least they tend to cast a few shadows across those abundant rays of sunshine. It is true that we welcome a nearly balanced Budget, the first for many years. But I warn honourable senators: do not judge this very large book by the glossy cover or the initial interpretations. We also welcome the lesser reliance on monetary policy and a slow but perceptible move towards fiscal restraint. Indeed, I would go so far as to venture that the Keating Government has taken a turn off that Argentinean road. I contrast this Federal Budget with our own Tasmanian State Budget that was brought down yesterday. The ingredients and the contrasts are notable. Firstly, Tasmania will generate more wealth. Federally, the Australian Labor Party Government is putting emphasis on collecting more and more revenue-taking more and more overall from the people. The second important principle of the Tasmanian Budget is that the State will live more within its own means. What is happening federally? More and more money is coming in from overseas to prop up the current account deficit. Australia is selling the farm. Our land prices and stocks and shares, in terms of the yen, are at bargain basement prices. Many Australians are becoming very worried at increasing amounts of property and real estate, including beachside resorts-I am not just talking about prime central real estate in the central business district-that is being bought by overseas people. The Government has thrown out the Foreign Investment Review Board, and Australia is being bought up day by day by overseas people. In other words, we are not living within our means and, as a result, we are cheapening the prices of our assets and ourselves. The third feature of the Tasmanian Budget is that Tasmanians will become entrepreneurial. On the other hand, I remind honourable senators that I have been on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for something like 10 years now and I am rather disturbed at all the reports I read from Federal Government departments and statutory organisations about their lack of commitment towards setting attainable goals. True, they set out some broad objectives in their charter, but each year there is a failure to show how they perform against measurable standards of performance. These departments and statutory bodies just plod along without an entrepreneurial direction and without proper performance standards being reached. Fourthly, the State of Tasmania is going to make the best use of its resources. Tasmania seeks a balance between development and conservation. In other words, this recipe of the State's reliance on enterprise is, I think, a feature that the Hawke-Keating Government could well adopt as a recipe for Australia's recovery. Let us look at some of those simple but very worrying facts that tend to cast some doubt upon these smug assumptions that Australia is now on the road to recovery. If we go outside Canberra into the real Australia, into the suburbs and on to the farms, we will find that real household disposable income has actually fallen. That is the figure that has some meaning to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to me and to the ordinary Australian. It might not mean much to the bureaucrats or the newspaper editors, but it is important to the ordinary Australian. The fact that our real household disposable income actually fell last year is a worrying sign. This is the first fall in 30 years. We did not see that mentioned in the Budget Papers, did we? Even under the policies of the Whitlam Government we did not see this sort of thing happen. People's living standards are declining. This is a result of the policies of this Hawke Labor Government. These facts are being pushed under the carpet. They have not been highlighted by the Press; they are not on the first page of the Budget, but every Australian knows that he is worse off than he was in the previous year. How has this come about? Per capita consumption went down by one per cent, the first fall in 25 years. In fact, it is the first fall since 1961-62. Let us look at the breakdown in what is termed per capita consumption. The non-durable element went up by 1.7 per cent. Again, it is an element that has not been publicised by Mr Keating. That element having gone up means that the overall figure is so much worse. Food consumption fell by 1.3 per cent. In other words, people do not have the same capacity as they had before to spend the same amount of money on food. The consumption of durable goods went down by 8.9 per cent. I suppose that is because people do not have the ability to own their own homes as was once the case. This feature of home ownership has been something for Australians to be proud of, to boast about over many years. Overseas perceptions about the unstable state of Australia were brought home to me only three weeks ago when I was privileged to dine with some bankers in South East Asia. I was introduced as `The good Australian senator from down under'. The South East Asians are very polite, but I suppose that was the most flattering thing I heard all night. They followed that comment by saying, `The good senator comes from Australia, the big land down under, where they pay themselves more to go on holidays than when they are at work'. The laughs of derision made me feel somewhat uncomfortable. Apart from their jealousy of our wide open spaces and our abundance of natural resources, there was not much else in their conversation that was really comforting to me coming from Australia. The reality is that never have the people of this country faced such a depressing year in terms of a decline in living standards and economic pro-gress. The important thing to realise is that the last year was not a statistical aberration as some would suggest because real average earnings have contracted by nearly 7 per cent since March 1983 when the Hawke-Keating Government was elected. One might say that all these are pretty dry figures but they do show that Australia is in a very much more fragile state than the Trea-surer and most of the media, and even Senator Walsh, would care to admit, although I must say that of late Senator Walsh has had the temerity, or may I say the honesty, to try to put a little bit of dampener on the policies. He can see certain dangers in going along the path suggested by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). There are flaws in the strategy of this Budget. While we welcome, as I said, this move to a more balanced Budget, the means of achie-ving this are suspect. My background is in accounting, and one of the first accounting principles that I was told about was that when there is an abnormal, a one-off or an unusual item it is not to be included in the net profit, it is to be shown below the line and it is explained to the world, as it were, as an extraordinary item. We have two significant items that really should have been below the line or that deserved special mention as extraordinary items. My colleague Senator Michael Baume spent some time talking about that extraordinary profit that came from the Reserve Bank of Australia amounting to several billion dollars. There is also the sale of assets. In other words, we create wealth by selling assets. The Budget Papers also revealed that we are paying off some of our international indebtedness but at the same time we are having to borrow to pay back that indebtedness. What a contradiction in terms. Fortunately, that one did not go down too well. There are a lot of other weaknesses within this Budget. The Budget Papers are not as accurate as one would have us believe. I would like to mention, for example, the $5.7m which was allegedly given by this Government to the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology in the Budget on Tuesday night. But it was snatched away 24 hours later. The Institute noted the unexpected grants, so naturally it contacted Mr Keating's office. But the Treasurer, his staff, and officers of the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury could not shed any light on the matter. By the Wednesday evening following the Budget, the Treasury phoned the Tasmanian Institute of Technology and apologised for what was referred to as a careless typographical error. The Institute was told that it would not be getting the money; small change I would say. Even if it was a typographical error, where has this not insubstantial amount of almost $6m been reallocated to? Who has got it? I submit that there are other items of this nature which indicate a high degree of carelessness within the Budget. The real clue to our economic recovery is surely to try to seek out and develop strategies that will lead to a versatile manufacturing and services area. This is essential in order to offset the higher level of imports. But the policy that the Government is now pursuing is leading to a rise in the value of the Australian dollar which is giving greater encouragement to imports, entering Australia and therefore competing more effectively against Australian made products. When the Australian dollar was down in the low 60c range against the United States dollar, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, warned against the dollar entering the 70c range. It is now at that level. A lot of manufacturers who were encouraged to export are now on the borderline; they are now at risk; they now have marginal businesses. So there are problems ahead. Recently in the Australian my attention was drawn to the fact that a lady from New South Wales said that her budget never balances like Paul Keating's and could he give her a few lessons. I think the answer is quite simple-sell off your assets. The problem is that you can only do it once unless you have a very big inheritance. I submit that Australia does not have that inheritance. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(11.15) —I join Senator Colston in congratulating you, Mr Acting Deputy President, on your accession to the chair. Of course, I listened with interest to the grand hyperbole of Senator Michael Baume and to the deep and penetrating analysis from Senator Watson. We have come to expect that from Senator Watson and he has performed well today. But I want to talk about how Senator Baume started his speech when he said that this Budget was a fraud. Having heard Senator Baume say something like that, I immediately reached for the Budget Speech. I wondered what part of it was fraudulent. The third paragraph states: . . . the Budget for 1987-88 is in balance. It does not seem to me that there has been any great contradiction about that except that certain people have speculated that, if such and such happens, it will not balance. I suppose that could be said about anything. One could say that if black were white, blue would be green. But where does that get us? One can extrapolate figures into the future and say that, if such and such happens, the Budget will not be in balance. But that does not prove that the Budget will be other than as is set out in the Budget Speech by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I think it is generally conceded that this is an historic Budget in that, after so many years, it has been made to balance. Senator Watson said that one of the problems is that the Budget will balance only because of the sale of assets. I welcome Senator Watson into the field of those who are against privatisation. He put some very interesting arguments. He said that if the Government sells off the Commonwealth's assets, it can do so only once and that thereafter the Commonwealth does not have the ability to earn revenue from those assets. There is a lot of merit in his argument and it should be taken on board. It seems to indicate that the Opposition does have considerable concern about privatisation and about selling off the assets of this country. I am not too sure how many more Opposition senators will speak in this debate but it will be interesting to see whether they take us down that line. To get back to the Budget Speech, I refer next to the promise in the Budget that the Government will provide $250m to meet its election promise of a family allowance supplement for low income families. In addition, over the years the Government will spend considerably more on assistance to families. There is a point to be made about that. This Government is to be congratulated because it has, with consider- able foresight and drive, attempted to do something about the poverty that exists in this community, particularly as it affects children. Of course, the interesting thing is that that attempt has been made a reality this year, and will continue to be made a reality in years to come. As various people in this chamber speak from time to time, they tend to speak particularly in economic terms about the collection of revenue, who should pay it and on what basis. Not enough is spoken about the way that revenue, once collected, should be expended. On this occasion this Government has set up very detailed machinery whereby poverty which hits the most vulnerable part of our community-that is, children-can be addressed and relieved. I think there is considerable merit in that and it is one of the most compassionate and one of the greatest things this Government has done. During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that considerable effort would be made to relieve child poverty within families over the next few years. This Budget has to be seen in that light and has to be welcomed-as it has been welcomed by Mr Julian Disney, whose name has been mentioned previously-as very positive in the way it addresses those areas of distress in the community. That is another illustration of how government generally has a duty to address the problems of all members of the community. Everybody agrees that we should defend the country. It is an essential part of the duties of government to provide law and order and machinery in the courts by which disputes can be addressed between the States and citizens charged under criminal law. It is also proper that government addresses the needs of those who are in greatest distress, who are vulnerable and who cannot look after themselves-that is, the children. The Government has done that by trying to relieve that poverty through direct payments and seeking in this Budget to provide ways of addressing the education needs not only of the children and the youth of this country but also of the country itself. If we are to address that balance of payments problem that Senator Watson spoke about, and that has been spoken about by others during this debate, it is necessary that we get into the community those skills so much needed. That has been addressed in this Budget. In the Budget Speech I see the heading `Employment, Education and Training'. A series of measures is set out there. On 1 May there was a major restructure of the unemployment benefit and study allowance to encourage children to go into educational institutions and later into meaningful employment, where they can exercise their skills to satisfy those needs and make a contribution to society. The Government is addressing not only that situation but also the needs of this country which unfortunately does not have the same level of educational skill as have Japan, the United States of America and West Germany where manufacturing industry, for example, is much more prominent in the economy. I notice that the funding for the Australian traineeship system is to increase from $14m to $45m. This will provide 13,000 new trainees. Senator Vanstone —If you can get them. Senator COONEY —Of course, if we can get them. From that question Senator Vanstone makes a reasonable statement that these efforts will depend very much on whether people respond to them. But on the other hand those people will not have the ability to respond unless we provide the money and the facilities for them to do so. True enough, Senator Vanstone says that we have to get these traineeships. But at least this Government is setting up the machinery and the programs by which this can be done. In any event, it is essential that the machinery for those traineeships be set up, so that the people will come forward. On the basis of the traineeship scheme as it has so far operated, there is a good deal of reason to be optimistic that once this machinery is set up students will be forthcoming. I now go on to the question of the family assistance package. I do not know whether Senator Michael Baume in his lively and entertaining speech said that the Government has acted fraudulently in setting up this family assistance package. Be that as it may, the fact is that it is being set up. I have from the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) a Budget information paper. It is, incidentally, in a very attractive cover, almost as if the purpose is for everybody to read it. Indeed, if that is so, everybody should read it. One section headed `The family package: A fair go for children' is very interesting to read. It states: Today there are more than one in five children-more than 800,000 of them-in families which have to depend on income support from the Government. If they have to depend on that income support, the Government should respond. That is the duty of government. As I have said, it is the duty of government to care for those most in need, those most vulnerable and those at who are at the bottom of the pile. The document continues: Most of them are in families which have suffered from the impact of unemployment (around 220,000 children) or marriage breakdown (around 440,000 children). That indicates the tragedy of family breakups and the real disaster that occurs in very many instances. Obviously, it is a very bruising experience for husband and wife when they break up but what is too often forgotten is the full impact on the children. It is clearly a disaster for the community-a terrible tragedy-that 440,000 children are suffering because of family breakdown. That, together with what children have suffered as a result of unemployment, is something which this Government has faced up to and which it will do something about. This Government is often pictured as a government interested, as it were, in the mechanics of economic adjustment, macroeconomic policies, the balance of payments and such matters and is often accused of being heartless. But this Budget and the family package as it is set out clearly illustrate that this Government is a government with compassion and a government which, feeling that compassion, has set up a plan, a structure and machinery to do something about this matter. As I have said, this document was prepared by Mr Brian Howe's Department and is indeed a very encouraging document. It illustrates the great determination this Government has-as expressed by the Prime Minister during the election campaign and since-to alleviate the poverty and distress in the community. The document also states under the heading `The money involved': The family package will take a major step towards eliminating child poverty. This investment in the future of Australia's children is estimated to total $250 million in 1987-88 and $500 million in 1988-89. These children have fallen into poverty through unemployment and marriage breakup. No doubt, every honourable senator would congratulate this Government on creating conditions for establishing the economic framework whereby-- Senator Messner —You have to be joking, of course. Senator COONEY —I see Senator Messner has generously come into the chamber to agree with my next proposition. I was saying that the impact of poverty and distress on children is disastrous and that it has been brought about by, firstly, the breakup of marriages and, secondly, unemployment. I think Senator Messner would agree that since this Government came into office in 1983 many jobs have been established for unemployed people. People who would otherwise have been unemployed have been given jobs. Certainly, by some time during the bicentenary year, one million jobs will have been created under this Government. Of course, one million jobs provide finance and wages for not only the wage earner but also his family and his children. They give those people who would otherwise have been unemployed the opportunity to take their place in the world, to preserve that dignity which comes from working and to provide their children with the money to enable them to get a decent education, to be clothed, fed and looked after. That is a great achievement of this Government and it again indicates the compassion it has towards all sections of the community. Often the figure of one million for jobs that have been created is used simply for macroeconomic analysis. But we should remember that it means that wages are brought home and children who would, as I have said, otherwise be in terrible distress can be looked after. Honourable senators can see the greatness with which this Government has achieved the purpose, which underlies all of its actions, to look after everybody in the community, to look after those people for whom traditionally this great party has been set up. Senator Messner —That is why it is important to have an ID card, is it? It is so you can identify everybody. Senator COONEY —I will refer to the ID card, although I do not think it has terribly much to do with the speech I am making. I will make an interesting speculation. I do not want to talk directly about the ID card but I will talk about the process by which it is intended that the legislation be made ineffective. Under section 57 of the Constitution is a procedure whereby difficulties or differences between the Houses of Parliament are to be resolved. I can see the great and learned fathers of our Constitution sitting, as they were, around the table intently thinking how things would be down the years in the 1980s when great people such as Senator Vanstone and Senator Messner from South Australia and Senator Patterson from the great State of Victoria were in this place. Isaac Isaacs, Alfred Deakin and many great figures came from Victoria. Our founding fathers would have said, `How would Senator Vanstone, Senator Messner and Senator Patterson deal with this matter when we have clearly set out in section 57 a means of resolving problems between the Houses?' I can imagine the great founding fathers, with their beards, looking learnedly at this matter and saying, `We will set up the machinery whereby these difficulties can be resolved. We will write out a constitution which we may all regard as a sacred document'. Having got this sacred document set up-- Senator Messner —All you want to do is change it all the time. Senator COONEY —There is a means whereby that can be done. How would Senator McKiernan, if he were a founding father, feel if his ideas were absolutely frustrated by an Act of parliament which is made under the Constitution? The Acts Interpretation Act draws its powers, as Senator Vanstone would know, from the Constitution. Senator Vanstone would not do this unless she had a caucus which provided her with the ability to do it. That Act, which fits within the Constitution, is to be used to frustrate the very thrust, the very purpose and the very intent of the Constitution. I was feeling very happy and joyful about this Budget and what it had done for children, but now a dark cloud has fallen upon me because of what I consider has been done to the Constitution by certain actions. Senator Messner —You are going to save $1 billion by not having to implement the card. You will have all that money available for children. Senator COONEY —There is a distinction between the card and the process by which one takes certain actions. I am talking about the more elevated; I am talking about the founding fathers. If they were not cremated but buried in graves, they would now be spinning. Senator Vanstone —Perhaps we should have had some founding mothers. Senator COONEY —I must concede that the honourable senator is right. What we should have had amongst the founding fathers were the founding mothers. This Government is doing something about it. If the Constitution were being written now, women, as a result of the action this Government and this great Party have taken for women over the years, would be on the committee. But in the nineteenth century the conservatives who were in power did not recognise women. Senator Vanstone —Tell us about your equal opportunity bureau. Senator COONEY —I would like to, but I am running out of time. I have only 10 minutes left. The next heading in the Budget information paper is `Keeping our promise to pensioners'. What we have done to alleviate the poverty traps that unfortunately exist in the community is to enable eligible pensioners to earn up to $1,000 a year without losing their fringe benefits or having their pensions reduced. People need to be able to earn extra money to add to their pensions. The value of this lies in the fact that they can make a contribution to the economy and attract to themselves the dignity which comes with being able to work. The one thing that all honourable senators in this chamber desire above all else is not the honour and glory of sitting in the red seats-Senator Morris would agree with this-but the ability to work and contribute to the community generally. Senator Michael Baume rather ungenerously said that the Budget was a fraud. He could not have been thinking of the amount we are spending on health. We are going to shorten the queues of people waiting outside hospital doors for treatment. Senator Messner —You have foisted $400m in extra costs on to the people of Australia. Senator COONEY —Our Medicare scheme helped us to win the election. In a brilliant analysis done by Senator Maguire, who is from Senator Messner's State-- Senator Childs —He is from the cerebral side of the State. Senator COONEY —He is. We have increased our numbers in the House of Representatives. Senator Messner —With fewer votes. Senator COONEY —What concerns me about Senator Messner's approach is its disregard for the proper processes, the Constitution and the laws of the Electoral Act, which we as a Parliament have set up. We established these laws. Was it not according to the Constitution and the Electoral Act that we won the election? Anybody who says that we should not have won somehow does a disservice to the Constitution and the Electoral Act. Senator McKiernan —Sour grapes. Senator COONEY —Yes. Senator Vanstone —You wrote to pensioners in marginal electorates and told them that we were going to cut their pensions. Senator COONEY —That the Liberals were going to do that? Senator Vanstone —Yes, knowing it to be untrue. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Senator COONEY —If we engaged in politicking throughout the campaign, we ought to apologise. Senator Vanstone —A gentlemanly response. Senator COONEY —Thank you. I note that time is on the wing. I conclude as the great Treasurer concluded-- Senator Morris —The greatest ever. Senator COONEY —Yes, the greatest ever. His speech was read in this chamber by Senator Peter Walsh-- Senator McKiernan —A Western Australian. Senator COONEY —A Western Australian who could also be described as a man of compassion-- Senator Messner —Now that is stretching the truth. Senator COONEY —I think Senator Walsh is much misunderstood when he sits in here at Question Time. I know for a fact that he often gets hurt by the remarks that are made about him by honourable senators on the other side of the chamber. Nevertheless, in the interests of the people and of the poor and downtrodden, he presses on. Senator McKiernan —He does it well. Senator COONEY —He does. As I said, I conclude with the words that both he and the Treasurer somehow said together on Budget night in a fairly modest assessment of the Budget: This is an achievement of historic proportions. It is one of which the Government is justly proud. We have done it the right way-by better targeting government spending and by repairing and reforming the tax system. The needy have been protected and assisted; the cheats have been caught and made to pay their way. This is responsible government, the Labor way. Governing with compassion and authority, good sense and confidence. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.42) —Senator Cooney would have been all the more convincing if he had told the truth about Senator Walsh, whose signature was alongside Mr Keating's on the Budget that was delivered here last Tuesday week. As has since been found out, there is a vast conflict within the Government and the Cabinet as to the direction of economic policy in this country. Only last Sunday, Senator Walsh absolutely exploded the myth that this was somehow a great Budget. He destroyed any concept or understanding in the popular mind that somehow Mr Keating had defied gravity and brought peace in our time in the economic world. Senator Walsh told the truth about the economic situation. He pointed to the basic and fundamental imbalances that have been generated under the Hawke Labor Government since it came to power in March 1983. Senator Aulich —There is a Rastafarian up there about to jump on you. Senator MESSNER —The Acting Deputy President had better watch out, in that case. The fundamental point has to be made that the Walsh statement of last Sunday has destroyed all credibility in this Budget and in the economic policy of the Government. That is where I would like to start my remarks. There is no doubt that over the last several years we have seen fundamental changes, not only in the Australian economy, but also in the world economy. When we talk about the world perhaps the most significant factor to bear in mind is that there has been a major redistribution of international wealth, firstly to the nations of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, with the oil price rises of the mid-1970s, and secondly, to Japan. These profound movements in wealth ownership, together with the dramatic changes in the way in which the international financial system has been operating recently, have altered the entire basis of world trade and business dealings. Moreover, in the last few years we have seen these changes threaten the standard of living of all Australians and, potentially, the fabric of Australian society. The relative stability of the period from the end of World War II until now has fundamentally changed to such an extent that we now operate in a highly unstable, and increasingly unstable, world financial environment. The implications for Australia as a small trading nation are profound and go to the heart of government policy making. Senator Walsh was honest enough to refer to that in his remarks to the Labor lawyers conference last Sunday. It is imperative that the Government firstly recognises the significance of the recent changes in world trade and the world economy and, secondly, tackles the difficult economic problems facing this country. The Australian economy suffers from at least four specific structural problems to which I will now refer. Firstly, the recent change in the structure of the Australian economy has been dramatic. In 1950 the agricultural sector accounted for 24 per cent of our total production. Today that is down to a mere 4 per cent of total economic activity. At the moment the mining industry accounts for about 5 per cent of our total production. Its relative importance has more than doubled over the past 25 years. However, those two sectors together represent a very small part of the overall economy in Australia. The vast bulk of Australian economic activity is generated in the tertiary or services sector covering such things as commerce, finance, community services, tourism and entertainment, transport, communications and building. Any government's policies which are designed, for example, to increase our exports must take account of the way in which that fundamental change to our economy has occurred. The second point is that we still face intolerable burdens from inflation. We know that the inflation rate at some 9 per cent at present is two to three times greater than that in countries such as Japan, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Senate Maguire-They were up to 6 per cent this morning. Senate MESSNER-Yes, I did hear that this morning. I noted that with a great deal of interest. The third key problem results, at least in part, from the high inflation rate and it relates to the structural problems of low rates of investment in new plant, new equipment and new businesses in this country. In any period of recession or sustained high inflation businessmen will always face a massive disincentive to invest in plant. That has been absolutely true since this Government came to power as there have been successive years of decline in investment in new productive enterprises. That is a fact of life and it has been driven chiefly by a lack of incentive deriving from high interest rates and, of course, from very high inflation relative to the rest of the world. That means that fewer job opportunities for Australians will spring from increased economic activity in the future. The fourth point I make is that the balance of payments problem in this country has now been recognised as chronic. In the 37 years since 1950, Australia has recorded a current account deficit in all but four of those years. But that deficit has grown dramatically over the last 10 years or so. For instance, since 1980 the proportion of gross domestic product taken up by the current account balance of payments deficit has doubled to 5 per cent. In each of the last three years under the Hawke Labor Government-from 1985 to 1987-the current account deficit has actually been above that level at around 5.2 per cent. To make up that deficit, Australia has had to borrow. Consequently, the level of our borrowings has lifted dramatically in that time. As we know, those borrowings are now $109,000m compared with about $30,000m in 1983. All of these things, and those four points in particular, indicate that we have a serious structural problem in Australia which has yet to be addressed. The Opposition agrees wholeheartedly with the analysis of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) at the Labor lawyers conference last Sunday where he indicated that this Government does not have its policy objectives right and that it has not set in train the processes by which it will achieve success in the long run. Indeed, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) now stands alone as one proclaiming bravely in the face of all the storms that the Australian economy is in the best state that it has been in for many years and looks good for the future. That was the message of his Budget as it was sold last Tuesday week and now Senator Walsh has put that concept down totally. I now turn to the question of the international economy and where Australia sits in relation to that. There is no doubt that in recent years there have been many different strands to international economic development. Most of these are interrelated. Firstly, I refer to the volatility and the changing structure of world trade which has led to Japan's meteoric rise, alongside the United States of America, to pre-eminence as the major powerhouse economy in the world. Japan is now the world's largest creditor nation, a position which it has secured rapidly over the last few years-that is, it is owed a great deal more money by the rest of the world than it owes to the rest of the world. By contrast, the United States is in exactly the opposite situation. It has moved from being the world's greatest creditor nation in the early 1970s to a debtor nation. Most of its debt is being funded by the Japanese. These fundamental changes are reflected in our trade figures world wide. In 1986, whereas Japan recorded a current account payment surplus of $US65,000m, the United States recorded a deficit of just over double that figure. The latest figures show a dramatic continuation of this situation, with Japan expected to record a current account surplus of almost $US100 billion in 1987 and the United States a deficit of $US145,000m. It is quite chastening to note that the net cash inflow to Japanese financial institutions from the ordinary savings, bank accounts and stock market investments of the Japanese people, amounts to $633,000m this year. To put the figure into some perspective, it represents 20 per cent of the capitalised value of all companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Twenty per cent of the value of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange is represented by the savings every year of the Japanese people. Japan's high trade surplus, together with the thriftiness of the Japanese, who typically save around 17 per cent of their annual income, has meant that the Japanese economy is literally awash with surplus money. Japan faces a liquidity crisis in reverse of a magnitude never before experienced in the industrialised world. It is so awash with cash that there are simply not enough domestic opportunities for investment. Most of that excess cash will find its way overseas in search of investment opportunities. About one-third of that $600 billion net cash surplus in Japan will be invested overseas this year. In order to understand the value of that money, let us consider that the gross production value of Australian goods and services is $260 billion. So the amount of Japanese funds which are available for investment is getting very close to the total production of the Australian economy. Other statistics highlight this growing problem in the world economy. But there is no doubt that the world, particularly the United States and, increasingly, Australia, is becoming more and more dependent upon the use of the funds generated within Japan by Japanese savings institutions. The second part of this growing change in the world economic scene concerns the huge amount of excess liquidity in the world's financial markets, the largest of which is Japan. The fact is that the vast and rapidly growing amount of credit available throughout the world is the root of current instability in exchange rates and the movement in world currencies. The origin of this unprecedented explosion of credit facilities which now brings into question the world's economic system goes back to the Bretton Woods agreement after the end of World War II. At that time, as we all remember, the United States dollar was given the status of an international reserve currency. But for decades, and particularly since the early days of the Vietnam War, successive American governments have simply created additional United States dollars to finance the balance of payments deficit. An ever-increasing amount of United States dollars is accepted by its world trading partners. That has led to the rapid growth of the Euro-dollar market, which almost rivals the Japanese market in terms of funds available for investment throughout the world. Those funds totalled about $48 billion in 1983 but the figure has now reached $136 billion. That is a staggering increase. But the total amount outstanding in Euro-bonds now-that is, money eventually to be repatriated to the United States of America-is $550,000m. That is just as much of a meteoric rise as the expansion of the Japanese savings that I referred to earlier, but those huge cash surpluses are part of a larger problem. It boils down to this: there is a huge amount of excess money in the world which is simply not finding its way into productive investment in order to develop job opportunities throughout the world. Australia, of course, cannot be immune from these developments. To put the matter into perspective, in 1985 the total amount of world credit available for various means of investment was sufficient to finance the world trade total some 25 times. Therefore, the amount of money washing around the world equals world trade multiplied by 25. When we have that volume of money moving, as it does, almost at the speed of light through electronic transfers, we can understand the effects that might be having on various economies. The challenge is how Australia can adapt itself to take advantage of this situation. We are seeing unprecedented investment in Australia from various overseas sources. We are seeing money from Japan particularly pouring into real estate development and into the stock market. We must note that that is not, as it appears, a temporary aberration; it is clearly something which is continuing to grow and develop and which we need to take account of. The challenge is not to say, `Okay; we must set about regulating this flow of money'. That is not the answer. The real question is how this country can generate new productive investment in new plant and equipment and new businesses to generate job opportunities for Australians. That is the challenge ahead of the Australian economy. I return to the original point. This country, under the Hawke Labor Government, has seen successive years of decline in productive investment. That decline is continuing. That needs to be addressed, and it certainly has not been addressed in the Keating Budget. I reiterate that Senator Walsh has said that. He, as a co-author of the Budget, has as much as said that the Budget does not represent a proper appraisal of the economic problems facing Australians. He said that he thought the Budget has been oversold as to its good points and consequently was not addressing the main issues ahead of us. I think he is right. The truth is that we need to make sure that our policies are correct. We need to develop an alternative strategy designed to generate more jobs and future opportunities for Australians. I would like to deal with a point raised by Senator Cooney. He always gives most interesting speeches. He referred to the ID card. He gave us a rather interesting but long discourse on the constitutional history of the card. What has happened in the last day or two boils down to one simple thing: the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), who had the carriage of this legislation for about two years, overlooked entirely the fact that, although his piece of legislation, he may have thought, was adequate when it was first written back in 1986 for the purposes of being put before Parliament, everything changed when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) decided to call a double dissolution and to go to an election in July. The Bill was not suitable to be put into place when the Prime Minister knew that the Australian Labor Party had no chance of gaining a majority in the Senate, where the regulations to be set up under the legislation could always be disallowed. That is a major fault of the Hawke Labor Government. The row of geniuses, as they are supposed to be, on the other side have finally been found out by the Press and the people of Australia. They simply do not understand, as we in the Opposition have known for a long time, how hopeless they are in getting their legislative machinery right. The classic case of that is the unholy mess of the capital gains tax legislation which they enacted in a great rush about a year and a half ago. Of course, there are plenty of other examples. Those things need to be remembered by the people of Australia. The people of Australia had an enormous victory yesterday when it was discovered that the identity card legislation will not and cannot be put in place. I believe that as many as one-third of the members of the Labor Party are secretly supportive of that move and glad that it has occurred. I think it can be welcomed by the members of the Liberal and National parties as well. The people and certainly the Parliament will know that we have opposed this piece of legislation ever since it was first announced in September 1985, and that we maintain that opposition. It behoves the Opposition, which has given a commitment to the Australian people to oppose such heinous legislation, to do everything in its power to stop the legislation being put into effect, and that includes rejecting the kinds of regulations that would have been established under the legislation. I finalise my remarks by saying that the Budget is not the appropriate Budget for Australia in these times. I have tried to give an outline of the reasons why I believe that. It is not the huge success, the brilliant message for the Australian people, which the Press in some cases have tended to characterise it as. It is wrong. Senator Walsh is right and should be pushing within the Cabinet with all his power to make sure that the Government adopts a proper policy line in its economic deliberations. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(12.05) —The Senate is discussing the Budget Statement and Papers for 1987-88. One of the characteristics of the Budget that are most pleasing is that it is based on developing Australia's human capital. It is particularly pleasing because when one examines the family package introduced by this Government and the series of industry packages financed in the Budget, in conjunction with statements made by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins), one sees that it is an integrated package for the training of people in Australia. Senator Colston in his remarks earlier referred to the many initiatives proposed in the Budget and in Mr Dawkins's accompanying statement. We face an exciting possibility in Australia as we move towards the training of that human capital. Many people in Australia, including business people, are interested in the capital equipment and all the physical things that make up industry and our service industries, but at the same time fail to develop human capital. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training in his statement recognised that Australia's economic potential has been held back by an inadequate commitment to skills formation and deficiencies in training arrangements. The Budget initiatives in this regard include increasing participation in education and training; improving the quality and structure of courses and training arrangements; seeking more efficient commitment and contribution to training; providing employment and training opportunities for the unemployed and the disadvantaged. One of the other characteristics in referring to human capital in Australia is that for so long we have wasted the unemployed and the disadvantaged in our community. I was pleased to be at the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) congress a few weeks ago when that historic meeting adopted the Australia Reconstructed document as a theme for its activities. This shows the closeness of thinking between the Government and the trade union movement as both move to make sure that there is a reduction of poverty and that education and training are improved. These are the essential planks of the Australia Reconstructed document. The document was the final report of a joint ACTU-Trade Development Council mission to Western Europe. It was a significant report and contains, in the words of John Dawkins: Observations and recommendations of one of the most important missions mounted on Australia's behalf. The Minister said that at the launch of the document and it is absolutely true. That mission went to the successful countries of Europe. It visited Sweden, Austria and West Germany. The trade union leaders were able to see how other countries integrate and plan their economies. This is very close to the style of this Government in encouraging tripartite initiatives. Australia Reconstructed is a creative report and shows the depth of commitment to maintaining Australia's international competitiveness and tackling our balance of payments problem. John Dawkins, in an almost parallel move this week, has issued a document which enables us to examine our educational facilities, with the aim of trying to bring them into keeping with the needs of both industry and commerce. It also seeks to ensure that our academic institutions are in a position to take us through the next decade-a decade which will have many challenges. The essential point that must be emphasised in the packages that this Government has successfully negotiated is the theme of trying to look to the development of human capital. These ongoing projects-including the steel industry plan, the textile clothing and footwear plan and the heavy engineering plan-represent this Government's aim to make sure that the training of our work force is improved, and that people who are not in the work force will get the opportunity to be trained for it. It is significant that the ACTU delegates who went overseas were impressed with the fact that a country such as Sweden has the reverse ratio to Australia vis-a-vis unemployment payments to training payments. The ratio in Australia is still heavily biased in paying unemployment benefit, whereas in Sweden the whole emphasis is on training. There is a move in this Budget to change the emphasis so that people will not be left to stagnate, but will be given the opportunity to enter the work force. This is particularly true of those who are most disadvantaged, particularly women and people who have been out of work for any length of time. These proposals contain the essential elements of an active labour market policy. I refer to skill formation including skill flexibility, adaptability and capacity for innovation and job placement-in other words, matching supply and demand. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, I know that that Committee had a great deal of evidence placed before it to the effect that in many areas there are not the skilled people available to fulfil the demands of industry. It is an indictment of our system that we have not co-ordinated our system sufficiently to train people for the needs of industry and commerce. I welcome as part of the Budget process Mr Dawkins's statement-indeed his demand-that Australia should shake itself out of its lethargy so that we integrate our country. Often we have been prepared to accept a system involving State rivalries, rivalries between institutions and have not been able to get the maximum benefits for the casualties of our system-the unemployed and people who have not been trained so as to be able to advance through industry to take higher positions in industry. Australia has an exciting opportunity in the next few years to change the direction in which we have been moving so that we may develop the capital that we have been wasting for so long. This has happened because we have been prepared to take a laissez-faire approach to the labour market and to allow people to do their own thing. If people are unemployed, they are left to their private suffering. Unfortunately, there are people on the conservative side of politics who condemn and denigrate the victims of society, the people who have not been able to obtain work. Under the Budget the payment of unemployment benefit will be the last resort, and surely that is what we must try to aim at. The Australia Reconstructed document produced by the ACTU, and endorsed by the trade union movement, involves a move towards this policy. It says: The most striking aspect of active labour market policies is the emphasis placed on skill formation, skill enhancement, skill flexibility and overall training. Another aspect that this approach encompasses is to make the transition from school to work as smooth as possible. That may seem very trite, yet at the moment it is not done as effectively as it should be. We also need to combat labour market segmentation to lessen the imbalance in the labour market and to lessen disadvantage to women, the aged and the disabled. Some people fail to see the cost to Australia of our not using women, the disabled and the aged, although the age of people in the aged group is dropping each year as middle aged people have difficulty staying in the work force. That is a challenge to Australia and it is one that this Government is fully cognisant of, and this Budget attempts to correct the situation. The implementation of the report's recommendation in relation to vocational education complement other existing forms of education which are important for the development of a vital economy alongside a vibrant culture, and the recommended growth in research and development and more innovative manufacturing show a maturity in perception that could enhance tripartite co-operation. Many people criticise the development of tripartite discussions, but due to the work of the Australian Manufacturing Council, and from the development of the Government's packages, we now have an identification of the problems and a mutual search for the solutions to those problems that has not previously occurred. If Australia is to compete in a world in which commodity prices for our agricultural and mineral products have dropped so dramatically, we must be more scientific in the way we address those problems. Until now, the conservative parties in this country have believed that we can let everything rip and allow a jungle-like situation to develop. If we look at the debate during the last election campaign, we see that the Opposition was following the Thatcher model-a model of pitting the wealthy against the poor; a model which has meant in England that in vast regional areas high unemployment is the order of the day, and most people there face a very bleak future because there is no positive culture and no positive approach to a revitalisation of manufacturing generally because the Thatcher Government has no plan to encourage people to develop their skills and an attitude which would help them to revitalise their manufacturing industry. Significantly, this Government is rejecting the Thatcher-type New Right model that some people in the Opposition support. It is seeking to develop all the resources of our country so that we can reduce our unemployment level, which is still too high, even further. The other aspect of the Government's approach to developing our human capital is its magnificent initiative of trying to eliminate child poverty. I will return to this theme a little later, but for the moment I just want to say that we cannot hope for a successful economy if we do not make sure that our children are not living in poverty. No child can be expected to live in poverty and then to have an equal chance of success in society. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(12.20) —In the context of both the Budget that is under consideration and the statement that was made in the Senate the other day on behalf of Mr Dawkins, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, entitled `The Challenge for Higher Education in Australia', I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate the anomaly that the new Northern Territory University College has not at this stage been picked up by the Government for adequate or proper financial support. The initiative of establishing a new Northern Territory university was taken by the Northern Territory Government in the last couple of years, and I referred to that fact in my maiden speech in this chamber the other day. Many Territory tertiary students are being seriously disadvantaged because the Labor Government has not yet chosen to provide financial support for that very important new university established in Darwin. That university is there to serve the particular needs of students of the Northern Territory and is also attracting many students from Asia. I am sure that Senator Susan Ryan would be well aware of the very generous grants to, and indeed the very high student servicing costs at, the Australian National University in her electorate, and the fact that the Government has made very sympathetic funding arrangements for universities. This highlights the need for those sorts of costs that apply in the Territories. I am sure that Senator Ryan, in her previous capacity as Minister for Education, would also be well aware of the many initiatives taken and points of view that have been put for the tertiary students from the Northern Territory who are forced to travel thousands of kilometres interstate to study. I am therefore surprised that the statement made by Mr Dawkins on higher education makes no particular reference to the peculiar problems of the Northern Territory University. This university was established to meet the immediate needs of the growth and industry of the Northern Territory at this time and our near Asian neighbours. Mr Dawkins's statement refers in part to measures that will require changes in the following three important areas: changes in attitudes, to reflect national imperatives and to ensure that the education system is more flexible and capable of responding quickly and positively to national needs; changes in processes, in the way of doing things, to enhance our ability to produce quality graduates with necessarily limited resources; changes in structures, to remove impediments to change and barriers that dampen innovative approaches. All of those three changes that Minister Dawkins alludes to apply very carefully and clearly to the establishment of the new Northern Territory University. The fact that the Northern Territory Government has spent in the order of $6m on capital works renovating the old Darwin hospital to create the facilities for a new university is a remarkable achievement. To provide those facilities from the ground would have cost in the order of $30m to $40m, so there has already been a very substantial saving. The Commonwealth should recognise that fact in looking at the therefore recurrent and ongoing capital grants that are now required. Well over 200 students have taken up positions this year at the Northern Territory University, and it is anticipated that over 400 will take places next year. That sort of growth in the Northern Territory highlights the need for funding and comes back to the very issues that Minister Dawkins raises in his statement. I believe we need to look very carefully at the areas of Australia that are growing rapidly in response to industry and other developments, such as the mining industry, the pastoral industry and the tourist industry. All of these aspects will be covered by the new Northern Territory University's courses. These courses will provide new and special arrangements for tertiary students in an area of Australia that is not currently covered by university education. We often hear it said that financing for tertiary education has to be looked at on a per student or per capita basis. As Senator Ryan would well know from the funding of the Australian National University, one cannot apply that sort of strict funding arrangement either to the establishment of new educational facilities or to those in their first couple of years of establishment in which the courses have not been fully implemented through the first, second, third and then postgraduate years of education. It takes some five or six years for a university to settle down, to establish its full budgeting provisions and then to provide adequately in those areas. This is the very thing that the new University of the Northern Territory so desperately needs, and that is why I bring this matter to the attention of the Government in the Budget context. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.26) —I have pleasure in rising to participate briefly in this debate in response to the Government's Budget. It is a very important debate. I believe it is taking place in both Houses. I commence my remarks by saying that the 1987-88 Budget will be looked at for some considerable time ahead. It is the wrong Budget for Australia at this time. It is a soft options Budget from a government without the political courage to take the correct and tough decisions. If the Government does not believe my words about its failure and inability to take the tough decisions and to exercise political courage, I need only to refer it to the remarks of its own Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, made in Perth at the weekend. I will come back to that matter later on. The 1987-88 Budget is also a product of deep divisions within and between the different factions of the Australian Labor Party. That is an important reason why the soft options have been adopted in this Budget rather than the tough decisions. The factionalisation that has taken place within the Labor Party in Canberra and throughout the Labor Party generally in recent times has produced great difficulty for the Government in producing responsible economic management. One of the basic reasons for that difficulty is that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) now has his eyes set very firmly on the Prime Ministership. He has therefore thrown the whole concept of politics into the arena, along with economics. Any Treasurer who aspires to the position of Prime Minister, as the present Treasurer, Mr Keating, quite blatantly does, poses very difficult problems for himself and for responsible economic management in this country, because the political aspects of aspirations for the Prime Ministership will divert his attention from the necessary, often tough, economic decisions. Without any doubt at all, the nation will suffer while the Treasurer continues with his machinations to become Prime Minister of this country. I give the Government credit for the way that it has managed to keep under control the factionalism that has been evident in the Government in recent times. But since the last election in particular, the factionalism has become increasingly evident, threatening the very unity and stability of the Hawke Government. I do not think there is any exaggeration in saying that. It is evidenced day by day in this Parliament and outside. We need only look at the dismissal, in effect, from the Ministry of Mr Barry Cohen; the remarks this week of a very senior Minister, Mr John Dawkins, about the problems that have been caused for the Government in sorting out its committee chairmanship allocations; or the comments yesterday of Mr John Gayler, the honourable member for Leichhardt in Queensland, which have also highlighted the great depths of the difficulties and divisions that the Party has. As an earnest of the problems that that situation will cause in the future, the left wing of the parliamentary Party was reported yesterday as having decided to campaign actively against proposals for reduced company taxation, arguing that higher than expected revenue reflected in the Federal Budget should go to improving Australia's social wage. Mr Deputy President, you may remember that in the Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that there would be a review of the whole area of company taxation. It was a very surprising statement, given that only two or three weeks earlier he had said that the whole matter of tax reform had been dealt with, the measures had been put in place and no further reform was in prospect. Nevertheless, he announced in the Budget Speech that the Government would be reviewing the whole area of company tax, obviously with a view to trying to reduce the rate. Now, within a week of that announcement, the left wing of the Government has decided actively to campaign against those proposals. The factionalism also has been evident in the debate that has been taking place on the ID card. Obviously, a large number of members of the Government Party are very relieved at what has now been seen as the demise of the un-Australian ID card proposed by the Hawke Government. The Budget in many ways is a fraud because it is misleading. The rhetoric of the Budget simply does not match its performance. The Budget demonstrates once again the Government's capacious desire to present things in a way other than the way they really are. The Government has claimed that it has balanced the Budget. It claims that it has exercised restraint over spending, that it has reduced the burden of taxation and that it has set Australia on the road to economic recovery. The Government has sold that line with great skill. I was intrigued at the way the media had became so adulatory of the Budget the following day. The headlines were absolutely stupendous for the Government in terms of public relations. One paper said `A near perfect Budget'. `Keating triumphs' was the headline all over the Melbourne Press, and so it went on. A very interesting explanation of how all that happened came in an article by Ross Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, published a few days later. I quote from his article. He said: There is a subsidiary reason why the media and market reaction to the Budget was so approving: Mr Keating has converted the Budget lock-up from an aid to time-constrained journalists to an instrument of media management. Stage one was to exclude business economists from the lock-up-not in pique at the jaundiced commentary of the Macquarie Bank Joy Boys, but to cut journalists off from any source of independent professional analysis on Budget night. Stage two was to fill this vacuum by supplementing the usual junior Treasury advisers in the lock-up with a bevy of deputy secretaries. These gents worked the tables assiduously-with opening gambits such as ``not much to criticise, is there?''-trying to knock down objections before they got up. The subtlety of their technique seems to have stopped it working in my case. So says Ross Gittins, one of the few commentators who were rightly critical of the Budget. It was an enormous public relations exercise. However, it has not taken long for the gilt to fall off the Budget and for the glitter to fade. There have been several reasons, of course, for that. The most important one is that we have now had time for closer analysis. It was always on the cards that the Budget would be illusory in many ways. In the lead-up weeks to the Budget the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance all claimed that a balanced Budget was simply not on. At the end of August Mr Hawke regarded a balanced Budget as inappropriate. He was reported in the Australian newspaper of 27 August as saying that a balanced Budget was inappropriate for Australia's economic circumstances. The article also stated: The Treasurer, Mr Keating said that the Government could not get near a balanced Budget `on our current figuring' but hoped to get close to a deficit of $1 billion . . . The Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, rejected the idea of a balanced Budget in theory and in practice. He said on 5 August, just a month or so before the Budget was introduced, that he would be satisfied with spending cuts of about $400m in the Budget, provided they involved larger quality savings in later years. He was reported as saying that he did not think a balanced budget would be the appropriate target for this year because it would involve a `major change' from one year to the next. Those statements should have alerted us to the fact that, when the Government claimed to have brought in a balanced Budget on 15 September, it was phoney-and phoney it was. As well as the close analysis that the Opposition and others now have been able to give the Budget, we have also benefited from the very frank assessment given by the Minister for Finance in his address to the Labor lawyers in Perth last weekend. Senator Walsh made it absolutely clear that he did not agree with the adulatory descriptions of the Budget emanating not only from the media, but also from his own Prime Minister and Treasurer. Senator Walsh exposed the Budget for what it really is-that is, a soft options Budget, a complacent Budget, a very smug Budget and a Budget quite out of tune with Australia's economic situation and economic requirements. Senator Walsh said that he could think of 200 programs that are not justified on social or equity grounds, but they are programs that will not be abandoned because the Government does not have the political courage to do so. The only extraordinary thing about Senator Walsh's speech was that he said he thought he was not being reported. If that is a reason for defending what he said it is an extraordinary way to go about things. If Senator Walsh really believes what he says-and I think that he does-the fact that his remarks were released to the Press is immaterial. What Senator Walsh said was very much what the Opposition-the Liberal and National parties-has been saying for a long time now to this Government, and that is that much greater expenditure restraint by the Government is an essential precondition for economic recovery in Australia. It is a precondition that the Government has failed to deliver in this Budget. We have a situation in Australia today of very considerable economic concern. If we look at what those problems are we will see that they are greater than the problems that have faced our country in the last two or three decades. After five Hawke Budgets, we have a current account deficit which is well above historic levels. It is miles above in absolute terms and well above in proportional terms. We have a record foreign debt which exceeds $100 billion, a foreign debt which is climbing this year even though the Government predicts an improvement in our current account deficit. We are still going to have a deficit, according to the Government, in excess of $11 billion. That is an extraordinarily high figure. Business investment, as a share of our total gross national product, is close to its lowest level in 30 years. The inflation rate is at least double that of our trading partners. Interest rates, despite recent falls, remain at very high levels, historically for Australia and more particularly by international standards, and we have an unemployment rate that seems to be stalled permanently at a figure of something like 8 per cent or more. We have the second largest tax burden in peacetime history, exceeded by only last year's record. We have a further decline in rural output, and over the 4 1/2 years of the Hawke Government we have had an additional 700,000 people living below the poverty line in this country. That is a very sad and serious record because it portrays, particularly through the stagnation of investment, a situation where we can see no light at the end of the tunnel of our present difficulties. The only way that we are going to improve Australia's economic performance in a sustainable, long term sense is through an improvement in our productivity. The Budget Papers themselves this year show that productivity will in fact fall. But also we will need to have a major increase in investment. The climate for investment in Australia at the moment is not conducive to increased investment. Indeed, it is quite ordinary. I would have very considerable concerns about the prospects for investment if some, or any, of the provisions in the document of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australia Reconstructed, about which Senator Childs spoke encouragingly and positively, were implemented. We would have an enormous problem in stimulating investment. The whole thrust of that document is to make it a more difficult and rigid environment for investment. So the problems we have are very great. The Opposition has pointed to these problems time and again and has proposed, time and again, an agenda for change. I believe one of the greatest achievements of the Liberal and National parties over recent years is, indeed, to have had our clothes stolen to the extent that we have by the Government. The Liberal and National parties have set the political and economic agenda for this country. The fact is that the Government has picked much of it up and has run with it. We would prefer to be in government implementing those things ourselves. We have set the political agenda for the future and that has been seen in the areas of financial deregulation. Hopefully, we are starting to see it in some of the areas of the labour market, although we have a long way to go there. If we are to get this country back on the rails in the period ahead we have to reduce the size of government, reduce the overall tax burdens on individuals and businesses, introduce greater flexibility and responsibility in our labour markets and lower the cost structure to industry through increased competition and reduced government regulation. Productivity and investment are the keys to our future. I urge the Government to look again at the economic strategy that it is following in this Budget because it is an economic strategy which has taken soft options, which has ignored the basic need that we have to restrain Government expenditure, to deregulate, to free up the economy so that the private sector has the incentive and the capacity to invest, to produce and to increase its productivity. In view of the time, I will constrain my remarks. There will be other opportunities for debate on the Budget. I have made the points I wanted to make at this stage. I think there will be an ongoing debate on this Budget over the period ahead as it becomes increasingly obvious that the Government's rhetoric is not matched by its performance and that this is a Budget which has failed to deliver the climate needed. It is a Budget which has let down the Australian people at a time when the Government had a wonderful opportunity to capitalise on the present situation. Debate (on motion by Senator Tate) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., matters of public interest may be discussed until 2 p.m. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.45) —Mr Deputy President, my remarks could have been made on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech, the speech on the opening of Parliament, not because of matters which were canvassed in the Governor-General's Speech but because of one particular matter which was not mentioned. The Governor-General set out in broad outline the Government's future legislative program. The matter I shall refer to may eventually be put in the Government's program, but the fact that it was not mentioned causes me some concern. The matter to which I refer is the need for the Commonwealth to take action on the issue of one vote one value electoral systems in this country. I intend to outline why this matter should have a high legislative priority of the Government. The importance of a one vote one value electoral system cannot be overstated. It underpins the very foundation of democracy. No single person's vote should have a greater influence on an election than that of anyone else. It would be folly to suggest that a one vote one value electoral system is exactly attainable. To achieve this Utopian goal would require a change of boundaries every time one citizen in a particular electorate becomes eligible to be enrolled. This would be almost impossible to administer and far too costly to achieve. Thus it is generally accepted by a wide cross-section of the Australian community that an electorate whose enrolment varies by 10 per cent or less from average enrolment is acceptable in terms of one vote, one value. In case it is claimed that there is no need for the Federal Government to legislate in this area, I intend to outline some relevant matters pertaining to electoral systems in Australia. At this stage, Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which is pertinent to the remarks I am about to make. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH, STATE AND TERRITORY PARLIAMENTS VARIATION FROM AVERAGE ENROLMENT Year 10% 10% to 20% 20%+ Total Commonwealth- House of Representatives(a) 1987 147 1 . . 148 New South Wales- Legislative Assembly 1986 109 . . . . 109 Victoria- Legislative Assembly 1985 88 . . . . 88 Legislative Council 1985 22 . . . . 22 Queensland- Legislative Assembly 1986 20 41 28 89 South Australia- House of Assembly 1985 45 2 . . 47 Western Australia- Legislative Assembly 1986 4 13 40 57 Legislative Council 1986 . . . . 17 17 Tasmania- House of Assembly 1986 5 . . . . 5 Legislative Council 1986 10 5 4 19 Northern Territory- House of Assembly 1987 17 8 . . 25 (a) Variation from average enrolment for each State and Territory. Senator COLSTON —I thank the Senate. This table indicates the number of electorates in the Commonwealth and the various States which vary by less than 10 per cent from average enrolment, by between 10 and 20 per cent and by over 20 per cent. It may be seen from this table that New South Wales and Victoria have an excellent record. All electorates for the lower houses of these two parliaments vary by less than 10 per cent. The 22 electoral divisions for the Victorian upper House also vary by less than 10 per cent. The Commonwealth has one seat which varies by between 10 and 20 per cent. That seat, Mr Acting Deputy President, you will be interested to know is one in our own State, the State of Queensland, and it is the electorate of McPherson. All the others vary by less than 10 per cent. The Senate and the New South Wales upper House are not mentioned in the table because both are elected on a State-wide basis. I move on to Queensland in the table. From comments I have made in this chamber over recent years it is no surprise that the situation in Queensland is quite different from that which I have mentioned for the Commonwealth. New South Wales and Victoria are also dissimilar from the situation in Queensland. Forty-one of the 89 seats in the Legislative Assembly in Queensland vary by between 10 and 20 per cent from the average enrolment for the State. A further 28 of those 89 seats vary by greater than 20 per cent. In the South Australian House of Assembly all but two electorates have a variation of less than 10 per cent from the average enrolment for that State. These two fall in the range of 10 to 20 per cent. The Legislative Council in South Australia does not appear in the table because legislative councillors in that State are elected for the State as one electorate. The next State in the table is Western Australia. The Western Australian Legislative Assembly appears to be grossly malapportioned. Only four of the 57 seats vary by less than 10 per cent from average enrolment. Thirteen are in the range of 10 to 20 per cent and a massive 40 seats vary by greater than 20 per cent from average. The Legislative Council in that State has 17 electoral districts, each of which varies by greater than 20 per cent from average enrolment. The record in the House of Assembly in Tasmania is excellent, principally because the multi- member electorates are based on the five Federal electorates in that State. The situation in the Legislative Council in Tasmania, however, is quite different. Ten of the 19 seats vary by less than 10 per cent, five are in the 10 to 20 per cent bracket, and four vary by greater than 20 per cent from average enrolment. Finally, in the Northern Territory House of Assembly there are 25 seats, 17 of which vary by less than 10 per cent from average. The remaining eight are in the 10 to 20 per cent range. The figures in the table clearly indicate that the one vote one value principle is not being pursued with any vigour in some States. The two States with the worst examples are Queensland and Western Australia. As a senator for Queensland I shall concentrate my remaining remarks on the added peculiarity of the State's electoral system. I refer, of course, to the zonal system. Under this system the State is divided into four zones: south-eastern, provincial cities, country, western and far northern. Whilst the principal effect of the zonal system is to produce a malapportioned electoral system it could also be regarded as a gerrymander in its own right. By `gerrymander' I mean a system where the boundaries are drawn in such a way as to provide partisan advantage. The Queensland zonal system reduces the value of some citizens' votes and increases the value of others. To illustrate this point I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the number of seats in each zone and the average number of voters per seat. Leave granted. The table read as follows- QUEENSLAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Zone Number of Seats Average enrolment (April 1987) South-Eastern 51 20 586 Provincial Cities 13 19 015 Western and Far Northern 8 9 534 Country 17 13 549 Total 89 18 019 Senator COLSTON —It may be seen from this table that the average number of voters in the south-eastern zone is 20,586. In the provincial cities zone the quota is lower at 19,015. In the country zone the quota drops further to 13,549. In the western and far northern zone the quota is only 9,534. There we go from 20,000 to 19,000 to 13,000 and to 9,000. These figures clearly show that in Queensland, depending upon where a person resides, that person's vote can be worth more than twice the vote of his or her neighbour's vote in an adjoining zone. Almost all of the electorates where the value of the vote has been enhanced by the zonal system are held by the ruling National Party. That cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as mere coincidence. It helps the National Party to have numbers in the State Parliament that are disproportionate to the vote it receives. In a democracy there is nothing more basic than a person's right to vote. As well there is nothing more fundamental than the value or worth of one person's vote being equal to that of every other person's vote. These principles are reflected in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is a signatory and have long been accepted by a majority of members on both sides of this Parliament and in most State parliaments throughout Australia. I have for some time held that Federal legislation is necessary to rid Australia of rigged boundaries at the State level. Opponents to this course of action argue that the States should solve these problems themselves, but without some assistance from outside it is clear that some States will not address the problem of electoral justice. To provide citizens of our States with the opportunity to elect their members of parliament and thus their governments on a fair basis, it seems that the Federal Government must take action in this area either by way of legislation or by way of a referendum. Only when this is done will we, as a nation, be able to hold our head high as a truly democratic nation. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(12.55) —I wish to take this opportunity in the Senate before we all break up and go back to our respective States, as a senator from Victoria and as a Melbourne city councillor, on behalf of the people of Victoria and more specifically the people of Melbourne, to congratulate and pay tribute to the Melbourne Football Club. As the city of Melbourne and its people prepare for the Victorian Football League grand final to be played this Saturday between Carlton and Hawthorn no one will ever forget the contribution to this year's series by the Melbourne Football Club. As the Senate will be aware, Hawthorn won its right to this week's grand final by defeating Melbourne through the most unforgettable twist of fate yet seen on a football field. I do not particularly wish to explain the circumstances that led to such an historic and heart-wrenching event that put an end to Melbourne's dream run; I do not wish to give the reasons, firstly, because I am sure my colleagues already know the history of that event last week and, secondly, it truly does grieve me too much to go over those events again for I have been a loyal Melbourne supporter since the age of five, never giving up hope that we would make the finals and never flinching in my loyalty when we did not. Mr Acting Deputy President, the story of Melbourne's finals experience really is best told by that most respected Irish Melbourne journalist from the Age, Mr Martin Flanagan, and for that reason and for posterity's sake I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate Mr Martin Flanagan's article of 20 September 1987 in Hansard. Senator Tate —As I taught Martin Flanagan in the Tasmanian Law School all he knows about good writing I am very happy to give leave. Leave granted. The article read as follows- A long fall from the mountain top By martin flanagan In the moment after the kick, as the Hawthorn players leapt exultantly into the air, all you knew was that this game would be accorded a memory unsurpassed by any other you have seen. Sport is an event, but occasionally it is more: it is dramatic. In the moment after the kick, in a crowd that had previously been violently vocal, there was a silence and restraint of the sort induced by shock. We who position ourselves so ardently on the edge of sport are like speculators looking to invest our emotions. It hadn't been hard to invest in Melbourne. In a world of entrenched orders and interests, they suggested values like the irrepressibility of youth. That they included Robert Flower, a player of agility and courage who has enhanced the game as few have done and still been true to its most honourable traditions, seemed the ultimate proof of their worthiness. Not that anyone outside the club really expected them to win, but no one expected them to lose like that either. How many people nowadays travel such a journey, experience such rigors and exertions, have the desired object within their grasp when the end is officially sounded, and then have it dashed away? It wasn't just that Melbourne lost, it was that they fell from the mountain top. Melbourne could, if it chose, take consolation from the fact that it lost to the truest opponent the game affords. As a contest, the match had been remorseless and hard; in part, a war of attrition. Hawthorn's attacks were like flight plans, meticulously organised and finely executed. Reason dictated that Melbourne could not withstand such sustained assaults, but the Melbourne challenge has had refreshingly little to do with reason. That has been its charm, and by mid-way through the final quarter you found yourself wanting to believe in charms. Surely, Whoever or Whatever orchestrates these events would not allow a team to come so far against the odds, to gather such a huge wash of feeling in its wake, to win an ascendancy from which the prize could fairly be said to be theirs, and then deny them? But it was to be worse than that. That the last fateful act in the drama fell to Irishman Jim Stynes, his parents having been flown to Australia for the match, seemed merely to pull away the last plank of sentiment upon which one might have found a foothold. It was Stynes, running between Gary Buckenara and Rodney Grinter, and thus incurring the 15-metre penalty, who brought Hawthorn's deadliest practitioner of the drop punt within more accessible range of goal. In the Melbourne rooms after the match, the supporters managed a version of `It's A Grand Old Flag' which made the chamber resonate, but it didn't seem to change anything (perhaps they should have tried `You'll Never Walk Alone'). The players sat alone, white-faced, or moved listlessly to the showers. VFL football is professional in all but name, and one realised that part of Melbourne's driving force had been the magnitude of John Northey's ambition. He would hear of no consolation and gave none to his players. It had, he said, been the chance of a lifetime. History suggests that he is right, the last three losers of preliminary finals-Collingwood, Footscray and Fitzroy-having found little joy in subsequent seasons. The game has become too hard, both physically and mentally, too competitive and too sustained for all but the most established powers. During the last World Cup, the French soccer captain Michel Platini reflected that he had often found more meaning in defeat than victory, but that is scarcely the Australian way. And so it is that we enter Grand Final week with the unseasonable feeling that, for so many, the main event is over. Senator McGAURAN —This article tells a story that will one day become legendary. That day in a faraway city of Melbourne there was for one brief shining moment a new Camelot where courage and will took place, where all that is loyal and strong was embodied in the Melbourne Football Club. I wish to say to the captain, Robbie Flower, as he prepares to hang up his boots, `You have given us better than a worthy service. You have given the club's finest example to the young generation of aspiring footballers. You have given great delight to those of us who have followed Melbourne from the time of our youth and the time we used to kick a football around the school yard'. I wish to say to that Irishman, Jim Stynes, that if he thinks he carries the burden of defeat he is mistaken. He does not carry any burden of guilt or defeat at all. The tragedy of last week's events does not fall upon this man Jim Stynes; rather it is a terrible fate that has fallen upon a great footballer such as Jim Stynes. In conclusion, I wish to say that there was an event back in 1979 that also dashed the great hopes of the city of Melbourne when a horse called `Reckless' ran second in the Melbourne Cup. That was the last time I felt a feeling like that run through Melbourne when the great Tommy Woodcock, once strapper of `Phar Lap' and now deceased, trained `Reckless' that we all believed could win the Melbourne Cup. `Reckless' sadly ran second and all our hopes and dreams were dashed that day; but we got over it, we recovered. So, I say to Melbourne, `Your efforts of 1987 were cruelly dashed yet it is a grand old flag that will always fly over the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Our hopes-the hopes of the supporters-will never die and the dream will always live on.' Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(1.05) —I do deplore the previous speaker's introduction of controversy into this discussion of matters of public interest today. I would like to refer to something a little more serious-the question of poverty in Australia. Earlier today I spoke of the development of human capital that is reflected in the Budget that the Government has brought down. I think this is long overdue. Unfortunately there has been a development, particularly in the Fraser years, of an increase in unemployment. I do not blame the Fraser Government only for the situation but I think it is something that is a matter of great concern. Indeed, it is very interesting that in the decade concluding in 1981-82 the number of single parent families headed by women who were living in poverty increased from 38 per cent to 50 per cent. The number of families with two parents, and with three or more children, living in poverty increased from 7 per cent to 20 per cent. For families with four or more children the number living in poverty rose to 33 per cent. Of particular concern is the fact that the number of children living in poverty rose from 8 per cent to 19 per cent in the decade concluding 1981-82. An estimated 800,000 children were living in poverty in that decade concluding 1981-82. So 800,000 children have been suffering in Australia because of the lack of attention to the debilitating aspects of living and trying to study when your belly is empty. The growing problem of family poverty is due largely to long term unemployment and increased family breakdown rates. Yet the Opposition continues to focus on the welfare situation in its criticism of government spending on welfare. The Labor Party is much more aware, I believe, of the problems of the poor and this is demonstrated in this year's Budget. Indeed, the Labor Party, as one of its basic objectives, states that the abolition of poverty and the achievement of greater equity in the distribution of income, wealth and opportunity is a primary concern. While we have been severely constrained by the difficult economic situation in which we have found ourselves in government, this Party and the Government remain committed to the progressively increasing payment rates additional to the normal indexation arrangements until single pensioners and social welfare beneficiaries receive at least 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. There are no easy solutions to the problems, of course, but the Labor Party has faced up to the task. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) should be congratulated for the family package introduced in the Budget. It goes a long way towards alleviating this very pressing contemporary social problem. The Government has been able to maintain its commitment to social justice within the Budget framework of reducing government expenditure generally. I would like to draw attention to two aspects of the current Budget, two components of the family package; in particular, the family allowance supplement and the child support scheme. The family allowance supplement will be introduced on 17 December 1987 and will replace the family income supplement. It will be paid at the rate of $22 a week for each eligible child under 13 years of age, and $28 a week for each child between 13 and 15 years of age, after which most students go on to Austudy. If a 16- to 24-year-old does not receive Austudy or other Commonwealth pension or benefits he or she will receive current family income supplement levels of $17. The threshold is $300 for a family with one child. It will be increased by $12 a week for every additional dependent child or student in the family. Hence the threshold for a family with three children will be $324 gross a week. The threshold income will be reviewed in the 1988-89 Budget. The threshold income, of course, is very important and the fact that it is to be reviewed means that it is part of the Government's attempt to make sure that child poverty will be eliminated in the term of this Government. Other improvements in the package include rent assistance. Many low income working families will be eligible for the $15 a week rent assistance as will many families on unemployment, sickness or special benefit without having to wait six months as they do now. The child disability allowance is an important initiative that the Government has taken and it will be introduced from 15 November 1987 to replace the existing handicapped child's allowance. The child disability allowance makes no distinction between severely and substantially disabled children and this is a progressive step forward. The allowance will be $112 a month, an increase of $20. Of course, at the same time, the double orphans' pension has been broadened. As to the child support scheme on 24 March 1987 the Minister for Social Security announced the introduction of new arrangements for collection of child maintenance. A child support agency is to be established next year under the Commissioner of Taxation. The agency will collect sums due under court maintenance orders using mechanisms similar to those used in collecting income tax. The payments will be distributed to custodial parents by the Department of Social Security. The scheme will apply to couples who separate after the date of the introduction of the new arrangements. In addition, custodial parents who are social security clients will be able to have their child maintenance orders collected by the agency regardless of the date of their separation. The changes are extensive and are a decided improvement on the previous schemes. So what we have is a significant package. The Labor Government has provided $250m to meet our commitment to a family allowance supplement for low income earners. More than a million children will benefit. Up to $15 a week private rental allowance is available to low income families. These are very significant qualitative changes and improvements for those people in poverty or on the edge of poverty. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that the most any of these families would have received under the discredited election tax policy of the Liberal and National parties would have been $20 a week. I think that sums up the contrast between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to be controversial. I wanted to place these achievements of the Labor Government on the record. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(1.08) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to take two or three minutes to put on record my objection to a proposed car race around the streets of Hobart, the city where I live and which I represent. Senator McKiernan —A beautiful city. Senator COATES —It is a beautiful city, as the Deputy Whip interjects. Late next year, it was reported last month, Hobart streets could be overwhelmed by screeching cars in an Adelaide-style touring car race around the city. It has been proposed, according to the map that accompanied this story, that it be held around the docks area of Hobart including Salamanca Place and Montpelier Retreat, a bit of Sandy Bay Road, and Davey Street and Macquarie Street would be used to pass the Town Hall and Franklin Square and go around the docks. Apparently the organisers are in Hobart this week trying to finalise the arrangements and are quoted in today's Mercury as saying that there is a 90 to 95 per cent chance that the Hobart street race will go ahead next year. I have to say that I find the prospect of racing cars screeching around Hobart streets disturbing and offensive and I think there is considerable disquiet in the community about the plans for the race. There should have been much more consultation with Hobart residents and community groups. I oppose the race as a totally irresponsible event, glorifying fast cars, speed, noise pollution, and wastefulness of resources. I think it is totally inappropriate for Hobart's environment and tourist image in particular. I think it is a bad example as well, given that the largest cause of death among males aged 17 to 25 is motor accidents. The authorities should think again before approving this race. I think one of the consequences of the Adelaide Grand Prix was a dramatic increase in the incidence of speeding in the local area, and of accidents as a consequence. I would like to know how we can expect to instil a sense of responsibility in young drivers if there is official approval for car racing in city streets. I just hope that the growing public outrage will impress upon the City Council and the organisation Sportsforce International that this proposed Constitution 500 should be abandoned or at least moved to a course designed for motor racing. Sitting suspended from 1.12 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity both as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and as the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. In light of the misgivings about the prospects for the Australian economy expressed not only by Senator Walsh but by such economic commentators as Mr Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald and Mr Stutchbury in the Australian Financial Review, and in light of current exchange rates and many domestic factors which are discouraging of investment in Australian manufacturing, can the Minister advise the Senate whether the Government is of the view that a 1.5 per cent across the board wage increase, which has been held out as possible for October, is justified? Will the Government be supporting a first tier across the board increase at the wage case hearing in October? If so, what level of increase? Senator BUTTON —We have had discussions in Question Time on several occasions about various people's misgivings about the prospects of the Australian economy. I have endeavoured to answer those questions by saying that the Government is in no way complacent about the situation of the Australian economy and any views which it has and which various Ministers have are reflected in Government decisions from time to time. Insofar as the forthcoming wage case is concerned, I understand that the Government indicated its position on that to the Australian Council of Trade Unions some time ago. To my knowledge there has been no reconsideration of that position but that may well take place if the Government deems it appropriate. Senator COATES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Youth Affairs and Training aware of a recent newspaper report about the supposed pre-Budget threat to the community youth support scheme (CYSS)? Is it true that CYSS was under threat? Is it true, as was reported in that article, that if it were not for the actions of Senator Calvert CYSS centres would have been closed? Opposition senators interjecting- Senator COATES —Just wait and see. I was amazed at the suggestion. Did the pre-Budget rumours about the threat to CYSS originate in the Government? If not, does the Minister know where they did originate and did other States express the same level of concern as was generated in Tasmania? Senator RYAN —Yes, I am aware of the report in the Hobart Mercury which credits Senator Paul Calvert with leading the fight to save CYSS after pre-Budget rumours that this scheme would be discontinued. Beat-ups abound! For the information of honourable senators, the rumours about CYSS originated from a Press release by Australian Democrat Senator Janet Powell on 26 August 1987 in which she stated that she had information from a reliable source that CYSS programs would be abolished on 31 October this year. This was a totally irresponsible action by Senator Powell. I do not know who her source was but its reliability can be assessed when one sees from the Budget Papers that, far from abolishing the scheme, the funding for the next financial year was increased to $37m. At no stage was the Government contemplating abolishing the scheme in October but because the Budget process was in train it was not possible for the Minister responsible to comment on the truth or otherwise of the rumours. Let me make it quite clear that these rumours were not started by the Government. The only action taken by Senator Calvert was to issue a quickly forgotten Press release based on Senator Powell's rumour and then send a letter to Mr Dawkins, which was received three days before the Budget was announced, asking the Minister to deny rumours sponsored by Senator Calvert and Senator Powell. He can hardly take the credit for averting a threat that did not exist. Senator Powell and Senator Calvert can take credit only for creating anxiety and worry for hundreds of CYSS workers and participants all over Australia. The Government remains committed to assisting Australia's young people to obtain employment and training and recognises the role that community based programs can play in this regard. Senator STONE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, relates to the Australia Card. Has the Government already identified a number of provisions in the present Australia Card Bill as requiring amendment, either for policy reasons or for technical reasons? Have drafting instructions for such amending legislation already been forwarded to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel? Is an early draft of a Bill incorporating such amendments already in the hands of the Government? Finally, if the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, will the Minister explain to the Senate why the Government has been proceeding with a Bill which, even by its own questionable standards, is defective and which, in a real sense, therefore constitutes a fraud upon the Parliament? Senator RYAN —Senator Stone is obviously very excited by pointing to a well known fact as he did yesterday that the Senate has a disallowance power with regard to regulations. Dr Blewett, the Prime Minister and I have been on the record for some time as saying that, although the Bill in its present form is satisfactory in regard to civil liberty matters, protections, banking procedures and the like, we will retain an open mind on suggestions that come forward from genuinely concerned groups in the community or members of the community about possible improvements. If we get to the stage of making decisions about those issues, they would constitute amendments for an Australia Card amendment Bill. But at this stage I repeat what we have said several times: we retain an open mind and we will consider, as we have considered, matters that are brought before us and are worthy of consideration. Senator WOOD —I refer my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is aware that the Governor-General of Fiji has, in recent times, dismissed the elected Government and appointed a non-elected body in its stead. In light of the Australian experience in 1975 does the Prime Minister acknowledge that there is a potential danger to constitutional stability inherent in the office of Governor-General? Does the Prime Minister support Australian people having an opportunity to express their view by referendum on the question of a republican constitution? Senator BUTTON —The short answer to both questions is no. I do not think it has ever been the Government's view that the instability was inherent in the office of Governor-General. It may have been the view of the members of the Australian Labor Party-it was certainly mine-that the instability was there in the occupant of the position of Governor-General in 1975. Senator POWELL —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted that Table 22 A3 of the Treasury's draft White Paper on tax reform arguing the justice and equity case for the abolition of negative gearing which was then supported by the Hawke Government showed that in 1982-83 14 per cent of individuals with negatively geared property would have had taxable incomes of over $100,000 if negative gearing had then been disallowed, while less than 2 per cent would have had taxable incomes below the then average wage? In the light of this, will the Minister explain how the Government's decision to restore negative gearing for rental properties will assist average and low income households who are facing a shortage of affordable rental accommodation in the capital cities when real estate agents, while welcoming the decision, have agreed that it will cause property prices to increase, thus raising rents, and that the decision is unlikely to add much rental stock to the market? Senator WALSH —I note for the record Senator Powell's professed concern about what she sees as tax avoidance when she, the other Democrats and all members of the Opposition protect tax evaders. That is very important as a first answer to the question. Returning to the more specific details, the White Paper was published in May 1985. At that time no capital gains tax was in place; a capital gains tax is now in place, albeit on real gains, not nominal gains. Nevertheless that goes a very long way to restoring the inequity that previously existed. In case honourable senators have forgotten this fact, the decision on negative gearing was operative from 1 July 1985 which was, of course, some 2 1/2 months before the full tax reform package was announced. It took the best part of another 12 months before it was enacted. It should also be noted that simultaneously with the decision announced in the Budget on negative gearing, the depreciation allowance on buildings was reduced from 4 per cent to 2 1/2 per cent. On the more general question of the tax reform package and the progressivity of it, it is also important to note that the other measures in the tax reform package-the capital gains tax, substantiation and the fringe benefits tax-have yielded a great deal more revenue than had been anticipated. As I have said, as the White Paper demonstrated, that revenue comes overwhelmingly from people in high income brackets. Senator POWELL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I again ask the Minister whether he can explain how the decision on negative gearing will assist average and low income households who are facing a shortage of affordable rental accommodation. If he can do that, could he additionally offer any guarantees that if more rental accommodation is provided it will be low cost rental accommodation, even in spite of the fact that statistics show that it is people on low incomes living in private rental accommodation who, in the majority of cases, are pushed below the poverty line by their housing costs. Senator WALSH —I again note the sanctimony of the Australian Democrats in their concern for low income households. It is, however, a concern which exists only in the abstract. When it comes to actually doing something that would help low income households-that is, catching up with tax cheats-the Democrats normally use their vote in the Senate to protect the tax cheats against the interests of low income householders. I will refer this matter to the Treasurer. I cannot think of any way in which the Government could guarantee that any increased investment from the private sector would be in low rental accommodation rather than medium or any other level of rental accommodation. However, I will refer that matter to the Treasurer to see whether he wishes to make any comment. Senator COLSTON —My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, relates to benefits payable to Australian veterans and other benefits such as treatment for war related injuries. Are there any comparative figures which indicate how Australian veterans are cared for compared with veterans in overseas countries? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator Colston for his question. I take this opportunity to point out that the Australian repatriation system is considered to be one of the most generous systems in the world. In a recent comparison, expenditure on veterans by Australia was 4.8 per cent of total government expenditure. This was considerably more than that expended by other countries, considering the United Kingdom spent only 0.4 per cent of total government expenditure, New Zealand spent 0.5 per cent, the United States of America 3.4 per cent and Canada 1.3 per cent. With the exception of Canada, none of the countries examined have a non-contributory early retirement pension equivalent to the Australian service pension. Furthermore, the Government's commitment to care for war widows, veterans and their families continues to remain one of our highest priorities. This is well demonstrated by the increase in funds available in the current Budget and since this Government came to office. I have some information available that gives comparisons in greater detail than I am prepared to give now. I am happy to provide Senator Colston with the relevant comparisons at the end of Question Time. Senator CHAPMAN —I ask the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health: What preparation has taken place for the introduction of the Government's ID card and how much money has been committed and/or expended on the project? Senator RYAN —I will refer that question to Dr Blewett. Senator DEVLIN —I address my question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health and it relates to housing issues. In this the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, can the Minister explain to the Senate what, if anything, the Government has done to alleviate the current long waiting lists for public housing in New South Wales? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to inform the Senate that the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments have given a high priority to alleviating the situation for those on public housing waiting lists in that State. Total funding made available by the Federal Government for public housing assistance in New South Wales for this financial year will be over $344m. This compares with a total of $150m provided in 1982-83 and $83m in the last full year of the Fraser-Howard Government, which says something about priorities. At a time of very severe budgetary restraint, the Federal Government has also been willing to guarantee a minimum of $700m in public housing assistance to the States through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) for each of the financial years 1988-89 and 1989-90. New South Wales will, of course, receive the biggest share of these funds. One of the key objectives of the Labor Government's 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is to maximise the amount of funding for housing assistance by encouraging States to enter into joint ventures and innovative financing arrangements with the private sector. In New South Wales this has already achieved significant results. Recently the Federal Government formally approved the use of CSHA funds to support private sector funding of new home purchase assistance arrangements. As announced by the New South Wales Government in its Budget, this will allow 7,000 families to purchase their own homes in 1987-88. Taking the lead from the Federal Government, the New South Wales Budget for 1987-88 also provides for a $1.5 billion housing assistance package to assist over 22,500 households, including a 30 per cent increase in public housing completions, $67m allocated to the Department of Housing for land purchase and sale to home buyers and an increase of 18 per cent in funding to youth refuges. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice and I remind him that the Australian Federal Police Association claimed on 2 July that the Minister had had a report into $4 billion worth of fraud against the Commonwealth for approximately six weeks. I draw the Minister's attention to his statement on 2 July that he would not release the report until after the election because of its importance. In view of the fact that it is now over two months since the election and the Government has sat on the report for over four months, what is the reason for the Government's reluctance to release such an important report and when will it be tabled? Senator TATE —During the election campaign the Australian Federal Police Association, or at least certain members of its executive, made quite extravagant and outlandish allegations and claims about the substance of a report which had been received by the Government-a review of systems for dealing with fraud on the Commonwealth-which had been carried out by a very high powered interdepartmental committee (IDC). It was not one of the ordinary IDCs but one comprising the secretaries of some 11 departments of the Commonwealth. I have never at any stage-and I do not now-concurred in or wanted to give any notional assent to the idea that that review in any way quantified the extent of fraud against the Commonwealth. It was never part of its terms of reference and was never reported on in consequence. The process for dealing with this review, as I understand it, is now in the hands of the Attorney-General and will go to Cabinet very shortly, I would say within the next week or so. As soon as that is done, the Attorney-General will make the necessary report to the Parliament. Senator AULICH —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. I ask: When does the Government anticipate that it will receive a report from the Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd (ANOP) survey regarding the Australia Card? Will the Government make available the results of that survey? Senator ROBERT RAY —The ANOP survey was intended to include both qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative research is almost concluded and the results will be made available to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have decided that the quantitative research will not proceed until the Government considers its position. In the event of the Standing Committee deciding to explore issues not covered by the existing qualitative research, the Government would be prepared to consult with the Committee concerning future research requirements. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I refer to the continuing industrial disruption of great magnitude in the coal industry and the threat of a continuation of such disruption. I have also noted the demands of the Miners Federation and the Caucus committee that the Government should establish a national coal authority, with or without a marketing arm. I ask the Minister: Will the Government assure the Senate that it will continue to resist the demands for the establishment of a national coal authority? Senator WALSH —I have a note here which covers some of the issues that Senator Durack has raised. Every sensible person ought to be concerned about the coal industry and, in particular, about maintaining the very substantial export revenue that it earns. I am advised that the New South Wales Government has announced concessions to reduce royalties by 20 per cent, and has removed the super-royalty from underground operations and reduced it in open-cut mines, although a number of coal companies are claiming that that is not sufficient to restore viability. The Government's position in this area, not just this year but going back four and a half years and two previous Ministers, has been that Australia cannot control world coal prices, and therefore we have not been willing at any stage to set up a national marketing authority that would attempt to do just that. As far as I know, that remains the view of the present Minister, but just in case he is thinking about something else I will contact him about it and let Senator Durack know. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I asked whether the Government would resist demands for the establishment of a national coal authority with or without a marketing arm. Does the same answer apply to the establishment of a national coal authority? Senator WALSH —What's in a name? I suppose we could set up something called a national coal authority and give it important or unimportant, trivial functions to perform. The important question-I believe that Senator Durack would agree with this-is whether the Government is contemplating establishing, or intends to establish, some centralised marketing authority that will determine the price at which Australian coal is sold, or through which Australian coal must be sold. I repeat that that has not been the view of the Government at any time in the past four and a half years. As far as I know it remains the view of Mr Kerin, but I will check it out with him. Senator GILES —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State in her capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health on housing issues. What is the Government doing to help low income tenants facing crisis in the private rental market? Senator RYAN —The Government is very well aware of the need to assist low income tenants in the private rental market. Under the previous Liberal-National Party Government, private renters were the poor relations of home owners and public housing tenants. Our Government has responded decisively on two fronts. On the supply side, we have restored negative gearing, which will provide a much needed boost to the private sector, particularly in Sydney. Senator MacGibbon —Why did you take it away in the first place? Senator RYAN —Senator Walsh has already explained what the situation was in 1985. Was Senator MacGibbon not listening? The negative gearing provisions and the 2 1/2 per cent depreciation allowance, coupled with reduced interest rates, will restore investor confidence and will result in an increase in the stock of private rental accommodation. The Housing Industry Association announced yesterday that the building of medium density housing will triple over the next year. This might be of some interest to the Australian Democrats, too. It is good news for low income tenants who will benefit from an increase in the overall supply of rental accommodation and the slow-down in rent increases. On the demand side, we have also taken direct action. In the Budget we introduced a $15-a-week rent assistance package for low income households in the private rental market, including recipients of the new family allowance package supplement and the unemployed. Privately renting pensioners and beneficiaries already receive this assistance. The combination of increased rental investment, the Government's continued successful downward pressure on interest rates and the provision of rental assistance to low income households is clear evidence of the Government's determination to ensure adequate and affordable accommodation for all Australians. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. What action will the Government take to compensate beef producers who may have inadvertently contributed to beef contamination problems by using Department of Agriculture or Department of Primary Industry (DPI) approved pesticides? Does the Minister not agree that it is not appropriate for beef producers to be forced to accept additional costs of inspection, given that there was no intended negligence on their part? Will the Government help this industry, which is so vital to Australia's export income, by meeting testing costs with a dollar-for-dollar grant? Senator WALSH —In regard to Senator Brownhill's reference to DPI approved insecticides or other agricultural chemicals, I thought that the registration and control of those chemicals was under the control of State governments and not of the Commonwealth Government or the Department of Primary Industries. If that is so-I will check it-I do not see how the Commonwealth Government, or any department of the Commonwealth Government, could be held responsible if there have been errors or if there has been carelessness in the past. However, I will have the matter checked out. On the question of compensation, I noted with some amazement about two weeks ago that Mr Winston Crane, who was at that stage the Acting President of the National Farmers Federation, asserted at a meeting in Manjimup in Western Australia that the Commonwealth Government should provide $200m to buy all the beef that may have been contaminated. He said that that would be a small price to pay for an industry worth $1 1/2 billion a year, implicitly assuming in doing so that without that sort of cash injection the industry would collapse. I do not know on what basis he made that assumption. More importantly, when I heard this I thought, `Surely this cannot be the same Winston Crane or the same National Farmers Federation which was writing letters to me in June and, I think, to most candidates in the election demanding that Government expenditure be ruthlessly slashed'. I thought, `Surely this is not the same Winston Crane, or the same National Farmers Federation, who is now demanding $200m of taxpayers' money ostensibly to save an industry without offering any evidence at all that such a cash transfusion is necessary to save that industry'. I did write a letter to the West Australian questioning whether this was the same Winston Crane and the same National Farmers Federation. But the West Australian, consistent with its perceived obligations to inform the public of Western Australia, declined to publish it. So I hope it will report the answer to this question. The Government has, of course, acted-and this was announced some time ago-and put a modest amount of taxpayers' money into a co-operative scheme with the States to retrieve the stocks of these chemicals that are still lying around on farms. I will see whether Mr Kerin has anything to add to that answer. I stress again that to the best of my knowledge, if there have been any mistakes or carelessness about the chemicals which are allowed to be marketed or used on farms, that is the responsibility of the State governments although I believe that the Commonwealth Government has for some time exercised some discipline over the chemicals which may be imported. Senator MAGUIRE —My question, which I direct to the Minister for Home Affairs, relates to election costs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements made by Senator Brian Archer at the Senate declaration in Tasmania concerning the cost of Federal elections? Are the costings, as claimed, accurate and are other claims made by Senator Archer justified? In view of the continuing high House of Representatives informal votes in some parts of Australia, will the Minister examine the cost effectiveness of television advertisements using languages other than English to explain better voting procedures and so reduce the number of informal votes? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have read a Press release by Senator Archer at the declaration of the poll at Hobart. I must say initially that I never give a lot of credence to anything that is said at a declaration of the poll. On such occasions politicians tend to have a bit of a break-out and say whatever they feel like. On this occasion Senator Archer was, as part of his responsibilities as a front bench member of the Opposition, spokesman on electoral matters. I always got the feeling that whilst he was very much across the issues of primary industry and science, electoral matters were probably third in priority. Senator Archer in his Press release said that the average cost per vote in the last election was $20. It is very hard to understand how he would have calculated that. If we take it on the cost of running the election, it would be no more than $4 per vote. Possibly Senator Archer amalgamated every possible item, going back to the previous election, that the Australian Electoral Commission would have costed. But even on that basis the cost would have been only $14 a vote. We also have to remember that the Electoral Commission runs 150 to 200 industrial ballots a year. It is also into many other areas of electoral education for schools and other bodies. It is possible, of course, that Senator Archer just rounded off his figures and went from $14 to $20 for the sake of convenience. That is not an impossible mistake to make. Senator Archer also went on to say that the informal vote jumped very substantially in the last election. Indeed, he said that in the Senate the informal vote rose by 8 per cent and in the House of Representatives by 135 per cent. We should note that his claims relate to the period 1984 to 1987. In actual fact, the Senate informal vote was 4.06, which is down from 4.68 per cent at the previous election. We should remember, of course, that this time we had a double dissolution which meant that more candidates were involved. So once again the Senate informal vote has dropped. There has been a decrease-in my view not a satisfactory decrease-in the informal vote for the House of Representatives. I do not think the decrease is large enough. However, it is down to 4.92 per cent compared with 6.38 per cent. I am sure that Senator Tate is most impressed by that decrease. Senator Archer went on to say that on this occasion the counting was slower and more expensive and that we should thoroughly investigate bringing in the Hare-Clark system. I point out that the results for the Senate this time were known much sooner than they have been in the past, especially bearing in mind that we had a double dissolution. We were able not only to carry out a complete Senate count but also to invoke section 282 in a half Senate count before this chamber assembled. Senator Hill —Then throw it out. Senator ROBERT RAY —And throw it out here later on. That again indicates how quick the Electoral Commission was. Senator Archer went on to make some remarks about redistribution and how unfair the electoral system is. I have answered that in reply to a previous question. The tragedy apparently for those opposite is that they got a swing in our safe seats and there was a slight swing to us in the marginals. That is what the whole election was about. The result had nothing to do with the redistribution at all. In the final part of his question Senator Maguire asked whether we would consider redirecting some of the election resources towards non-English advertisements. I think that is a good suggestion. However, I would like first of all to see the analysis on informal voting that is being undertaken by the Electoral Commission and which will be available in the next couple of months. If that analysis shows that there is some correlation with a high non-English speaking population, I think we should give serious consideration to redirecting some of the electoral expenditure into that area. Senator HILL —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Justice, follows answers he gave to Senator Jones earlier this week in which he acknowledged the role of the corrupt former Queensland police Assistant Commissioner Parker as the liaison officer for Queensland with the National Crime Authority (NCA). I ask: Who determined that Mr Parker would be the liaison officer for the Queensland police? Does the NCA simply accept the nominee of the State or does it carry out its own investigations as to who would be suitable or unsuitable? If it does not, will that practice be changed? Through `operations conferences', would Mr Parker have learned from the NCA the names of Queenslanders who might be NCA informers or prospective witnesses? If such is the case and the NCA has provided such information to Mr Parker, will the Commonwealth advise the witnesses accordingly and apply whatever resources are necessary to guarantee the physical security of such witnesses? Senator TATE —In relation to the first part of the question asked by Senator Hill-and I acknowledge the gravity of the matters that he has raised-as I recall it, the first appointed liaison officer between the National Crime Authority and the Queensland police force, undertaken at the direction of the then Minister for Police, was the predecessor to Assistant Commissioner Parker. I cannot recall his name. He was to take control of liaison, not only with the NCA but also with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. The Queensland Minister for Police determined that one person within the police force should be the exclusive conduit for the flow of information and arrangements between the Federal law enforcement authorities and the Queensland police force. So the original appointment of a liaison officer from within the Queensland police force was made at the instigation of the then responsible Minister within the Queensland Cabinet. Upon the departure-perhaps it was retirement, I am not too sure-of the occupant in I think, early 1986, Mr Parker was appointed to that role. I do not know whether it was by direct intervention of the then Minister for Police or whether he was just filling what was then a vacant liaison officer role. I would assume, and have assumed, that Commissioner Sir Terence Lewis made that appointment to fill the role of liaison officer. Whilst the NCA obviously takes very meticulous steps to screen those officers who are seconded to it, whether from the Australian Federal Police or from State or Territory police forces, it does not undertake the same scrutiny of liaison officers, such as the liaison officer who is appointed by the Queensland Minister or Police Commissioner. That led to my suggestion, which was I think incorporated in a Four Corners program on these matters earlier in the week, that more tick-tacking and more mutual collaboration needed to take place between the National Crime Authority and the respective State or Territory police force before a liaison officer was appointed. That collaboration and mutual agreement as to a person I hope will emerge from discussions at the Police Ministers Council meeting in Hobart in late November. I have already written to Mr Pearsall, the Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers Council, requesting him to get such a process under way. In relation to the second part of Senator Hill's question, I have already indicated to the Senate that Mr Parker was present at three operational conferences, in July and September of 1986 and May or March of this year, and that, keeping at arm's length as I do from operational matters, I certainly have not been made privy, and have not sought to be made privy, to the discussions that were there undertaken. Nevertheless, in general discussion with Mr Justice Stewart, the Chairman of the National Crime Authority, I have asked him to take whatever steps are required to make an assessment of any compromise of National Crime Authority operations that may have been occasioned by the access which Mr Parker had to information disclosed at those conferences. That would incorporate any suggestion that witnesses may be imperilled by the passage of such information. In respect of witness protection, the National Crime Authority, as is to be seen in the reports tabled in this Parliament, has taken a particularly vigorous view that the protection of witnesses is an absolutely key element in its obtaining of intelligence. The protection of witnesses is something which I know Mr Justice Stewart is very conscious needs to be undertaken in any situation where there is a hint of their being in jeopardy or in peril. Nevertheless, I will specifically ask Mr Justice Stewart whether in this particular instance he feels able to inform me-and he may not-whether any particular witnesses may have been put in jeopardy and, if so, what steps have been taken, or at least what assurances he can give me in relation to any such jeopardising of witnesses. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Given that yesterday was the deadline for regional television licensees to tell the Government whether they wished to move to aggregated services, can the Minister inform the Senate of the outcome? Senator GARETH EVANS —It gives me great pleasure, as I know it would my learned predecessor, Michael Duffy, to be able to inform the Senate that I have now received indications from the majority of regional television licensees in all four approved markets, covering Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, that they wish to move to aggregated services. This means in essence that more than four million Australians living in eastern mainland regions are now a very important step closer to gaining access to television programming which is comparable to that already enjoyed by viewers in the capital cities. The equalisation process will give most country viewers the choice of three commercial channels as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) while retaining local programs such as news, sport, weather and community announcements. It is envisaged that a viewer in Cairns, for example, whose viewing choice is currently limited to the ABC and just one local station, will, after this aggregation, be able to tune into any of three local services, each of which will be offering basically the network programming of one of the three major channels-channels 7, 9 and 10. This situation will obviously represent a very significant expansion of programming choice, with a wealth of previously unavailable sporting, drama and current affairs programs becoming available to viewers. Yesterday was the deadline by which regional licensees were to inform the Government whether they preferred to opt for aggregation or instead to move as an interim measure to multi-channel services. Licensees in the southern New South Wales approved market unanimously elected to move to aggregation. In each of the other three approved markets of northern New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria there was only one licensee in each case who preferred the multi-channel service approach. I am today in the process of advising all licensees of this outcome. Aggregation has always been the Government's preferred option for equalisation, and on behalf of the Government I commend the licensees for their overwhelming endorsement of this approach. Under the Government's aggregation timetable it is anticipated that the necessary broadcasting infrastructure will be in place to enable approved market C, covering southern New South Wales, to begin equalisation by 1989, followed by approved market A, Queensland, by 1990; approved market B, northern New South Wales, by 1991; and approved market D, Victoria by 1992. Of course, it is open to licensees jointly to begin aggregated services earlier than those timetabled dates, should they so choose. Perhaps I should say a final word about the situation in the other States. The smaller regional populations in Western Australia and South Australia mean that it is simply not possible to move immediately to three competitive services in those States. However, I can assure regional viewers in Western Australia and South Australia that the Government will shortly be taking up with the relevant licensees proposals for the provision of additional commercial services in those States. Because of the smaller regional populations in those States, aggregation there would need to be on a basis that included Perth and Adelaide to ensure an adequate population base. Finally, the situation in Tasmania, where there is an existing monopoly, is also being addressed and I am hopeful that a second independent commercial service will be available within the next two years. Senator LEWIS —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce whether he is aware that the proposal by Worksafe Australia to impose limits on manual lifting above 16 kilograms has been estimated to cost the Australian construction industry $1.2 billion every year and that submissions from other industries point to cost increases as large or even larger. Can the Minister give the Senate an assurance that, at a time when an increase in national productivity is absolutely crucial, the Government will not accept any recommendation which imposes an arbitrary and inflexible restriction on lifting and which will as a consequence reduce workplace efficiency and productivity? Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Can he provide the Senate with information on the arrests and large illicit drug seizure made in the last two days by the Australian Federal Police (AFP)? Senator TATE —The Australian Federal Police has for some time been investigating an international organisation which it is alleged has been responsible for the importation of illicit drugs into Australia. The syndicate allegedly consists of both United States and Australian citizens. Honourable senators may be aware of Press reports over the last 24 hours indicating that, following extensive covert inquiries, a number of search warrants were executed by the Federal Police in Queensland and New South Wales. Approximately 160 kilograms of hashish were found on a Nerang property and over $400,000 in cash was seized. Ten people, both US and Australian citizens, have been arrested on charges relating to the importation of illicit drugs, and further arrests may be expected. I think the general public over the last year or so has become increasingly aware of the very important role played by the Australian Federal Police, as the Federal Government's premier law enforcement agency, in tackling the question of organised crime and drug trafficking. When this Government came to office it gave to the Australian Federal Police a charter which made it clear that its priority objectives were to tackle organised crime, particularly in relation to drug trafficking. I believe that these sorts of arrests and charges and the subsequent convictions, of which the general public is becoming aware, as a result of these AFP operations are a tribute to the way in which that organisation has responded to the charter of objectives given to it by the Government, along with the devotion of considerable resources from the Government to the Australian Federal Police including, since we came to power, an increase of over 600 in the personnel operating within it. That is an increase of some 25 per cent in the personnel available to the Commissioner in his directing of Federal Police resources in the fight against organised crime. It is also the case that in this instance civil remedies action is being currently taken against the syndicate's assets, which include real estate, boats, motor vehicles, safe deposit boxes and bank accounts. These assets are estimated to be valued at several million dollars. I say from my experience during the election campaign that if there is one thing the general public appreciates above all others in the package of legislation passed through this Parliament, with co-operation from the other side, in the last weeks of the autumn session, it was the proceeds of crime legislation. In general it is thought throughout the community that upon conviction-I am not saying whether these persons who have been arrested and charged will be convicted; that is a matter for the courts to decide-of a drug trafficker the general community feels, and this Parliament has agreed, that it is not adequate that the person suffer a gaol sentence of even four, five, 10 or 15 years if at the end of that process they can come out of gaol and enjoy the fruits of their nefarious activities. As far as this Government has been concerned, it is important that the profit motive, which often is the motive behind engaging in these activities which lead to death, destruction and degradation, particularly of our young people, is attacked by stripping convicted criminals of their proceeds of crime. That will be undertaken vigorously by government agencies. This operation is a tribute to the Australian Federal Police not only in its technique of targeting principal crime figures, but also in demonstrating the high degree of liaison and co-operation between law enforcement agencies which characterised this operation. Both the Australian Customs Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions have been closely involved in the operations. At the international level the Australian Federal Police liaison officers facilitated very good and effective contact with law enforcement agencies overseas, all of whose co-operation was essential to the success of this operation. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Was the Government aware before yesterday of the defect in its Australia Card Bill so far as the introduction of regulations was concerned? If so, when did it first become aware of the defect? Senator RYAN —I find it rather astounding that Senator Short and other members of the Opposition try to characterise one aspect of the drafting of the Australia Card Bill as a defect. What they are saying is that it is a defect to write into a Bill that there may be regulatory powers. It is an absurd claim given the list of legislation an arm long that has similar provisions. Will they turn to every piece of Commonwealth legislation since 1901 that depends for its operation on regulatory power and say `that it is all defective' and that they want it all withdrawn? It is an absurdity. How can honourable senators opposite, who like to uphold the powers of the Senate, say that it is defective to put into a Bill a regulatory power? I have not counted the number, but I know that since 1901 there have been dozens of pieces of legislation and indeed in my 12 years in the Senate many pieces of legislation have been introduced, where the principal Act was contained in legislation and other details were to be determined at a later date by regulation. It is a fact of life that regulations go before the Senate which has the power of disallowance. All legislation before the Senate goes to the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and that Committee did not find any defect in the legislation. Senator Michael Baume —That is untrue. Senator RYAN —On this particular point. That Committee did not regard the perfectly conventional and normal fact that there were regulations for setting the date of various matters within the Bill as a defect. What is Senator Short saying about his colleagues on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee? If he regards it as a defect, why did his Senate colleagues not regard it as a defect? It is absurd. One cannot have an honourable senator rising in this place and saying that it is defective drafting to have a principal Act setting out the main parts of the legislation and then having the minor parts, such as the setting of dates, a matter of regulation. It happens time and again in legislation and has happened on numerous occasions with major pieces of legislation since 1901. Let me return to Senator Short's question. We were alerted to one fact yesterday for the first time. That fact was that it was the intention of Opposition and Democrat senators to fly in the face of 87 years of Senate practice, to fly in the face of section 57 of the Constitution which sets out precisely and for good reason mechanisms by which a Bill that has stalled between two Houses may come to resolution. For the first time we heard yesterday that it was the intention of the Opposition senators and Democrat senators to throw out 87 years of convention and practice in this place. Senator Robert Ray —Menzies would turn in his grave. Senator RYAN —Absolutely; Menzies would turn in his grave. It never happened in his time. They intend to overturn a principal Act by the use of a Senate regulation power. That was what we learned for the first time yesterday, and that is what rightly has caused me and my colleagues to characterise honourable senators opposite and the Democrats as constitutional vandals. Senator SHORT —I put a supplementary question to the Minister. In view of the Minister's non-response to my question, I again ask her-and if she does not like the word `defective', I will change it: when was the Government first aware that its Bill was vulnerable in respect of its regulatory powers? Senator RYAN —The same answer goes to Senator Short. It is not a supplementary question, even though he has sensibly withdrawn the word `defective'. The vulnerability of the Government does not arise from using the practice of 87 years. The Government's vulnerability arises from the threat of the constitutional vandals opposite to destroy a principal Act by the use of a regulatory power. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister for Justice been drawn to media reports that suggest that the Queensland Government is moving to approach authorities in the United Kingdom to extradite Mr Jack Herbert, a former senior Queensland police officer, now believed to be living in the United Kingdom? Is this the same Mr Herbert that the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct in Brisbane would like to give evidence before it? Has the Queensland Government made any approach to the Federal Government for assistance in this process? Does the Queensland Government have power or authority to undertake such an extradition appeal process in its own right, or does the Queensland Government require the help of the Commonwealth to make the process effective? Senator TATE —I am aware of the report in the Age of 23 September 1987 which suggests that the Queensland Government may approach the Government of the United Kingdom seeking the extradition of Mr Jack Herbert, a former senior Queensland police officer now believed to be living in the United Kingdom. I do not think that I should answer the question in any particular way, but I inform the Senate that the extradition process is available only to secure the return of persons charged or convicted of extradictable offences, and the process is not available to secure the return of persons who are wanted only as witnesses. For example, if the request was for the return of Mr Herbert to appear as a witness before the Fitzgerald inquiry, on that basis extradition processes would not be in order. To date, the Queensland Government has not made any approach to the Attorney-General or his Department seeking assistance in securing the extradition of Mr Herbert. Neither the Queensland Government nor any other State or Territory government has the power or authority to invoke the extradition processes in its own right. Extradition arrangements are entered into on either a bilateral or multilateral basis by sovereign nations. In recognition of this Australian extradition legislation designates the Federal Attorney-General as the person who may make a formal request of another nation for the surrender of a person wanted for trial or to undergo punishment in Australia. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I refer the Minister for Finance to his description, in what has been reported as a rambling speech-or was it tired and emotional?-to last weekend's Labor Lawyers conference, of the new Parliament House as `another scandal'. I ask the Minister whether, in using the word `scandal', he was referring to the scandalous absence of effective cost control of the project under his Government, revealed by the Waste Watch Committee and confirmed by the recent Auditor-General's report on the project's construction phase, all of which took place under the Hawke Government? Or was he referring to the huge cost imposed by his Government on the project by enormous design changes and political interference since March 1983, recognising that $934m, or 93 per cent, of this $1 billion project has been or is being spent under the Hawke Government? What does the Minister intend to do about what he has described as a `scandal', particularly as $300m is still to be spent this financial year on the new Parliament House? Senator WALSH —At about half past ten this morning, when I was having a haircut, I heard the Senate bells ringing. I needed to know whether they were ringing for a quorum or a division. I therefore asked the hairdresser to turn up the speaker, and I heard a rambling speech coming from Senator Michael Baume. I did not really mind the fact that it was a rambling speech, but I take this opportunity to say that I did object-the Standing Orders prevent my using the most appropriate word-to the highly misleading assertions that Senator Baume was making when he said that I had in fact endorsed the Opposition's election policy. Apart from the fact that I would be reluctant to endorse anything that had a $2.5 billion or $1.5 billion arithmetical error-- Senator Button —Or a Patrick Partner involved. Senator WALSH —An error of that magnitude would be nothing compared to a Patrick Partners prospectus. I certainly would not endorse any proposition or document that had errors in it if I knew about them, and I think I would have been careful enough to make certain that it did not contain errors of that magnitude. Leaving aside the Opposition's inability to do simple arithmetic, nor, of course, would I have endorsed-and I have said this on the public record on many occasions-what the Opposition essentially proposed, which was that the country could go on a consumption binge via unaffordable tax cuts. That was the big con line which Senator Baume, in his days on the front bench prior to his relegation, and the rest of the Opposition, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition, tried to put over the Australian electorate. The Opposition believed that the people should ignore the difficult external circumstances imposed upon us and that the country could go on a consumption binge via these huge tax cuts and the $2 1/2 billion worth of blue sky on the expenditure cuts. It may have been better, on reflection, to say that the cost of construction of the new Parliament House was extravagant, rather than a scandal, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion. However, it is a matter of fact that the fast track construction method-the term could be simplified or perhaps slightly over-simplified by describing the method by which the concrete is poured at the same time as the engineering plans are being drawn-was a decision made by the Fraser Government, as indeed was the management system, which again I think was somewhat defective. Senator RICHARDSON —Yesterday, Senator Patterson asked me a question without notice concerning the loss of Department of Social Security microfiche records in Melbourne earlier this year. It is true that in April Department of Social Security records were found in a suburb of Melbourne. It is also a fact that the Department of Social Security sent an officer to the scene and that this officer found additional microfiche records. An inquiry to ascertain how the loss of the records occurred was carried out immediately. The inquiry found that the loss of the microfiche records occurred due to an error on the part of the contractor responsible for their destruction. Some microfiche collected by the firm became mixed with non-security waste and were lost in transit for disposal. New arrangements with the firm have been made to ensure that such an incident does not recur. The contractor undertook to store the material in the firm's security vault prior to sending it by sealed container for supervised destruction. The Department is also investigating the options for alternative collection and destruction, expected to be offered shortly by the Department of Administrative Services. Further, the Department is well advanced with implementation of a new automatic data processing (ADP) system-Stratplan-which provides far greater security of client information. Most offices in Australia are now equipped with the new ADP system and most remaining offices should have this facility by the end of this financial year. Senator RICHARDSON —Yesterday Senator Puplick sought the Government's reaction to the adoption by the European Parliament of the Muntingh proposals regarding the import of kangaroo products into Europe, and asked what steps the Government would take to procure the defeat of the Mrazek proposal for the prohibition of kangaroo imports to the United States of America. Senator Puplick will be aware that Mr Muntingh visited Australia in 1986 at the invitation of the Australian Government and during that time he met with representatives of Government and non-government bodies having an interest in kangaroo management. As a result of that visit Mr Muntingh was able to understand better the complexity of the situation and to appreciate the improvements made in kangaroo management as a result of Commonwealth initiatives in recent years. The European Community is a major importer of wildlife, including products derived from kangaroos, and sees itself as having a responsibility to ensure that imports of wildlife are not detrimental to the survival of the species in their native lands. Mr Muntingh has sought to provide protection for kangaroos by utilising existing European Community regulations developed to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. If implemented, the Muntingh resolution, as adopted by the European Parliament, would effectively ban the import of products of 45 species of kangaroos, but not of the red and the eastern and western grey kangaroos which constitute the bulk-over 90 per cent-of the trade. For these three species import permits would be required. The Commonwealth Government is pleased that Mr Muntingh and the European Parliament now recognise that the Australian Government has taken effective measures for the management of kangaroos and that the main species commercially harvested are not endangered, contrary to the claims made by some groups. Whilst the Australian Government welcomes the intent of the European Parliament to better regulate the importation of kangaroo products, and sees this as complementing Australian export procedures and statistics, there is concern about the proposed use of regulations specifically dealing with endangered species since the species commercially harvested in Australia are not endangered. The Australian Government is also concerned that the import of products of commercially harvested species, such as the euro and whiptail wallabies, will be prohibited even though abundant and under no threat. If the resolution of the European Parliament is to come into effect, it needs the support of the Council of the European Community, the European Commission and the governments of the member states. In responding to the Muntingh resolution Commissioner Clinton Davis is reported as indicating the Australian kangaroo management programs are considered adequate and the Commission was not proposing to follow that part of the resolution calling for the listing of kangaroos in European regulations implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. I hope that the Commission and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service will work closely together to develop complementary arrangements with regard to trade in kangaroo products. The kangaroo issue has generated a considerable amount of interest in the USA as well and a Bill introduced by Congressman Mrazek with 116 co-sponsors-this is the third time I have seen the brief; the number was 110 eight weeks ago, 112 three weeks ago, and it is now 116, so there is work to be done. That Bill is pending consideration in the Fisheries, Wildlife Conservation and Environment Sub-committee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I understand it is unlikely that any action on kangaroos will be taken by the Sub-committee this year. The Mrazek Bill goes much further than the European resolution in that if adopted, there would be a complete ban on the importation of kangaroo products into the USA. The Senate may be aware that my predecessor, the Hon. Barry Cohen, met with Congressman Mrazek earlier this year and invited him to visit Australia to see the kangaroo situation at first hand. I understand his Press Secretary is planning to visit Australia later this year and the opportunity will be taken to brief him. Considerable background information has been provided already to Congressman Mrazek, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Library of Congress and others. It is planned to direct further information to members of the appropriate sub-committee and committee. If a hearing is scheduled for the legislation, a detailed submission would be prepared and it may prove desirable to send a team of experts to the US to deal with it. Curtailment of the industry through a ban on imports to Europe and the USA could result in less humane killing of kangaroo and less control over the number of kangaroos killed since non-commercial killing would increase. No practical alternatives to the current system of commercial harvesting are available. Motion (by Senator Reynolds)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate- (a) recognises the importance of the National Welcome Home Parade of Vietnam Veterans in Sydney on 3 October 1987; (b) notes that the Australian Armed Forces served with great distinction in Vietnam between 1962 and 1972, earning great credit for themselves and for this nation; (c) pays tribute to all Australian men and women who served in that theatre of war and honours the memory of those Australians who died in Vietnam in the service of their country; and (d) expresses its appreciation and the appreciation of the Australian people for the individual and collective commitment, effort and sacrifice of its sailors, soldiers and airmen, men and women alike, who took part in the Vietnam conflict. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.11) —I merely wish to signify the very great satisfaction of the Opposition that the Government has brought this motion forward. It was a matter that was promoted with the Government by the Opposition because we believe that, as the organisation of the Welcome Home Parade itself indicates, there is a need for a public acknowledgment of the personal sacrifice made by so many Australians during the Vietnam war. It is worth saying that a motion such as this is needed most of all because that war remains a very contentious matter for many Australians. This motion does not touch upon the elements of contention; it touches upon the individual role of individual Australian men and women who served their country in the armed forces. For that reason, we in the Opposition believe that it is utterly appropriate that, on a non-partisan basis, there should be this acknowledgment which has been moved on behalf of the Government by Senator Reynolds, and which has also been moved by the appropriate Minister in the other House with the support of the Opposition. It is not our wish to have a debate on this matter. It is certainly our wish to have the sort of formal acknowledgment which the motion represents. I repeat what was said in paragraph 4 of the motion: The Opposition, along with the Government, expresses its appreciation and the appreciation of the Australian people for the individual and collective commitment, effort and sacrifice of its sailors, soldiers and airmen, men and women alike, who took part in the Vietnam conflict. I express the wish that there be a great national recognition of the Welcome Home Parade which has been organised for 3 October. I am sure that there will be representatives of both Government and Opposition, and indeed of minor parties, who will be paying their respects to the individuals who served their country under circumstances which for many Australians were contentious and who, as a result, may feel have not had the honour and respect which has been afforded previous generations of servicemen. It is perhaps worth noting that this is not the first war to have been contentious. Many historians looking back at the First World War query the basis of that war, the need for it, the causes and so on. That in no way touches upon the Australians who served their country. I thank the Government for bringing this motion forward and warmly support it on behalf of the Opposition. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(3.13) —I rise briefly to offer the support of the Australian Democrats for this motion. It is apparent that we share the sentiments embodied in it. Our comments of yesterday have already been acknowledged by the Vietnam veterans. What we are now doing is joining together as a united chamber to express our good wishes to those great veterans and to hope that 3 October and what it signifies for this country will be an adequate belated expression of our appreciation for what they did for our nation and the sacrifices that they made. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.14) —Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) from moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate to give precedence over all other business to a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition to censure the Government. Although we are entitled to debate that motion, it is not my intention to debate it at length. The reason for moving it has been effectively demonstrated by the response we had from Senator Ryan a few minutes ago when she suggested that the actions of the Senate yesterday and the actions which are predicted in some way threw out 87 years of convention and overturned some principle. She was referring to our proposal to defeat the operation of a principal Act by defeating regulations. That suggestion is thoroughly offensive to the Senate. It is certainly thoroughly offensive to the Opposition. Also, I believe it is a suggestion thoroughly offensive to all senators who voted as they did yesterday on the amendment which was moved by Senator Tate. I believe that we are about to see the beginning of a campaign by the Government to bully, attempt to intimidate and pervert the role of this chamber. On that basis I believe it is important that a censure motion should now be moved and some principles re-established in a debate which is of very considerable public interest. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.15) —I had no notice of this motion, of course. I am not complaining about that. I just note that people talk about bullying and taking people by surprise in a very pious fashion. Senator Chaney —What happened this morning? Senator BUTTON —I said that I notice that people talk about those things. The Government, of course, will not support the suspension of the Standing Orders for this purpose. But Senator Chaney will test the will of the Senate on that matter, and the Government will vote against it. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. McLean, P. A.Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Haines, J. Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Jenkins, J. A. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Foreman, D. J.Beahan, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Black, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M.Cooney, B. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Baume, Peter Zakharov, A. O.Puplick, C. J. D. Devereux, J. R.Bishop, B. K. Button, J. N.Sanders, N. K. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition to censure the Government have precedence over all other business this day until that motion is determined. Motion of Censure Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.22) —I move: That the Senate maintains and asserts its right and duty to disallow regulations which are against Australia's interest and censures the Government for (a) its attack on the Senate's determination to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities; (b) proposing to force through a Joint Sitting legislation which it has admitted needs amendment; and (c) wasting taxpayers' money by persisting with legislation which would abuse personal privacy beyond limits acceptable to the principle of democracy and individual rights sacred to the Australian community. I am determined to bring forward this censure motion because of the attitude which has been evident-- Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, as a matter of courtesy, I wonder whether we could be provided with the terms of the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Copies of the motion are currently being circulated by the attendants. The honourable senator will have a copy in about 10 seconds. Senator CHANEY —My desire to bring forward this motion was considerably increased by the effort of Senator Ryan during Question Time to repeat the sort of nonsense which has been expressed in the other place today that in some way what happened in the Senate yesterday threw out some 87 years of convention and that there was some extraordinary principle which prevented us from moving disallowance of regulations which might have the effect of defeating the operation of a Bill. I bring forward that argument because I believe that it has no substance at all. It is simply being brought forward by the Government in an attempt to intimidate the Senate and to confuse a public debate in the normal way in which the Government deals with these debates. The Government has attempted to occupy the high moral ground on this issue. I simply wish to remind the Senate that it is the Opposition which has occupied the high moral ground along with those other opponents of the Australia Card Bill. When we set out to oppose the identity card legislation a year ago we did so knowing that at the time 70 per cent of the Australian people had been convinced by the Government that the Australia Card, the identity card, would be a good thing. It took a great deal of political courage to take the principled decision that the Bill should be opposed. We continued to oppose the Bill. We defeated it twice in the Senate and we will defeat it a third time if it comes back for a second reading here. The fact of the matter is that the Government will be unable to produce any evidence that there is a practice of 87 years, that in some way we should be constrained in the use of our constitutional power, our legal power, to disallow regulations which are made under an Act. We reject this pathetic attempt at moral and constitutional outrage which we have seen expressions of last night, this morning and this afternoon in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. We reject those pathetic attempts at moral and constitutional outrage, and we express very firmly our view that as senators we will do our duty by Australia and we will cast our votes in a way which we believe is in the national interest. The proposition that the Government is putting forward and attempting to force upon the Senate is that a Bill, which has been defeated by this Senate twice and which may well be defeated on a third occasion, containing a regulation making power should have its regulations protected by some mysterious constitutional convention. It seems to me to be an absurd proposition when we consider the normal circumstances in which this Senate, often on the motion of Senator Ryan herself, has disallowed regulations and ordinances. We as a Senate have always exercised our power to disallow regulations even in cases where we as a Senate have supported the principal legislation. The practice of this Senate is quite clear. We have the clear legal right, and practice shows that we have exercised that right, to disallow regulations which are made even under a Bill which we as a Senate have supported. And now the Government is trying to advance the proposition that where there is a Bill which the Senate has never supported we are in some way obliged to support the regulations. That is, on the face of it, absurd. When we consider the rationale for giving the Senate and the House of Representatives power to disallow regulations, the absurdity of the Government's argument becomes apparent. We worry a lot about different issues in this Parliament. We worry about privacy, freedom of information and many of the issues which have become current in the last decade. But in the 1920s, the possibility of the oppression of the people through delegated legislation was a matter of enormous political moment. We found academics and politicians in the 1920s asserting the need for parliament to retain the control of delegated legislation. It is the new despotism-that is what it was called back in the 1920s-that Ministers could make laws without parliamentary control. So the principle is enshrined in our legislation that when Ministers make laws through regulations, either House of parliament must have the power to disallow them, unless the Parliament itself expressly provides otherwise. We are protecting the fact that the parliament-the whole of the parliament; the two Houses of Parliament-is required to act if laws are to be made which infringe the rights of the Australian people. The Government is asserting that in this Senate, because of the double dissolution and the prospect of a joint sitting, in some mysterious way by a convention that has never been spoken of before and cannot be demonstrated by precedent, our right to protect the rights and privileges of the people of Australia has been removed. That is why this motion is important. It is an assertion not merely of our desire to censure the Government for its approach and for its failure in this area, but of our desire to reassert our right as a Senate to carry out our constitutional and legal duty. The high moral ground on this matter is occupied by the Opposition; it is not occupied by the Government. If the Government wished to achieve a different result, it had a perfectly simple mechanism available to it. It was open to the Government to bring the legislation into this chamber on the basis that the requirements of the law, the Acts Interpretation Act that gives us the power to disallow regulations, should not apply to this legislation. That is a provision which could have been included in this Bill. It was not included. Senator Michael Baume —If they were competent. Senator CHANEY —There are two possibilities. Senator Michael Baume, the nimble-footed senator from New South Wales, has got in ahead of me with one of the possibilities-simple incompetence. It is very likely that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) and his advisers simply were incompetent. But let us give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they were noble and principled. I do not like to ascribe good motives to the Government but perhaps it was not minded to remove from this Parliament the right that we have to scrutinise delegated legislation. Indeed, there is some evidence that the Government acknowledged that right. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported to the Government that there were breaches of the rights and freedoms of individuals inherent in this legislation. What did Minister Blewett do? He did not deny the rights of the Senate. He wrote back and said that he would introduce amendments to this legislation. Minister Blewett said that he would introduce amendments to the legislation that would extend the power of the Senate to scrutinise the legislation. Honourable senators should note the variation in the approach adopted by the Government when the Scrutiny of Bills Committee reported on the defects. At that time, in April 1987 Minister Blewett was offering to extend the power of the Senate to scrutinise this legislation. Now the Government tells us we have no power to scrutinise this delegated legislation. But in any event the position is that the Government has put up a totally fictitious argument. The Opposition is censuring the Government for its attack on the Senate's determination to exercise its constitutional responsibilities. We will not be a party to the argument; we will not accept the argument that in some mysterious way the powers of the Senate and the responsibilities of the Senate have been diminished by what has occurred with respect to this Bill. We have had an accusation from the Government that we in the Opposition have been hypocritical in our approach to this legislation. That allegation was repeated in the House of Representatives this morning by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I again reject that allegation and draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that we chose to deal with this legislation in an utterly principled way. When the Government floated the idea of an identity card, before it produced the specific proposal, the Opposition did not declare its final position on any legislative proposal. What we said-this is a matter that has been repeated over and over again-was that we would examine any proposal that the Government put forward on the basis of a series of tests that needed to be applied. We said that any proposition would need to be effective in combating welfare fraud; that it should help to control illegal immigration; that it should facilitate the collection of taxes due for payment and that the system proposed should be cost effective. Finally and most importantly, we said that we would test it against the proposition that there should be adequate safeguards for personal privacy and civil liberties. Again, there was no knee-jerk reaction from the Opposition on this. We sent the matter to a parliamentary committee, composed of representatives of all parties in this Parliament-the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. All of those parties were represented. I wish that the result of their work could be read by every person in Australia because the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card produced a quite straightforward recommendation. I will quote from this report because it preceded any final determination by the Opposition of its position with respect to any particular proposition of this Government. Members of all parties joined in the Committee's recommendation. I think the honourable senator opposite who was interjecting was one of the minority who did not join in but Labor, Liberal, National and Democrat members all joined in saying the following: Having considered the Government's proposal for a national identification system as well as alternatives such as the use of photographic cards and the extension of the use of the current tax file system, the majority of the Committee rejects all proposals for the issuing of identity cards, with or without a photograph. This debate is not the time to canvass all the arguments which have been canvassed extensively in this debate and which are canvassed so superbly in this document. Again, I wish that every person in Australia who is not able to read the whole of the report would read the 40 to 50 pages penned by Senator Chris Puplick on the fundamental objections that he found after examining those hundreds of bits of evidence that were put before the Senate Committee. Time does not permit that. But, happily, those key arguments are getting through to the Australian people. The 70 per cent support for this proposition, which we faced as an Opposition when we determined to oppose this legislation, has withered away now to less than 40 per cent. A clear majority of Australians are outraged by what this Government is trying to foist upon them. Yesterday in my city of Perth between 20,000 and 40,000 people-estimates vary-walked from the city to Parliament House. The beginning of that march arrived at Parliament House before the end of it had left Barrack Street. That does not mean a great deal to some honourable senators who are unfortunate enough not to live in Western Australia. But that was a massive demonstration of public concern. Our opposition to this card merely reflects the public concern which crosses party boundaries and which reflects the threat to Australia which this identity card legislation represents. The hypocrisy and abuse of the Constitution in this matter is the hypocrisy and abuse shown by the Government. I wish to make it quite clear why I regard with contempt the approach that the Government has adopted to this legislation. It is trying to use the constitutional provisions for a joint sitting to bring about a constitutional fraud. After the passage of this Bill-as I have already reminded the Senate-the Minister, in response to this chamber, wrote and said that the legislation required amendment. Minister Blewett, not only in response to the Senate, announced that there would be changes to the Australia Card Bill. But on 5 February he issued a Press release from Canberra saying that `the Federal Government has decided to amend the Australia Card Bill before it is reintroduced into the coming parliamentary session'. Minister Blewett was speaking on behalf of the Labor Party-of honourable senators opposite-including the two honourable senators at the table today who have professed moral and constitutional outrage. I profess moral and constitutional outrage that this Government said in February that the legislation would be amended before it was returned to this Parliament for consideration. Why was that not done? It was not done because the Government wished to create the circumstances for an early election, for a double dissolution. It broke its word; it put back into this Parliament legislation which on its own admission required amendment. We as senators were asked by the Government to vote for legislation which could then be passed into law yet which on the face of it, on the Government's own admission, required amendment. What is our duty in those circumstances? This Government does not control the two chambers and it cannot guarantee amendments to any legislation. Our duty is not to pass legislation which we believe is defective. Quite apart from the objections of principle which have been made so clear in the debates in this place, the Government admits that there are technical deficiencies in the legislation. We were told that we must vote for this legislation. Of course we refused to do so. Again, the Parliament faces the same choice. We are being told to vote for legislation which in our view is outrageous not only in terms of the threat to civil liberty, privacy and all the rest of it but also because it is ineffective, costly and unduly bureaucratic, and because the failure of a few State governments to co-operate may well render it worthless. We are being asked to vote for it over and above our own strong conscientious objections. We are also being asked to vote for it even though the Government admits that as it stands it requires change. This Government is saying that it will take that same defective legislation into a joint sitting and use the Constitution to achieve the passage of that defective legislation. The Opposition will not be blackmailed, cajoled, abused or forced into supporting this legislation on the basis of the sorts of specious arguments that we have had from the Government over recent days, months and over the last year. This third attempt at the passage of this legislation is fraudulent. It is a fraudulent act by this Government; it is an abuse of the constitutional processes. Where are the amendments that we were told by Senator Ryan, since the second defeat of this Bill since her Government was returned, we would see? She said, `Amendments have been drafted', and the Prime Minister said that those amendments would not be made available to us. So we are not in possession of the amendments at a time when we are being asked to vote on this legislation. I place very little blame on Senator Ryan for this. The views of the Opposition are that the Minister who was responsible, Minister Blewett-and this is not the subject of this motion-should have resigned. Had he not resigned, he should have been sacked. It is typical of the shoddy behaviour of this Government that it left Senator Ryan carrying this dead cat around. Senator Ryan, because of her differences with her colleagues over recent years, seems to have been left with a sad ragbag of responsibilities. But to be left carrying the can for Dr Blewett's incompetence, to be asked to sell this unsalable proposition: who could be critical of Senator Ryan? One can only commiserate with her for the position she has been put in by her colleagues. I reject any suggestion that we have done other than to use our constitutional power in an appropriate way. We have done our duty, we have assessed this legislation in a most careful way and we are prepared to take part in a detailed further inquiry which can direct itself to the specifics of this legislation. I remind the Senate that we set out to defeat this legislation in the teeth of public opinion. Senator Ryan —Ha, ha! Senator CHANEY —Government senators laugh. It was a decision taken when the Bill had 70 per cent support. There could be no simpler proof of our bona fides in this matter. Before concluding my speech I want to say a few things about this Bill to remind honourable senators why we regard it as so important that it should be dealt with in the most careful way. There are no guarantees under this legislation that some government will not come forward and try to extend it so that the centralised register of information can be used in different ways. There is no guarantee under this legislation that there will not be corrupt use. I thank Senator Walters for drawing my attention to an interview on AM this morning in which a former official of the Health Insurance Commission, now a practising solicitor in Queensland, was interviewed by John Highfield about allegations that the police used Medicare computer systems to locate people. That is a terrifying account of how, according to Mr Kinloch Oliver-an ex-employee, now a solicitor-in response to the assistance given by the Australian Federal Police in the prosecution of cases of Medicare fraud, information is provided to police from the Medicare computers. Whatever legal guarantees one has, they cannot prevent the corrupt use of information. Just a week or so ago we were reminded in my home State of Western Australia about the corrupt use of information when a Western Australian credit union got into difficulties and the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia had to become involved. In the Parliament of Western Australia the Premier and a senior Minister told the people of Australia of the financial transactions of the President of the Liberal Party. That was splendid use of supposedly confidential information for the basest of political motives. Let me declare a personal interest, because a few days later the Minister involved said, `And Senator Chaney was involved, in four meetings of the Liberal Party in April to plan a run on that credit union'. All I can say is that I am glad the Press took the trouble to check the records of the April meetings, because I was at none of them. I was doing my parliamentary duties in April and I had some time off for Easter. I attended none of the meetings that these people talked about. That is the way information and misinformation is corruptly used in the political system by politicians. If politicians and bureaucrats are put in a position where they have access to co-ordinated banks of information, they are put in a position where there can be even greater abuses in the future than we have seen in the past. This week Senator Kay Patterson-Liberal, Victoria-came forward with information that microfiche records from the Department of Social Security had been found in a suburban street in Melbourne. Legal guarantees are fine but they are no guard against corruption; they are no guard against carelessness-and we are not prepared to see this sort of power vested in individuals. This censure motion is important because it is the defence against an attack by the Government on the Senate's determination to exercise its constitutional responsibilities. It is important because the Government is trying to use the constitutional process to force through a joint sitting legislation which is defective, and that is clearly unprincipled. It is important because the Government is wasting taxpayers' money by persisting with legislation that would abuse personal privacy way beyond the limits that are desired by the people of Australia. I have moved this motion expressing my contempt for the tactics of the Government. I believe that the Senate should carry this motion to make it clear to the people of Australia that we, as senators, will do our duty. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(3.46) —If ever we have witnessed a pathetic example of me-tooism, we have witnessed it this week with the Opposition's behaviour over this legislation. The Opposition seems determined to finish this parliamentary week, in T. S. Eliot's words, not with a bang but a whimper. What a pathetic series of whimperings we have just heard from Senator Chaney, disguised with all the sanctimony that he could muster, as somehow defending the Senate's right to constitutional-- Senator Vanstone —I don't notice your troops listening to you. Senator RYAN —They have got better things to do. Mr Deputy President, do you know what all this Johnny-come-lately jumping on to the bandwagon, shouting and trying to stir up irrational fears in the community with dreadful misrepresentation, dreadful distortion, is all about? What it is all about is that honourable senators opposite lost the last election. That is what all this is about. They lost the election. They are in opposition; they are not in government. They came back here after the election with their collective tail between their collective legs with not a thing to say. They have tried to huff and puff and have said that there was going to be a terrible Budget but the Budget was the best one this country has ever seen. So that gave them nothing to say. Their current Treasury spokesman, Mr Peacock, could muster nothing, except a few embarrassed looks, in response to the Budget. So honourable senators opposite were left without an issue or any way of starting to recoup their political fortunes, which are at a nadir and look like staying there for a long time, until a few trendies such as Peter Garrett came along and decided that something was wrong with the Australia Card and they could get themselves a bit of free publicity. The Opposition then suddenly came out from the woodwork and discovered all these alleged defects with the proposed Australia Card program. It almost defies the belief of honourable senators who have been in this place for a long time that today Senator Chaney could try to take the high ground and lecture us about the constitutional rights of the Senate and so on and so forth when he knows that everyone in Australia knows that the Opposition said nothing about this matter during the election campaign. The ultimate act in a democratic society is an election. That is when the people have their say. That is when the Opposition can set out its agenda, make its promises to the people, criticise our promises, criticise our performance and warn the electorate of all of the terrible things it thinks the Government will do. In eight weeks of an election campaign not a peep was heard from John Howard on this issue. Where was the Opposition's bravery then? Where were its constitutional responsibilities then? Where was Senator Stone, who ran in the unlikely role of a Queensland National Party Senate candidate, with his wonderful discovery that the Senate has the power to disallow regulations? If that was such an important new element in the whole issue, why did he remain silent about it throughout the election campaign? Why did John Howard not go on television on just one occasion in all those eight weeks, and say, `We are going to stop the Australia Card legislation and this is how we are going to do it. After it has passed the Joint Sitting, which we acknowledge it can do, after having fulfilled all the requirements of a double dissolution Bill and a joint sitting Bill, we are going to stop it by using our numbers to disallow regulations'? Why did Senator Stone not say that then? That is what the people of Australia want to know-the sensible, rational people of Australia who have not been caught up in the bushfire of fearmongering, irrationality, mark of the beast, tattoos and all the rest of the rubbish we have had to put up with. What the sensible, rational people and the sensible journalists-fortunately we still have a few of those-want to know is why the Opposition did not reveal to the public all these claimed horrors and defects, attacks on privacy, mark of the beast and everything else when it should have done so. There is no answer to that question. Senator Chaney can come in here with his little lectures about the Senate's powers with respect to regulations and ordinances and so on, but it is a whimper. Opposition members lost the opportunity we gave them for eight weeks to persuade the people of Australia to vote for them instead of us on the ground that the Australia Card legislation was defective. We did not hear a word about its defects. We did not hear a word about the Opposition's threats to use the regulation power. We hear a lot of squawking and screeching now, but where were the Opposition members then? They lost the election. That is all this is about. They had a go, they lost, and they are trying to get a second bite of the cherry. I must comment on this extraordinary episode of hypocrisy building upon hypocrisy. One of the great hypocrisies is Senator Chaney saying, `We feel sorry for Senator Ryan. She has been given this terrible job to do'. There are grounds for people expressing sympathy for me. The reason why some people could rightly feel sorry for me, and why I might even feel a bit sorry for myself, is that I have had to endure the rambling hypocrisies, changes of positions and tedious misrepresentations of honourable senators opposite for some weeks now. That is the only reason why there is a bit of pity for me around the place-because for the last few weeks I have had to put up with the kinds of things Senator Chaney has just perpetrated again. It is really pathetic. Senator Chaney is a person who prides himself on observing the proprieties of the place. A very urbane person is Senator Chaney. Senator Chaney has obviously been stung to the quick by our rightful allegations of constitutional vandalism. It is not the sort of thing that Senator Chaney likes to be accused of. Senator Chaney does not like to be reminded of the fact that in 87 years of Senate practice, never has the Senate used its disallowance powers over a regulation to nullify the effect of a principal Act which has been secured. However much he might like to whimper about it, the fact is that never has it happened in 87 years. We have all sorts of legislation which depends, for its day-to-day capacity to be administered on regulations. Examples are the lump sum superannuation, Medicare schedules and prescribed payments system legislation. All go to policy issues which the Opposition is opposed to, but it never sought to use its Senate regulation disallowance powers to stop them. In the 87 years the Senate has been operating, there have been numerous taxing Acts that have wholly depended upon regulation for their operation. I give the Senate an example of a few of them: The Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947, the Butterfat Levy Act 1965, the Dairying Industry Levy Act 1970, the Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act 1981. I could go on; there are quite a few of them. There are also many Acts that have substantially depended on regulations for their effective operation: the Customs Act 1901, the first year of operation of the Senate; the Northern Territory Representation Act 1922, something my colleague Senator Collins might be interested in; the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, something that Senator Stone would be familiar with; the Superannuation Act 1976, an Act of the Fraser Government; the Companies Act 1981, the Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Act 1981, the Interstate Road Transport Act 1985, and so on. Numerous Acts depend for their operation on regulations. There have been numerous occasions when the Senate could have used its numbers to disallow a regulation and thus nullify a principal Act. But it has never done so, because it has never, until this moment-in the fit of political desperation which Opposition senators are in-leapt on to this blowing up of the Senate's disallowance powers to overturn a principal Act. Senator Coates —Even Withers didn't do it in 1974. Senator RYAN —There you go. Come back, Senator Withers, all is forgiven. What we are seeing-Senator Chaney is clearly cut to the quick about this-is an act of constitutional vandalism, of thuggery. The Opposition is saying, `We have the numbers. We will set out the regulations'. All the regulations do is set the dates-not a substantial issue, not anything of impact. Opposition senators are saying, `We have lost the battle, we have lost the election, we have lost the war; we know that we will lose the Joint Sitting. But we will use this minor disallowance power-which has been properly used for 87 years-in this fashion to nullify the principal Act'. It is disgraceful. The kind of pathetic defence that Senator Chaney tried to give is, as I said, nothing but a whimper. I must comment, too, on the claim that the Government had indicated its willingness to make some amendments once the principal Act was secured. Yes, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) had indicated that the Government was considering some minor technical amendments to improve the operation of the Bill. It is not unusual, in a very long and complex Bill, for there to be some minor technical and drafting amendments that could be made. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated, and I have indicated, that because of the concern whipped up in the community, the disinformation, the fearmongering and so on, we would have an open mind and an open approach to civil liberties groups, the banking sector and the private sector about minor improvements and that, if improvements could be made, we would be willing to make them. But we never at any point said that the Bill was defective. We never said that the Bill needed substantial amendment. It does not. All we have indicated, in the spirit of open-mindedness and consensus that has characterised our Government since we were first elected, is that if people had ideas that could improve the operation of the Bill and could clarify for people the civil liberties remedies that are there, we would be prepared to consider them as amendments in the future. That is all we said. We have listened to groups. There have been constant discussions with various groups by officers of the Department of Community Services and Health to see whether there are ways that minor improvements could be made. The Opposition cannot turn the open- mindedness and willingness to listen we have indicated into some sort of evidence that we have admitted a defect in the Bill. There is no defect in the Bill. We would surely be accused of arrogance and closed-mindedness if we were to say, `This Bill is in a state of perfection and we will never consider any improvements'. I hope I have put this so-called amendment issue at rest, although so threadbare is the Opposition's position on this matter that no doubt other speakers will get up and rehash it. As I said, it is an extremely tedious argument, as it is extremely tedious for me to have to listen to it all. On those grounds, I would accept some sympathy from Senator Chaney. I have dealt with paragraphs (a) and (b) of the censure motion that Senator Chaney has inflicted on us this afternoon. In paragraph (c) we are accused of: wasting taxpayers money by persisting with legislation which would abuse personal privacy beyond limits acceptable to the principle of democracy and individual rights sacred to the Australian community. We have heard lots of words like `sacred' flung about, most inappropriately I might say, in the course of this debate. The greatest example of hypocrisy in a period which has been characterised by extraordinary hypocrisy by honourable senators opposite is this alleged concern for privacy. There are problems in respect of privacy and individual liberties in our community right now. As Senator Macklin would know, huge amounts of data are kept in the private sector by banks, lending institutions, companies that offer credit card systems and so on. There appears to be misuse of that data. Certainly, there is every reason why citizens should be worried and concerned about the degree of information that is held about them in the private sector. At this stage there are no remedies for that. But what does the Opposition do? Have we had a campaign by the official Opposition or by the Peter Garretts of this world asking us to bring in legislation to protect individuals against the abuse of data which is held in the private sector? No such campaign has been run. Why do not the self-styled heroes of the Australia Card campaign who organise rallies, collect petitions and so on, demand privacy protections for individuals against people in the private sector? Senator Macklin —Yes, we have. Senator RYAN —Senator Macklin says it has happened. If it has happened, it has happened in a very weak and ineffective fashion. Why did they have to restrict their great outrage and their great desire to rant and rave on television every night to a piece of legislation which for the first time gives those protections? In the whole of this debate I have not heard members of the Opposition address themselves to the new, strong, very important provisions to protect individuals that are set out in the Data Protection Agency legislation. I have not heard them address that. I have not heard them say, as would be consistent with their professed interest in individual liberties, `We are very interested in the Data Protection Agency. This is a good measure. This is a good move. It is time we had protections against, in the first instance, information databases in the public sector. We are interested in this. We support this. We will take it seriously. We may even make suggestions about improving and strengthening it'. Why did we not get this response from honourable senators opposite if there is any sincerity at all in their professed concern for civil liberties? Why would not members of the Opposition give serious consideration to the Data Protection Agency? Why would they not give serious consideration to the way in which we are attempting to write into legislation for the first time ever provisions such as `a citizen has a right to know what information is being kept about him or her by a government in the Australia Card database'; `a citizen has the right to demand an investigation by the Data Protection Agency if there is any misuse of that data or any suspected misuse of that data'; and `a citizen has a right to demand that information kept on his or her Australia Card file can be changed if there is an investigation and it is shown to to incorrect'? Why do we not hear them saying, `These are good measures. These are moves in the right direction. We are a party concerned with civil liberties. We can see that for the first time ever civil liberties are being written into the Data Protection Agency? I would not mind if members of the Opposition said that. I would welcome them saying: `Yes, these are good measures but you could do it better. Why don't you do it this way? Why don't you do it that way? Why don't you formulate the provision in such a way that it is even stronger?' We invited the official Opposition and the non-official opposition to join with us in the task of providing protections for civil liberties. We have offered the best protections that we were able to develop with all the advice that we received. We had under consideration suggestions which have come from civil liberties groups and so forth as to how the protections could be improved. I must say that there has been some constructive behaviour by some of the civil liberties groups in the community. They have come to us with suggestions and those suggestions are receiving consideration. Certainly, as Dr Blewett and I have indicated, those suggestions are receiving careful attention by us. But what did we have from the Opposition? We had no constructive approach at all. There was no attempt to work with the Government in this most important task of reforming the taxation system, of getting the frauds out of the taxation and social security systems. We have had no constructive behaviour at all from them and, of course, today is just another example of this. Senator Vanstone —If you released the fraud report we could give you some answers. Senator RYAN —Senator Vanstone, who is so lacking in any ideas about how this legislation could be improved, says, `Oh, we have to tell you everything we have ever thought of and then you will tell us back'. She should try a bit of activism for a change. The honourable senator is a lawyer. Why does she not look at the Data Protection Agency provisions and tell us how she thinks they could be improved? We would welcome that. But do we get any co-operation? Do we get any constructive assistance? Do we get any proper use of the Senate's scrutiny and revision powers? All we get is grandstanding, fearmongering, misrepresentation and distortion. I would like to say a few things about that fearmongering and distortion. I have been quite horrified at the way in which persons in responsible positions have been prepared to use their positions, the credibility and the authority that they have in the community, to work up all this fearmongering and irrationality. It is a very frightening thing in a democracy, where we try to operate on the basis of rationality, reasoned argument and open discussion and debate, to see crowds of people swept away in an atmosphere of fear and irrationality. We all know because recent history has instructed us-history that the Opposition has seen fit to bring into this debate such as what happened in Nazi Germany-what happens when rationality flies out the window, when people allow themselves to be worked up into a frenzy of fear, hate and scapegoating. We all know the tragedy that ensues when rationality goes out the window. As a politician, seeing mob psychology in action is one of the most frightening things I have ever witnessed. I am not frightened for myself. I was not frightened that the citizens of Launceston, whom Senator Walters was so busy working up, would leap up and jump on me or shoot me. I am not frightened for my own physical safety. But I am frightened to be reminded, as I was at the Launceston meeting and as I have been by reports of other meetings, of how easy it is to work people up-ordinary reasonable well- educated people who one might think would behave in a rational way-into a state of total irrationality. We get people saying things like, `This is the mark of the beast as revealed in the Book of Revelations'. When this was said, 400 citizens of Launceston cheered as if something sensible and meaningful had been said. It is absolutely dreadful to see people in responsible positions like Senator Walters encouraging the citizenry to go out of its collective mind, to get into a mood where it would do anything. We have seen a disgraceful performance by people who should know better. I am not going to stand up in the Senate or any public forum and say that everything our Government does is perfect. I am not saying that we have introduced legislation which is new and far-reaching; which deals with civil liberties in a way that has never happened before; which is absolutely perfect; and we do not want to hear any more about it. That is not my stance-it never has been. My stance is this: in trying to make far-reaching reforms in an area in which I think everyone would acknowledge that far-reaching reforms are needed-namely, tax evasion and welfare fraud-our Government has tried to do the most effective, fair and workable job that could be done. That is what we have tried to do. We have had good intentions; we have had good faith in this matter from the very inception. I have been very disappointed that although we have this massive problem of tax evasion, although we have this massive problem of fraud, although we have this terrible decline in public morality, manifested in the willingness of so many citizens to rip off the system and pass the bill to the person next-door, we have received not one iota of help or co-operation from honourable senators opposite in bringing forward an effective measure to deal with these massive problems. When we came forward with very well considered legislation designed to stop tax fraud, to weed out the cheats from the welfare system and to return to the people of Australia the billions of dollars of which they are being defrauded, what did we get? There was no rational consideration, no co-operation, no attempt to say, `The Government is trying to do something that has to be done. It is a very hard thing to do because these bad and fraudulent practices are so widespread and so deep rooted'. This is a very difficult thing. It is a great challenge to us but it is a challenge from which we will not resile. But we could have hoped for some co-operation, some constructive criticism. We could have hoped for more from the Australian Democrats, who like to talk about the poor and about the need to spend more money on the poor, on housing, on education, on roads and so forth. They love to say that the Government should be spending more money on all our social programs. But when the time comes for us to introduce a measure which would assist us to do those very things, to have a more just and equitable society, to have more generous welfare measures, what happens? They turn into populists. They see that the Peter Garretts of this world are getting a lot of media coverage and they think, `We will horn in on this act. We will get in there. We can go on television too and use such words as ``freedom'', ``sacred'', ``liberties'' and so forth, in a totally meaningless fashion, even if it means that we will mislead people as to the Government's intention. We will do that, because, after all, what matters to us is having our faces on the front of the newspapers every day or being on television'. The Liberals, the people who used to like to be the upholders of tradition, the upholders of the forms of the Senate and so forth, now have stumbled upon a well known fact of Senate history, namely, that the Senate has the power to disallow regulations, and they have found that there are regulations in the Australia Card Bill which will allow the Government to set certain dates for bringing certain provisions into effect. They are prepared to use this minor regulatory power, for the first time in Australia's history, for the first time in 87 years of Senate practice, to overturn the principal legislation. Well, it is just pathetic. Their whole performance from day one has been pathetic. I note as I conclude my remarks that the present Leader of the Liberal Party has joined us. Mr John Howard has joined us in the President's gallery. I am very pleased that he has joined us because I would like, through you of course, Mr Deputy President, to address to him, on behalf of all the senators on my side of the chamber and the Australian public, one question: Mr Howard, if the Bill that we are now discussing is as defective as you claim, if it is a threat to civil liberties, if it is the worst thing you have ever seen and you have to overturn 87 years of convention to stop it at any cost, why did you not tell us about this during the election campaign? Why did you remain silent on all these-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Ryan, it is not appropriate to address questions to people in the gallery, through me or otherwise. You should put the question in more general terms. Senator RYAN —I ask you, Mr Deputy President, what will be on the minds of the people of Australia when they witness the antics of honourable senators opposite, when they witness the performance of Mr Howard in the House of Representatives today. They will ask, `Why didn't they tell us about it when we had the chance to vote?'. There is no answer to that other than political expediency. Members of the Opposition believed that the Australia Card was popular so they were not game to criticise it. Now that they have been able to whip up unpopularity through their campaign of misrepresentation and distortion, they have suddenly decided to exploit that fear and uncertainty. It is a pathetic performance. The censure motion that Senator Chaney has brought before us is pathetic and deserves rejection. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.13) —The censure motion moved by Senator Chaney reads: That the Senate maintains and asserts its right and duty to disallow regulations which are against Australia's interest and censures the Government for (a) its attack on the Senate's determination to exercise its Constitutional responsibilities (b) proposing to force through a Joint Sitting legislation which it has admitted needs amendment, and (c) wasting taxpayers money by persisting with legislation which would abuse personal privacy beyond limits acceptable to the principle of democracy and individual rights sacred to the Australian community Senator Ryan in response has made two major points, the first being that the Senate in some way ought not to use its undoubted power with regard to regulations. I think this is a very odd proposition. The Senate has two major powers: one, of course, being to pass legislation and the other being to scrutinise and deal with delegated legislation. Senator Coates —You are not proposing to do that to delegated legislation, are you? Senator MACKLIN —I will get to that in a moment. The Government is proposing that somehow or other the Senate should deny its evident responsibilities in order that the Government can overcome what it must now admit is some careless drafting in its legislation. If the Senate wishes to review those regulations it undoubtedly has the power to do so. Senator Ryan went beyond admitting that power to say that not to exercise it was a convention. Great play was also given in the House of Representatives to this constitutional convention not to do so. Senator Tate yesterday in a similar debate also mentioned something along those lines. The difficulty with conventions, as Senator Tate well knows, having been an active participant in the constitutional conventions, lies in working out what they are. Nevertheless, there are constitutional conventions, and the constitutional conventions have attempted to codify those in some way, particularly in regard to the undoubted latent powers of the Governor-General which everybody discovered belatedly after 1975. To say that there is a convention with regard to this power of the Senate is to suggest that there are some examples. The problem with the examples that Senator Ryan gave is that they were all to do with Bills that had passed the Senate. Every piece of legislation that she spoke of was referred to as an Act. An Act is legislation that has passed both chambers. That is an absolute necessity. Every item that Senator Ryan mentioned was as an Act which had passed this chamber. What we have to look for as examples of this convention are Bills which did not pass this chamber. Which ones are they? I will list all the Bills since Federation that did not pass this chamber but became Acts. They are the Commonwealth Electoral Act (No. 2) 1973, the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973, the Representation Act 1973, the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 and the Health Insurance Act 1973. There was another one, but it was subsequently declared invalid by the High Court of Australia, that being, of course, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973. This is the entire corpus upon which we are to base this convention. Let us go a step further and examine what happened to those Acts in order to establish the argument upon which Senator Ryan relies. We have to do two things. One is to recognise that after the 1974 election the Democratic Labor Party, which combined with the then Opposition, the Liberal and National parties, to defeat those Bills, had gone out of existence. There were no Territory senators, because that was one of the items of the double dissolution. Effectively, the numbers in this chamber were 29 Labor Party, 29 Liberal and National parties-there was also a National Alliance which was a Western Australian linkage of the National Party and the DLP but the senator was sitting with the Liberal and National parties-and there were two Independents, Senator Hall and Senator Townley. I do not want to be unkind to the memories of both those ex-senators. Most of the academic stuff I have read in the very good briefing material that came from the Parliamentary Library says that Senator Townley by and large supported the Opposition; Senator Hall, however, was somewhat more discriminating. It is important to refer to the Joint Sitting to see whether, subsequent to those Bills being passed, this chamber had the power to disallow regulations by virtue of the numbers. Senator Coates —Do the numbers make any difference? Senator MACKLIN —No, but it is rather difficult if one has not got the numbers to disallow the regulation. Senator Coates —I thought that you were speaking on principle. Senator MACKLIN —No; I am trying to establish Senator Ryan's argument-Senator Tate is following me-as to whether there is a convention. We have got down to the Bills, we have now found out what they are, we have found their passing the Joint Sitting, and we now come to the numbers subsequent to that in terms of any regulations made on those Bills which were rejected by this chamber. Those are the only ones that count for the purposes of Senator Ryan's convention. Senator Coates —By your argument only. Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Coates has any other Bills that will count, that is fine. Unfortunately, Steele Hall's number would have been vital to make the convention. In other words, there needed to be an absolute majority for the disallowance of a regulation-a positive motion-and it needed Steele Hall's vote. Unfortunately, Steele Hall in the double dissolution supported the Bills, and hence subsequent to that he would have supported their implementation. There are no examples in federated history of any Bills being defeated by this chamber where subsequently there were the numbers to deny those regulations. This chamber is the only example of that being able to be done. Senator Chaney —It is unprecedented. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. There cannot be a convention-there has never been an example in the 87 years of constitutional history where the numbers have been there. Senator Coates —That is because you are making special mention of those Acts. Senator MACKLIN —I am only using the Acts which can be used because they are the only Acts that this chamber has voted against. One cannot use Acts that it has voted for. There are many examples of Acts which have passed both chambers where regulations made under them have been disallowed by this chamber. Senators sitting on the Government side of the chamber have engaged in disallowing some motions. Senator Tate has engaged in disallowing some of those motions, as has Senator Robert Ray, and those Ministers are in the chamber now. There are many examples of that-examples which come from the Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. It is a regular feature of this chamber. Senator Coates —Nothing like a mere date of commencement, though. Senator MACKLIN —I give you that, Senator. I shall come to that argument. There is not a constitutional convention; let us put that one to rest. That was one of the major planks Senator Ryan was running on. Senator Coates —Let us call it propriety. Senator MACKLIN —The honourable senator should not talk too heavily about propriety. I remember during the election campaign your leader, now the Prime Minister, saying that if the Opposition gained power in the House of Representatives, he would try to use the numbers in the Senate to reject Supply. Senator Coates —When did he say that? Senator MACKLIN —How about in the Mercury of 11 July 1987: The ALP would reconsider its opposition to blocking supply if a Liberal government attached controversial legislation to a supply bill, the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, said yesterday. Or in the Canberra Times of 11 July: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, warned yesterday that the Labor Party might try to block government Supply Bills . . . So much for that. At least that story was killed when Senator Haines said the same day that the Democrats would pass Supply, whatever government was elected. Let us be careful about propriety, Senator Coates. Senator Ryan then asked the Opposition parties-although she did not include the Australian Democrats-whether there had been any campaigning. The Opposition parties can speak quite well for themselves on this matter, and Government senators would at least acknowledge that we campaigned on that issue, and we will continue to campaign on the issue. The next item raised by Senator Ryan was that which has just been raised by way of interjection, namely the frivolous nature of the regulations. Senator Ryan did not make too much of it. It seems to be a matter that Senator Robert Ray was more interested in pushing, but Senator Ryan did raise it. It is an important matter that needs to be addressed and relates to the starting up date. Frankly, the difficulty in addressing that issue is asking the Senate and the members of the Senate who have been elected to oppose the Australia Card to vote in favour of some part of its implementation. It envisages a senator going to the people and saying, `Please elect me and I will oppose the Australia Card', and then coming here and voting for it. In those circumstances people would rightly say, in the true sense of the word, `You are a hypocrite'. That is the definition of a hypocrite-somebody who says one thing in one place and quite another thing in another place. It is not acceptable for senators to get themselves voted into this chamber on the basis of one policy and then vote for the implementation of something different. It is not consistent. Senator Robert Ray —So what you are saying is consistent, is it? Senator MACKLIN —Yes. Senator Robert Ray —Except that you just refer it to a committee saying in advance that you will knock off the regulations. That is hypocrisy. Senator MACKLIN —What we did yesterday has made the position very clear. What we were being asked to do by Senator Tate's motion was not to say that we were voting for a regulation, because a regulation was not before us, but to give away our power to vote on that regulation. That is absurd, and that was the motion put down by Senator Tate. He was asking us to give away a power. There is a whole swath of regulation powers connected with the Australia Card; any Bill to get going needs to have a whole host of regulations. There are plenty of senators in this chamber who have been Ministers or who have been in the bureaucracy who know better than I that to get a Bill going there has to be a whole lot of delegated legislation. The Australia Card Bill is no different. Senator Robert Ray —So you are saying that there is no flaw? Senator MACKLIN —I have not said there is a flaw. Senator Robert Ray —There is a flaw in your implementation. Senator MACKLIN —There is a tactical error on your part, Senator Ray. But in terms of the way the legislation was drafted I am already on record in the media today as saying that I think it is a bit rich to say to somebody who drafted the Bill at that time that they should have been able to foresee likely events about two years ahead. It is not that draftsperson's fault; it is not the Minister's fault. Senator Coates —If it had been done by proclamation, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee would have complained. Senator MACKLIN —Certainly, and we would probably have sought to amend it to put it back in by regulation. I am on the record as having said that it is not a flaw in the legislation. It is a tactical flaw, and I think even the honourable senator would admit that. It should not have been in there; that is fairly obvious. If this had been recognised as late as last week, the Government could, under the Constitution, have done something about it, but it is a bit late now. It went into the House of Representatives last week, after the double dissolution. The Government could have amended it at that stage. I am not going to press my opinion against the learned Senator Tate in this regard. However, there is-I think the honourable senator will admit this-a disputed opinion about where the amendments and what type of amendments, can be made at that stage. It is not clear cut. Section 57 of the Constitution states: If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate . . . The only way the Senate can agree to an amendment is if one has been by the House of Representatives. So it is implicit in there that the House of Representatives can make amendments. Senator Robert Ray —That is the point of the double dissolution. Senator MACKLIN —It does not say anything-- Senator Robert Ray —Oh! Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry. I know that it is in dispute, and I am not going to try to be a High Court judge. I am simply saying that there is a legal argument and it could have been attempted. If the Government knew that the regulations could knock it off, it did not have anything to lose. So if it had seen that last week, I reckon that on the balance of probabilities it would have had a go at it. Senator Coates —We are reasonable sometimes. Senator MACKLIN —Fair enough. Having seen Senator Ray operate, I know that last week he would have suggested, on the balance of probabilities, `It is good for a run because the whole thing is going to die and if the Government amends it it may have a chance of keeping it alive'. Senator Robert Ray —A terrible slur. Senator Michael Baume —He did not think of it. Senator MACKLIN —I must admit to some chagrin myself for not having seen it. Obviously, the situation is that two years or so ago, whenever the draftsperson did this exercise, I do not think he could have foreseen what was going to occur. I feel sorry for that person; I do not feel any animosity towards him. I do not think that we can say that at that stage he committed a fault because he was not to know that the Bill would not be passed the first time round. Senator Collins —It is also obvious why it was done that way. Senator MACKLIN —It is fairly obvious why it was done that way. However, there were possibilities of doing it other ways. In the last Parliament there were a number of occasions. I remember moving amendments arising out of recommendations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, particularly with regard to Customs legislation, whereby the Government had allowed the implementation of certain parts of a Bill on a ministerial fiat rather than through regulations. I am totally opposed to that, and I am on the record as being so. However, the Government at that stage refused to accept the amendment and it was lost on the voices. So there are examples of where implementations of parts of Bills have been done by ministerial fiat, and others have been done, as an honourable senator was saying earlier, by proclamation, or by regulation. Or, of course, if a mistake had been recognised at that stage-I am quite sure it would have been-the Government could have had a stab at an actual implementation date. So there are and there were ways around it. But I do not want to be drawn into a debate about whether any damage was done at that time. I do not think there was. I believe that the Government made a tactical mistake. The other two parts of the motion are very important. The Government has admitted that this Bill is defective in other ways. I am not referring here to those particular regulations. The Government has admitted that this Bill is defective and needs amendment. The Minister then challenged honourable senators opposite with regard to their interest in data protection and privacy. I am quite happy to announce that I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, introduced a privacy Bill in the last Parliament which went considerably beyond the Data Protection Agency in the Privacy Bill introduced by the Labor Government. In fact, it had an extensive range of additional protections, covering not only government but private data banks, which I readily admit are being abused. Every citizen in this country knows when they get the junk mail through their letter boxes that their names and addresses have been sold by yet another journal to which they subscribe to another mail order house which sends them yet more junk. Everybody knows that is occurring. There needs to be much tighter security, because the linking together of that type of information can create a profile on individuals, such as: `Do they buy or subscribe to the Australian Financial Review or the Sydney Sun' or whatever? They can start building up a profile which is very useful for commercial targeting. It is done in the United States of America and it is now being done here in violation of the privacy of individuals. I accept that it is happening, but there need to be tough laws in regard to that. I do not see what that situation has got to do with this legislation, because the Government can bring in some tough legislation, and it should have done so quite independently of the Australia Card legislation. That legislation requires it, but there are plenty of other abuses occurring out there. Senator Ryan stood up in here and told us that there were abuses, yet this Government did nothing about them. Clearly, there are defects in this legislation in terms of the Data Protection Agency in the accompanying legislation on privacy. The Government would have at a later stage, if all of this had gone swimmingly, brought back in here a Bill to amend the Act. It has accepted that this Bill needs amending. It has got the stuff in its hot little hands but it is refusing to tell the Senate what it is. It refused last time to tell us what it wanted to amend. Lastly, the motion refers to the Government's waste of taxpayers' money by persisting with this legislation. The Government seemingly is persisting with this legislation. I accept that the Government is now in an absolute quandary with regard to what the hell it is doing, but we have heard nothing about it dropping the legislation, getting rid of it for the rest of this term and looking at alternatives which were suggested by the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, of upgrading tax file numbers and following the types of leaders that Senator Tate has from the report from the Australian Federal Police-although he will not tell us what they are. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I take most unkindly to some of the comments made by Senator Ryan, particularly her mention of an inability of people on this side to do anything about the tax cheats. How did the Government manage to bring in all of the Acts it now has in that area? It got them on our vote-the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax; and it even got the legislation regarding the prescribed payments tax due to the vote of the Opposition parties. In fact, it was one of the first Bills introduced along the lines of Fraser Government legislation. Senators are interested in that. It is a cheap operation. As a result of that bit of thought, Senator Ryan went on to talk about a hysterical campaign. I have publicly admitted that there is a hysterical campaign, but it is being carried out by both sides. But one does not start off a rational campaign by accusing everybody who is opposed to the legislation as being in favour of tax cheats. What type of rational argument is that? Once someone starts an argument by saying to somebody else, `Come over here while I hit you in the eye', and then says, `How is that for a rational argument?', and then hits that other person somewhere else very hard with a foot and says, `That's my second rational argument; now you go away and say something nice', the other person is likely to retaliate in said way, and when people do come back with some of the rather absurd things that they have come back with-Senator Ryan has quoted some of them-that is to be expected. But it was up to the Government, which started this debate, to put it on the proper level. By accusing everybody who was against the proposal of being friends of tax cheats was not to put it on a rational level. So let Government members not complain when they get back some of the stuff they started throwing. I believe that rational debate on this matter is necessary, and I believe that that took place, at the instigation of this chamber and with the acquiescence of the other chamber, in the inquiry of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card into the concept of an Australia Card. It called for submissions and an enormous number of submissions were made to it. The Committee deliberated, and I believe that this was a very interesting example of people rising above the party line and actually putting forward what they believed. In saying that I refer not only to the Government but also to some Opposition senators. As I understand, from the vote that we took last time on the Australian Democrats' amendment, the Opposition parties are not in support of the tax file number. But some of their members signed that report in favour of the tax file number. A Government member signed it. The Committee's deliberations are a very good example of looking at information before a committee, assessing it and coming forward with a practical, constructive alternative. At a later stage people can say, `On the basis of further evidence we now don't believe that that is the best'. I accept that. Further evidence can always change one's position. But at that stage a rational debate was under way. Then Senator Walsh and Dr Blewett came in with the heavy boot and put the whole thing out of skew. The debate has, I admit, gone down hill since then, and some quite extraordinary claims have been made on both sides. One such claim made in Queensland concerned an invisible tattoo on everybody's forehead. It is absurd. After all, if we were going to have an invisible tattoo we would put it on the back of people's hands, because the idea of having everybody standing underneath a blue light so that their number could be seen is a bit absurd. But that is the level to which the debate has sunk. Senator Coates —Is this before or after the hand is chopped off? Senator MACKLIN —I readily admit that it is all pretty stupid. But crucial items are involved in this debate. There is good will on both sides. There is a disagreement. There can be a rational debate and at the end a disagreement. But that kind of rational debate cannot be started by accusing everybody in opposition of bad faith. The Government got what it started with. This motion expresses quite clearly our view and we believe that the Senate should act to protect its responsibilities with regard to delegated legislation. We should not vote to say that a priori, regardless of whatever regulation is brought up on the Australia Card, we are going to love it. We are not and we reserve our right as a Senate to look at every piece of delegated legislation-regulations under this legislation and all other legislation-to decide whether it should be supported. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(4.44) —The Government, of course, does not accept the censure motion. That has been made absolutely clear by Senator Ryan. Honourable senators opposite would not expect us to agree with it. But I find it particularly galling that the censure motion should end, in the three subsidiary paragraphs justifying it, by mentioning yet again the charge made by the Opposition that the Australia Card legislation is an abuse of the Australian democratic principles and system and goes beyond the limits acceptable to that democracy and to the individual rights sacred-so it says-to the Australian community. It seems to me that the Australia Card legislation is utterly compatible with Australian democratic principles and with individual rights sacred to the Australian community. This motion is not exactly one on which the full debate concerning the Australia Card legislation is appropriate. But I refute any suggestion that the Government has undertaken a series of law making steps which constitute some sort of assault on Australian democracy. To the contrary, we have tried in good faith to bring about a situation whereby the Government of elected representatives of the people, having decided that it was essential to fund certain programs, goes about its job of securing the sinews of government by gathering taxes from those who are required by laws passed by this Parliament to pay them and protecting welfare services against those who would defraud them. There is a series of ways in which that can be done, amongst them, of course, is the misstatement of identity. To say that there is some sort of democratic, long-standing, common law civil right to misstate one's identity in order either to avoid one's obligation to our democracy by refusing to pay taxes as they become due, or else to get from the common purse benefits to which one is not entitled, seems to me to be pushing a concept of democratic and individual rights in our community far beyond what is valid. This motion speaks also of the Government `wasting taxpayers' money by persisting with legislation' et cetera. The Opposition and the Australian Democrats last night doomed this legislation to utter frustration and failure by saying that they will not pass the regulation necessary to implement it according to a certain schedule provided for in the legislation. They are the ones who are wasting taxpayers' money by sending the legislation to a committee for five or six months. Would it not have been better and more honest for the Opposition to say, `The time has arrived for this chamber, for the third time, to reject this legislation'? At no stage will the committee deliberations taking place over the next four or five months in any way change the eventual outcome. This legislation, despite its passage at the Joint Sitting which will presumably happen one day-I do not know exactly when-will never be fully implemented in a practical way, which requires the setting of certain dates. It is honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who are wasting taxpayers' money by holding this legislation in a committee with no deliberation process and no hope or expectation that it will be put into effect. Why do honourable senators opposite not say, `We will fail to pass it. We will have a vote on the second reading motion and we will defeat it'. That would have been the more honest way and, since we are talking about wasting taxpayers' money, the more frugal way to go about this process. Another thing I find particularly galling in the final paragraph of the motion is that it falls from the lips of those who talk about individual rights but who were engaged in the process of raising hysterical objection in the community to the Bill of Rights. I exclude Senator Macklin from this comment. But there are many on the other side of the chamber who brought about within the community a situation where, once again, a piece of legislation designed by this Government-(Quorum formed) We have just had an illustration of exactly what I am talking about. A new senator, in her second week in this chamber, has decided, no doubt on the instruction of her Whip, to frustrate my speaking in this chamber in the ordinary course of debate and the deliberation on this important censure motion against the Government. Rather than allow a Minister of the Government to rise and to put a case in answer to a censure motion, there was a deliberate wasting of my time to put my case to the chamber. For such a person to talk about the rights of this chamber and the rights of citizens to put their case and so on is, I find, totally hypocritical. To return to the censure motion, it claims that the Government has attacked the Senate's determination to exercise its constitutional responsibilities. I do not think that is correct, and I would like to make a distinction between power and constitutional responsibility. There is no doubt that the Senate chamber is possessed of the power which it has been foreshadowed will be exercised in order to defeat the regulations made under the Australia Card Act when it passes through the Joint Sitting. That is an exercise of power which, of course, is vested in the chamber and is able to be exercised, however bloody-minded that exercise might be. But what we are appealing for and have been appealing for, and what I do not think we deserve censure for, is that the chamber should not exercise that power in a way which is constitutionally irresponsible. I believe that that is what is being proposed by the Opposition and by the Democrats, and that is why it has been the subject of Government criticism. It was very clear when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to Yarralumla and sought from the Governor-General and was granted a double dissolution of the two Houses on the basis that the Senate had twice defeated the Australia Card Bill that we would embark on a process which had as its natural fruition-should the Government have been re-elected by the Australian people as turned out to be the case; it secured a very convincing majority in the House of Representatives-the convening of a joint sitting if the Senate again rejected that same legislation for the third time. One would, therefore, be absolutely correct in saying that the proper constitutional perspective on all this is to say that the elected representatives of the Australian people, having been convened in a joint sitting in a way which is especially provided under section 57 of the Constitution away from the normal method of gathering in two separate chambers and mediating their will as elected representatives, are entitled to carry that legislation into practical effect. It makes no sense whatsoever to pass legislation at the end of that constitutional process which is rendered utterly void and of no effect by the tactic and device of refusing to prove a regulation which is absolutely essential to its operation. I do not deny that the power is there; I am simply saying that to exercise that power is constitutionally irresponsible because it goes against the natural, practical implementation of legislation which has been subject to all that process leading to a joint sitting and approval by the jointly assembled representatives of the Australian people. I think that it is that particular irresponsibility at a constitutional level which forms the basis of the Government's very real concern about this matter. As always, we find that it is on the other side of the chamber that the conventional proprieties are undermined and we find ourselves in a position of having to defend the Constitution, normal proprieties and arrangements against the Opposition's attacks. We do not need to go much further in relation to this piece of legislation and the regulation-making power provided for in relation to the setting of dates than the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. It met several times in the very first session in the Thirty-fourth Parliament with Senator Cooney as Chairman. Senator Austin Lewis was the Deputy Chairman. Senator John Coates, Senator Pat Giles, Senator Vanstone and former Senator Reg Withers were on the Committee. That Committee scrutinises legislation to try to decide whether regulations are made in accordance with statute, whether they do not contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment and so on. We also had meeting in that very same session the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which I happened to chair. Senator Haines was the Deputy Chairman at the time. Senator Michael Baume, Senator Barney Cooney, Senator Rosemary Crowley and Senator Jocelyn Newman were on that Committee. In none of those committees was there any suggestion that what we were going about was anything but the normal, ordinary method of implementing legislation. Certainly, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its reports on the Australia Card Bill-and it did have some criticisms of various provisions-never thought to advise the Senate that there was anything at all untoward, unusual or uncommon, or that there was an attempt by way of subterfuge to use this particular regulation-making power. And how could it because it was in very common form and designed simply to provide the practical implementation, the setting of dates, for the operation of this legislation. So for the Senate chamber to take upon itself the defeat of this legislation other than by way of using the criteria which are used by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in giving its advice to the chamber is to reveal its particular operation as being purely and utterly political. Honourable senators may say that I sound very naive to say that because of course, it is purely and utterly political. It needs to be said that that is what it is and it needs to be exposed as such. Therefore, one cannot say that the Government in making this point is attacking Senate power, but it is certainly attacking, as I said, the irresponsible exercise of that power. Senator Macklin —Don't get too heavy on that. Senator TATE —No. The Government believes that the censure motion before the chamber does not deserve the support of the chamber. It has nothing in it which requires, in my view and in the view of the Government, any great mounting of a defence. The fact is that the Government has merely engaged in what it considers is its duty, to point out to the Australian people that what is being undertaken by the Opposition in foreshadowing that it will refuse to implement the necessary regulations required to give practical effect to this legislation is undermining the proper functions of the constitutionally provided for Joint Sitting and is setting a very bad precedent for the operation of legislation brought into this Parliament on a whole range of matters quite apart from these matters of grave constitutional significance. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.58) —I second the motion of censure upon the Government which has been moved by Senator Chaney and which Senator Macklin has supported. In his remarks in this chamber yesterday afternoon the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, who had just concluded his remarks, sought to argue that in this place yesterday the Opposition was: . . . signalling the intention to frustrate the clear intention of the Constitution, provided for under section 57, that the will of the Parliament be carried into practical effect. He went on to say: It would be a nonsense, of course, simply to pass legislation which had no particular effect. I think that word `particular' should be `practical'. In the same context he said that if a joint sitting of both Houses of the Parliament should pass the legislation: . . . it would be an expression of the will of the people of Australia . . . that that legislation be part of the law of Australia. I happen to hold Senator Tate personally in some regard. At the risk of unintentionally damaging his future in the Australian Labor Party irretrievably, I would even go so far as to say that I regard him as an honourable man, not merely in the conventional sense in which that term is quite properly used in this chamber to describe all honourable senators opposite. I therefore agree with Senator Macklin who later in yesterday's debate acknowledged that Senator Tate always makes a good fist of it on these occasions and that he had made a good fist of it on this occasion yesterday. Nevertheless, as Senator Macklin also concluded yesterday, one cannot make bricks with the kind of mere straw with which the Minister's own colleagues-particularly his colleagues responsible for the introduction of the Australia Card, the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett, and the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan-have provided him. I remind Senator Tate that at no time has the Opposition said or even suggested that it would seek to use its numbers, in association with those of the Australian Democrats, simply to pass the Australia Card Bill through the Senate. It has never said or suggested it. Of course, we have moved to have the Bill in its legislative and fully drafted form fully examined for the first time in a committee of the Senate and to have examined also, I add, the many spurious claims which the Government has been making both about the technical operation of the administrative framework which the Bill would institute and about the costs to be incurred and the potential savings to be gained by doing so. Should those processes still be pursued-in particular, should the Government now fail to take its medicine and plunge on regardless with the Bill, as it seems to be contemplating, rather than withdrawing it-those processes in due time will lead, as Senator Tate quite correctly pointed out, to a joint sitting, presumably during the Autumn session of Parliament. At any such joint sitting, the Government, as it has been happy to tell us ad nauseam, would have the numbers and the Bill would become, in Senator Tate's own words, `part of the law of Australia'. Senator Tate, who is a lawyer whereas I am a mere layman, knows that in matters of law it is very important to use words precisely. In those circumstances the present Bill would become part of the law of Australia; no more, no less. It would not be a Bill with a power to define, for example, the first relevant day or the second relevant day, for the purposes of clauses 40 to 54 of the Bill, by proclamation or by action under executive power; it would be the present Bill with its power to declare such dates by regulation. I see that Senator Tate is nodding; I am glad to have his assent to what I have said. Senator Tate sought to persuade us yesterday that the constitutional provisions of section 57 go further than this and that the Bill which has been subject to the provisions of that section should be carried into `practical' effect-a word which he interposed twice yesterday in his remarks. In fairness to Senator Tate let me say that he did yesterday and again today try to persuade us of the cogency of his arguments rather than bully us, browbeat us, vilify us or even slander us in the manner of his uncomfortable and increasingly woebegone colleague, the Special Minister of State. Be that as it may, the fact is that what Senator Tate was actually asking the Senate to do-this has been extremely cogently pointed out by Senator Macklin-was to allow the Government to have in practical terms, his words, a Bill under which the executive could proceed to declare `the first relevant day' and `the second relevant day' by executive decision even though, in fact, the Bill provided no such power. Like Senator Macklin I think it would be an enormous pity if the Government, and particularly the Ministers in the Government allegedly responsible for this Bill, were so to forget themselves as to seek to place the blame for this technical aspect of the Bill on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and on the instructing solicitor in the Department who gave instructions for the outcome that we now have. As Senator Macklin remarked, at the time the Bill was drafted, no doubt it was thought to be an entirely appropriate way to proceed by way of regulation in that particular area of the draft legislation. In particular, there was no way at that time, I presume, that the draftsman in question could have foreseen that this Bill would become in due course that very rare thing in our constitutional history-that is, a double dissolution Bill. The truth is that all of this area of the debate was already summed up-actually summed up in advance-in a characteristic pithy manner by Mr Ewart Smith, whose opinion on the Bill was tabled in the Senate yesterday and incorporated in Hansard. Senator Aulich —You wrote this for him, too? Senator STONE —As Mr Smith said: And why were regulations chosen as the vehicle of fixing such a date, if it was not to allow the subsequent ease of extending, by alteration, that date: This is the key sentence: It could have been provided for by proclamation, or by Executive act, which would not be disallowable. Having chosen the means, the consequences flow. I digress again for a moment to respond belatedly to the interjection from Senator Aulich, who made an interjection similar to that made in this place when I was speaking on the Australia Card last Tuesday evening by a colleague of his. That colleague suggested that I may have had some hand in the drafting of the letter which Mr Ewart Smith had sent to and had published in the Australian of that day. Senator Aulich is now suggesting that I may have had some hand in the drafting of Mr Ewart Smith's opinion. I can only say that not only does that betray an unduly complimentary view of my legal powers, for which I thank the honourable senator, but much more importantly it betrays what I can only describe as a contemptible attitude towards the position of a retired public servant who has given Commonwealth governments many years of honourable, faithful and above all distinguished service and whose name, I can assure the honourable senator, will go down in the history books in this country when that of the honourable senator will be long forgotten. The clear implication of the Government's arguments yesterday on this matter is that the Senate should abandon its powers to examine and, as appropriate, disallow regulations made by the appropriate Minister irrespective of whether a majority of senators in this place is totally opposed to the outcome to which acceptance of the regulation would inevitably lead. I put it to the chamber that acceptance by the Senate of any such view would represent quite an enormous increase in the effective scope of Executive power over the Parliament of which the Senate constitutes a vital part. The fact that the Government nevertheless propounds such a view both here and in the other place should perhaps come as no surprise to us. In common with most governments-again, in fairness, I should say that this has been true of governments from both sides of the political spectrum-the Government seeks continually to arrogate to itself powers to do what it likes, and to hell with the Parliament. In the House of Representatives any government generally has, by definition, the numbers, otherwise it would be most unlikely that it would be the government or at least it would not be the government for very long. It follows that so long as it can rule its back benchers there, a government can generally afford to, and generally does, ignore the views of ordinary members of that House. But in the Senate, thank goodness, that is not so. The Opposition side at least has no intention of tamely acquiescing to the request that was put to us yesterday, and which we disallowed, for it to become so. In short, on the issue of the constitutional propriety of disallowing regulations which are necessary to bring the Australia Card legislation into effective operation, I say first that disallowance of regulations would be a perfectly legitimate action in any circumstances. The power to disallow regulations was, and is, conferred by the Parliament on each of its Houses by section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act. The power is not subject to conditions or restrictions. It may be taken away by Parliament whenever it decides that it should do so. Indeed it often is in the case of particular Acts by specific provisions in the Acts concerned which state that they are not subject to the Acts Interpretation Act. In passing let me say something very briefly about constitutional conventions, proprieties and matters of that kind if in that context we are to have such tired old refrains as `the constitutional impropriety' of the events of 1975 thrown up at us. The only constitutional impropriety that ever occurred in 1975 was the impropriety of the government of that day and, in particular, the Prime Minister of that day, to seek to govern without Supply and to take the most extraordinary measures to attempt to do so. If Senator Richardson, who is trying to interject, would like me to continue on that subject, I would be very happy to oblige him at some time in the future with as much detail as he would care to have me offer him. Let me continue. In present circumstances the Government is certainly in no position to complain about almost any measure, let alone a perfectly proper and constitutionally apt measure such as the disallowance of regulations that might be taken to defeat the operation of this Bill. I say that because the Australia Card Bill has been introduced in its present form in this session of the Parliament not because, even as most ardent supporters believe, it is properly drafted-regulation making powers and associated requirements quite aside-or because it does not need amendment, or because it does not need amendment or will not be amended before proclamation. As my question at Question Time today to the Special Minister of State indicated, I hazard the guess-I do not put it higher than `guess' for these purposes at least-that the Government and or parliamentary counsel already have a number of the provisions identified as requiring amendment for either technical or policy reasons. As Senator Chaney remarked in moving this motion earlier this afternoon, if I am right in that conjecture the Bill, is, and was, in a real sense a fraud upon the Parliament. It was, in short, introduced in its present form not because it has, or had, any support in that form but simply because if necessary amendments had been made before its introduction, the Government would have relinquished the right to have it passed at a joint sitting. This legislation has been brought forward by a government which is accusing this side of the chamber of constitutional impropriety. What absolute humbug! The only constitutional impropriety in this whole sorry affair will be if the Minister for Community Services and Health fails to resign his portfolio or if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) lacks the courage to dismiss him. So much for all that bluff and bluster on the matter yesterday from the Minister who now faces the prospect of applying for the unemployment benefit. So much for the similar bluff and bluster which, I understand, characterised the remarks of the Prime Minister and other Government Ministers in their back-firing effort this morning in another place. The real question of interest now is why the Government is still proposing to force through a joint sitting legislation which it has admitted needs amendment and why it is proposing to continue to waste taxpayers' money by persisting with legislation which would abuse personal privacy beyond limits acceptable to the principles of democracy and individual rights which all of us, I am sure, hold equally dear. That is in itself, an interesting question. Senator Tate, in his closing remarks, addressed the final passage of the censure motion to which I have just referred and appeared to take some exception to the fact that yesterday-notwithstanding the events of yesterday in a more general sense-the Senate committed the Bill to a committee for its examination. I do not want to misrepresent what Senator Tate said but he appeared to be suggesting that it was that conjuncture which he found most difficult to understand and, indeed, even to accept. However, I say in all fairness to Senator Tate that, if the Government feels that it is improper or inappropriate under the circumstances that have now emerged for the Bill to be subjected to those processes, it has a possible remedy; it can withdraw the Bill. The Opposition would have to decide at that stage what it would do. The Government has given not the slightest indication that it might withdraw the Bill and that is, as I have said, a puzzling position. I can only assume that one reason why the Government may not be willing to withdraw the Bill, at this juncture at least, is that the Prime Minister has committed such an enormous amount of personal political capital to it. We all know that when the personal conceit of the Prime Minister is involved, very many irrational outcomes can obtain. Nevertheless, what we now seem to be having represents a very high price not merely for the Government to pay-and it will keep on paying it, I assure it-but also for the Australian people to pay. The Government should be strongly censured for forcing them to continue doing so. Senator AULICH(Tasmania)(5.19) —I will speak for only a brief period because this debate has just about wound up. I do not care to comment on the very lengthy statement-I can call it only a statement-made by Senator Stone, who has never been known for either his loyalty or his brevity-- Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator Aulich is reflecting-- Senator AULICH —All right, I withdraw. Basically, all he was doing was papering over what was an essential act of dishonesty on the part of the Opposition in seeking to frustrate the will of the people of Australia as measured in the election victory that this Government had. The Opposition cannot have it-- Senator Chaney —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. It appears to me that, as the Senate has voted on this matter, the honourable senator is reflecting on a vote of the Senate. I do not believe that he is entitled to do that in his speech. It is not directly relevant to the subject matter of the motion. I do not believe that his last comment was in order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I ask Senator Aulich to speak to the matter before the Chair. Senator AULICH —I would be delighted to, Mr Acting Deputy President, after having been interrupted twice by the Opposition. Essentially, the will of the Australian people has been thwarted by this chamber and by Opposition senators. Certain principles have been damaged on the way to what is, after all, only a temporary set-back as far as the Government is concerned. However, it is not a temporary set-back for parliamentary procedure, nor for the respect in which this institution is held in the future. What can be done by one side can be done by another on other occasions. I feel sad that today we are seeing a repetition of some of the things that were done in 1975 when some honourable senators opposite could not accept that somewhere along the line getting the majority of seats at an election gives some mandate to the government of the day. The fact that the Liberal Party, unlike the Democrats, was not able, willing or courageous enough to go out to the community and seek a mandate for its viewpoint on the Australian Card is not a surprise to me. It is an accident of history which is damaging the whole nature of political debate in this country. That a major political party can go to the people, try not to debate a major issue for eight weeks of an election campaign, run away from that issue and then come into this chamber and indicate that somehow or other it has a mandate to deal in constitutional trickery, as it has, to knock over an issue this Government has stood up for during the last year and a half surprises me. It is damaging to politics and to the way people regard politicians. On a personal note, I entered politics in 1976 in a State area. I did so because of what happened in 1975. I had a naive view that politicians ought to reflect fairness and equity, that the party that gets a majority gets a mandate to follow through its platform. I have since been disabused of that view. My naivety has again attacked by what has gone on in this chamber over the last week or so. When the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) approached me to see whether I wanted to chair the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card I said, `Can you give me some time to think about it?'. I did that because I had some concerns about the question of introducing a national identification system, for whatever purposes. I thought about it. I talked with people. I got back to Dr Blewett and said, `Yes, I will agree to chair the Committee, but I am not going to rubber-stamp a Government proposal. I will not make a public statement about my viewpoints before the Committee comes down with its recommendations or hears the evidence'. Honourable senators will not find on record from me, at any time before or during that Committee's hearings, any indication of what my personal viewpoint about an Australia Card was-not one sentence. But there were others on that Committee who had no qualms about making their viewpoints known before they had seen all the evidence. I listened to the evidence. One of the things that persuaded me in the long run that there needed to be an Australia Card, with accompanying privacy protection, was the fact that all governments are going to seek, wherever they can, revenue that is forgone as tax evasion rolls through the community. It does not matter whether we are talking about a Liberal-National Party government or a Labor government. When money is put before a government's eyes, when a government knows that there is revenue to be gained and that tax equity and justice is possible, that government will go after it. What are the options? Give me five minutes. One does not have to be a genius to work out some scheme whereby one can get that money back. One can get it back, all right. One can get it back from the social welfare cheats. But at what cost? I ask honourable senators opposite to go to the Income Tax Assessment Act and to read carefully what sections 263 and 264 say about the right of the Australian Taxation Office to enter property, to seize records, to examine the personal accounts of every individual in the community and, in many cases, to do so without the individual knowing that the Taxation Office is investigating him. Anyone who has been through a tax audit, or who knows someone who has been through a tax audit, knows that the imposition of governmental powers on individuals can be quite horrendous and, in many cases, can take away a person's civil liberties, as I understand them. Honourable senators opposite should examine the possibilities under the Act. The possibilities under the Act of a tax commissioner being directed and pushed by a government and going further than any of us in this chamber care to consider in terms of breaching people's civil liberties are enormous. We could go to other areas. We could, for example, go back to some of the horrendous exercises that were carried out by the Department of Social Security years ago, when it tried to find out whether people were living with people they had not recorded themselves as living with, and to the cohabitation rules of examination that prevailed 10 years ago. Do honourable senators opposite want to upgrade them again? Do they want snoops in people's homes again, which is what they would have if they really wanted to stamp out social welfare fraud? Do they, for example, want to use the Medicare system to stamp out taxation and welfare fraud? I could explain to honourable senators in this chamber now-I do not intend to-just how one could use the Medicare system, for example, to cut out tax evasion and social security or welfare fraud. But the way one could use the Medicare system would involve a grosser breach of our civil liberties than anything contemplated by the Australia Card. All I am saying is that when we make a value judgment about the Australia Card we must also take into account what the alternatives are. I do not believe that the alternatives of the Opposition, that is, the beefing up of the Taxation Office, the beefing up of the audit powers and pressuring the Social Security Department to get into people's private lives, are alternatives that we, as a chamber, ought to find acceptable. When the Opposition calls for an end to social welfare fraud-it never seems to call for an end to taxation evasion-it should think about that. In the long run it would be handing more power to civil servants to invade people's lives than the Australia Card would ever have done. Another point-I have mentioned this before in debates-is that the Joint Select Committee had a role to play in terms of creating a debate in the community about the Australia Card. On the whole, it did that. We had an enormous response from witnesses. Many honourable senators have already commented on the way the Committee went about its business. On the whole, most people had a chance to have their say. From both sides of the political spectrum, from both sides of the argument, we received submissions and evidence that made one think about the importance of the decision we were making. Yet, following an election at which the Government was given a mandate, the level of debate has declined. It has become a matter of scare tactics, of frightening people. I see that Senator Walters is leaving the chamber again. For heaven's sake leave. The place is smelling of hypocrisy. In the last few weeks, not only has the nature of the debate changed, in terms of creating hysteria in the community, frightening people who should never have been frightened and ensuring that this major issue eventually has deteriorated into the sort of debate we have had here over the last week or so, but also we have seen constitutional trickery of a nature which I believe sets an unhealthy precedent. Honourable senators opposite know that a mandate was given. They know what the normal procedure is after a double dissolution has been called and the procedures have been gone through by a particular government and parliament. Yet, by simply using constitutional trickery which the average child could have thought up and of which most honourable senators were aware the Opposition has now, in effect, negated the will of the Australian public. Of course, the Opposition knows that as a Bill gets close, as it hits a particular House of Parliament, as the debate starts to lift in its hysteria and so on and people start to worry about the effects on them, particularly the financial effects, there will be a temporary dip in popularity for that legislation, particularly if it is aimed at cutting out tax evasion. We saw this with the legislation which dealt with the fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax and entertainment expenses. We saw it in a number of areas of tax reform in which this Government has engaged. Yet, we hear nothing about those reforms a year or so after they were brought into this Parliament. The Opposition knew that by seizing the right opportunity to try to get away with this constitutional trickery its action would be tolerated, and it has been. I will not comment to any great extent on the role of the Press in this matter. I think that on the whole the Press did not do its duty during the election campaign to pick up and pursue either the Opposition's views about the Australia Card or the Government's views. Yet, the Press has been very willing to pick up the more hysterical outpourings that we have seen over the last few weeks. In a sense, this is an occasion for a certain degree of sadness. If this chamber is going to operate in this way in the future on all major issues, in the long run the status of politicians in this community will drop even lower than it is now. That should be a matter of concern for people in this chamber. It is not a question of whether we shout at each other in the chamber; is the way in which we arrange the debates in the community on major issues. The people who engaged in constitutional trickery to get their own way-and to some extent I exclude the Democrats because they did go out and debate this issue; they did say where they stood-and who ran away from the issue during the campaign have a great deal to answer for. It is not just a question of letting the tax evaders and the tax dodgers off; it is what they have done to this chamber. I oppose this censure motion for more reasons than those that relate only to the Australia Card. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(5.32) —The third Senate vote in this place yesterday against the identity card system was most important. I am really glad to have represented the massive number of Australians who are opposed to the ID card and to have joined the Opposition and the Australian Democrats on this issue. However, I regret the fact that so much time has been wasted today, in the other place this morning and here this afternoon, on censure motions. What we are seeing is party political mud slinging to which many of our constituents object. In this respect I have to agree with what was said by the previous speaker, Senator Aulich. We have to consider our reputations in the community which are greatly tarnished by that kind of mud slinging. Such behaviour gives too much emphasis to the adversarial model of politics which is being pursued at the taxpayer's expense. Now that the ID card has been sensibly referred to a Senate committee, I would prefer the Senate to get on with its business. The matter which should have been under discussion for the last two hours is the very important question of disarmament agreements. I would say that this is a much more worthy subject than continuing the acrimony between the major parties. The Government's intransigence on the ID card is obvious to most Australians by now. We do not need to be wasting time on it again here. It is a bit late in the debate to be saying this, but I think it is most important that it is said. I felt that I should explain why neither Senator Wood nor I will be supporting this censure motion. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.33) —in reply-I am sorry that Senator Vallentine's pique at the fact that she has not yet had a chance to participate in her debate on disarmament has led her to take that view. It is important to remind the Senate in response to that last brief contribution, that this morning the House of Representatives purported to suggest that our behaviour yesterday was in breach of convention and should not have been undertaken. It is important that this chamber assert to the Australian people that it will stand by the decisions it took yesterday and will be prepared to stand up again in the same way. Like Senator Vallentine, I regret that the censure motion has taken some two and a half hours but, in reality, that was an assertion which had to be made and I make no apology for bringing it forward. I thank Senator Macklin and Senator Stone for their support of the motion. Senator Macklin made a careful analysis of the Labor suggestion that some sort of convention has now been breached. I welcome the factual material that he put before the Senate. I welcome the contribution of Senator Stone in the same vein. I will very briefly comment on the responses of the Government senators who have spoken. Senator Ryan made what I think can only be described as a limp defence of the Government position. She made a number of claims in common with claims made at the end of the debate by Senator Aulich. She claimed, for example, that the Opposition, until a month or so ago, had done nothing about the identity card Bill, totally ignoring the fact that we have on two occasions over the last year defeated identity card legislation in the terms of the legislation which was sent off to a committee yesterday. She claimed that we did nothing in the campaign. I wish I had met Senator Ryan in the Bourke Street Mall when, with more than a dozen other Liberals, I handed out copies of a booklet warning of various Labor laws including the Australia Card Bill. The booklet, which contained several pages of description of that Bill, was handed to anybody who was in the Mall at that time. That was but one example of the campaign efforts that were made and it was, in response to the interjection from Senator Ray at lunchtime, a week or so before the campaign concluded. But the most pathetic part of the response from the Government came when both Senator Ryan and Senator Aulich chided the Opposition for being parties to frightening people. I noted that a number of Opposition senators, including Senator Vanstone, interjected during those allegations and reminded the Senate of the scare campaigns undertaken by the Australian Labor Party in the last election campaign and, indeed, going back beyond that. The letters which were written to the aged in Australia threatening their situation and the use of direct mail to frighten people were notable features of the last campaign. That sits very squarely with the scare campaigns which were undertaken by Labor with respect to the issue of privatisation. I have seen many letters signed by Labor Ministers, State and Federal, advising people of the great risks that they were running with respect to privatisation-namely, the loss of their jobs and their livelihoods. Scare campaigns have been very successfully used by the Labor Party. To suggest that the Opposition, which defeated this Bill twice in the Senate in conjunction with the Australian Democrats, has engaged in scare campaigns is, on the face of it, quite absurd. A range of arguments were put forward. Reference was made to some biblical passage which, I must say, I was not familiar with until it was used in this campaign and I finally got round to reading it. There is a most extraordinary appropriateness in the words which were used in terms of the references to numbering, the carrying on of business and so on. I find the fit quite extraordinary. Senator Robert Ray —Was it from Revelation? Senator CHANEY —I am not sure which book it was from. I reject with very great ease of mind the allegations that in some way the Opposition has been a party to frightening people on this Bill. Senator Macklin made the very important point that it would be totally hypocritical for those of us who went to election on this Bill, for those of us who were standing behind a policy of opposition to the ID card, to turn around now and say that we would vote in favour of any proposition which would implement that card. That is not a stance which the Opposition will adopt. The only additional point of any substance that I believe was raised was the issue of privacy. There is, of course, nothing to stop this Government, as was pointed out in the debate, from introducing legislation which will protect the right to privacy to which Australian citizens and others are entitled without the use of this identity card legislation. I think that can be dealt with as a quite separate issue and the Government is entitled to do so. One last point which I wish to touch on is the issue of the mandate. Government speakers claim that the identity card Bill should be passed because the Government has a mandate. The doctrine of the mandate has been severely knocked around by the present Government, the Labor Party and, indeed, by everybody. It is trotted forth very conveniently. Privatisation, as I have mentioned, is the classic example. One can find a number of Labor statements bagging privatisation and suggesting that it would be a disaster for the Australian people and for the community. Then we find the Government changing course. The Government has not heard from us the cry of mandate. There are more awkward examples for the Labor Party. The Labor Party had a clear mandate when it was elected to do something about the Aboriginal land rights in every State of this country. Senator Ryan stood opposite me-I was on that side then-and said that the first legislative act of a Labor Government would be to enact land rights legislation for Queensland. I would have thought, on the arguments I have heard here today, that the Labor Party would be saying that it had a clear mandate for that legislation. Of course, it had in Senator Macklin, who leads for the Australian Democrats on this issue, someone who is more in favour of the Labor platform than even the Labor Party. There has never been a legislative bar in the 4 1/2 years in which those opposite have been in government to their carrying out the policy for which they have had a mandate. I give that as an example of the shallowness of the mandate argument. The reality is that the Government has backed off that legislation, as it backed off the Bill of Rights. It had a mandate for a Bill of Rights and it has backed off. It backed off because it smelt the winds of public opinion. I reject the talk of a mandate that we have heard here today, because it is so completely out of line with this Government's action. In areas where it clearly had a policy position, on which it had been elected, it has chosen not to act. In other areas, where it had no favourable policy position, it has chosen to go in the opposite direction. So the mandate argument is nonsense. I do not need to repeat my motion. What is quite clear is that the Senate wishes to assert its right and its duty to disallow regulations that are against Australia's interest. It is clear that the Senate intends to censure the Government for its attack on the Senate for its determination to exercise its constitutional responsibilities and for proposing to force through a joint sitting legislation which the Government itself has admitted needs amendment. I commend the motion to the Senate and I note the failure of the Government to introduce any convincing arguments which would lead us not to put forward this motion. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. McLean, P. A.Baume, Michael Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Reid, M. E.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. Teague, B. C.Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Foreman, D. J.Beahan, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Black, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Morris, J. J.Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Richardson, G. F.Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Baume, Peter Zakharov, A. O.Bishop, B. K. Schacht, C. C.Lewis, A. W. R. Cook, P. F. S.Puplick, C. J. G. Devereux, J. R.Sanders, N. K. Button, J. N.Sheil, G. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating senators to be members of Estimates committees in accordance with the text circulated to honourable senators. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36ab, be appointed members of Senate Estimates committees as follows: Estimates Committee A Senators Alston, Bishop, Burns, Chapman, Childs and Cook Estimates Committee B Senators Brownhill, Gietzelt, MacGibbon, Maguire, Panizza and Schacht Estimates Committee C Senators Archer, Collins, Crowley, Devlin, McGauran and Parer Estimates Committee D Senators Peter Baume, Colston, Giles, Sheil, Walters and Zakharov Estimates Committee E Senators Aulich, Beahan, Bolkus, Newman, Short and Tambling Estimates Committee F Senators Black, Coates, Cooney, Puplick, Reid and Vanstone Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: (1) That the Resolution of the Senate of 17 September 1987 referring a matter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, upon the establishment of that Committee, be rescinded. (2) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure: (a) The circumstances surrounding the calling of tenders for the contract for the surveillance of Australia's northern coastline and the subsequent grant of the contract to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd and, in particular, the following questions: (i) Was there full and effective investigation of Amann's resources in relation to the following- managerial expertise; aviation expertise; financial backing; access to reliable suppliers; and security considerations. (ii) Was there any impropriety involved in the conduct of the tendering process or grant of the contract to Amann, and (iii) Was there any basis on which the Government could have acted to terminate the contract earlier than 12 September 1987; and (b) The procedures and the effectiveness of the Government's civil tendering program. To give a brief explanation, this relates to the matter of Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. In view of the portfolios with which the Standing Committee on Infrastructure will deal, that is, transport and communications and administrative services, which cover the general question of tendering it is obvious that that Committee is the appropriate one to undertake this reference. I have consulted with the Opposition and the Australian Democrats who concur in this. I appreciate their co-operation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —On behalf of the Minister for Finance, I table the Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901, for the year ended 30 June 1987. Ordered that consideration of the Statement in Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Consideration resumed from 23 September, on motion by Senator Coulter: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.52) —I move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the United States and the Soviet Union on their historic agreement to eliminate short range and intermediate range land-based nuclear missiles and trusts that further negotiations will be successful and achieve mutual balanced and verifiable reduction in strategic nuclear weapons of the order of 50 per cent in the immediate future; and (b) notes that this historic reduction is a positive outcome of the policy of deterrence practised by the Western democracies whereby some parity was maintained between the nuclear arsenals of the West and the Soviets, thereby allowing mutual and balanced force reductions to take place safely. It is a matter of great regret that this chamber spends so little time debating great issues for this country in relation to national security, defence and foreign policy. I hope that with the big change we have had in the Senate with the many new senators who have joined us since the last election there will be a change of interest and that honourable senators will spend some of our time which the seriousness of the subject demands in debating our ideas in this chamber. Given the Government's views, it is very unlikely that it will make time available. In fairness to the Government of the day, foreign affairs and defence require very little legislation support and therefore not a great deal of time is devoted to these subjects. The opportunities on which we can raise these matters are in general business and adjournment debates. I regret the time that was lost this afternoon, but I suppose if one is sanguine about it, once we start censuring this Government we are fortunate to be able to wind the matter up in as short a period as three hours. The motion before the Chair deals with the apparent agreement reached between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States on the removal of intermediate nuclear weapons. The motion indicates a reduction of 50 per cent in strategic weapons. That is important because this world has far too many nuclear weapons-certainly far more than are required for effective deterrence. The motion also draws attention to the importance of the doctrine of deterrence which has been followed by the Western democracies since the end of the Second World War and which has given us a period of unparalleled peace between the major powers. Having had a long-standing interest in disarmament and arms reduction matters, it is a matter of regret for me that on such an important occasion as this-and I believe it is an historic occasion which ranks with the agreements such as the Antarctic Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and SALT I and SALT II, to name a few. I have not heard one word of response from people outside who always tell us how many hundreds of thousands of people are marching on Palm Sunday, or from the other professional peace activists in the Australian community. I have not seen one Press release supporting the initiatives taken by the super-powers on this matter. That is a matter of some regret. The class of weapons that we are talking about are the short range nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can be classified in several ways, but here we are talking of a class of weapons with a range of between 600 and 3,000 miles. They are particularly relevant to the western European theatre of operations. Western Europe, the home of the Western democracies, has a large number of countries with a high population density. It borders the satellites of the Soviet Union. Western Europe is characterised by having a highly capable and very large industrial capacity which is coveted by the Soviet Union. With its inability to supply consumer and industrial goods to its own community, it would like very much to acquire those assets in western Europe. That is one of the reasons why there has been such a strong development of Warsaw Pact forces on the border with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Another contributing factor is the insecurity felt by the Soviets. That is understandable when one considers their history. They have a great fear of a united Germany or of a united Europe moving against the Soviet Union. Those two factors working together-the industrial capability and the hereditary fear on the part of the Soviets-have led the Soviets to build up a considerable conventional force structure and a nuclear force structure opposing the NATO countries. Because the Soviets have built up their conventional forces to such a degree, the NATO countries have relied on a nuclear component as an essential part of their defence. I shall return to that topic in a moment. The Soviets have not been outdone in the deployment of nuclear forces in the European theatre. In the 1960s they deployed about 500 SS4s, which have a range of about 1,200 miles and which fit into the category of short range nuclear weapons. Of those 500 they have now about 100 left. Later they deployed the SS5s. These weapons are essentially deployed reasonably close to the Iron Curtain borders. As a counter to that the West Germans in the 1960s deployed 72 Pershing I missiles. The unusual factor was that the nuclear warheads on those weapons are under the direct control of the United States. They are a much shorter range weapon than the Soviet SS4s and SS5s. Additional to these ballistic missiles both sides have a large arsenal of tactical and battle field nuclear weapons. The ante was raised in 1977 when the Soviets deployed the SS20. It is a very formidable weapon which has a capability way beyond the smaller and simpler ballistic missiles that were in place beforehand. The SS20, with a range of 1,200 miles, has three warheads which can be independently targeted. It has a reasonably high degree of accuracy. The Soviets have deployed 441 of those, according to intelligence reports. This gives them 1323 warheads-more than enough to cover all the important cities in western Europe. The western Europeans, who were concerned about this, changed their policy and asked the Americans to base nuclear weapons in western Europe. That led to the introduction of the Pershing II and the ground launch cruise missiles. The fear of the Europeans is that the Americans will not defend them in a nuclear war. The Europeans feel that if American missiles are based in western Europe in the event of outbreak of hostilities by the Warsaw Pact countries the Americans will be committed to fight. They feel that if the nuclear umbrella operates from mainland United States the Americans will not be prepared to retaliate against a Soviet attack and hazard mainland United States. That is the principle of decoupling which has played an important part in international relations in the European theatre. It is as a buttress against decoupling of the United States support from the western European countries that led the NATO countries in December 1979 to develop what became known as the two-track principle. This involved, first of all, the modernisation of their intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) by deployment of the Pershing II and the ground-launched cruise missiles and, secondly, a call on the United States and the USSR to reduce the numbers of INF weapons that they had in the theatre. Those talks about reduction have had a long history, and it is really the culmination of those talks, seven years later, that we are seeing today, and we hope that they go to a successful conclusion. As well as this, the United States has made unilateral moves to run down its numbers. In 1980, it withdrew 1,000 warheads from Europe, and in 1983 it withdrew another 1,400. The level of United States warheads in Western Europe by the end of 1983 was reduced by one-third of what it was in 1979. In October 1980 the United States and the USSR embarked on preliminary talks on the INF, and in November 1981 President Reagan proposed the zero-zero option, which now seven years later is the proposal that is on the board and looks as though it will reach fruition. The zero-zero proposal simply was that both sides remove all their intermediate range land-based nuclear weapons around the world. Those talks have had a rocky history. In November 1983 all disarmament talks were broken off when the Russians tried to prejudice the outcome of the presidential elections in the United States. It is not generally recognised that there is quite a large constituency in the United States of the disarmament movement, and no American president can afford to treat that cavalierly, and by breaking off negotiations and blaming President Reagan, the Soviets at that time sought to prejudice President Reagan's re-election campaign; so we had an interregnum for about 12 to 18 months when no serious talks took place. But they have since resumed and apparently they are going to be successful. Whilst we welcome the reductions, it does mean that the conventional force imbalance in Western Europe remains, and that poses obligations on Western Europe. It is not generally realised that the political leaders in Western Europe, although they do not rush into print to say this, really love the bomb. They love nuclear weapons because they enable them to provide a counter to the great imbalance of the Soviet forces, and to provide it more cheaply than they could do so if they had to provide for conventional forces. They will have to face up to that obligation and put more money into their conventional force structures to counter the lack of these INF weapons. I will be very interested to find out some of the verification details, because at the moment the details of what is involved in verification by both sides is not clear, and there have been different stories. The initial American proposal was that the Americans wanted not only on-site inspections of missile bases but also inspections of factories. In about August this year the Americans withdrew the requirement to inspect factories. But I did see earlier this week that the Soviets were asking for facilities to have surprise visits to any number of places in the United Kingdom; not confining them to the two sites at which the ground launched cruise missiles are based. It will be interesting to see what sort of final agreement comes out on the verification program. As honourable senators know, verification is the key to arms control. Agreements that are reached by sitting around a table and talking to delegates from other nations do not count for much unless one can physically go in and see what is being done. It has been the great reluctance of both sides, but particularly the reluctance of the Soviet Union, to allow representatives from the Western democracies to enter Soviet territory to inspect sites, that has been one of the great sticking points over the years in regard to verification. But hopefully, under the Gorbachev regime, we may well be getting to a stage where there is a bit of relaxation in this prohibition of on-site inspections by the Soviets. I guess that some of the hardest horse-trading that is being done in these negotiations turns on those points. But I am sure that everyone in the Senate will join me in congratulating the two super-powers on their achievements so far. The second part of the motion deals with the movement towards a 50 per cent reduction in strategic nuclear weapons. I put that figure in purely because, although it has no intrinsic merit per se, it happens to be the figure that is on the table for negotiation at present. The numbers of existing nuclear weapons are excessive, whatever way we look at them. But it is very important to get the point across-and the nuclear disarmers cannot understand, comprehend or ever come to grips with this-that the weapons are not the cause of the problem between the super-powers. The weapons are the symptoms of the problem, and until we reach a political rapprochement between the Soviets and the Western democracies, we will have weapons. Until we have some degree of mutual trust and understanding, so that we have some feeling of security between the two blocs, we will always have weapons. To attack blindly the number of weapons and to talk about achieving their total elimination and of total disarmament is to talk of something absolutely unattainable until we solve the psychological problems in the relations between the two countries. Having made that point, I come back to the point I made earlier: that there are too many nuclear weapons in the world, and probably too many conventional weapons, and we should move towards reducing those numbers. There is a case for an improvement as well as a reduction in the numbers of weapons that are held; there is a case for improving them so that safety and reliability is ensured. If we can guarantee that a weapons system will work, that an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), will always work, we might need only half a dozen or 10 of them, whereas if there is a failure rate, as we have with any sort of mechanical or electronic equipment, we might have to have four or five times that number to guarantee a deterrent capability so that we know that if we ever need to use them we will get the base number that we need to work. So there is a need for continuing research. I do not want to get into a long debate about disarmament procedures. It is not appropriate at the moment because I would like to leave enough time to allow some other speakers to make a contribution tonight. All this business about a reduction in numbers has got to be seen in the light of history. What is taking place today did not arise de novo. We have had disarmament talks in relation to nuclear weapons since the late 1940s, and of course, disarmament talks have gone on for probably the last 100 years in one way or another. The original nuclear disarmament talks and arms reduction talks in the 1940s and early 1950s were carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. They differed from the present series of talks insofar as they strove for total disarmament. Agreement was not possible, however desirable it may have been at the time, and both the Soviets and the United States moved into more restricted areas and tried to get limited agreements in specific fields. That pattern basically still applies today, and the arms negotiations that have taken place can be considered in three broad categories. We have the non-armament agreements, which seek to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to states that do not possess a nuclear capability; we have confidence building measures, which try to stop the outbreak of war through suspicion or false alarms between the two blocs; and there are arms limitations measures, which constrain the development, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons. Those three broad categories came in in about the late 1950s. Of the non-armament treaties, the significant ones, which everyone in this Senate would know, are the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, the Latin American Nuclear Free Zone Treaty of 1967, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and in my judgment the most important of all, and the one whose implications are least understood by members of this Parliament-and Australia is a signatory to it-is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968. In my judgment that is the most important milestone that has been reached in international negotiations. It is something about which we in this chamber ought to have a lot more debate because people simply do not understand what Australia's obligations are as a signatory to that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the great era of bilateral treaty activism was the period between 1969 and 1979 in which a whole lot of agreements were attained. There was the Seabed Treaty of 1971 in the non-armaments area. In the area of confidence building agreements a number of important measures were agreed. There were the Agreements to Reduce the Risk of Nuclear War between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which provided for safeguards against accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and provided for notification when things got out of control accidentally. The Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Nuclear War established a code of conduct for both participating governments to sign to reduce the risk of war and committed both governments to consult in the event of developments that might lead to nuclear confrontation. In the area of arms limitation agreements, this was the period of SALT I and the Treaty between the United States of America and the USSR on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests. SALT I consisted of two agreements. The first was an anti-ballistic missile treaty, which is still in place with the modification that instead of two sites being allowed to each party the number has been reduced to one. The other part of SALT I was a limitation on strategic offensive arms. It basically sought to limit the number of submarines, platforms and missile systems. To go ahead of the argument a little, it failed because it defined systems rather than numbers of warheads. About ten years later, in June 1979, SALT II came along which sough to correct the lack of control on numbers of warheads that was inherent in the SALT I agreement. That was the situation basically until the Reagan Administration came into power. It took a rather radical view initially to arms negotiations. It was not too co-operative in any way at all with the Soviets. Fortunately, it has matured and taken a much broader and more accommodating view of the problems of world disarmament. It did not take very long to turn around on this matter. The proposal we are presently looking at-to reduce strategic nuclear weapons by 50 per cent-really grew out of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) negotiations. The START negotiations were an initiative begun between the Soviets and the United States in June 1982. The American objective in these negotiations was to make deep cuts in the strategic arsenals of both sides. The two previous agreements-the SALT I and SALT II agreements-were agreements to limit the numbers. The importance of the START negotiations is that they will lead to deep cuts or reductions in the absolute numbers of weapons. The principles that guide these reductions are supported by the Senate. Whatever the views of the Australian Labor Party were, I am pleased to see that it now supports and has reinforced the views that those of us on this side of the House have in relation to arms reductions. Those views are, firstly that the reductions have to be mutual; there cannot be a reduction on only one side, because unilateral reduction leads to instability and thereby increases the threat. Secondly, the reductions have to be balanced. The nature of the United States or Western deterrent capacity is different from that of the Soviets. It is not a matter of saying that we will get rid of X number of landbased ICBMs on each side; it is a matter of reducing the capability on both sides in parallel so that stability is retained. Of course, the third thing is verification. Just as verification is a problem in the INF negotiations, so too is it a problem in relation to the larger field of strategic weapons. But there are signs that there is a growing accommodation between both blocs to allow more effective verification to take place. As intercontinental ballistic missiles move into higher technology areas they become smaller and more transportable. Weapons systems such as the SS25 with its mobile basing, which is now being deployed by the Soviets-in the view of the Americans in violation of SALT I and SALT II-poses great problems from a verification point of view because, whereas hardened silos can be under surveillance from satellite technology, if an intercontinental missile can be transported on a low loader or a train the problems of observation become that much more acute. The second part of the motion expresses the hope that significant reductions will take place in the short term and in no way puts an embargo on further reductions taking place once the first round has been completed. The final part of the motion deals with deterrence. Deterrence is the principle that has been followed by the Western democracies to maintain a balance so that neither side gets blackmailed by the other. It has kept the peace for 43 years, the longest period for well over a hundred years in Western Europe. The policy of deterrence is not easy. It is difficult, it is dangerous and it is expensive. But I make no excuse about that; those are the facts of life. But it must also be said that there is no better and no other way by which peace can be maintained at present. I do not happen to believe that this system will be in place in a hundred years time. I think we will have other technology that is safer and more secure. But for today the policy of deterrence is the only policy we can have. That puts certain obligations upon us. It means that we have to run certain risks and we have to meet certain expenses. The simple emotional cries that come out from the peace movement are not only ill-informed but also positively dangerous for the peace and security of the country. Opposing the mining of uranium, the nuclear freeze, the opposition to the testing of nuclear weapons and the theory of total disarmament are all policies which operate against the success of the policy of deterrence and thereby compromise the peace and security of the present. The present campaign against the joint defence facilities in Australia and the business of trying to make Australia part of a nuclear free zone also operate against our security. I do not have time to deal with those things seriatim, but I hope we will have other opportunities in the Senate to come back to them. This afternoon I heard a little of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) speaking in support of the joint defence facilities here. What I heard of him quite impressed me. Certainly, as honourable senators would know, the Government's support of the joint defence facilities has the full support of honourable senators on this side of the chamber because these facilities contribute to the maintenance of peace in the Western democracies. The security of the Western democracies is indivisible. Unfortunately one cannot do what Mr Lange thinks one can do-put up an invisible barrier around a country and so be free of any involvement in a nuclear war. The name of the game is to prevent a nuclear war and we do that through the policy of deterrence. The joint defence facilities that we have here are no threat to Australia. The argument that they would be attacked by the Soviets in an outbreak of war fails to recognise that war would have broken out before they attacked. If a nuclear war breaks out there is no sanctuary for Australia and no sanctuary for New Zealand. We are all involved in it. So the name of the game is to stop the breakdown of peace, to maintain peace. And our part as a member nation of the Western democracies is absolutely indivisible from the responsibilities we have to maintain peace. There is a lot more that ought to be said on the disarmament issue because I think the numbers of conventional weapons are excessive and the range and lethality of conventional weapons today is staggering. They are no comparison to what existed in the Second World War. We have positive evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Afghanistan and certainly in the Iraq-Iran conflict. This is also very frightening. The whole matter of armaments needs far more attention than this Parliament has paid to it in recent times. I support this motion and I look forward to hearing the contributions of other honourable senators. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.21) —Mr Deputy President, I agree totally with the statements made previously by Senator MacGibbon and Senator Vallentine that here we have a very important issue. I believe there are five honourable senators on the speakers list who wish to speak to this issue. It is most regrettable that time is limited because this is a most important matter. I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name: Leave out paragraph (b), insert the following paragraphs: ``(b) notes that this historic agreement is a result of the desire of the world's people for disarmament, which has been given expression by the peace movements of East and West; (c) acknowledges that the agreement does not address the growing threat of nuclear war in the North West Pacific, through the deployment of intermediate range nuclear armed sea-launched cruise missiles by the United States and the Soviet Union; (d) endorses the recommendation of the 1986 Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report, `Disarmament and Arms Control in the Nuclear Age', that the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles be arrested; and (e) calls on the Australian Government to take steps to bring about a freeze on cruise missile deployments, such as working for the establishment of a Pacific Conference on Disarmament and an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace Conference''. The Senate will see that the first part of the motion moved by Senator MacGibbon, paragraph (a), has the full support of the Australian Democrats. The United States of America and the Soviet Union are to be congratulated on an historic agreement which is expected to be signed later this year. Once it is signed the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, the INF treaty as it is becoming known, will be the first ever arms control treaty to require the destruction of certain types of nuclear weapons. The major arms control treaties of the 1970s arising from the strategic arms limitation talks actually allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to build up their nuclear arsenals. The INF treaty also sets an important precedent in the area of verification. Each side can inspect the other's military facilities to check that the treaty is being complied with. The Soviet Union has never before agreed to on-site inspections, a reluctance which the United States has regarded as a major obstacle to arms control. As time is short, I turn to deal with my amendment. It seeks to omit paragraph (b) of Senator MacGibbon's amendment and to replace it with the four paragraphs of my amendment. In the event that my amendment fails I shall move that the two paragraphs of the original motion be voted on separately. This is because the Australian Democrats can support the first paragraph but cannot support the second because we believe very firmly that it is not the deterrent aspect that has led to this agreement but rather the peace movements throughout Europe and the United States, and indeed in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, which has drawn the leaders towards this agreement. To conclude, the Australian Democrats again congratulate the United States and the Soviet Union on this unprecedented agreement. We congratulate the peace movement of the world for compelling them to achieve it. I urge everyone in peace movements in the community and in the Parliament not to become complacent about the prospects of peace. We must increase our efforts to ensure that the INF treaty is not too little too late. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short explanation. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I thank the Senate and particularly Senator Jenkins for her indulgence. I want to speak on a matter which relates to an answer I gave at Question Time. Since we are about to rise for a week, I thought it proper that I should make the explanation now. In answer to a question from Senator Hill about the role of the liaison officer from the Queensland Police Force in relation to the National Crimes Authority, I indicated my hopes for better collaboration in the appointment of a future liaison officer and said that discussions would be undertaken at the Police Ministers Council meeting in Hobart in late November. I continued: I have already written to Mr Pearsall, the Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers Council, requesting him to get such a process under way. I regret to say that I was rather confused. I had written to Mr Pearsall as Chairman of the Australian Police Ministers Council but in relation to the need to appoint a new chairman for the Board of Management of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, given the standing down of Sir Terence Lewis. The question of the liaison officer between State police forces and the National Crime Authority will be dealt with on the evening before at a meeting of the inter-governmental committee established by this Parliament to supervise the National Crime Authority. I got the two matters confused. I wished to clarify the record. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Reynolds)-by leave-agreed to: That, pursuant to Standing Order 36aa, in respect of the following Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees: The Standing Committee on Community Affairs The Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training The Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology The Standing Committee on Infrastructure The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs- (a) each Committee consist of 8 Senators, 4 being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 4 being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators; (b) the quorum of a Committee be 4; and (c) a Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of four or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider. The quorum of a sub-committee shall be two Senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines), Senator Harradine and Senator Wood nominating senators to be the members of Senate committees as follows: STANDING COMMITTEES Appropriations and Staffing The President, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senators Aulich, Coates, Collins, Crichton-Browne, Harradine and Macklin House The President, Senators Michael Baume, Bjelke- Petersen, Cook, Devlin, Knowles and Morris. Library The President, Senators Aulich, Devlin, Gietzelt, Harradine, Hill and Walters Privileges Senators Black, Childs, Coates, Cooney, Durack, Powell and Teague LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY STANDING COMMITTEES Regulations and Ordinances Senators Bishop, Collins, Gietzelt, Giles, Stone and Teague Scrutiny of Bills Senators Beahan, Brownhill, Cooney, Crowley, Powell and Patterson LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES Community Affairs Senators Crowley, Devereux, Gietzelt, Knowles, Jenkins, Sheil, Walters and Zakharov Employment, Education and Training Senators Aulich, Peter Baume, Beahan, Devereux, Devlin, McLean, Patterson and Teague Finance and Public Administration Senators Alston, Black, Burns, Calvert, Coates and Durack Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Senators Burns, Cook, Hamer, Maguire, Newman, Schacht, Teague and Wood Industry, Science and Technology Senators Archer, Peter Baume, Brownhill, Burns, Childs, Cook, Coulter and McKiernan Infrastructure Senators Boswell, Chapman, Collins, Devereux, Foreman, Parer, Powell and Schacht Legal and Constitutional Affairs Senators Alston, Bolkus, Cooney, Giles, Hill, Powell, Schacht and Stone SELECT COMMITTEE Animal Welfare Senators Brownhill, Calvert, Cooney, Devlin, Morris and Sanders Motion (by Senator Reynolds)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That a Committee of Privileges, A Library Committee and a House Committee be appointed to consist of Senators in accordance with the nominations. (2) That the Senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate relating to the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, be appointed members of that Committee. (3) That the Senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with provisions of the Standing Orders, be appointed members of the Senate Standing Committees on Regulations and Ordinances and Scrutiny of Bills. (4) That the Senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with provisions of Standing Order 36aa, be appointed members of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees. (5) That the Senators indicated, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution appointing the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, be appointed members of that Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —As promised, I table the set of documents which relate to the tender application by Amann Aviation Pty Ltd for the Coastwatch contract and the consideration of that tender up to the time of the awarding of the contract on 13 March 1987, together with the subsequent documents which were referred to in Mr Beale's report of 11 September 1987 which I have already tabled. The documents have been examined in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Deletions have been made to protect matters of genuine commercial confidentiality relevant to Amann Aviation and other companies. The only document exempted from release in its entirety is a Cabinet submission on the general question of coastal surveillance which made recommendations on funding arrangements but made no recommendations in regard to the preferred tenderer for the Coastwatch contract. Additional documents subsequent to the making of the contract with Amann Aviation will be provided, as required, to the Senate committee examining the tender process and the award of the Coastwatch contract. The table of contents which accompanies the documents has been marked to indicate those documents in which deletions have been made. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 6.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.32) —I want to raise a matter which has been brought to my attention by a constituent relating to the treatment of her daughter with a drug by the name of genotropin. This girl has been diagnosed as having Turner's syndrome, the effect of which is that one does not grow. The full adult height is likely to be about four feet eight inches which perhaps in itself is not so much of a problem, or can be coped with, but in addition there are other side effects in that sexually there is no development at either primary or secondary stage. At present the situation is that this child has been accepted as a candidate for the genotropin clinical trials but her candidacy is subject to her being less than 14 years old and she must in fact commence the treatment within 12 months. Delays not only will cause a setback to any improvement which might be obtained but also there could be quite serious consequences for her growth and development. The reason her mother has brought the matter to me is the delay in getting an answer from the Department of Community Services and Health as to whether this drug will be allowed into Australia for the purpose of treatment. It is a fairly new drug which supersedes a drug which has been used for this purpose. There have been somewhat unnecessary delays in finding out whether the tests by the Department are going to be concluded and when an answer will be known. The application was made earlier this year for the use of the drug in Australia and we accept that evaluation is necessary. But the mother of this girl, whose name I do not wish to mention because I do not believe it is necessary for this purpose, is feeling that time is slipping away in that she has not been able to get an answer from the Department as to when a decision will be made. The need for high standards in testing is not in dispute but there is some reason to feel that the Department may not be expediting the matter. Maybe it lacks the resources. We do not know what the problem is. Certainly, the mother of this young girl believes that as a result of the situation her daughter's future is being jeopardised in a very significant way. For whatever reason, the mother's concern is quite genuine and I ask the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) to intervene and find out what the Department is doing about it and when a decision will become available. The letter to the Minister was written on 18 September and I will write to him and identify the name and the address so that there can be no confusion about his knowing exactly what it is we are talking about. I shall not go into great detail about the genetic defect, the drug or the problem. I merely ask the Minister to please intervene in this matter and do what he can for this family to see that a very crucial decision is made quite soon. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I do so with the greatest sensitivity, given that you, Mr President, are occupying the chair at this moment. I want to wish the Raiders well in the match against Manly on Sunday. As I said, you may feel that you are not in a position to reply. The Raiders have done spectacularly well, particularly this year, since they came into existence. All of us in Canberra admire the way that Don Furner has developed this team, and more recently with Wayne Bennett. It is something we have all watched with great interest and pride. To save embarrassing you, Mr President, I shall not say anything more other than to wish Dean Lance and his team well when they go to Sydney and meet your team of Manly. Perhaps it would be best to conclude by saying `May the best team win'. The Raiders are assured of a very warm welcome home whether they win or lose because we will certainly know that they have done their best. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(6.36) —I raise the question in the Senate of the Government's decision in the Budget to commence a system of tendering for FM radio licences. I am disappointed that the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans, is not able to be here for this debate in order to give his answers to my questions. I am not seeking to raise the issue of the principle of either tendering or auctioning FM or any other kind, of radio licences. I am raising the question of the Budget decision as it affects those applicants for FM radio licences, of which there are four, who have already submitted applications to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and which are partly heard as all the hearings have not yet been completed. This has been the subject of a great deal of concern by those applicants. At the moment four main groups are concerned. Those applications are concerned with licences in the Gold Coast area, the Gosford area, the Shepparton area and the Geelong area. There appears to be considerable confusion amongst applicants-and certainly amongst those who are observing the scheme at present-as to what exactly is the role of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the present processes. It seemed that at about the beginning of September the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal was commencing to undertake hearings and to initiate the processes to hear applicant's submissions. Consequently, that seems to have stopped as a result of the Budget announcement last Tuesday week which raised the question of whether there had been any request from the Minister or his department to the Tribunal to halt proceedings because clearly there could have been some message in the wind-something on the grapevine-about the possibility of a change of system, that is, a switch to either tendering or auctioning. Of course, that has been denied. I acknowledge that the Broadcasting Tribunal has stated that the Government has not interfered in any way with its processes. I accept that at face value. However, I have not yet heard from the Minister at all on that particular point. Nevertheless, that is not the main point that I wish to raise tonight. The main point at issue is to try to discover just what the rules are as they presently apply during this interregnum where there is no Budget legislation brought down by the Government in respect of FM radio licence auctions or tenders and during the period in which the Broadcasting Tribunal will be proceeding to initiate hearings of applicants' submissions. Mr President, as you would understand, the rules up until the time of the Budget were quite clear and the processes had already been established by the Tribunal. Then came the Budget announcement and apparently everything has changed. The question is what rules will apply after that date of announcement, as it seems as though legislation will be necessary to change the rules by which the Tribunal would operate in the circumstances envisaged in the Budget announcement. That being so, applicants do not know what to do next, that is, whether to proceed with hearings before the Broadcasting Tribunal or not, because they simply do not know what the processes will be. I understand that the Tribunal is preparing to operate under the old rules but we need the Minister's assurance that that is the Government's intention since it is unclear whether those rules are the ones that will be finally tested against the applicant's submissions at the time of the allocation of the licence. This matter is of particular concern to applicants for the new FM licence on the Gold Coast. The reason for concern is that what is known as the final direction by the Australian Broadcasting tribunal as to the determination of the submission dates, the hearings and the setting out of the processes by the tribunal has been made and expires on 16 October 1987. That means that the rules, as they have been set down by the Tribunal to date, as I understand it, are applicable to those hearings which will expire by 16 October. The problem is that, as I mentioned earlier, we have been put on notice of the changes to the law as a result of the Budget decision. Consequently, there is no clear statement from the Government as to whether the changes will be made retrospectively after the hearings have already occurred. We can see a bit of a problem developing because the Parliament will not be sitting for at least another week and it seems virtually impossible for it to pass the necessary legislation to change the Tribunal's rules before 16 October this year. So we have a bit of a dog's breakfast and I am not clear what the Government intends. My simple request is that Senator Evans determine straight away the situation for applicants who are in the circumstances I have outlined and make a statement so that all applicants know exactly where they stand regarding the Government's future intentions on legislation. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.44) —Tonight I rise to speak about the most northern part of Australia and the most northern Australians-the Torres Strait Islanders who live in the Torres Strait on 17 inhabited islands, including the head island, the administrative centre, Thursday Island. These people have occupied the Strait for some 600 or 700 years, so the experts tell us. They are basically a race of Polynesians and Melanesians, yet they are fiercely Australian and very loyal subjects of Australia. Many of them fought in the Australian forces in the Second World War. These people occupy some of the most valuable real estate in Australia-the islands of the Torres Strait. I was fortunate enough to be invited to the islanders' fiftieth island community council celebrations. Many came and they had their own form of sports day, dancing, singing, and the traditional island feast. The Governor-General, Sir Ninian Stephen, and Lady Stephen were present and everyone had a wonderful time and enjoyed the celebrations. I was disappointed to see a report in one of the newspapers of that celebration commemorating the fiftieth anniversary which depicted the Islanders as I do not believe they really are. The report stated that the Islanders have health problems-I suppose they do-notably, diet-induced diabetes, hypertension and a number of other problems. I have been to the islands a great number of times and I have found these people to be as healthy as any other normal Australian. Yet the newspaper report stated: Hoarding is a popular source of profit: buying luxury items such as cigarettes in bulk when the boat arrives, and reselling them at a killing price when the shop supplies run low. I think this is untrue of the Islanders. Tonight I stand up to support my fellow Queenslanders, my fellow Australians, and say that this is not the case. Another section of the report written about the islands and the community celebrations on Yorke Island-its native name is Massig Island-said that the Islanders were permissive. I deny that too. I have been with the Islanders a number of times and they are very Christian people. They believe in their faith and are regular churchgoers. The whole tone of the article was deceiving and not completely within the bounds of what should have been reported. George Mye is chairman of Darnley Island-in my opinion he is a patriot and Getano Lui is the assistant chairman. They have a 100 per cent interest in their islands and they want to maximise their local economies. They want to develop industries such as tourism and the trochus industry, which is a new one. When I was last there I saw bags of trochus being forwarded overseas. Badu Island has a dynamic crayfish industry which is owned and promoted by the islanders. It was not set up by, and did not have any help from, the white administrative service. It was established by the Islanders on their own initiative and it is bringing in something like $3m to the islands' economy and employing a great number of the Badu people. Yorke Island has a fishing-freezing works which employs a number of people. These islands are developing. Recently they received their own deed of grant which gives them virtual autonomy of their islands. They can do with their property everything that any other Australian can do with his property except pass it to someone outside the island community. The Islanders can develop their own land, run their own vegetable farms and, at the will of their councils, pass land for development to anyone who comes forward with a project. It concerns me somewhat that I am reported in the article as saying that George Mye is too smart to turn his back on the money that comes into the islands from the mainland. Senator Reynolds —Did you say it? Senator BOSWELL —I did. I said it in the form of a compliment. I believe that George Mye is one of the smartest of men. He knows as well as I that if the islands are to be developed, he needs the help of Australia and of the white administration. Hopefully, that help will be only temporary as the islanders develop their own industries and commerce. Already we are seeing this happen. I do not know whether Senator Reynolds has been fortunate enough to visit the Torres Strait Islands. I know that she has an interest in the islanders and the Aboriginals of north Queensland. I am sure that she would agree with me that the islands are a most delightful place-almost a paradise. I suppose that as the tourist industries develop, which is happening now at Coconut Island, a little of the magic will be lost. But that is progress. There is not much we can do about it. The Federal Government could be of more help to the islands, to Badu in particular, which has one telephone to go around 400 citizens. There is only one telephone on every island. These people are compulsive telephoners. It is very hard when one is up there to get on a telephone. The islanders require the provision of more services by the Federal Government of Australia. There is no television up there, although there is a good island radio service. Facilities on these islands are very primitive. This Government could do much more to provide these people with better facilities-for instance, water. Water supplies on the islands are absolutely atrocious. The islands have no sewerage system. The Federal Government could provide some assistance in developing the infrastructure that is required on the islands, such as telephones, television and water supplies, rather than giving hand-outs. Senator Reynolds will no doubt get up and bucket the Queensland Government, saying that these things are its responsibility. But I point out to Senator Reynolds that she must be honest and fair in her reply. The solar power plant which is being built on Coconut Island at a cost of $650,000 will supply electricity to only about 100-odd people on the island. The people of these islands are decent Christian people. The fact that such an article has been written about them has disappointed them. It has taken the shine off one of the highlights of their calendar-the 50-year commemoration service of when they formed themselves into island community councils. I know from telephone calls that I have had that they were terribly disappointed. They had what they thought was a wonderful weekend. The Governor-General was present, and there was a lovely church service and competition dancing between the islands. That was the window they wanted to present to Australia, but it was not depicted that way by the article. The islanders are disappointed that what they achieved in their weekend of interisland community fellowship was misrepresented. Some prominent white guests were invited. I do not include myself in the term `prominent', but the Governor-General and his lady were there. To read in the article that the islanders were exploiting each other and were promiscuous-the article even states that an islander has died from acquired immune deficiency syndrome-is not the general impression of the islands that I have received and I am sure that it is not the impression Senator Reynolds has had when she has visited the islands. I say to the islanders: Do not be too despondent. As politicians we always have to put up with Press articles. We have to live with it. What is today's news wraps tomorrow's fish and chips. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.55) —I am hopping mad about an announcement in the Budget that concerns not many of my constituents in Tasmania but a number of Senator Reynolds's and Senator Boswell's constituents. I refer to members of the defence community, a large number of whom are in Queensland and a number of other States. Veterans are also particularly upset by the Budget decision to change the defence service home loans scheme. Mr President, as you would know, for some months now I have been asking the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, what was to happen to the defence service home loans scheme. It had gone out to private tender twice. No response was ever given to the Senate as to what was happening to the tenders from the private sector. The Government announced in the Budget that the existing subsidy for the $25,000 low interest loans would be changed to a $10,000, once only, tax-free hand-out for home acquisition. That in itself sounds innocuous enough, but when one does actuarial studies one finds that veterans and servicemen are being shortchanged by between $2,000 and $5,000 on the value of the loan as it is now. Mr President, you have been in this place long enough to know that the defence service home loans scheme was regarded by everybody as being far too low in the current climate. It had not been increased for many years. The amount of $25,000 was part of the review which was being undertaken by the Government. It was hoped, at least on this side of the Parliament, that that amount would be considerably increased, and that the eligibility for the loan would be widened. We currently have two groups of servicemen-one lot is eligible for the defence service loan, whereas those who enlisted since May 1985 are not. Yet we have them serving side by side. We also hoped that the Government would find a mechanism, perhaps through the private sector, to make sure that the loans did not have the enormously long waiting list which they currently have. But we find that the Government has thrown the baby out with the bath water. Fortunately, as Senator Reynolds no doubt already knows, there is tremendous concern in the defence and veteran communities that the Government has done a U-turn to some extent and announced that the old and the new systems will apply until 1 January next year. The Press release from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly), issued on 23 September, said that it would be `business as usual' and that the Defence Service Homes Corporation would continue to accept applications. Perhaps the Government does not know that on 17 September one serviceman with 19 1/2 years service, a Vietnam veteran, was turned away and told that the system was about to be changed and that he could not get a loan. So `business as usual' does not sound too good to me. I am very concerned about what the Government is really doing. The decision was an ad hoc last minute decision. It may be one of those small programs that Senator Walsh got his way with. I do not know whether he wants to take the credit for it. I certainly would not. The Government has said that discussions will take place with the Returned Services League and other interested bodies, but at this stage certainly the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has not had any discussions, either before the announcement or since. Honourable senators will recall that the announcement was made on Tuesday of last week. Servicemen have not been consulted. Service organisations have not been consulted. Service families have not been consulted. This very Government set up a body called the National Consultative Group of Service Spouses to talk to Government about the concerns of service families and their conditions of service and it has not been consulted. I understand that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mrs Kelly, is going to Townsville next week. I understand that representations have also been made to the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, urging that the Minister's itinerary be widened because currently I understand that she is going to visit only the Royal Australian Air Force base, that she is not visiting the Army and that she is not proposing to see the families. I feel it is critical, if she is to do her job properly, that she widens her itinerary and sees those other people who are so desperately concerned about what seems to them at least to be one more attempt by the Government to cut into their conditions of service. One wonders why Minister Kelly was appointed if she is to preside over a diminution of the conditions of service of our service families. There is uproar amongst service families. I understand that in Queensland about 300 men are currently considering taking their $10,000 and going. Is that what the Government wants? I thought that the Government should have been already concerned about the dramatic wastage. We have lost a third of our defence forces in the last three years. Does the Government want to pay serviceman to get out? Is this some sort of a scheme to get rid of them so that the Government can meet its defence budget, which has received a cut of one per cent? I do not know whether Minister Kelly realises it, but in the defence community she is fast developing a reputation of being totally insensitive to the very service personnel for whom she has been appointed to be responsible. I do not know whether she will achieve anything as a Minister in that portfolio but for the sake of the service community I hope she does very well. However, she has a desperately poor start. Every time she has opened her mouth she seems to have said something insensitive, inaccurate or ignorant. If she does not do her homework and then talk to these families and find out what the real situation is, she will never be any good in that job. As I said earlier, the scheme should be reviewed and the amount of the loan should be increased. The waiting time should be reduced and the eligibility should be widened to include those who enlisted after May 1985. I believe that the scheme should also be widened for the sake of the taxpayer. Serviceman should be allowed to take more than one loan so that if they are re-posted they will be able to sell their houses and be eligible to get another loan at the new posting, thus saving the taxpayer from the expense of having to provide great capital sums for married quarters. I have said on numerous occasions in this place that people often enjoy the opportunity of providing for themselves. Former Minister Senator Gietzelt was endeav- ouring to have this scheme taken over by the private sector. I have spoken to people in the private sector. I believe that the scheme could be very well and much better organised than it is being currently. Benefits could flow to the veterans and to the service families if that were done. We as an Opposition support that move. But we do not support the current attempt to short change our service men and women and our veterans. The Government had to take immediate action to consult them and then to improve the scheme. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(8.03) —This evening we have heard from Senator Reid, who raised her concerns about the availability of the drug genotropin. Senator Reid is obviously concerned about the availability of this drug for one of her constituents and I will certainly undertake to refer her concerns to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). There seems to have been a short delay in regard to the testing procedures that are very necessary. Drugs should not be available on the market in Australia until full testing procedures have been undertaken. However, I can appreciate the concerns of both Senator Reid and the family of the young girl involved. Mr President, Senator Reid, then raised a very important matter. I think, from the look I am receiving, from you, that I had better not make too many remarks about the big match on Sunday. All I can do is endorse Senator Reid's comments and say may the best team win-and, in saying that, I will not look too closely at the President. The PRESIDENT —I might make a statement myself, Senator Reynolds. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Messner was rather unkind to my good colleague Senator Evans when he talked about the auctioning of FM radio licences and described the policy as something of a dog's breakfast. Obviously, he does not have very much respect for dogs, nor for their diets. However, Senator Messner was seeking some clarification which I am sure is available but which I have not been able to get this evening. I will undertake to get some clarification for Senator Messner. I know, having spoken to a number of people on the Gold Coast, just how importantly they regard the FM radio licence auction. There will, of course, be fairly fierce competition on the Gold Coast. I am sure that we can get some detailed information from Senator Evans's office. I sympathise with the concerns raised by Senator Boswell. It is a tragedy that on an occasion such as the fiftieth anniversary in the Torres Strait that was attended by the Governor-General and other dignitaries-and even Senator Boswell-a newspaper should try to denigrate the islanders and focus negatively on aspects of their society, if indeed the report be true. Senator Boswell indicated that he does not believe that it is and this is one of those rare occasions on which I would be inclined to agree with him. It is certainly very concerning when the media, a newspaper in this instance, is more preoccupied with a little sensationalism in order to sell a newspaper than taking a serious look at an historic occasion. The reporter concerned should have talked to the community leaders and tried to write an article that genuinely reflected the tremendous work that is going on in the islands and the tremendous contribution that is being made by community leaders in building up their communities and moving into tourism. I could not agree with Senator Boswell when he spoke about the lack of commitment by this Government. I know that the honourable member for Leichhardt, John Gayler, has been a tireless worker for the Torres Strait Islanders. He has made ongoing representations and the Government has given exceptionally good commitment to the area. I suppose that whenever one is looking at improving facilities one can always put forward a case for more expenditure. I sympathise with some of the concerns that the islanders have in certain areas. Nevertheless, I do not think it is fair to suggest that the Government has not given a high priority to the Torres Strait. John Gayler has been very much to the fore in his representations. The former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding, has been up to the Torres Strait on a number of occasions. I know Gerry Hand, as the new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has just as much commitment to the Torres Strait and the people living there. So I could not agree with Senator Boswell on the second point he made. However, I certainly recommend that he write to the newspaper concerned and suggest that there are many distressed and disappointed constituents in the Torres Strait. Perhaps the newspaper in question-and Senator Boswell has asked that I not mention it by name-will care to send a journalist to the Torres Strait more frequently so that the lifestyle in the islands can be reported in a more genuine and positive manner. Senator Newman made a contribution that really does not accord with my brief on the defence service homes scheme and the variation to the Budget announcement. I take this opportunity to run through what I have been advised by the Department of Defence Science and Personnel. The Government announced in the Budget a proposal to replace the defence service homes loan with a $10,000 non-taxable grant. This proposal was subject to consultation with the Returned Services League (RSL) and other interested parties. These consultations are proceeding. The honourable senator's comments about the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) are completely out of context with my brief, because she will be visiting Townsville-next week, I believe-and I am sure that she will start her consultation process. I understand the honourable senator to be indicating that the Minister is not visiting the Army. I accept that that will cause some disappointment, but it is to be her first visit. I admit, as a Minister trying to cover local government throughout Australia, that it is very difficult to meet everybody at once. The Minister is going to Townsville and she will be talking with some service families. Senator Newman —It has the biggest concentration in Australia. She should make a list of them and combine the lot. Senator REYNOLDS —Sure. I will certainly check with her about when she will visit again to talk with other service wives. Coming back to the defence service homes loans scheme variation, the situation is as follows: the Defence Service Homes Corporation receives about 500 loan applications a month and the rejection rate is minimal. Since 15 September the Corporation has continued to receive applications for assistance in the form of either a loan or a grant. The Government does not intend to disadvantage members of the veterans' or service communities and believes that the consultation with the RSL and other interested parties will help it to restructure the scheme in a most efficient manner. The Corporation will continue to accept and process applications until 31 December, when the Government expects to have finalised its plans to reform the scheme. I think Senator Newman can rest assured that the Government and the Ministers responsible have the matter that she raised very much in hand. I think her comments about Mrs Kelly were totally uncalled for so early in the Minister's tenure of her portfolio, particularly when she has already travelled extensively. Senator Newman —And said silly things everywhere. Senator REYNOLDS —No, I certainly would not agree with that. She has been travelling extensively to consult and to find her way around her portfolio. She has been to Western Australia and she is travelling to Queensland next week. I think that that indicates she is totally committed to making sure that she understands her portfolio. The consultation process takes time. One cannot consult everybody within the first few weeks of accepting a portfolio. I know that from my experience with the local government portfolio. I know that Mrs Kelly is fully committed to her portfolio and fully committed to service families, and I know that they will benefit from having her as Minister. Question resolved in the affirmative. THE PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, 6 October, at 2 p.m. Senate adjourned at 7.14 p.m. The following paper was tabled: Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of a Ministerial Determination authorised under section 106aa, dated 15 September 1987.