Thursday, 5 November 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind honourable senators that I have ascertained that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply to his opening Speech at Government House today at 12 noon. For this purpose it is proposed that the sitting of the Senate be suspended at approximately 11.30 a.m. The Senate will then resume at 2 p.m. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distinctively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had an opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign, independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag incorrectly proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs, one of which will be the present Australian national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Harradine (from 120 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 491 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, 12 sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Lakes (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 49 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 2. That the Children's Services (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. 3. That the Export Control (Animals) Orders, as contained in Export Control Orders No. 15 of 1987, made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations and made under the Export Control Act 1982, be disallowed. 4. That the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration, as contained in Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration No. PB2 of 1987 and made under section 85 of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. 5. That the Australian Meat and Live-stock Order No. M33/87, made on 25 June 1987 under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, be disallowed. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Today is the last day on which I can give these five protective notices of motion. I do so merely to protect the position of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances while it awaits responses to letters of inquiry which have already been sent to Ministers. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a brief schedule listing the instruments and indicating the nature of the Committee's concerns. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- 1. Lakes (Amendment) Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 49 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Some penalties including fines and imprisonment have been increased quite significantly without the Explanatory Statement offering any justification (for example, from $100 to $1,000 or 6 months imprisonment for merely being a passenger in an unlicensed powerboat on an A.C.T. lake-section 27 (1) (a)). The Committee's review principles enable it to scrutinize delegated legislation to ensure that penalties and penalty increases are a reasonable reflection of the seriousness of the offence and are not so unreasonably severe that no reasonable Minister would impose them. To make this judgment the Committee requires explanatory details which should perhaps have appeared in the explanatory statement. 2. Children's Services (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2) 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 53 of 1987 and made out under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. This Ordinance implements certain very significant undertakings given to the Committee by the former Minister for Territories, the Hon. Gordon Scholes, M.P., to amend the A.C.T. Children's Services Ordinance 1986 (see Senate Weekly Hansard, 14 November 1986, page 2207). The Minister is to be commended for his action regarding this very important Ordinance. However, two matters require further examination. One matter concerns the need for officials, with power to enter private property, to carry proper photographic identity cards. Its omission from the amendment may be merely an oversight. The second matter concerns the power of officials to detain a child prior to bringing him or her before a magistrate. Initially the Ordinance provided for such an appearance ``as soon as practicable and in any case within 48 hours.'' The committee originally considered that some shorter period would be more appropriate than this potentially long maximum period for a child to be in custody without judicial oversight. The Minister responded to this concern by undertaking to delete the reference to 48 hours. This has been done by the present amendment. Unfortunately, the consequence of this was not what the Committee intended i.e. removal of any time-limit on detention. It is highly unlikely that in the A.C.T. it would ever be impracticable to bring a child before a magistrate within 24 hours and the Committee has suggested that this be the express statutory maximum detention period rather than 48 hours. 3. Export Control (Animals) Orders as contained in Export Control Orders No. 15 of 1987, made under the Export Control (Orders) Regulations and made under the Export Control Act 1982. The Committee has sought the Minister's legal advice on whether Order 6 contains an invalid subdelegation of legislative powers. 4. Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration, as contained in Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration No. PB2 of 1987 and made under section 85 of the National Health Act 1953. On 6 May 1987, the Committee wrote to the then Minister for Health seeking advice on the existence of avenues of appeal against the adverse exercise of certain official discretions to permit drugs to be ``pharmaceutical benefits'' available at reduced cost. Unfortunately the Committee continues to await a reply to that letter. The latest Declaration contains similar discretions of general concern to the Committee. 5. Australian Meat and Live-stock Order No. M33/87 made on 25 June 1987 under the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977. The Committee has sought the Corporation's legal advice on the legality of a provision which incorporates into the Order by means only of a reference, another instrument as amended ``from time to time''. This incorporation may be invalid under section 49a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend various Acts in relation to crime, the trial of certain offences, the confiscation of proceeds of crime and the transfer of prisoners, 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)(10.03) —I table the explanatory memorandum and 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- This Bill amends various Acts concerned with crime, law enforcement and criminal justice. Earlier this year in the 2nd term of the Hawke Labor Government the weaponry against criminals who seek to undermine the honest endeavours of the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens of this country was greatly strengthened. The Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 is now law and the Government is confident that it will contribute greatly in our fight against crime. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 has also been enacted and it will ensure that the criminal will not find sanctuary by merely removing evidence or the proceeds of his or her criminal activities offshore. This legislative armoury will be enhanced by the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987, which is shortly to be re-introduced into this Parliament, and by modern extradition legislation. The Bill now before the Senate is not as grand in scope as those pieces of legislation. It is nevertheless important in maintaining this Government's momentum and commitment to monitoring and reforming the laws relating to crime and criminal justice in Australia. To mention but one more instance of this Government's decisive actions in this area I note for the Senator's attention the major review of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth presently under way. This review is being chaired by the former Chief Justice of the High Court, The Rt Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs and is due to report at the end of June 1988. I now proceed to outline the important elements of this Bill. Amendments of the Christmas Island Act 1958 Mr President, the amendments to the Christmas Island Act contained in Part 2 of the Bill are part of the legislative package developed by my colleagues the Minister for the Department of Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, and the Attorney-General. It addresses deficiencies in Christmas Island law highlighted by recent events in the Territory. The Island became an Australian Territory in 1958. Before then it had been a part of the Colony of Singapore and then, briefly, a separate colony. On the Island's separation from Singapore, trial by jury was abolished in the Island's courts, as it was believed that, in a community of fewer then 2,000 adults, there was not a sufficient assurance of obtaining eligible, impartial jurors. The absence of a majority language and the estimate that only about 330 of the 2,000 adult Islanders speak English well enough to be able to understand a trial in English and deliberate in the jury room in English present additional problems. When a Supreme court for the Territory was established in 1958, the Australian Government of the day retained trial by judge alone. There has only been one criminal trial on indictment on the Island since 1958. Mr President, this Government does not believe that the people of Christmas Island should continue to be denied the right to trial by jury. The fact that in a particular case difficulties may arise in empanelling an impartial English speaking jury does not provide a justification for denying to the Islanders the right to trial by jury conferred on other Australians. Accordingly, a juries ordinance has been made for the Territory which establishes a system of trial by jury selected from eligible Island residents which will apply to future trials on indictment conducted on the Island. The Bill now before the Senate enshrines the right to trial by jury for indictable Territory offences. This right will no longer be able to be removed by ordinance, as was done in 1958, but only by Act of this Parliament. Furthermore, Mr President in recognition of the potential difficulty in empanelling a jury on the Island to try a particular case, the Bill now before the Senate will enable the Supreme Court of Christmas Island, where the interests of justice so require, to sit in a State or Territory for the purpose of conducting a trial there with jurors drawn from the jury list prepared for that place. This is similar to the scheme applicable to a trial by jury in the High Court and the Federal Court in a State or Territory. The jury is summoned by Federal officials using State or Territory jury lists, and the cost is borne by the Commonwealth Government. Amendments of the Crimes Act 1914 Mr President, the Bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 in four main areas. Firstly, various interpretative provisions concerned with criminal law are relocated into the Act from the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The intention here is to improve accessibility to the law and reinforce the Crimes Act as the most important Commonwealth criminal law. Some of the relocated provisions are amended to clarify and simplify them. Worthy of particular mention are proposed sections 4G to 4J. These deal with the classification of indictable and summary offences and provide for a step-down mechanism to apply, in the absence of contrary intention, to all Commonwealth offences punishable by not more than 10 years imprisonment. This will enable many more indictable offences to be dealt with summarily. The penalties available where the step down mechanism operates are reduced. The procedure can be adopted only with the defendant's consent unless the charge relates to property the value of which does not exceed $500. Where the defendant's consent is not required, the Court decides the issue of whether it is appropriate to use the `step-down' mechanism. Presently such step-down mechanisms exist but they are res-stricted to offences against the Crimes Act. These measures, Mr President, provide some relief to defendants charged with less serious breaches of offence provisions carrying high pe-nalties and may have implications for reducing court delays whilst recognising the importance of jury trial in our society. Secondly, the Crimes Act is amended by terminating the application of the provisions crea-ting inchoate offences in their application to offences against laws of the Australian Capital Territory and the external territories. This removes an impediment to the Government's program for the distribution of syringes by pharmacists and others to check the spread of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Pre-sently, no territory law can give the pharmacists protection from criminal liability which, because of the constitutional paramountcy of Commonwealth law, now arises under the Crimes Act. Where necessary, replacement inchoate offences will be inserted into territory laws. Thirdly, section 10 of the Crimes Act is amended to: (i) clarify that search warrants issued pursuant to it can apply to vehicles and aircraft; (ii) place beyond doubt that, when executing a warrant, police may break open internal doors and receptacles where this is reasonable and necessary; and (iii) enable a search warrant to be issued 72 hours before the sought after items are likely to be at the particular premises to be searched. Mr President, this last amendment does not alter the onus on the police when applying for a warrant, but merely alters the time at which a warrant may be sought. It will aid law enforcement by, for example, enabling police, who have received information that drugs will be delivered to certain premises, to obtain a search warrant in advance. This warrant can then be executed at the operationally most advantageous time. Fourthly, the enactment of the amendments contained in clauses 16 and 17 will provide a comprehensive Commonwealth legislative scheme dealing with escape and related offences for which appropriate penalties are prescribed. The offences will cover a person who is arrested, a person in lawful custody or a person detained during the pleasure of the Governor-General for an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or a territory. The proposed provisions increase the ambit of the existing offences of escape and aiding or permitting another person to escape, as well as creating new offences of forcibly rescuing a person in custody, being at large unlawfully and knowingly harbouring or employing an escapee. Because Territory offenders will be covered by the new provisions of the Crimes Act 1914, consequential amendments have been made to the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923, and the Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968. Amendments of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 The underlying purpose of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 is to prevent persons from Australia becoming involved in hostile activity in overseas countries. The purpose of the amendments is to remedy a number of deficiencies in the Act. One such deficiency is that mercenary acts as such are not proscribed unless they involve acts done for specific purposes, those purposes generally relating to acts directed against the government of a foreign country. The scope of the Act is further limited in that the definition of government is limited to those governments recognised by Australia. The term `government' has been redefined to refer to governments which are in effective control of a country. The definition of foreign country is being omitted and a new definition of foreign State is being substituted to overcome possible limits as to the application of the Act to incursions into particular geographical areas outside Australia. In addition, two new offences have been created-prohibiting persons from Australia from engaging in armed hostilities outside Australia and prohibiting the use of a vessel or aircraft in preparations for an incursion into an overseas country. Subsection 6 (4) of the Act has the effect of excluding from the former prohibition persons serving in the armed forces of a government, or an armed force in respect of which a declaration by the Minister is in force. Other amendments are designed to meet a number of difficulties in relation to prosecutions under the Act involving the preparation for or incursion into an overseas country. Those amendments provide for the use of ministerial certificates in respect of a number of matters in a prosecution and amend section 7 of the Act, which prohibits preparations for incursions into an overseas country, to ensure that proof of an offence against that section does not depend on proof of an offence against section 6, which prohibits such incursions by a person from Australia. The Minister will be allowed greater flexibility when permitting persons to recruit in Australia for service in an overseas armed force, being able to impose conditions on that permission. The penalties for a breach of the prohibition on recruiting are also increased. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, the amendments make it clear that the provision of humanitarian aid by persons from Australia is not an offence. Amendments of the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 The Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976 has proved unsuitable in bringing prosecutions in two recent cases-the bomb attack on the building housing the Turkish Consulate General in Melbourne in 1986 and a threat made against the Pope in Adelaide in 1986. The Government takes the view that acts of political terrorism should be prosecuted under Commonwealth legislation and that the Commonwealth should have legislation which will enable it to discharge its international responsibility for diplomatic and consular protection. The amendments of the Act contained in Part 5 of the Bill are designed to provide a more comprehensive set of offences to cover acts which may be committed against an Internationally Protected Person or property connected with an Internationally Protected Person and to provide appropriate penalties for those offences. The intention relevant to those offences has been defined and in future the question of whether a person is an Internationally Protected Person for the purposes of a prosecution will be determined objectively. Amendments of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 Mr President, as I mentioned before, the Government introduced legislation on Proceeds of Crime in the Autumn Sittings which was welcomed by all Senators as a much need initiative against major crime. At that time all Senators recognized the novel nature of that legislation and the need to monitor its operation in order to ensure its continuing effectiveness. Since the enactment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, law enforcement agencies have idetified a number of aspects which require clarification or minor modification. Part 6 of the Bill contains amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act which address these concerns. The Bill ensures that criminals cannot avoid the operation of statutory forfeiture by distancing themselves from the legal or equitable ownership of proceeds of crime, while retaining effective control over such property. It also limits the potential for property of a convicted person, which is in fact derived from unlawful activity, being excluded from statutory forfeiture on the technical argument that the property was not derived from the particular offence for which the criminal has been convicted. The amendments will enable the Official Trustee to deal more effectively with tainted property placed under its custody and control, and a new section 102a is to be inserted to provide a statutory indemnification of the Official Trustee by the Commonwealth, along the lines of the indemnity provided in the Bankruptcy Act 1966. The Bill also removes limitations on the granting of interim restraining orders. Practical experience has shown that, in relation to any property, including real estate and especially money held on call in a bank account, any notice to the defendant that dealing with such property is to be restrained extends an invitation to the defendant to deal with the property or to withdraw the funds. It should be borne in mind that such orders may only be made for a maximum period of 14 days. Mr President, I have briefly dealt with only the more noteworthy of the amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act. Other amendments are either to correct typescript errors, or to make minor amendments for the purpose of clarifying particular provisions. Amendments to the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983 The Parliamentary Counsels' Committee recommended to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on 2 May 1985, minor amendments to the Transfer of Prisoners Act 1983. Clauses 49, 50 and 52 give effect to the Committee's recommendation. All the States and the Northern Territory have uniform interstate transfer legislation and the amendments will achieve greater uniformity with State legislation. The proposed amendments will also enable Northern Territory prisoners transferred to South Australia under the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 before the transfer of prisoners scheme came into operation to be covered as Commonwealth prisoners. At present there is no mechanism for their transfer interstate either for trial or welfare purposes under either the Commonwealth Transfer of Prisoners Act or the State scheme. Financial Impact Statement It is not anticipated that the proposals in the Bill as a whole will occasion any increased costs to the Commonwealth. It is not possible to provide quantitative estimates of savings. However, it is anticipated that these will eventuate as a result of the proposed amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, which are designed to ensure the effective operation of that Act, and by the proposed amendments to the Crimes Act 1914, which enable certain indictable offences to be dealt with summarily, thus producing cost and time savings in Commonwealth prosecutions. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator TATE —Mr President, I seek leave to read two paragraphs of concluding remarks. Leave granted. Senator TATE —These remarks are in reference to amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to be moved during debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I wish to mention an amendment that the Government will be moving during the committee stage of the debate on the Bill. This will be to insert a new part amending the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. Honourable senators will recall that when amendments to this Act were before the Senate earlier this year that Bill contained a clause-clause 64-whose purpose was to preserve the existing law on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in relation to prosecutions which had been commenced before the amending legislation came into operation. Under existing law courts have a discretion whether to admit such evidence. Notwithstanding that the Opposition agreed with the principle of allowing existing law to apply to such prosecutions, it saw fit to oppose the clause. The Government did not then, and does not now, accept the Opposition's view that the clause as drafted would have operated retrospectively or would have taken away the court's discretion whether to admit illegally obtained evidence. The Government therefore intends to introduce the provision in the same form as before. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee A on proposed expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales) —I present the report from Estimates Committee B on proposed expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Crowley, I present the report from Estimates Committee C on proposed expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee D on proposed expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Aulich, I present the report from Estimates Committee E on proposed expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BLACK(Queensland) —I present the report from Estimates Committee F on proposed expenditure for the year ending on 30 June 1988, together with the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 4 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Short had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the imposition of a fee of $5 on Australian citizens returning to their own country by international air travel is an obnoxious attack on the fundamental right of Australians to enter their own country''. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(10.09) —I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 which, at first glance, appears small, inconsequential and perhaps a matter of no great debate. It sets out to do four things; firstly, it sets out to impose a fee of $240 which must be paid prior to the reconsideration of a matter being entertained; secondly, it sets out to define closely the meaning of a request for reconsideration; thirdly it imposes a $5 so-called fee to be paid by all persons entering or re-entering Australia-including citizens entering Australia after January 1988; and, fourthly, it introduces an on the spot fine for persons carrying or being responsible for the carrying of illegal passengers. Some of those provisions are important, such as closely defining the meaning of the word `request' which had been subject to some lack of definition and the subject of a Federal Court of Australia ruling in the case of Ilyas v. the Minister for Immigration. However, it is the question of the imposition of the fee of $240 which I would like particularly to address and to draw the attention of all honourable senators to. In the first place, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said in his second reading speech that the sum of $240 is to be a fee, but he then went on to say that it is important that the regulations take effect retrospectively from 16 September, in order to protect the revenue. My understanding is that fees are a cost recovery measure and not a Budget or revenue raising measure. But the point which is particularly worrying is that dealing with retrospectivity. Under the Acts Interpretation Act, retrospective regulations which would prejudicially affect the rights of an individual are void and of no effect. But because the Act itself makes these regulations retrospective, the Senate does not have the power to table and disallow those regulations. It is a novel way of drafting, which has no precedent. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has pointed that out, in its report tabled yesterday. Upon researching, it found no precedent at all for this form of drafting. What it does, in effect, is to avoid or evade the provisions of section 48 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act, which is put there very deliberately to protect the rights of individuals. In the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, of which I am pleased to be Deputy Chairman, there is concern from time to time when we look at regulations as to whether or not any retrospective effect prejudicially affects the rights of individuals, and whether or not a proposed amendment to that Act may have highlighted a problem that already exists. Should this become a normal manner of drafting, should this become the ordinary way in which regulations with a retrospective effect are to be introduced, then the Committee and the Senate itself will be powerless to do anything about the prejudice of the rights of individuals by the regulation-making power. Regarding the sum of $240, I would like to point out to the Senate that the Minister said in his second reading speech that the $240 has been struck so that that sum is in line with the fee for all appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, that fee was until recently $200 and I am wondering whether this is an indication or notice that the fee for lodgment of an appeal to that Tribunal is to be raised even further. As a matter of fact, and this is also extraordinarily worrying, the fee of $240 is already being charged for lodgment of applications for reconsideration of decisions concerning migration matters. Clearly, this is illegal. There is no justification for it and yet it is being done as a matter of fact. The presumption is that this Bill will be passed by the Parliament, and that the $240 fee will be required retrospectively. The double whammy is that the novel drafting has not only allowed the retrospective effect to go unchallenged, but also resulted in a Government department pre-empting the will of the Parliament and putting into operation something which is not yet law. The fact that this matter was raised in the Budget and is being justified as a Budget matter, and that this Senate has allowed retrospective revenue provisions to go through, extends what we are seeing as a practice of this Government, which is legislation by Press release. If the Press release says something will happen, it is automatic that, somewhere down the line, legislation implementing that Press release will be put in place, and therefore one must act in accordance with what the Press release says. This, in effect, is an extension of executive government by Press release, which avoids the importance of the Parliament. Senator Watson —You wouldn't want to rely on it. Senator BISHOP —Senator Watson points out quite accurately that sometimes the Press release and the subsequent legislation do not mirror each other. Suppose that we take the second reading speech at face value. We see that this is a revenue matter with the imposition of a retrospective tax. Indeed, one could say that this was the seventeenth new tax introduced by the Hawke-Keating Government since it came to office. I would now like to deal with another serious point in relation to the definition section, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. As I said, there has been some uncertainty about what constitutes a request. The Act clearly defines that a request will now be an application in a prescribed form accompanied by the fee of $240. More worrying still is the fact that the Minister has given an indication that representation from senators and members will not be considered in any of these matters unless that representation is accompanied by a form in the prescribed manner and the $240 fee. That is a clear impingement on the rights of senators and members to represent citizens and to represent people who are non-citizens but are still within Australia's jurisdiction and our legal system, in relation to making representations for them and on their behalf. To say the least, that impingement is highly unacceptable to senators and members. The result which could flow from that is that the Minister perhaps would see that senators and members would act as advocates for and on behalf of people seeking reconsideration, which is clearly not the function of a senator or a member. The right of the Parliament to enact legislation, which legislation is only then to be followed and put into force, has been negated in this case. The actions of the Parliament have been pre-empted and an assumption made that the legislation will simply follow the form of the Press release. Secondly, I see a danger in the interpretation of that strict definition system acting against the ability of members and senators to properly represent people in the electorate at large. I now turn to the $5 fee. In his second reading speech, the Minister seems to want to have it both ways. The $5 fee which is being introduced for the re-entry or entry of any person, including citizens, into Australia, is a cost recovery measure and therefore is able to be dealt with by way of regulation with no maximum limit set. Again, this is clearly an infringement on proper practice. Yet the $240 fee, which I mentioned before, has been treated as a revenue raising measure and, therefore, the retrospective action is supposed to be be sanctioned by this place. The $5 fee has other problems associated with it. First, who is going to collect the fee? If it is to be collected by the carrier, which carrier, if more than one is involved in a particular journey? This fee is obnoxious in its attack on the fundamental right of Australians to re-enter their own country without having to pay a fee to exercise that right. The fourth part of the Bill deals with the widening of the definition of `operator'. It increases the penalty from $2,000 to a maximum of $3,000 where a carrier or operator who has brought an illegal person or person without sufficient documentation into Australia may be subject to an on the spot fine. I can see that an on the spot fine could be of benefit and use, but I would like to know that the rights of the person to challenge that on the spot fine are protected, and I seek that assurance. There is another matter which is not covered by the Bill but which is relevant in highlighting the Government's attitude. I refer to the report of the so-called privatisation of the entry of business migrants into this country. Privatisation is a misdescription because it is an abrogation of government's responsibility to determine who is a suitable person to come into this country. It is not a business enterprise which can be better handled in the private sector than in the public sector, which is always an endeavour I am pleased to see; it is the responsibility of the elected government to decide who will be a suitable migrant to this country and who will not. With the proposed scheme the opportunities for corruption are mind-bending. Who, for instance, would be eligible for such appointments? Already discussions have gone on at various levels in this Parliament as to whether acts or regulations should specify the type of person who should be appointed to a board or office. It is generally felt that some latitude should be left to a Minister to exercise that discretion. But in the light of some of the appointments that have been made, I cannot help but be rather more specific. Who would be suitable? Would David Combe be suitable, because the Australian Labor Party has a very good record of looking after its mates? Would Mr Al Grassby, the only member of parliament ever to have a volume control on his suits, be considered suitable, particularly when one takes into account the fact that Mrs Grassby has recently had an appointment, as Senator Puplick pointed out the other day. But dare I suggest that the man with the best Korean connection of all may be considered suitable? Would Mr Morgan Ryan be considered suitable? The reason I have deliberately been more specific in this area is simply to point out that this whole proposition is a minefield and is riddled with the ability for corruption and abuse. To sum up what I have to say about the Bill itself, it is the avoidance or the evasion of section 48 (2) of the Acts Interpretation Act which I think is the most serious matter to be addressed in this Bill. As I said, it is a novel piece of drafting, it has no precedent, and should it become the ordinary and accepted way of drafting of Bills, the protection that is afforded the rights of individuals under section 48 (2) will be negated. I find the imposition of the fee of $240, flagging an increase in all appeal fees to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, quite unacceptable. I find the extension of legislation by the Executive by Press release quite unacceptable. I find that close definition of the term `request' so that it may impinge on the rights of members and senators also unacceptable. And I strenuously oppose placing a tax on Australians to re-enter their own country. I also seek reassurance that the right to appeal against an on the spot fine as set out in the Bill would be protected. As I said at the beginning, this is a very small Bill. At first glance it appears to be innocuous. It does some worthwhile things. I have drawn the Senate's attention to the dramatic changes in the way legislation is dealt with because I believe it is a serious matter. It is a practice that should not be allowed to continue. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.25) —A mechanism is about to be put in place by the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 to impose charges on people entering Australia. What will this mechanism lead to? Will it lead to charges so high that the flow of immigration could be halted? Will it lead to selective immigration? Another part of the Bill imposes a $240 charge. The Government stated in the Budget and elsewhere that no new taxes would be introduced. Can we trust the Government not to impede immigration? The second reading speech states: Clause 7 of the Bill establishes a mechanism whereby a new immigration clearance fee for service can be collected. How can anyone say that this is not a tax? If he does, how can he call the departure tax a fee? I would like to know the difference. I have travelled quite a lot in the last few years, although not quite as much as some senators and members. When I travelled I paid my own way. In no place I visited was I charged a landing fee, let alone a fee to leave the place. This tax affects everyone coming into Australia. It adds another unpaid collector to the list. The first unpaid collector came into being with the pay as you earn tax. Then there was the prescribed payments tax and the sales tax. At least if one does not pay the departure tax at the airport one can now pay it at a post office. I presume that the Commonwealth pays post offices a collection fee. In the other cases I have mentioned the tax is collected for nothing and if the carriers do not do the right thing in collecting the tax, by God they cop it. Even though Senator McKiernan might not agree with me, I consider this Bill to be an attack on immigration. Let me digress a little and refer to the value of immigration to Australia. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, I have a little knowledge of immigration, mainly immigration since World War II. Since World War II we have seen the development of Australia greatly assisted by immigration. After World War II we had 1 1/2 million migrants from the United Kingdom. We then had the European immigrants, who paid their own way. There was a certain amount of discrimination. Both groups were not treated the same. The southern European immigrants, who paid their own way, entered into a two-year contract-which I think was the case also with the #10 immigrants from the United Kingdom-whereby they would work at certain jobs in certain places, mostly in the outback. They worked in agriculture, the timber industry, on the railway gangs, on road building and in gold mining. The use of migration was probably the only way that those industries could really fill their work quotas and, as I said, get moving again after the war. In the 1950s we saw the beginning of the building boom. These migrants, having completed their two-year apprenticeships or whatever, filtered into the building boom. There were skilled stonemasons, terrazzo workers, painters and craftsmen. Until those years probably no one in Australia had heard of terrazzo work. Terrazzo was instilled into the Australian building system by the Italian migrants. There were others. There were the Dutch with their concrete and the Germans with architectural ideas of their own. They all brought their ideas into the building projects of that era. We can still see the results of those ideas and we will do so for many years to come. In the 1960s we had the great iron ore mining boom. It was the migrants who made the construction camps before the others who actually worked the mines arrived in those places. As those migrant workers get older and move out of the work force we see the departure of certain migrants from certain countries who did specialised jobs. I must mention the steel riggers from Latvia. I can remember that in the 1950s and 1960s almost all the riggers in the country, the bush, were Latvians. As they have moved out they have been very hard to replace. As they have been replaced the building construction costs have certainly got a lot higher. I have already mentioned that concreting work was done by the Dutch. They mainly did the walls, the big slabs and such. The finer work was done by the Italians. I am not skiting; I am just pointing out the facts. Probably the latest boom of migration was in the 1970s after the Vietnam war. We had migrants from Vietnam and allied countries. They began by working in restaurants. Now they own the restaurants and work them very successfully. They worked in vegetable growing. They moved into working the vegetable plantations, such as those that I know in Carnarvon in the west and Wanneroo near Perth. Now they own those market gardens. They started off mainly on the piece work system. By their diligence-their willingness to work-and their skill they have succeeded. I would now like to cite some figures indicating the effects of migration after the Second World War, mainly from 1945 to 1973. From the United Kingdom and Ireland we had 1 1/2 million people; from Germany we had 276,000; from Greece 215,000; from Italy 410,000; from the Netherlands 156,000; and from Yugoslavia 100,000. This is just a sample of the countries that have supplied migrants to us. In 1947 fewer than 3 per cent of Australians were of non-Anglo-Saxon origin, but by 1975, 25 per cent of the population came from other than Anglo-Saxon origins. Whether those people came from the United Kingdom on a #10 migration deal or from one of the other places, we certainly owe them a vote of thanks. Whether we believe it or not, Australia is still a land of opportunities. I have told the Senate what the latest group of migrants-those who have come to Australia since the Vietnam war-has been able to achieve. Although our Treasurer (Mr Keating)-perhaps it was the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh)-has told us that we are heading down the Argentinean road, I believe that it is not too late to reverse that decline. As I said a little earlier, I know from the travelling that I have done how much of a lucky country Australia still is. We consider that we have an unemployment problem. Let me give the Senate an example of the unemployment situation overseas. When I was in Italy last year I talked to a young lady of about 20 years of age who had just graduated as a school teacher. I said, `Congratulations on having graduated. When do you start work?'. She told me that there was absolutely no chance of her getting work for four years. She also said that to have a chance at the end of four years of getting a job as a school teacher she would have to attend teachers training college four hours a week. These colleges are set up pretty well in that if students happen to get a temporary job during the week they can attend classes on a Saturday. I said to her, `What are you doing in the meantime?'. She said, `Well, I have gone through every restaurant looking for a washing-up job because I cannot get anything else'. This was in a town of 30,000 people. She told me that she was unsuccessful. There is no dole or unemployment benefit paid there. Australia provides an unemployment benefit and we have a choice of working in different jobs. The opportunities for work are still available. Maybe people cannot get jobs exactly where they want to work but if they are happy to travel around our vast country they will find jobs more easily. I will now move to the 1980s and tell the Senate what success can mean. I want to speak about the children of the migrants who have come to this country from Vietnam. As an example, I refer to what has happened in the senior high school at Swanbourne in Western Australia. Swanbourne is noted for its army base and army land and also for its beautiful beaches. At one time the senior high school at Swanbourne did not have, to put it plainly, a very high academic standard or a high standard of behaviour. There were a lot of problems at that school. Swanbourne also has a migrant centre which now accommodates Vietnamese children but which accommodated other migrants previously. Vietnamese children are now attending the senior high school. The standard of the school has risen to such an extent that students are now picking up more than half of the general exhibitions and units exhibitions in the tertiary entrance examinations in Western Australia. Senator Jenkins —Quite right. Senator PANIZZA —Although I disagreed with what Senator Jenkins said yesterday, she agrees with what I have just said. Those results show what hard work can do. I think a lot of Australians could return to the principle of hard work. Vietnamese students have not only achieved a high standard at the Swanbourne senior high school, but are also among the top students in the entrance quotas of the medicine and engineering faculties of the University of Western Australia and the colleges of advanced education. They have shown what can be achieved in Australia if we are willing to do some hard work. We certainly have to look after and encourage migration. The rise in the birth rate, or the natural increase in population, seems to have ceased. In fact, the birth rate may be declining. We have to encourage a growth in population in the future with a balanced policy of migration. I have been off the point for quite a long time, but I thought that we should recognise how migration has helped Australia over the years. Returning to the Bill, I want to refer mainly to the $5 fee that is to be imposed on residents returning to Australia and on migrants coming to Australia. I am totally agin the idea. Firstly, if the Government insists on introducing this fee for the privilege of coming into this country-and how I value my citizenship of this country!-the fee of $5 is an insult. It is an insult to impose such a fee, and if we have to have it, it is an insult for it to be as low as $5. Honourable senators can take that whichever way they want. Senator Schacht —Should it be $100? Senator PANIZZA —Senator Schacht, I am not advocating that it should be $100. But I consider that it is an insult both ways. It is the Government's Bill, and the Government can work it out. I will leave honourable senators with a final thought. They probably know the rules and privileges of life membership of a club. I am a life member of one society in Western Australia, and there are probably senators in this chamber who are life members of others. One of the principal privileges of being a life member of a society is that we can go to that society at any time, whether invited or not, at no charge. I consider this Bill to be a great insult to myself and to others holding Australian citizenship. If they have left this country and are asked to pay $5 to re-enter it, that is totally against the principles of life membership. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(10.43) —The Senate is discussing the Migration Amendment Bill 1987. It was not my intention, until a short while ago, to speak to this legislation, but it just came to me that today is a very important day, not only in my life and my family's life but also in the life of Australia, because today is the eighteenth anniversary of my and my family's arrival in this country as migrants. The fifth of November is a very important day particularly in European parts of the world. It is celebrated in Britain particularly as Guy Fawkes Day. Guy Fawkes is reputed to have been the only person ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions-but I assure the Senate that that does not apply to me. Senator Reid —Your intentions are dishonest? Senator McKIERNAN —Well, I wonder. I am going to see the Governor-General this afternoon, and being what I am and where I am from, things can be tempting from time to time. But enough of that. Let us get on with the Migration Amendment Bill 1987. Senator Reid —What have you got to say about the Scrutiny of Bills report? Senator McKIERNAN —I am not going to say a great deal about the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report, Senator Reid. I will leave that to the people who are more informed about it than I am. Senator Reynolds —Be careful. Senator McKIERNAN —I am always careful, Senator Reynolds. That report will be addressed by the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) in her reply. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Senator McKiernan, please proceed with the Bill. Senator McKIERNAN —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. That was an important question from Senator Reid, however, and it was worth while answering the interjection, because the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has raised some very important matters that need to be addressed in this Bill. Migration is a subject that is of extreme importance to this country. It is a nation founded on migration. The honourable senator from Western Australia, Senator Panizza, went through some figures relating to the number of people who have come from other parts of the world to settle in this great land. I was not quick enough to copy down each and every one of the figures Senator Panizza mentioned. Undoubtedly, all of us in this chamber and people outside in the community are aware of how multicultural this society is and how many different nationalities and races of people have come here and are making outstanding contributions in many respects to the welfare of this nation and its people. Indeed, Senator Panizza in his maiden speech in this place a short while ago mentioned that he too was of European extraction-I believe it was Italian. The Italians are a people who have made an outstanding contribution to this country, particularly in Western Australia, the State which both Senator Panizza and I represent. The Migration Amendment Bill is controversial in a number of areas, not the least of which is the proposed $5 re-entry fee. It might be noteworthy to mention the number of movements of people into this country each year. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) in the other place alluded to this in some detail in his reply to the debate on the Bill. Last year 2.9 million visitors came to Australia. One can imagine the enormous task of processing those people through our airports into this country. Even though we are talking about a controversial matter, I think that now is the time to congratulate those people who work at our international points of entry. Like Senator Pa-nizza-unlike some other honourable senators, I am not going to continue the attack on Senator Crichton-Browne or Senator Hill-I am not a great international traveller, but I did have the good fortune to visit Britain and Ireland earlier this year. Although I can make a comparison only between the re-entry points at Perth and London I can say that our clearances in Australia were speedier and more courteous than we experienced in London. Senator Knowles —Did you come in by charter? Senator McKIERNAN —No, we did not. We came in on a scheduled Qantas Airways Ltd flight. Our processing was very rapid, considering the number of people on the plane. However, when we arrived in London we were in a queue for an hour and a half just to get processed through immigration. I think that if we could adopt a charge to help people get through Customs a little easier, those 2.9 million people coming to our shores would be more than happy to pay $5 or even $10. I do not think that we would want to charge as much as Senator Panizza suggested. I think that those visitors would pay that fee quite willingly if it would expedite the re-entry processes. The $5 fee is a controversial issue. However, it costs this Government and, in turn, the people of Australia quite a deal of money to employ the people to do the processing for us at the re-entry points. I instance the period of the Ame-rica's Cup in Western Australia in the latter part of last year and earlier this year when there was a glut of visitors. The airport services and the people who staff those services were stretched to the extreme facilitating the entry of visitors and making those visitors to our great nation feel at home right from the very beginning. I think it is important that international tourists and visitors are not messed around too much when they come in. The Government has had consultations with the airline industry with regard to the collection of the $5 fee. People will not actually have to have $5 in their hot little hands when they arrive at the airport. The airline companies will collect that fee with the issuing of the ticket which will be easier than the visitors having to have $5 in their hands at the time of entry. Senator Reynolds —You might not have any Australian dollars left. Senator McKIERNAN —Yes, if people spend like my wife and I do, they may not have any money left when they get back. Certainly my wife and I did have some difficulties when we arrived back in Australia. We did not have any foreign currency to give to the kids to show them what the money is like in other places. It is an advantage that the airline companies will collect the fee for us. Another area of controversy, mentioned by a previous speaker, has been the increase in the cost of appealing against a migration rejection. It is interesting to note the number of appeals that go before the immigration review panels. Such appeals have not just increased at a steady rate; the number of people who are making application to come here and who, for one reason or another, have had their applications rejected, has actually exploded out of all proportion. Previously, the number of appeals was about 6,000. However, over the past 18 months those 6,000 appeals have escalated to 26,000. Of course, that has created a huge backlog. I suppose than an increase in the charge for making appeals may disadvantage some people. However, I am sure that those people who are dedicated and who have a will to come to this country will find the additional few dollars they need for the appeal. There is a long list of people on the appeals list. However, the Government has taken steps to ensure that that list will be shortened and that people will not have an unduly long waiting time in order to get their appeal heard. We have increased the number of people on the review panels from 32 to 157. In turn that should-and, indeed, it is doing so at the moment-expedite the hearing of those appeals. The Bill also serves as a revenue raiser in a number of other areas. We have increased from $2,000 to $3,000 the penalty for breach of section 11c of the Migration Act dealing with airlines or shipping companies bringing people into this country without documentation. Hopefully, that will inhibit those companies in allowing people to come in without the necessary documentation and ensure that checks and rechecks of the people purchasing tickets will be made with a greater degree of diligence. We do not have a tremendous number of problems in this are, however. The Bill also amends a number of other areas. It requires that people requesting visas and entry permits make their requests in writing, in a form approved by the Minister. Of course, that request has to be accompanied by the prescribed fee. Senator Panizza would agree with that change. It is logical that that should be in such a shape and form. Senator Panizza —No, I wasn't grinning about that. I was thinking of something else. Senator McKIERNAN —I am sorry, I could not hear Senator Panizza because I was talking. Further, the Bill establishes an infringement notice scheme as an alternative to prosecution for bringing passengers to Australia without documentation. That is in addition to what I said earlier about the increase in penalty. I have talked about the clearance charge in some detail. That charge will continue to be controversial. It is something that needs to be talked through within the community. Certainly, the Government has to get its act together in telling people what this is about. A matter raised by Senator Bishop, who spoke earlier, was the retrospectivity of the Bill's application. Retrospectivity has been before us regarding a number of matters, particularly taxation. It is something that we logically have to introduce. If one makes changes in the area of migration one has to make decisions and they have to come into effect, in most instances, when those decisions are announced, otherwise people will be skirting around the corners on them. I have mentioned the main points of the Bill. The Minister and his Department will be busy. It is reputed that for every 10 people who want to come to Australia only one person is accepted. So quality migrants are coming here, working and contributing to our nation, a nation that was built on migration from all over the world, as Senator Panizza has said. We will continue to accept migrants but, unfortunately, we cannot take everybody who wants to come here. If we took the well over one million applicants who apply each year the resources of our nation would be stretched to their limit in terms of the infrastructure we have to supply to them. We have to provide housing, transportation, roads, schools and so on. At the moment we could not take the number of people who are applying to come here. I think it is probably enough for me to say on this very exciting day in my life-we have been in this country only 18 years to the day-that we have enjoyed our time here and we will continue to enjoy the next 18 years. I am pleased that in my present position of serving the people of Australia in the national Parliament I can in some way repay the nation and its people for what they have done for me. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(10.57) —I thank all honourable senators for their contribution in debating the Migration Amendment Bill 1987. There have been some very positive contributions during the debate and, although it is clear that a number of concerns have been raised by members of the Opposition both yesterday and this morning, generally speaking it was the intention of the Opposition to accept the Bill-Senator Chaney and Senator Short said this in their opening remarks-as it is a Budget measure. There have probably been three major points of criticism and disagreement. I will refer to each of those matters. Some aspects that will be raised will be debated further at the committee stage of the Bill. The major criticism that a number of honourable senators have raised is to call the fee a tax. There has been a great deal of confusion on the part of Opposition senators because in one breath they criticised and said that it is not really a fee, it is a tax, but in the next breath they referred to the fee as a fee, which, of course, it is. I emphasise the difference between a tax and a fee. A tax is to raise money for the purpose of government and it does not necessarily relate to the provision of any specific service, whereas a fee is imposed in respect of a service provided to the person on whom the fee is imposed. It is imposed as a means of full or partial cost recovery. Senator Short —Does that mean that there is a difference between a departure tax and an arrival tax? What is the difference? Senator REYNOLDS —I will come to the departure tax later but, of course, it was a tax-raising measure by the previous Government. If the amount recovered does not bear a reasonable relation to the actual costs involved of providing the service, the fee would be a tax. What service is provided by a departure tax? It is quite obvious. Costs in relation to the provision of the immigration clearance function exceed expected income from the fee. It is important to note that Senator Short talked a great deal about broken promises. This measure is not a tax. I would have thought that the Opposition was keen on the user pays principle and that is what this measure is. Those who cannot afford overseas holidays do not pay for those who can. Tourists who come to Australia could easily afford a $5 fee. If they could not afford $5 to come into Australia I am not quite sure what their budget arrangements would be for their plans when visiting this country. If paying $5 is to be such a deterrent to tourists coming to Australia, it is quite obvious that they should not be considering a holiday in this country. This also applies to returning Australians. Let us look at who is able to afford a holiday overseas. As Senator McKiernan said, it is very nice if one can afford an overseas holiday. Is it too much to ask people to pay $5 to come back into Australia? Many Australians cannot afford overseas holidays. Frankly, I think it is quite pathetic that Opposition senators say that this $5 fee is unacceptable. Senator Panizza called it an insult and he then said if we have to have this fee it might as well be raised to a higher level. All I can say is that Senator Panizza would probably be very popular with Senator Stone but I do not know how popular he would be with other members of the Opposition who have already indicated that they do not accept the $5 charge. The Opposition amendment, which was moved by Senator Short, refers to the charge as a fee, not a tax. I suggest that honourable senators on the other side of this chamber make up their minds. Are they arguing that it is a tax, in which case they should be consistent? Otherwise, they should accept what the Government has indicated, that is, that this amount is a fee for a service that is provided. Earlier in the debate Senator Short referred to the $20 that one must pay to leave the country. The $20 fee that the Fraser Government imposed is 400 per cent as obnoxious as the $5 that must be paid to re-enter Australia. I can understand the views that have been expressed by the tourist industry and the airline industry. They do not like the idea of collecting a $5 fee for the services we provide. Nevertheless, I am sure they will learn to live with it. I believe Senator Jenkins raised a question that the airline industry was not consulted. She acknowledged the fact that as the fee was a Budget measure of course it could not be floated with the airline industry before Budget night. But on Budget night 27 industry representatives met with Government officials so the Government did everything possible, under the necessary constraints of a budgetary measure, to inform and to consult with the industry, and that consultation is ongoing. In the case of immigration and ethnic affairs, certain services must be delivered and they are of the utmost importance as many honourable senators have acknowledged. If we make a decision about the imposition of a clearance fee for people to re-enter the country, to cover some expenditure that we would like to persuade Cabinet colleagues ought to be spent in the area of settlement services or English classes, that shows the position the Government prefers to take. Which would the Opposition prefer? To have this fee for service or to take away from the very important services that are provided to migrants in our community? It is a sensible way to go about the business of government and the business of protecting migrants who come to this country. It is true that, because of the enormous influx of visitors to Australia, the Government has been investing very heavily in the immigration clearance areas of airports. Of the 2.9 million visitors to Australia last year, 45,000 were referred to immigration officials. It does not take very much imagination to appreciate just what work load that puts on the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Some 400 of those were not even allowed to enter, and about 100 were detained. Another part of the legislation imposes on the spot fines for airlines, some of which do not take much notice of whether people have the proper documentation for landing. Again, this is a sensible measure. Nobody likes to impose on the spot fines. It is something that any responsible government has to introduce when it looks at the figures of people coming into this country and the additional work load that this is creating. The airlines have to be responsible and have to check out visa requirements. People may not recognise the difficulties that can arise in this regard. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Young, in his speech in the other place, referred to a conversation he had had with someone from the Canadian Embassy in Bangkok. Canada is now dealing with 20,000 people who arrived illegally this year, and there will be a special session of parliament to discuss and deal with this enormous problem. In terms of resources, obviously the Government must make up its mind whether it can legitimately recoup some of the costs of the services that it provides. Senator Panizza referred to the $5 fee as being the only such fee in the world, and said that he had never experienced it before. All I can say is that Senator Panizza has not been a visitor to the United States recently, because the $5 fee is exactly the same as the fee that is paid in the United States. Using the resources of manpower and the very sophisticated computer programs which the Immigration Department now has in place we can try to identify who is and who is not legitimately entitled to enter this country. We need that additional financial revenue. We have invested very heavily in this area, and we have to make up our minds whether it is legitimate to try to recoup some of the costs. In this case, we say that we can justify the $5 immigration clearance fee. We have told the airlines that they can make up their own minds about how they collect it, but it will be up to them. Every few months we expect the airlines to pay the fee. Obviously, I do not expect the airlines to be overjoyed at this, but it is a very necessary measure, as I think that I have shown. The next criticism, which came from several speakers, was the question of government by regulation or by Press release, as Senator Bishop called it. Clause 9 (a) of the Migration Amendment Bill provides for the making of regulations to prescribe the categories of reconsiderable decisions; the level of the fee for requests for reconsideration; the standing requirement to make an application for reconsideration; the circumstances in which the fee will be chargeable or refundable; and incidental matters such as time limits within which applications for reconsideration of reviewable decisions are made. As a number of honourable senators have acknowledged, there has been an explosion in the number of requests for review of Migration Act decisions. There has been an increasing backlog-this was raised by a number of senators in our Estimates hearings-and long delays of up to 18 months or more in some cases in deciding appeals. Senator Messner —So now you are just going to take all those rights away from them. Senator REYNOLDS —All I can say is: What suggestions does the Opposition have? How would it deal with the situation? Senator Messner —What about justice for the people concerned? Senator REYNOLDS —It is very nice to talk about justice, and I think that my commitment to justice would be every bit equal to that of Senator Messner, but I do not think that just talking about justice will solve the problem of those delays. Is Senator Messner seriously suggesting that, if he got up and made a speech about justice, those delays would simply disappear? We have to have practical solutions. All that Senator Messner can suggest is an ideal, which of course the Government agrees with, but we have to be able to achieve that ideal. We are achieving the ideal of justice through the measures that Minister Young has outlined. The Government had to address this problem and we are starting to do so. As Minister Young said in his speech in the other place on 28 October, when winding up the second reading debate: One must make up one's mind whether one will continue to say to everybody, `You will all be treated equally; you can appeal', or whether one should cut out some people if they do not have a certain number of points. In that case, there will be a lot of protests. That would not be justice, Senator Messner. The Minister continued: People will say that they are not being treated equally. One can try to deal with it in another way-which we have done-by providing extra services at great cost to the Government and try to recoup some of those expenses, which we have done by imposing the appeal fee. We will get through the appeals a lot quicker. That, Senator Messner, is our form of justice. There has been a large increase in the number of Immigration Review Panel members, from 32 to 157-and I cannot think of a better example of a just government recognising this problem-and a more than doubling of the staff of the Department's review function to nearly 150. There has been decentralisation of the review function to mainland States to provide a more directly accessible, faster and client-oriented service. And the legislation is the minimum of legislation that one can provide for the $240 fee for review. I think that if we are really serious about Senator Messner's comment about justice, it is obvious that in the measures that we have taken we want justice for all these people who have been waiting and who have experienced the trauma of not knowing one way or the other. We are speeding up the process, and that is the reason for the $240 fee. The last issue relates to retrospectivity. I anticipate that we will be debating this issue in much more detail in the committee stage. I acknowledge the comments of Senator Bishop and the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which appeared only late yesterday. Before I deal with the issues that arose from that report, I would just like to make some general comments about retrospectivity, because it is very easy, when certain people move from government into opposition, for them to have fairly short memories. It is not uncommon that legislation based on Budget measures be retrospective to the date of announcement. This technical form of so-called retrospectivity was used extensively by the Opposition when in government. For example, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1981 was assented to on 2 December 1981 but was deemed to come into operation on 1 September 1981. Secondly, the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1981 was assented to on 2 December 1981 but was operative from 1 September 1981. In talking generally about retrospectivity, it is important to acknowledge that the Opposition-which can now afford to be critical-participated in retrospective legislation when it was in government, in the Fraser years. In conclusion, I would like to refer to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I would like to read from its report where the Committee thanked the Minister for his response to a letter that it wrote last week expressing some concerns about this piece of legislation. The report states: The Committee is happy to accept that the Immigration Clearance Fee is intended to be a fee for service- so that clears that matter up- and that it appears to bear a reasonable relation to the costs of the service involved. It further states: Equally however, the Committee believes there are not insuperable practical problems in limiting amount of such a fee to a maximum by legislation, given that a realistic maximum (based on recovery of cost) should be fixed. It is by this means that the Parliament can continue to properly scrutinise such provisions. The retrospective operation of regulations has been mentioned by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report and was raised earlier this morning by Senator Bishop. I have referred some of those points to the Attorney-General's office for comment. I have received advice which I will read for the benefit of honourable senators, although I am sure that this aspect will be more fully debated in the committee stage. The advice reads: The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is not in any difficulty about the retrospective operation of any regulations, as 48.2 only applies to provisions which state the express retrospective date-that is, where the regulations go outside the power of the Act. These regulations do not state this, rather they rely on the Act which empowers retrospectivity. These regulations do not state a commencement outside the power of the Act. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.19) —Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Short moving a motion to postpone the consideration of the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 in Committee of the Whole till the first sitting day after the presentation to the Senate by a Minister of draft regulations to be made under proposed paragraphs 67 (1) (ac), (ca), (cb) and (cc), contained in clause 9 of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: That consideration of the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 in Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for the first sitting day after the presentation to the Senate by a Minister of draft regulations to be made under proposed paragraphs 67 (1) (ac), (ca), (cb) and (cc), contained in clause 9 of the Bill. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(11.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend section 6 of the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979 to fix the overseas students charge rates for the 1988 academic year. The levels of charge are indicated in the Bill. The increase in the charge, proposed in the Bill, for university, advanced education and Technical and Further Education (TAFE) courses, raises the contribution of a student who commences the course from 1 January 1988 to 55 per cent of the full average cost of a place to the Commonwealth. Charges for university, advanced education and TAFE courses commenced before 1 January 1988, will continue at the current percentage rate of the full average cost of a place to the Commonwealth. The actual increases in the charges for these continuing students reflect the increase in cost to the Commonwealth. The increase in the secondary level charge from $300 to $328, which will apply to both continuing and new students, reflects the movement in the consumer price index. The amount of the overseas students charge for university and advanced education courses will be reduced by $263, the amount of the higher education administration charge payable to institutions by all higher education students in respect of the enrolment. The nett overseas students charge-that is, higher education administration charge not included-raised $49.6m in 1986-87 and is expected to raise $64.8m in 1987-88. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 11.22 a.m. to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that earlier today, accompanied by honourable senators, I waited upon the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency on the occasion of the opening of Parliament, which was agreed to on Wednesday, 28 October 1987. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: Mr President, Thank you for your Address-in-Reply. It will be my pleasure and duty to convey to Her Majesty the Queen the message of loyalty from the Senate to which the Address gives expression. Yours sincerely, Ninian Stephen Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I ask him whether he is aware that, in its latest report, Syntec Economic Services Pty Ltd has strongly criticised the Government's decision to support another across-the-board wage rise at the current national wage case hearing, saying: . . . the Government's approach to the national wage case is sending all the wrong signals-as the fall in the Australian dollar attests. I ask the Minister whether he agrees with Syntec's conclusion that in the wake of recent events: the Government cannot responsibly agree to carry on with existing wages policy as if nothing has happened. Will the Government take the opportunity of tonight's meeting with the leadership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to make it clear to the union movement that across-the-board pay rises not linked to increased productivity are off the agenda for future wages policy? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the broad outline of the Syntec report, which, I remind the Senate, does not predict any likely rapid economic shake-out in response to the fall in the world stock markets. I am not familiar with the particular comments which were made in connection with the forthcoming national wage case. However, I am aware that the Treasurer made a statement about that matter last week, as I am sure Senator Chaney will be aware. Insofar as the question relates to the publicised meeting with the Australian Council of Trade Unions later today, I am unable to make any statement about that. In his meeting with the ACTU the Minister will, of course, put forward to it whatever is considered to be the appropriate position. No doubt there will be some public announcement about it after the meeting takes place, but there will certainly not be one from me beforehand. On the more general question, the Government believes that its firm fiscal policy and wage restraint have, up to now, provided an effective strategy. At the moment we are not about indulging in knee-jerk responses to events, particularly in the stock market, which have taken place in the last couple of weeks. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question which follows the Minister's unsatisfactory reply. Why is the Australian community not entitled to know the Government's attitude to the essential wages policy which will affect the Australian economy very greatly? Does the Minister agree, again with Syntec, that the longer wages policy changes are delayed, the more severe they will ultimately have to be? Principally, my supplementary question relates to the situation where this Government is apparently not prepared to indicate to the Parliament or to the Australian community what the appropriate wage policies should be in this period of potentially great economic difficulty. Senator BUTTON —I hardly regard that as a supplementary question. In answer to the first part of Senator Chaney's question, I said that the Government had announced last week, through the Treasurer, its attitude to the current national wage case. Senator Chaney —I am talking about future wages policy. That is what my original question specifically referred to. Senator BUTTON —Wages policy under this Government has produced a reduction of between 8 and 10 per cent in real wages in the last four years. That is almost the exact opposite of what the coalition Government produced in one year in its last year in office. Senator Chaney also in his initial question related wage increases to the question of productivity, and I omitted to answer that point of the question. Under the second tier of the current wage negotiations productivity issues have been crucial; they are an integral part of the second tier wage proposals. I understand from numerous businesses and corporations that those second tier negotiations, which in a sense were an experiment in the Australian context, have been attended with a high degree of success. I also remind Senator Chaney that whatever one might think, or he might think, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions document Australia Reconstructed-- Senator Chaney —Whatever you might think of it. Senator BUTTON —Whatever Senator Chaney might think, I said, it contains one very important element; That is, the recognition by the ACTU that wage movements in this country had to be considered with wage movements in countries which are trading partners. That is a very important concession and no doubt it will be the subject of some discussions tonight when Ministers meet the ACTU. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. Following further allegations at the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct against the former Licensing Branch member, Mr Jack Herbert, can the Minister confirm that the Australian Taxation Office has taken out an injunction against Mr Herbert in regard to unpaid taxes? Further, has any action been taken to return to Australia Mr Herbert, who supposedly is at the moment in Singapore? Have there been any moves to freeze his assets, in particular, considering his known large real estate holdings in Queensland? Senator TATE —On 14 September 1986 a writ was issued in the Queensland Supreme Court by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation against Mr Jack Herbert and his wife seeking remedies, including a declaration that the sum of $829,909.14c, the subject of notices of amended assessment for the years ended 30 June 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985, are due to the Deputy Commissioner and payable. On 2 October 1987 the Supreme Court of Queensland, through Mr Justice Ryan, granted an interim injunction to the Deputy Commissioner restraining Mr Herbert from disposing of or dealing with his assets or removing them from the State of Queensland, save to the extent that such assets exceed the amount claimed by the Deputy Commissioner. The court also ordered that both Mr Herbert and his wife be similarly restrained in respect of assets in certain bank accounts specified in the court's order. The court orders by their terms extend until the trial of the matter or further order of the court. All the matters I have brought to the attention of the Senate are maters of public record, though in more fragmented ways. Further information may attract the operation of section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, the secrecy provisions. Therefore, I do not intend to go any further. In relation to the second part of the honourable senator's question concerning the present whereabouts of Mr Herbert, I do not know whether he is in Singapore, but as I have pointed out to the chamber time and again the Federal Government is the body vested with the power to arrange extradition, but only in relation to criminal charges. Insofar as the Commission of Inquiry does not have that status, and insofar as the remedies sought by the Taxation Commissioner are not in the category of criminal matters, extradition proceedings are not available in this instance. Senator LEWIS —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Minister's remarks as reported from New York in the Melbourne Herald that in the wake of the stock market crash there could be a slow-down in investment in Australia. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the latest `Business Outlook' from Syntec Economic Services Pty Ltd concludes that in the wake of the stock market crash: One of the most serious blows to the local economy is likely to come through the impact on private investment spending. What are the likely consequences for the Australian economy of any significant reduction in the level of business investment? Senator BUTTON —Insofar as Senator Lewis was referring to a reported comment made by me in New York about the likely consequence of the share market crash being a slow-down in investment, I did not confine my observations to Australia. I think it is likely world wide; it is not in any sense confined to this country. Insofar as Senator Lewis asked me about the impact of a slow-down of investment in Australia, such a slow-down, if it occurred, would be detrimental to economic growth. A slightly different view of the world has been advocated or talked about by a number of business people, which is that the stock market crash will lead not only to more cautious investment but also to much greater selectivity in investments. I think that is probably likely. For example, if one considers activity in the last year or so on the second board of the Australian stock exchange there is a likelihood of some reduction in investment in those sorts of stocks. But I think the consequences will be a much more selective investment in second board activity than there has been in the past. That may not be an altogether bad thing. It is a little too early to make judgments about it. I am not in the business of making predictions about the likely consequences of the share market crash on investment, except to say that they are likely to occur to some degree. The way in which they occur will be the crucial factor. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my Gallery of a parliamentary delegation from New Zealand, led by Mr K. L. Shirley, MP. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and trust that the delegation's stay in Australia will be a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to attempts in the last two weeks, but particularly yesterday, by the Opposition's parliamentary spokesmen on economic matters, Mr Howard, Mr Peacock and Senator Stone, to undermine confidence in the Australian dollar. Is the Government aware of attitudes within the business community which would either support or not support the Opposition's various assertions? Senator WALSH —I would expect that one would find the odd person in the business community who would support some of the drivel the Opposition has been pouring out in recent days. But I know of one person who definitely does not support it. If the report in today's Canberra Times is correct, certainly there is one very prominent businessman who does not support the Opposition's drivel. The Canberra Times refers to a Mr Elliott, who said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio yesterday that he believed that predictions of doom and gloom were nonsense, that the fall in the dollar would have positive effects for major exporters, such as Elders IXL Ltd, and that that was good. That same Mr Elliott is, of course, the President of the Liberal Party of Australia. Senator Button —He is your new President. Fall into line. Senator WALSH —Yes. Senator Crichton-Browne —At least we don't expel them. Senator Richardson —If they could, they would have expelled you. That's the problem. Senator WALSH —I was just about to say that. Senator Richardson has just made the very point I was about to make myself. Senator Crichton-Browne's survival in the Liberal Party should be attributed to the fact, if it is a fact, that the Liberal Party does not expel anybody. The people in the Liberal Party who thought they had a problem when Mr Valder was the President ain't seen nothin' yet compared with what they will obviously have inflicted on them, if that is the right way to put it, by Mr Elliott over a long period. At the end of this same report it is stated: Asked if he believed this meant the dollar was as strong as ever, he replied, `stronger'. Personally, I cannot reconcile that statement with anything that makes any sense. However, the earlier part of the report certainly unequivocally describes the predictions of doom and gloom-that is, the sort of drivel-that Senator Stone, Mr Howard and a number of other people in the Opposition have been pouring out as nonsense. Senator McLEAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Has he seen the article in yesterday's Melbourne Herald titled `ALP set to renege on greenie deal'? What environmental significance does the Minister place on the Douglas River region of Tasmania? Did the Government enter into an agreement before the election to protect the National Estate value of the Douglas River region? If so, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will continue to hold to that commitment? Senator RICHARDSON —Mr President, in response-- Senator Puplick —Tell us about the New Zealanders, Graham. Senator RICHARDSON —I think that today I will not say much about New Zealanders, in deference to our guests. Senator Macklin —Tell us about the rooster. Senator RICHARDSON —There are no owls in the gallery. In response to Senator McLean, I would have to say first off that I would not want to be party to reneging on any deal, with greenies or anybody else. Furthermore, I have built a career on not reneging on deals. However, I would have to say that I do know of the article in the Melbourne Herald. Senator Puplick —Tell them about Shelburne Bay. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Puplick can ask a question on the matter; he will get an answer. The Douglas River area is on the interim Register of the National Estate and obviously has National Estate values. The Government has made statements about that area and other areas concerning forestry operations. Let me quote what the Government actually said during the debate on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill. Senator Haines —We know what you said. It is what you are going to do that we are interested in. Senator RICHARDSON —Patience, Senator. In that debate Senator Gietzelt said: . . . if logging operations appear likely to commence in the Douglas River, Quamby Bluff or Jackeys Marsh areas during the course of the inquiry, the Government will further examine the options available to protect those areas. That is the actual commitment. In accordance with the Commonwealth-State memorandum of understanding between the Tasmanian Government and the Commonwealth Government consultations continue. Those consultations will also include representatives from the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. We will be looking at its plans for Douglas-Apsley. Those consultations are, of course, not conducted by me. They are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Resources, Mr Peter Morris. I am sure that Mr Morris, over the coming weeks, will be discussing with the Tasmanian Government its plans for Douglas-Apsley in view of the National Estate values of the area. The Government will hold to its commitment on protecting National Estate values. If Senator McLean wants a personal view, I would not like to see logging proceed in the Douglas-Apsley area for the obvious reason that it would pre-empt the inquiry being conducted by Mr Helsham. The reason for that is, of course, that Douglas-Apsley is one of those areas to be looked at to see whether or not it could be a prudent or feasible alternative to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. Given that, I would think that logging in Douglas-Apsley would pre-empt the result of the inquiry, and I am sure that will be borne in mind by my colleague Mr Morris in his consultations with the Tasmanian Government. Senator CHILDS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the reported comments of the Managing Director of Slade Consulting Group Pty Ltd that Australia's school retention rate to year 12 of 50 per cent compares poorly with that of Japan and the United States of America; that there is a lack of urgency being displayed towards our lack of skills; and that in computing we are `desperately short' of skilled personnel and are having to recruit overseas? Mr Slade specifically mentions that his firm has 300 computer jobs available in private companies and government agencies. Is there any substance to these claims? Senator RYAN —There is some substance in the views that the participation rate through to year 12 in Australia is not yet high enough. It is also true that there are skill shortages in some areas. But there is certainly no substance in the suggestion that the Government is not responding urgently to this situation. We have been involved in this area for some years. Mr Slade may not be aware that this year we have a 50 per cent retention of students to year 12. Of course, this is a very much better outcome than the situation when we first took office in 1983 when only one-third of young people were finishing secondary school. The Government has already set the target of achieving a 65 per cent retention rate to the end of year 12 by the early 1990s. That is a high target, given that we have a very large technical and further education sector which many 16- to 17-year-olds choose to go into for training. So we assert that we have certainly set targets and we are certainly moving very quickly towards them. Mr Slade should be aware, too, that the development of vocational skills is one of the main emphases of this year's Budget, which included the introduction of a new skills training program, including support for innovative training projects and skills centres where there is a significant contribution from industry; a substantial increase in the number of trainees under the Australian traineeship system; an increase of over 12 per cent in expenditure on apprenticeships, bringing the expenditure in that program to $129m with major revisions to the form of assistance as a basis for future reform of apprenticeship; the introduction of the youth training program, with expenditure of over $30m in 1987-88, and we expect that program to assist some 13,000 young people; the expansion of the adult training program to assist an estimated 13,000 adults this year; and continued support for labour adjustment programs in industries undergoing structural change, including coal mining and textiles, clothing and footwear. Mr Slade quite correctly indicates that business, too, has responsibilities for training and should be addressing its long term needs in a considered fashion rather than falling back, as too often it has had to do in the past, on overseas recruitment. It should never be forgotten that with the onset of the recession at the beginning of the 1980s, almost the first reaction of Australian industry was to contract the number of apprenticeships that it offered. What is missing now are the qualified trades people that those apprentices would have been by now. Change is, however, occurring in information technology, which is acknowledged as an area of skills shortage. The Government has targeted 650 of the 5,800 new places in higher education for 1988 towards computer science and information technology. The remainder will be directed to other high priority courses, including science and technology, economics and design. Senator Lewis —Come on! Senator Puplick —You can make a statement later. Senator RYAN —Mr President, it is really extraordinary that the Opposition is not interested in the very positive and urgent steps that the Government is taking to fill skill shortages and to ensure that we will be competitive in our skills base with Japan and other countries. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to answers which the Minister has given on several occasions to Senator Stone about the withdrawal of money from Australia since the share market crash. Is the Minister asserting that the Government cannot find out the nature of these withdrawals for about two months? If the answer is yes, why cannot the Government obtain such vital information whenever it is required? If the answer is no, why does the Government not take steps to inform itself and, if appropriate, the Parliament, of the nature of these withdrawals? Senator WALSH —For those who have a mind set in the 1970s, in the days of the authoritarian empire over which Senator Stone presided, with rigid exchange rates and international currency transaction controls, the volume of trading actually meant something, because, since the rate was fixed, if there was any disequilibrium, it would affect the volume of trading. When the rate is flexible the volume of trading does not necessarily mean a great deal at all. The reason why the Reserve Bank does not publish information about its smoothing and testing operations I would have thought was certainly known by Senator Stone and was even self-evident, and that is that if the Reserve Bank of Australia is itself trading in currency, it obviously does not want to tell everybody else in the market what it is doing at a particular time. There is normally a time lag of, I think, about two months between the actual activities of the bank and the time at which those activities become public knowledge. It is, I understand, in the total transactions in any day, impossible to unscramble what is going on, because currency transactions, of course, are conducted outside the Reserve Bank these days by private banks, and essentially the same transaction might be turned over several times in the day in the market, so the volume figures for a day or even a week are, first, totally impossible to unscramble, and secondly, insofar as the Reserve Bank is involved, there are very good reasons for not making public the volume of trading or prices at which the Reserve Bank is trading. Senator VALLENTINE —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I refer him to the meeting held on 2 November between Federal and State Ministers from Western Australia regarding mining in national parks, and in particular uranium exploration in Rudall River National Park and the management of Bungle Bungle National Park. What steps are being taken by this Government to prevent what the Minister's predecessor, Mr Cohen, so aptly described as `Swiss cheese' national parks, or what concerned citizens in Western Australia fear as mobile national parks, which can be excised or relocated on the basis of mineral prospectivity at the convenience of the Burke Government in partnership with mining companies? Or is this Government prepared to endorse a system of third rate national parks for Western Australia? I also ask the Minister whether this Government is prepared to accept the Western Australian Labor Government's lack of commitment to the needs and aspirations of the traditional owners of Bungle Bungle National Park and Rudall River National Park for joint management of these areas. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Vallentine has asked a number of questions, and I will attempt to go through most of them. In regard to discussions between Ministers of the Western Australian Government and their Federal counterparts, which were held this week, no statements about those talks have been made or will be made until the talks are completed. Given that I will be in Perth next Wednesday and that discussions will continue on Wednesday night, I am not in a position to comment on what happened at the meeting. However, the honourable senator raised a number of other matters, and I think I can make some general comments on them. Firstly, she referred to uranium mining. There is in the national policy and platform of the Australian Labor Party a three mines policy, for Nabarlek, Ranger and Olympic Dam. As far as I know, there are no proposals to change that policy. I am certainly not aware of them if they are around. Given that I have on a number of occasions stated my support for uranium mining, I assume that if they were around, I would know of them. Secondly, the honourable senator referred to national parks. If I can quote from ALP Federal policy on the matter-and that is, of course, in this case, Government policy-- Senator Haines —What does that matter? When did you last pay attention to ALP policy? Senator RICHARDSON —I have always been bound by Labor Party policy, Senator. Senator Haines —Name one instance, recently. Senator RICHARDSON —Especially recently. Our platform states: opposing mining or any other activity in National Parks which adversely affects the prime function of the park, i.e. nature conservation. In that respect I would have thought that the national policy of the Party was pretty clear. No discussions were held on the matter of the Bungle Bungles. I would have thought that the matter would be more in the province of my colleague Mr Hand. I shall ascertain from him the progress of any discussions he has had with the Western Australian Government and notify the honourable senator as soon as I have that information. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I still remain unconvinced, I am sorry, about the three mines policy on uranium mining, which I think is a concern shared by many people in the community. I take it from the Minister's answer that he does not agree with the Western Australian Ministers- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Vallentine, I ask you to ask your supplementary question. Senator VALLENTINE —Mr President, I want to clarify whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with David Parker's stated aim to change the three mines policy on mining uranium; whether that is by inclusion of other mines or substitution. If the Minister does not agree, I ask him what the Government is prepared to do about it. Senator RICHARDSON —As I said earlier, I and the rest of the Party are bound by Party policy on that matter. I might say that that is a policy that has been oft debated and was the subject, so far as I can recall, of the only division at the National Conference. Therefore, to change that policy in any way would require a decision of the National Conference. Most importantly, I think, it would require 50 delegates out of 99 delegates to vote for the change. Senator Macklin —Why? Senator RICHARDSON —I ask Senator Macklin what he means by `why'. Fifty votes is a majority out of 99 votes! Senator Macklin is his Party's Whip; he is supposed to be able to count. To change that policy would require 50 votes. At the moment, I think they would be pretty hard to find. Predicting national conferences is not necessarily the safest occupation in the world when one is talking of the Australian Labor Party. Personally, I would be very surprised to see that policy changed. Senator VANSTONE —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I draw her attention to the recent announcement of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority that certain high status jobs, such as those of principal, which do not attract enough female applicants are readvertised as the Authority's contribution to the advancement of women. Does the Minister agree that women have an equal opportunity to respond to the initial advertisements? Does the Minister endorse the ridiculous decision of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority to readvertise such positions? Does she believe that it is an action that ought to be followed by all the bodies affected by the Public Service Reform Act, the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act? If so, how does the Minister think these bodies should decide when enough women have applied or reapplied? Senator RYAN —In answer to that part of Senator Vanstone's question about the decision of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority to readvertise when it does not have female applicants, I think that it is a sensible idea. I will explain why. It is not the case that women in the Australian Capital Territory teaching service have felt that they would be considered on their merits or that they would be considered equally with men if they applied for principals' jobs. It is not surprising that they have had that belief since no female principal has been appointed in the Australian Capital Territory. There was one provisional appointment of a female principal. That was challenged and the challenge was upheld. In my view, and I would think in Senator Vanstone's view, that is a reflection on the lack of a merit based system. We have a teaching service in the Australian Capital Territory which has a very high proportion of female members-a very highly educated and well-trained female teaching service-yet in all the years that the Australian Capital Territory teaching service has existed no woman has been appointed as principal. The woman who was initially appointed as principal lost that appointment on appeal. In that atmosphere I do not think that it is surprising that many women who would like to think of their careers as leading to a principal's position have not applied because they have felt discouraged by the history of the Australian Capital Territory in relation to the appointment of principals. In those circumstances I think that it is a sensible and responsible course of action for the Authority to remind women that now, under more enlightened leadership, they are entitled to apply and that they will be considered on their merits. I do not regard that as negative discrimination, as a waste of money or any of those things. I hope that when the Authority readvertises it gets high quality, female candidates applying. I would like to see female principals appointed on the basis of merit to positions of leadership in the Australian Capital Territory schools system. While we continue to have a situation whereby only men are in leadership positions in our schools it is very difficult to encourage girls to believe that they should consider themselves equal in all matters and to aspire, in the same way that male students aspire, to careers of their choice. There is no administrative or legal connection between the way in which the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is implementing its equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies and the legislation which covers the Commonwealth Public Service and Commonwealth statutory authorities. The way in which those bodies are to proceed to implement EEO provisions is set out in various pieces of legislation. It may well be that when they decide to advertise outside the Service they may decide to make it very clear in their advertisements that women are entitled to apply. The legislative provisions for the Commonwealth Public Service and Commonwealth statutory bodies are fairly clear. They have been the subject of debate in this place and they are different from the way in which the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has decided to pursue its policy. Senator Vanstone —They are silent on re- advertising, aren't they? Senator RYAN —There would be no obstacle in a case where a Public Service position was advertised outside the Service-as I recall, that does not happen in every case-to making it clear in that advertisement that women were able to apply. There would be no obstacle to re-advertising if the range of candidates was regarded as being too narrow and not giving the employer an adequate choice. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not clear from the Minister's answer whether she is saying that because the legislation affecting the Australian Capital Territory is different the question does not arise in other cases. I draw the Minister's attention to the latter part of my question, which she answered in part by referring to the Public Service but she did not refer to the legislation covering private enterprise and higher educational institutions. I am asking the Minister whether she endorses the principle that if enough women do not apply, the organisations should re-advertise. If she does endorse that decision, who should decide when enough applicants have applied? Senator RYAN —The people who should make those decisions are the people charged with the responsibility of implementing the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act. It would be for the Director at the Affirmative Action Agency to advise the various companies and universities on whether the steps they are taking to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of merit are adequate. I do not think a principle is involved here. The practice of implementing EEO varies from environment to environment. The important thing is that employers should be aware of their responsibility to be equal opportunity employers and to take the necessary steps. It may, or it may not, involve re-advertising. Senator BLACK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. On what basis was the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union given access to taxation records? Will the Government give the same access to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct? Senator TATE —As I recall, Mr Frank Costigan was given access to taxation information only where it was relevant to his investigations and then only in consequence of an amendment, agreed to by the Parliament, to section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. That provision also provides for access by other royal commissions in respect of which letters patent issued by the Governor-General indicate that the relevant amending section applies. Quite obviously, the Fitzgerald inquiry is not a Commonwealth royal commission and under the existing law is not entitled to receive taxation information. Senator Haines —Oh! Senator TATE —Senator Black, and apparently the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Democrats' Whip, may consider that measure unfortunate and unduly restrictive but law enforcement access to taxation information raises many sensitive and delicate considerations. However, the Parliament has seen fit to make an exception in the instance to which I have referred, namely, specifically in relation to the Costigan Royal Commission and other royal commissions in respect of which letters patent have been issued by the Governor-General indicating certain matters. It may well be that a more general discretion should be vested in the Commissioner of Taxation to enable him to transfer information where he forms a reasonable suspicion that a taxpayer is, or has been, engaged in criminal activity. That matter certainly deserves further consideration and that will be undertaken. Senator TAMBLING —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, and follows that asked by Senator Vanstone, which touched on the policy of the Government to increase the percentage of women in high status occupations in the Australian Public Service. Is the Minister aware, as outlined in the Women's Budget Statement, which I believe the Minister herself gave in this place, that the percentage of women in keyboard areas has increased, rather than decreased? Notwithstanding the existence of equal opportunity programs, is the Government concerned about this, and what does the Government intend to do about it? Senator RYAN —I am certainly aware of the situation described by the honourable senator in his question. I am certainly concerned about it, and the Government is concerned about it. That is why we have embarked on a series of programs arising from a package of legislation that has been passing through this place over the last couple of years. If there were no problem, we would not need the legislation and the programs, but there is a problem. The problem referred to in the honourable senator's question goes not only to lack of encouragement to women to aspire to senior positions but to the sex segregation of the labour force in Australia. It is the case that Australia has the most sex segregated labour market of any country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We suffer huge efficiency and skills losses because of that. One of the effects of affirmative action legislation and similar policies will be to open up a range of occupations to men and women so that, one would hope, after some years of having these programs in place, there would be many more males in keyboard occupations; at the same time, we would see females going into the technical and skilled occupations that they are not currently in. It is a question of broadening the base of female employment, as well as providing opportunities for women to move into more senior positions. We are tackling both these problems through a range of policies and through legislation but, of course, we do not expect that, such a short time after the legislation has been enacted, we will have solved the problems. I hope and expect that next year's Women's Budget Statement will contain a more encouraging picture. Senator TAMBLING —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the comments just made by the Minister, I would like her to account for certain factors. Why is it that, in the keyboard area, the percentages in the very statement that she gave to the Senate have got worse rather than better? In that statement, women comprised 97 per cent of the keyboard operators. They now comprise 98.3 per cent. Whereas the participation of women over the three-year period from 1984 to 1986 improved from 55 per cent to 57 per cent, overall, the position of women has got far worse. I would like Senator Ryan to comment on and account for this. Senator RYAN —If Senator Tambling had paid attention to some of the debates around these issues that have ensued in this place, he would appreciate that keyboard jobs are not sought after by men. This is because they do not pay particularly well, do not carry great status and do not usually lead to an advanced career structure. The Government cannot make men become keyboard operators in the Public Service. What we are trying to do is open up more opportunities for women so that they will see that they have options other than keyboard operating, and will have the confidence to seek those. We cannot determine the choice that people make in employment and clearly men, now as ever, will go for the higher paid, more prestigious jobs. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask the Minister two questions relating to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Could the Minister explain what is included in the ABS national accounts measure of aggregate wages and salaries? Are there any plans under way to change that definition? Senator WALSH —The ABS measure of wages and salaries is very broad. For example, it includes lump sum payments received by wage and salary earners on redundancy, or in lieu of various types of leave. It also includes holiday leave loading, although at present it excludes any imputed value of fringe benefits received by workers. I am not sure whether that is under review, but I could find out if Senator Devereux wished me to do so. It should also be noted that the definition used of `wage and salary earners' extends to the directors of companies. All directors' fees or other emoluments are included in the national accounts wages and salaries figures. While I am on that point, I note in relation to the question of directors' fees, that Senator Stone told the Senate a couple of days ago that, apart from writing newspaper articles for the Australian, he had no other private emoluments. Therefore, I assume that he has resigned from his directorship of Lartron Pty Ltd, which was formerly known as Sperry Ltd. However, I draw his attention to the fact that his name still appears on the list of directors. Senator Stone might wish the management of that company to correct that oversight. Senator PATTERSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to a Press release from the Attorney-General on 15 September 1987 in which it was announced that the Family Conciliation Centre at Noble Park in Victoria would be funded through 1987-88. This project was highly commended in an independent study commissioned by the Attorney-General's Department and undertaken by Social Impacts Pty Ltd. The major concern of the staff is that the Government make a firm decision on the future of the project within a time frame which enables adequate planning. A timetable for the decision associated with the funding or closure of the centre would alleviate some of the concerns of the staff and ensure that the 1987-88 period of funding was as productive as possible. Would the Minister be prepared to provide the Senate with a timetable relating to the planning for the funding or closure of the Noble Park centre? Senator TATE —It is true that the Government has decided to continue funding of the Family Conciliation Centre at Noble Park and also, I believe, of the Family Conciliation Centre at Wollongong. I correct that: it has decided not to continue funding at Wollongong, but it has decided to give Noble Park the guernsey. The centres were established in 1985 as pilot projects to provide an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to assist in reducing litigation and legal aid expenditure in family law matters and reducing emotional trauma associated with family disputes. The operations of the two centres were independently evaluated. Noble Park developed a model based on mediation. Mediation is an innovative procedure whereby a neutral third party, using a structured process, helps the parties to arrive at their own solutions to specific problems. The evaluator reported that the Noble Park centre has established a unique model of service which holds great promise in the family area. Obviously, this has had an impact on the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, in his consideration of funding and he therefore gave another year's funding which will enable the continuation of the development of the mediation model. Particular attention is to be given to promoting the use by marriage guidance organisations of some mediation techniques developed at the centre. Further funding beyond 30 June 1988 will, however, be reviewed in the context of the 1988-89 Budget. Senator PATTERSON —I ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister answer the last part of my question to allay the concerns of the staff? Would he be prepared to provide the Senate with a timetable relating to the planning for the funding or closure of the Noble Park centre? Senator TATE —No, I cannot go any further than has been provided for me in a brief-namely, that funding beyond 30 June 1988 will be reviewed in the 1988-89 Budget context. However, I would not want the staff, who have obviously done such splendid work, to draw a negative inference from that. Therefore, I will pass the question to Mr Bowen-as I had intended to do anyway-to seek any further elaboration that he might want to pass on to Senator Patterson. Senator AULICH —Is the Minister for Home Affairs aware of allegations made yesterday to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct that Queensland Transport Minister, Don Lane, approached a former Queensland Police Licensing Branch officer to rig votes in Mr Lane's electorate? Can the Minister advise what prosecution, if any, could be made against Mr Lane under the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act? Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, the matters which have been raised in questions have related to a series of allegations which, on the face of the Commission's own statements, are said to be untested but which, nonetheless, have been published in the short term pending a final conclusion from the Commission. Quite apart from the fact that the question calls for a legal opinion, a commission of inquiry is proceeding in Queensland on these very serious matters-and I make no judgment whatever about the outcome of the inquiry-and it seems to me to be highly undesirable to canvass here in questions and seek a legal opinion on a matter which may in the long term prove to be unfounded. Though it cannot be said that the matter is sub judice, it is certainly the subject of a major public inquiry. The Commissioner, as I understand it-and I am relying on newspaper reports-has explained the rather unusual procedure of releasing names prior to any finding or testing of the evidence. I doubt that it is an appropriate use of the Senate to canvass these matters in this way until the inquiry has been concluded. It seems to me that it is not a matter which comes within the administrative jurisdiction of the Minister in any event, since I gather that the allegation relates to State rather than Federal electoral matters. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will allow the question. I remind the Minister not to give a legal opinion, and to deal with only that part of the question that dealt with electoral matters under his jurisdiction. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have no intention of giving a legal opinion and thereby reducing my own reputation in this chamber. I have seen those newspaper reports in which-and I agree with Senator Chaney-an allegation is made that Mr Don Lane, MLA, approached a former bagman for the Queensland Police Force with the intention of enrolling two people in his electorate, when they lived somewhere else. We do not have joint roll arrangements with Queensland, but since 1 April 1986 we have had common enrolment cards. According to the newspaper reports, they list a particular address at which these individuals are supposed to be enrolled. These events were supposed to have occurred two months prior to the 1986 State election. A search of the Commonwealth electoral roll shows that no such names appear for that particular address; so there is very little likelihood, in my view, that the two bodgie names came on to the Commonwealth electoral roll. Senator Aulich went on to ask what was the position under the Commonwealth Act. This does not require a legal opinion but just a recitation of facts. To my knowledge, when an allegation is made the process is that the Australian Electoral Commission gives the job to the Australian Federal Police to investigate. In the most recent case allegations were made against Mr Denis Hinton, a National Party MLA in Queensland. We referred those allegations to the Federal Police and have subsequently laid charges in a Brisbane magistrates court, and there the determination will be made as to whether a penalty or clearance is given. If evidence does emerge in general that a false statement has been made under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, section 339 (1) (k) makes those statements a Commonwealth offence, the penalty for which is a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment, or both. The Government is always concerned, as I am sure everyone in this chamber is, to protect the integrity of the roll. A general warning can be issued, not necessarily into the allegations being made now but at any time, that if people give false information and false names or participate in a false enrolment, they will be prosecuted with the full force that this Government can put behind such prosecutions. Senator McGAURAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and follows a question I asked earlier in the Senate regarding Cabinet discussions on wheat sales to Egypt. Will the Minister confirm that the Government has almost doubled the insurance premium rate for Export Finance Insurance Corporation cover for Australian Wheat Board sales to Egypt and also reduced the percentage cover from 85 per cent to 80 per cent for the next three years? Why is the Government discouraging desperately needed agricultural exports to our third largest wheat market, when there is a satisfactory repayment arrangement in place between the Wheat Board and Egypt and when our major competitors, Canada and the United States of America, provide 100 per cent grain export cover? Senator BUTTON —I will have to obtain for Senator McGauran a detailed answer to his question. I understand that the matter has been the subject of Cabinet deliberations. But no announcement has been made at this stage. In that circumstance I am not in a position to make an announcement in the Senate. However, any decision which the Government announces will, I understand, be based on quite detailed discussions that have taken place with the Wheat Board and will not be unacceptable to the Wheat Board. But I will obtain a more detailed answer and give it to the honourable senator in due course. Senator COATES —I refer the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer to the report concerning a recommendation by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) that a $30 fee be charged for a standard consultation. Can the Minister indicate what the effect on the consumer price index (CPI) would be if all doctors began to charge a $30 fee? Senator WALSH —The weighting for health, hospital and medical services in the CPI is just over 2 per cent. Although the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not disaggregate it entirely, I understand that about a quarter of that figure is attributable to medical services. The part of the index relating to medical services covers a much broader range of services than the standard consultation. But if one assumes that charges for all services are raised commensurately with the standard consultation the theoretical CPI effect can be approximated. Medical services are treated in the CPI net of Medicare and health fund benefits. Thus, if every doctor charged in accordance with the old AMA fee, which is $20, the net cost, after deducting the Medicare rebate of $14.65, would be $5.35. If, however, that $20 fee were to be increased to $30, the payment, net of the Medicare rebate, would increase to $15.35, an increase of around 185 per cent. That would increase the consumer price index by around 0.9 per cent; that is, there would be an increase of almost one per cent in the consumer price index if the fee supported by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association-incidentally it has the full support of the Opposition spokesman on health-- Senator Tate —Surely not. Senator WALSH —Yes. The bushranging activities of the New South Wales branch of the doctors union have the full support of the Opposition spokesman on health. If the recommendation by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Medical Association were adopted, it would increase the consumer price index by almost one per cent, as well as setting a dreadful example for everybody else in the community in respect of whatever other income demands might be around. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate why none of the eight Senate Ministers waited on the Governor-General today when the Address-in-Reply was delivered to the Governor-General by the President? Senator BUTTON —I will find out and provide Senator Chaney with an answer as soon as possible. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications and Transport. Is it true, as continues to be claimed by the Opposition, that the Government has rigged a flight monopoly to Christmas Island for Ansett-TNT? Senator GARETH EVANS —Suggestions to this effect continue to appear in the Press; for example, in the Canberra Times on a couple of occasions this week and again this morning in the Sydney Morning Herald. They are stimulated by two things: firstly, alleged reports of the views on this subject of the Christmas Island developer Mr Woodmore; and, secondly, of course, the campaign of innuendo which continues to be waged by the honourable member for Bruce, based on the premise that one company, Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd (TNT), has purchased or has the option on 72 British Aerospace 146s-the entire production run for the next five or so years-a point which he made in these terms in the House of Representatives on 27 October and which has inspired most of this debate subsequently. I am able to advise the Senate that neither of the two bases which have sustained this campaign has any foundation whatsoever. In the first place, I table for the scrutiny of anyone who is interested and will read into the record a fax memo received today in my Department from Mr Frank Woodmore of Christmas Island Resort Pty Ltd which is in the following terms: Further to yesterday's telecom, I am concerned that the media has distorted a statement I made in relation to the approval we hold for Christmas Island Aerodrome. Apparently, yesterday's Canberra Times quotes me as stating ``that a prima facie case exists for believing that we were forced into bed with Ansett''. I actually used these words but they have been quoted completely out of context. When the journalist asked whether I ``had been forced into bed'' with Ansett, I asked how he gained such an impression. He quoted from a statement made in the Lower House by Ken Aldred. Having read Mr Aldred's speech, I responded as follows: ``I have read Mr Aldred's speech, which he kindly copied to me. Certainly on the basis of what he has said one could gain the impression that a prima facie case exists for believing that we were forced into bed with Ansett. However, that is not the case. We offered Ansett the opportunity to participate and they declined-unless we were prepared to underwrite their flight service . . . ``The nomination of a BAe146 was made for valid technical reasons. It has been used as a benchmark so that all parties clearly understood the level to which the Airport would initially be developed'' . . . I also advised that if other species of aircraft were able to meet the relevant requirements, we would expect approval in the normal way. We had suggested F28 and other aircraft from the north, where the over water regulation did not pose a problem. When asked whether we felt ``pressured'' by the Department I was able to respond in a positive manner and advised the journalist that we had an excellent working relationship with the Department-as evidenced by the recent prompt attention to our request regarding an air service from Jakarta. Unfortunately the good news was not reported. Please feel free to use the foregoing comments to refute any media representation to the contrary. Best regards, F. P. Woodmore. That, I think, disposes of that part of the allegation. As I said, this document is tabled for anyone who cares to scrutinise it. Secondly, the nub of the remainder of the allegation has been that TNT has some sort of monopoly on the entire production of BAe146s. Let me just make absolutely clear for the record that this is not so. Of the 75 BAe146 aircraft that have already been delivered out of production up to July 1987, just two have been delivered to Ansett WA and one to TNT Aviation in Europe. Three out of 75 hardly supports any existing monopoly. As to the claim that TNT has the entire production run of BAe146s for the next five years, the facts are: TNT has a commitment to take all freighter versions of the BAe146 in that period; these aircraft are expected to comprise only about 30 per cent of the total production; and all passenger versions of the BAe146 are excluded from the agreement. The disturbing aspect of this matter is that all of these facts about the BAe146s have been brought to the attention of the honourable member for Bruce, and he knows that his claims are baseless. I table also a letter, a copy of which I have just received, from the Regional Executive of British Aerospace Australia Ltd, which was sent to Mr Aldred on 29 October. I will not waste time by quoting it, but it is in exactly the same sorts of terms as those that I have just indicated. It makes it clear that the big-door freight versions of the BAe146 are only 30 per cent of the total production and that all passenger versions of the BAe146 are totally excluded from the TNT agreement. It makes it absolutely clear for the record what I have made clear already in answering questions in this place on 29 October and what Mr Duncan has made clear on several occasions subsequently; namely, that there is no foundation whatsoever for the campaign of sneaky, pimp-like innuendo that has been perpetrated once again, as so often before, by the honourable member for Bruce. His behaviour on this matter, as so often in the past, justifies every conceivable imputation that can possibly be made against him and it is only appropriate that there should be an apology. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I seek a withdrawal from the Minister for those obviously unparliamentary statements. The PRESIDENT —I would ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator GARETH EVANS —Which would I withdraw-`pimp-like'? The PRESIDENT —The remarks that you made about a `pimp', Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will withdraw the reference to pimp. I think every other expression I made was parliamentary. But I would make it clear, Mr President, in doing so, that I have nothing but contempt for the honourable member for Bruce, Mr Aldred. Anyone on the other side of the chamber who has any regard for decency and proprieties in public life, whatever the robust character of the debate we may engage in in the course of the democratic process, ought to share that view. The evidence is overwhelming; it has always been overwhelming. The evidence has in fact been in the possession of this man, apparently for several days. But that has not stopped him continuing to make these allegations, and continuing to gain currency for them. I hope, Mr President, that my disgust on this matter will be shared by all members of this chamber. Senator BUTTON —Earlier at Question Time, Senator Chaney asked me why no Senate Ministers attended Government House this morning. I have made a cursory check and it appears that all Ministers had other commitments. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-In the course of a response to a question earlier this afternoon, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, in passing, as he put it, made a remark about what he alleged to be my directorship of a company whose name, quite frankly, was unknown to me and which, at the moment, therefore, I cannot recall. But by way of explanation, I think the Minister did say that it was the successor company to Sperry Australia Ltd of which at one time I was indeed a director. I ceased to be a director of that company when it was taken over by the local affiliate of the Burroughs corporation in, I think, either January or February of this year. Two days ago I made a statement to the Senate in which I mentioned that I had no other private emoluments apart from the fee I receive from writing a newspaper column. The Minister's allegation, quite clearly, was that I had misled the Senate by that remark either deliberately or inadvertently. Particularly in the light of the outburst that we have just heard from Senator Evans on the question of propriety in public life and behaviour in the Parliament, I would like to remark upon the continued stream of ill-based and, indeed, discreditable innuendo which comes from Senator Walsh-- Senator Bolkus —Mr President, I take a point of order. My point of order is that Senator Stone can have the indulgence of the Senate so long as he clarifies the misrepresentation. But he is proceeding now to argue the point and he should be pulled up. The PRESIDENT —I remind Senator Stone of the point of order that has been taken and ask him to stick to the Standing Orders. Senator STONE —Thank you, Mr President. I simply want to say that if the Minister had any real suspicion that I had misled the Senate on the matter, it would have been perfectly open to him to approach me and to check his facts before stating in this place what in fact is a totally untrue statement. Senator RYAN —Yesterday Senator Vanstone asked for information about the way in which the Department of Social Security determines de facto relationships. She was concerned that there was sex stereotyping in the way in which this has happened. I now have a reply for the honourable senator. Because that reply is rather lengthy, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Senator Vanstone asked whether the Government through the Department of Social Security accepted sexual stereotyping in the determination of de facto relationships for pension purposes. A de facto relationship exists where two people live together on a bona fide domestic basis as husband and wife. To do this, the Department of Social Security has adopted criteria established by the Federal Court in the case of Lamb and followed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These are designed to illustrate the nature of inter-personal relationship and include such factors as: Dwelling under the same roof Permanence Exclusiveness Sexual intercourse Mutual society and protection The existence of a household The way in which the relationship is presented by the parties to the outside world Financial support The nurture and support of children of the relationship Relationships within the household and whether those relationship indicate a family unit. In relation to the last point-consideration is given on whether or not house duties are shared as in the case of de jure marriages. While the statement to which Senator Vanstone referred indicates one particular mode of sharing domestic responsibilities-the `traditional' one referred to by the AAT in Tang-other modes of sharing domestic chores exist and are equally valid. Officers of the Department, in considering this aspect, attempt to assess whether or not there is a sharing of domestic chores similar to that in a marriage, whether the sharing be on a traditional basis or otherwise. Senator GARETH EVANS —Two days ago Senator Macklin asked me a question about the Australia-Japan Foundation. I have an answer for him which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Together with several of my ministerial colleagues, over the past two years I have undertaken a wide-ranging review of Australia's relations with the countries of North Asia These include some of the world's most dynamic economies and some of Australia's most important markets; As well as countries with which Australia has political relationships of great significance. This review which is still in progress, is assessing the progress of Australia's dealings with these countries. It also considers directions for the future; And the means by which Australian interests can best be advanced. As part of this same process I am considering a range of options involving several bodies established in Australia to provide advice on relations with countries in the North Asia region. In keeping with my well established practice I will make public any decision to change their structure or operations which may be desirable in order to improve Australia's management of its relations with the region. In the course of this consideration among a wide range of advice I sought from my Department was a request relating to the legal implications of the Australia-Japan Foundation Act (1976) for the Australian Japan Foundation staff. It was not a request to advise `the best way to abolish or dissolve' the AJF. I can reassure the Parliament that any action I might decide to take will be governed by the utmost concern to enhance Australia's cultural and commercial contacts with Japan and our other very important trade partners in North Asia. I can appreciate that the uncertainty created by speculation on this could be unsettling and that is why I hope to have the matter soon resolved. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Knowles asked me a question on 2 November about Western Australian Goldcorp and I have an answer for her, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Gold Corp has a fifteen per cent interest in Kaltail, a gold tailings reprocessing operation near Kalgoorlie being undertaken by Anglo-American (Pacific) Press reports suggest that Anglo-American (South Africa) holds a majority interest in Anglo-American (Pacific), a listed Australian public company This gives Anglo-American (South Africa) a majority stake in Kaltail in which Gold Corp has its fifteen per cent interest Gold Corp is wholly owned by the Western Australian Development Corporation The Australian Government has prohibited Federal Government departments and agencies from entering into contractual dealings involving procurement of goods and services with majority owned South African companies It is fanciful to suggest that the actions of Gold Corp involve the Federal Government in hypocrisy There is no connection between the civil aviation ban and the activities of Gold Corp The civil aviation ban was introduced as part of a package of measures agreed to by Commonwealth Heads of Government in 1985 and adopted in 1986 The package involved a number of other measures, but did not call for the termination of commercial links with South Africa nor the prohibition of South African investment in other countries. The Government takes seriously its obligations to impose the measures agreed to by the Commonwealth Heads of Government It is enforcing these measures rigorously. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State) —by leave-Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Mr President, as we reach the end of this year and our Parliamentary deliberations draw to conclusion, I will take this opportunity to inform honourable senators about Australia's involvement in the 1987 International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. 1987 has been a year in which the Australian community has been made aware of housing issues and encouraged to consider ways to improve our housing programs. It has also been a year in which both government and non-government sectors have evaluated Australia's housing programs. This Government did not need an International Year to ensure that housing remained a priority on its agenda but this International Year has provided a unique opportunity to re-examine housing problems and housing assistance, an opportunity we were pleased to take. United Nations I believe it would be appropriate, before I discuss Australia's contribution to the International Year, or IYSH, to talk about the origins and the international context of the Year. The conditions of human settlements throughout the world are deteriorating. Despite considerable efforts by governments, and the poor themselves, the United Nations estimate that the number of people living in poverty continues to grow steadily-and now totals around one and a quarter billion or a quarter of the earth's population. Other statistics are equally horrifying. It has been estimated that 100 million have no shelter at all; in developing countries, half of the population, on average, live in slums and squatter settlements. On the international scene, the problems are steadily worsening and the overall situation deteriorating. The UN predicts that within the next 10 years the urban population of developing countries will nearly double. The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless grew out of the realization of the need to address these problems. The UN General Assembly at its 37th session in 1982, designated 1987 as the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Between 1984 and 1987 the UN Centre for Human Settlements or HABITAT, the lead agency for the Year, has encouraged governments, agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental groups to assess the degree of homelessness and the extent of inadequate shelter and basic infrastructure. The aim then is to support projects and activities which could help provide shelter to the poor and disadvantaged. Governments have been urged to adopt, by the end of 1987, plans to help all their poor and disadvantaged to obtain a home by the year 2000. IYSH in Australia Unlike developing countries, Australia already has a range of policies and special purpose assistance programs to alleviate housing problems. The Federal Government makes available some $2 billion a year on housing and related programs. It is under these that ``bricks and mortar'' solutions for Australia's homeless and inadequately housed are funded. In total around $3 billion a year is spent on housing and related assistance programs in Australia. IYSH Aims Against this background the aims of IYSH, are to: 1. Improve the effectiveness of the current range of Federal and State housing programs and ensure that Australia's overseas aid programs are addressing some of the housing related problems in nearby countries; 2. Increase the contribution of governments and the private and community sectors towards assisting the homeless and inadequately housed; and 3. Encourage innovation and equity in the use of existing housing, and future additions to the housing stock and the financing of support mechanisms that are necessary for providing low cost housing. These aims have also been adopted by State Governments. IYSH Program in Australia In agreeing to participate in IYSH, the Australian Government was mindful of the United Nations intention that IYSH activities should involve, to the fullest extent possible, non-government as well as government organisations. To assist in planning and implementation the Government appointed Bishop Peter Hollingworth, Executive Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, as the Chairperson of the IYSH National Committee of Non-Government Organisations. Major non-governmental organisations, concerned with housing such as financial institutions, industry bodies, community groups and unions were also appointed to the committee. Separately State and Territories were requested to initiate their Governments activities. Australia and many other countries commenced these activities at least two years ago. In 1985 and 1986, housing projects were selected, documented and evaluated, so that information and experience gained from them could be publicised this year. Expenditure The Federal Government will spend approximately $1.4m on IYSH activities. The great bulk of these funds, is for IYSH Projects. The remainder is being spent on a report by the Non-Government Committee on future housing policies and on providing information on IYSH activities and programs. I would now like to outline activity under the plan for IYSH in more detail. Needs Assessment Much of the needs assessment phase of IYSH was undertaken prior to 1987. A major background document for the international year is the ``Study into Homelessness and Inadequate Housing'' published by the Federal Government in 1985. Projects In order to encourage non-government input and to gather independent evaluations of our current housing and related assistance programs, over fifty IYSH projects were funded by the Federal Government around Australia. These projects obtain consumers' views on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, document of innovative housing projects such as the First Fremantle Housing Collective, an IYSH Schools' Kit, and research into inadequate housing on Thursday Island. Major conferences such as the Second National Women's Housing Conference and the World Planning and Housing Congress were also supported to assist dissemination of information on housing issues. Many of these projects have been undertaken by non-government organisations such as Aboriginal communities, community and welfare organisations, teachers, architects and women's organisations. They include the documentation and evaluation of innovative housing schemes, research and conferences. Evaluation of Housing Programs Many of the projects funded related to the first aim for IYSH-the improvement of the effectiveness of Australia's housing and related assistance programs. Major reviews have been undertaken by governments to this end. The Triennial Evaluation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has resulted in amendments to the Housing Assistance Act being introduced in the Parliament. Reviews of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Review and the Local Government and Community Housing Program are currently in progress. Priorities for the Future The United Nations objective for IYSH is to develop strategies and policies to alleviate housing poverty between now and the year 2000. Developments in Australia will contribute to this through the completion of a Report by the IYSH National Committee of Non-Government Organisations to the Federal Government with recommendations on future housing strategies and policies. The first part of this process is under way, and a report on key issues will be made available for public comment in December. Consultations with a wide range of community and industry groups will be held in capital cities and major regional centres in February 1988 to discuss the report openly. The views expressed in these consultations, together with the Non-Government Committee's views and recommendations will form a Response Report to the key issues. Both reports will be forwarded to the Federal Government for consideration in May 1988. These findings will be taken into account in the determination of future strategies and policy. Information Dissemination To have an effective International Year, it is necessary to tell people about its objectives, and the issues and problems being tackled. Community announcements on radio and television have been made by myself and Bishop Hollingworth and IYSH Kits have been distributed to encourage public participation in the program. Videos and other forms of information such as brochures, posters and photographic exhibitions have been developed and distributed widely. States and Territories The States and Territories in Australia have implemented their own programs of IYSH activities with a total of 90 IYSH projects under way. Outcome The outcome of IYSH in Australia will include the assessment of housing needs, release of IYSH project documentation, evaluation of current housing and related assistance programs, a report to the Federal Government on future directions for housing in Australia and distribution of information on housing issues and the IYSH program. A report will also be forwarded by the Australian Government to the United Nations on IYSH activities in Australia. Further initiatives have already been taken. As a result of the recent amalgamation of Federal Departments, the Department of Community Services and Health now comprises both housing and related assistance programs such as aged persons services and supported accommodation. This will ensure far more efficient co-ordination of programs and will enable us to better assist the homeless and inadequately housed. It is fitting that this important step was taken in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Federal Government's Approach to IYSH The approach we have adopted for IYSH is different from other international years. A program was developed that focused on improving our existing policies and programs and examining innovation solutions to housing problems, rather than maximum publicity. We did not decide on this approach because our record in housing is something to hide. Quite the contrary, our record is outstanding. The current major programs to assist homeless persons-the Crisis Accommodation Program and the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program were both introduced by this Government. Funds made available by this Government this year for public housing exceed $1 billion. As well, the First Home Owners Scheme is widely hailed by housing industry groups. Indeed the ethos of home ownership in Australia has been a major thrust of housing policies of successive Governments and this has created a housing climate within which direct assistance to people with a housing need can be provided. Given our commitment to housing, we believed that there were more long term benefits to be gained from using the IYSH budget to review current housing efforts and ensure that levels of funding for housing are used efficiently and effectively in addressing Australia's housing needs. Conclusion I would like to finish by paying tribute to the non-government and community sectors and to the State Governments for their major contribution to IYSH. Without the effort of Bishop Peter Hollingworth and the other Non-Government Committee members, we would not have been able to achieve so much. I urge all members of the community and the Parliament to consider the report that will be published in December and to contribute to community consultation. A range of activities have been planned across Australia for National IYSH Week to be held from 8 to 15 November. These include the International Symposium on Self Help Housing in Melbourne and Sydney, housing forums focusing on de-institutionalisation and community housing, and the launching of IYSH education kits on housing issues. The week will provide a focus for attention on the Year's activities. To conclude, Mr President, the success of the IYSH program in Australia is not something we can gauge now or even in the near future. It is in the next 20 years that we can expect our efforts to bear fruit. We have made a start. We have set in place a process for the examination of housing policies and programs which combines the efforts of community groups, financial and business institutions and all levels of Government. With this continuing interest and contribution from non-government and community sectors, and governments, the Australian community as a whole can develop more effective solutions to problems of homelessness and inadequate housing in our country. Senator RYAN —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.11) —I was under some doubts as to whether to give the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) leave to incorporate the statement, because I believe it would have been a severe embarrassment for her to have had to read it to this chamber. It is such a totally empty statement, empty of any content at all, and it represents further cynicism on the part of this Government on an issue on which, in opposition, it would have been loud in its complaints at a lack of action from our side of politics. When we can now look at the situation of the homeless after four years, we see a substantial deterioration of their position under this Government. This is an utterly cynical and utterly empty statement, which chronicles the fact that the Government has achieved absolutely nothing for the homeless, and indeed has exacerbated their situation. What we find in this statement, which is given towards the end of the parliamentary year and which is expressed as being given at the time when we reach the end of this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, is that the Government claims to have made a start, and to have set in place a process for the examination of housing policies and programs-and that is all that has happened. What is totally absent from this statement is any attempt to measure the extent of homelessness in this country, and any attempt to suggest that the Government has in any effective way come to grips with the problems of homelessness in this country. We can look at it from a whole series of points of view, whether from the point of view of those who are genuinely homeless, in the sense of having no shelter over their head, or from the point of view of those who are ill housed or housed in very expensive accommodation and who are seeking relief through the public housing lists or assistance with the purchase of a house. It does not matter which way we look at it: the record of this Government is a record of total failure. For it to put this statement forward as a record of some sort of achievement in the Year of the Homeless is pathetic. This is a year in which the Government has cut $468m off its public housing programs. That may well have been an appropriate action to take, but that cut represents the total failure of the Government's programs to this point, which have involved the very considerable expenditure of additional public money, to absolutely no effect-indeed, to a negative effect. When this Government came to office there were 110,000 people on the public housing list, and that was regarded as something of a disgrace. One hundred and ten thousand Australian individuals and families were lined up waiting for public housing from the various State housing authorities. This Government, the Labor Government, promptly greatly increased public expenditure. It nearly doubled public expenditure, as I recollect it, in its first Budget. It set off down a path which has been destructive instead of constructive, because we find today, 4 1/2 years and moving on for five years after this Government commenced its work, that instead of 110,000 people being on the public housing waiting list, there are now 161,000 people on the list. That is the simple reality that is not mentioned in this statement. We have gone from a waiting list of slightly over 110,000 to 160,000. I say to the Senate that if the Government were honestly interested in the concerns of the homeless, we would see in this statement some analysis of the figures and some indication of the Government directing its mind at how it is going to solve the problem. Let me turn from the general public housing list to the situation of Aboriginal Australians. In 1983 the Australian Labor Party set out in its platform that it was going to have a six-year program to house Aboriginal Australians. I suppose many Australians thought that was a good idea, as probably many of the health, education and other problems of Aboriginal people relate to the fact that so many of those people are ill-housed. But what do we actually find? We find that the Aboriginal Development Commission reports this year that the position is 6 per cent worse after 4 1/2 years of Labor government than it was when the Government set off down its track. So if we look at that particular disadvantaged section of the Australian community, we find a position of a worsening, again, of the list of those people who are seeking assistance and who are unable to get it. I think it is pathetic that the Minister has made this statement in the Senate under the guise of its being some sort of response to the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. It is an empty shell; a sham; a hollow statement. I am amazed that Government back benchers are prepared to sit and take this total abrogation of responsibility and this failure, in the way they do, without any show of concern at all. One looks at this statement and finds that a committee has been established and that a very well-known Australian, Bishop Hollingworth, has been involved. His work with the Brotherhood of St Laurence is well known. One involves a man such as Bishop Hollingworth because it suggests that one is genuinely interested in the concerns of the poor. Nobody in Australia would argue that Bishop Hollingworth is not concerned with the interests of the poor. However, I say that if there were any genuine interest on the part of this Government in regard to the position of the homeless in Australia the Government would make a statement that told us precisely the position of the homeless. There is no quantitative assessment of the problem in this statement. There is no attempt to assess trends with respect to the homeless, be they the young homeless or the old homeless. We get the most pathetic dressing up of apparently $1.4m worth of expenditure. That is over and above the $1 billion spent on the public housing program. I can understand why it is that on page 9 of the distributed version of the statement we find the Minister saying: A program was developed that focused on improving our existing policies and programs and examining innovative solutions to housing problems, rather than maximum publicity. On this occasion I wish the Government had spent a bit of the $1.4m on publicity. That publicity, provided it disclosed the truth of the position, would appal many people in Australia and would indicate the gross failures of the Government in this area. I want to refer in this debate to the record of the Government. I have already said that there is a waiting list of more than 161,000 people for public housing. That is an increase of 50,000-plus. We have had 4 1/2 years of Labor government. I note that Senator Devereux, who is in the chamber, has complained that it took longer than he wished under the constitutional arrangements to become a Labor senator. I hope that now he is here he will take some interest in the extra 50,000 Australians on the waiting list for housing to see what can be done to help them through the policies of the Government of which he is a supporter. We find that the number of people who are seeking housing assistance has grown under this Government. There are now 64,000 Australians waiting for home purchase assistance under State schemes-again, an increase since this Government has been in office. I have already referred to the fact that the Government cut some $468m from public housing in the Budget this year. I would say that that represents a belated concession by the Government to the failure of its other policies. I ask honourable senators to remember when the Government removed the tax concession that was available through the negative gearing of purchases of rental properties. The Opposition warned then of the contribution that would make to the housing problem in Australia. Of course, we were roundly abused and denounced by the Government, by many Ministers, including the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-by Ministers in this place as well-as being involved in the protection of some sort of illicit taxation activities. Of course, in the last few months the Government has seen the error of its ways and has reversed its decision on negative gearing. We may see some relief in the private sector which will do something to reduce the enormous increase in the public housing waiting lists that has occurred under this Government. How in the world this can be claimed to be some sort of success in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless defies my comprehension. We look at 1986-87 and we see a year of record high interest rates. That is one of the reasons why it was difficult for Australians to get homes. In 1986-87 we had one of the lowest number of housing starts on record with the number of starts falling 30,000 below the predicted demand. In 1987-88 housing starts are expected to fall to 42,000 houses short of that demand. We find that home owners are paying up to 17 per cent more of their incomes in mortgage repayments than they were paying a decade ago. It is not surprising that there are more people on the public housing waiting lists when such a large proportion of earned income-after tax income-is required to purchase a home. It is not surprising that more people have to line up and ask for government assistance in respect of the purchase of a home. The real point I wish to make is that if this Government is concerned about the homeless it has to look to the fundamentals which will enable Australians to go on, in the great majority of cases, providing housing for themselves out of their own resources-leaving the Government to look after those who genuinely are unable to look after themselves. But what this Government has done is to increase vastly the pool of people who are genuinely unable to look after themselves. We are no longer talking about an unfortunate sector of society-the skid row derelicts who exist in every major city of the world, the Aboriginal fringe dwellers who exist in most of the rural areas of Australia, the people who obviously will not get respectable accommodation without the subvention of public money. The Liberal and National parties totally support the principle that we must provide housing programs for those who genuinely cannot help themselves. The plea which I make in this debate is for the Government to stop treating this matter as one which will be solved by the application of welfare policies to an ever larger group of Australians. What is substantially required is to ensure that we again expand the pool of Australians who can look after themselves and reduce the number of those who have to call upon the state. This Government has absolutely crucified those Australians who have to rent. We are very proud of the fact that the majority of Australians can own their own homes. More than 80 per cent of older Australians have the great benefit of owning a home and all of the studies on poverty that one can find will show that that is a very good way of insulating people from poverty in their old age. We should continue to encourage home ownership. It is a marvellous thing which has served Australia and the Australian community well. But we accept that for some people to do that is financially difficult; we accept that for some young people home ownership is obviously not necessary; we accept that there are many people who, for one reason or another, will need to rent. We have found that under this Government rent increases have raced ahead of the inflation rate and in our major population centres we have seen disastrous rent increases. In Sydney this has been 43 per cent. Mr President, you come from Sydney and you would know the extent to which there is genuine hardship in the city of Sydney because of rent increases of that order. There have been rent increases of 23 per cent in Melbourne, a 36 per cent increase in the space of one year in my own city of Perth and 27 per cent in Brisbane. The Government may well say, `That is why we have increased the amount of rent allowance for needy people'. But that is the whole point. This Government is producing an ever larger pool of people who are requiring assistance in a circumstance in which the Government is saying, `We have to cut back on government expenditure'. No one in this chamber could deny, with any honesty, that over the next 12 months it is quite likely that this Government will have to bear down further on government expenditure. I make that comment with no partisan intent at all. I simply say that any honourable senator who has thought about our current economic situation would agree that it is quite possible that the Government will further have to restrict government expenditure over the coming 12 months not because it wants to but because economic circumstances dictate it. We say they dictate it already; the Government is hedging but we believe that it will inevitably be drawn to that point of view. In those circumstances to suggest that the needs of the homeless in Australia will be met if we follow policies which increase the number of people requiring Government support is foolish. In a situation of declining availability of public funds to help the needy it is vitally important that the non-needy be encouraged to help themselves. It is very sad that the queues for public housing have lengthened so much under the Hawke Labor Government because that means that those genuinely needy people are less likely to receive the assistance they need. I again refer to my earlier reference to the Aboriginal community in this country. I do so because the Special Minister of State lectured the previous Government over and over again on these issues. When she was not promising land rights legislation to take the Queensland reserves out of the hands of the Queensland Government-it was going to be the first legislative act of a Labor government-she was on about our failure to do enough for the Aboriginal people. She put out a summary of what was going to be done for the Aboriginal people as part of the talking points for Labor candidates in 1983. That summary referred to the platform of the Labor Party, which was that in six years Aboriginal people would be accommodated. They would be accommodated to a standard acceptable to them, and one devised in consultation with them. I say to the Minister that the fact that she can bring into this chamber a statement that fails to give us a single figure on the position of the homeless in this country is an absolute disgrace. I simply wish to say that it is all very well for the Deputy Leader of the Government in this place, Senator Gareth Evans, to wax indignant about a member of the House of Representatives who, he says, is adopting tactics that he does not like. I remind the Senate of the recent rage of Senator Evans on that subject. I ask a question: When did we last hear a Labor senator express any rage about the situation of the poor in this country? When did we last hear a back bench supporter of this Government come in and express a word of serious criticism about the growth of poverty in this country, and about the appalling failure of this Government to live up to its promises? I cannot remember an occasion. If I do a Labor backbencher an injustice, I would welcome his or her involvement in this debate to remind me of the occasions when Labor members of parliament have repeated the promises that they made to the Australian people in 1983 and 1985-those promises that they would do all those things that the wicked Fraser Government did not! I stand here as an ex-member of the wicked Fraser Government, and as one who, for a time, was responsible for welfare housing. I did not preside over the waiting lists that this Government presides over. The Minister is quite right to say that I did not spend that amount of public money. However, I also did not assist in having policies which drove people on to the public housing lists in the hordes in which they have been driven under this Government. Senator Ryan —Do you want us to cut money? What is your logic? Senator CHANEY —The logic is, Minister, that the Government is producing more and more poor people in this country, people who cannot fend for themselves. I hope that the Government will give Bishop Hollingworth the opportunity to produce a genuine assessment of the position of the homeless in this country, and to publish it without any interference from the Government. This is one of the other areas of very significant policy failure by the Labor Party. I just wish that I could see some hint, on the Labor back bench, of a concern for the issues of social justice that Labor members endlessly parroted and trumpeted on about in opposition. It has been one of the greatest examples of political hypocrisy in my life time. Looking at the back benches opposite, one remembers the performance of the back bench members of the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia in government, when backbenchers were very often prepared to raise issues that were critical of the Government and difficult for the Government. I say that as a Minister who, at times, had to respond to those matters. I believe that this statement is an example of the poverty of the Labor Party and of the loss of concern that has been so much a feature of the Hawke Government. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the statement, but I am also very sorry that I have this opportunity because it represents in fact a recording of the desertion by this Government of those who most need the help of government. It is a pathetic, shabby, shoddy statement and I am sorry, on reflection, that I did not make the Minister read it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.29) —The International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (IYSH) has already been turned into a quarter of a million dollar publicity stunt by the Hawke Government. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, clearly pointed out, there has been a disastrous blowout in the number of people who are not adequately housed. Not one cent of the $1.4m allocated by the Government for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless is being spent on providing shelter for homeless Australians. However, $226,500-I repeat that for the benefit of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan): $226,500-is to be spent on promotion and public relations, the biggest single expenditure item in this $1.4m, which is taking almost 20 per cent of the total funding for the IYSH this year. The Government's policy decision to refuse to direct any of these funds to `the provision of shelter for the homeless as a matter of priority' is clearly contrary to the United Nations resolution setting up the IYSH. Its grant of only $50,000 to the United Nations Commission for Human Settlement is a ludicrous response to the United Nations request to provide funding for shelter in the disadvantaged and developing countries. It is scandalous that while organisations such as the Sydney City Mission and the Matthew Talbot Hostel, which cater for the most disadvantaged of the homeless, are being so starved of funds that they cannot cope with the demand, this $1.4m of IYSH funding is being frittered away mainly on promoting the Government and providing what in many cases appears to be politically useful grants. But nothing is going to those organisations which provide shelter to the 40,000 Australians shown in a recent survey to be sleeping either out of doors or in refuges. Instead, the Government has decided on the `primary focus' of IYSH in Australia being towards `improving the effectiveness of current housing programs and relevant aid programs'. But as these are almost entirely run by governments, State and Federal, why is there any real need for the Government to spend one-quarter of a million dollars on promotion and public relations campaigns in order to tell itself how it should fix up its own policies along with those of its four fellow Labor governments in the States? This promotional spending is really aimed at making the Government appear to be doing something positive to fix up its own inadequate or misdirected housing policies which, as Senator Chaney pointed out, have clearly failed, and which should have been under constant review as a matter of good government. Obviously, the Government has been totally incompetent in reviewing housing policies if, in fact, the situation is as Senator Chaney so outstandingly outlined it. For many years governments of all persuasions have had policies aimed at alleviating housing related poverty, including the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, the supported accommodation assistance program, the Aboriginal Development Commission and similar arrangements. The Government's efficiency in delivering shelter for the homeless-and as Senator Chaney pointed out, under his administration in the previous Government, the number of people in this desperate plight was lower than it is now-will not be assisted one iota by a grant of $7,300 to produce a personalised account of the history of the first Fremantle housing collective, or the $3,500 used to produce a video of the 1985 National Youth Housing Conference, which just happened to take place in the Wollongong electorate of the former Minister for Housing and present Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West), or the $7,000 to the Tenants Union for a national conference. Very little of the $1.4m of taxpayers' money allocated by the Government for this program will do anything positive towards the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless objective of improving the shelter of the homeless and inadequately housed by the turn of the century. But it has been a good public relations stunt by this Government. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(3.35) —I am amazed to hear the amount of hypocrisy flying around this chamber right now. I am sure that I shall hear a lot more in my time in this place. I have been a youth worker for 15 years. I have been working with the homeless and have seen the effect of government policies in the last 15 years. There is no party in this place, in any State or in any House, that can be proud of its record on the homeless. During the days of the Whitlam era I was chairperson of the Inner Sydney Regional Council for Social Development, a locally based, nationally integrated social planning program. Back in 1973-74 we identified the need for housing and social welfare. Those needs were identified 15 years ago. I personally have put in submission after submission to government after government about the needs of the homeless, the destitute and the unemployed. None of them has been taken up. I see from the Minister's statement that the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless: has provided a unique opportunity to re-examine housing problems and housing assistance . . . We do not need more re-examination. We need more action. It seems that whenever funding is to be cut to the homeless, to the poor, what happens is that arrangements are re-organised. The whole thing is put together in a glossy brochure and called reform, a brand new initiative. It is a sham. The statement says: The conditions of human settlements throughout the world are deteriorating. Despite considerable effort by the Government and the poor themselves, the number of people living in poverty continues to grow. The statement goes on to describe the situation in the world, but it could be describing the situation in this country. The Government talks of innovative programs to deal with housing and homelessness. I was associated with a number of attempts to introduce innovative programs to deal with homelessness and poverty. None has ever succeeded. All tried to make maximum use of the dollar and of the initiative by poor people and homeless people themselves and maximum use of community resources. What happens instead is that there is inquiry after inquiry, glossy brochure after glossy brochure. In my first speech to the Senate recently I talked about young people I knew who, for one reason or another, had died. I was pretty moved then and am still moved now to think of these people. They were young people of 15 or 16 years who supposedly should have been in the prime of their lives. They were homeless, without families or support, but they are dead through drugs, suicide or whatever it may be. This issue goes across the parties and across governments. It is the responsibility of us all, of everyone in the community, to ensure that people are housed, fed and clothed. Australia's housing record is shameful. Senator Chaney was waxing indignant about this Government's record. His were crocodile tears. I worked with the homeless during the Fraser years. Senator Walters —You are not the only one. Senator WOOD —I remind Senator Walters that the homeless and the poor were no better off during the Fraser years than they are at present under this Government. Senator Tambling —There were not as many. Senator WOOD —The population of Australia was not as large, either; there were not as many Australians, let alone as many poor people. Although this Government has carried on a policy of using unemployment as a tool of economic policy, that policy was certainly helped along to a great extent by Mr Fraser. During the Fraser years, using unemployment as a tool of economic policy reached full flight. I saw it happen. Mr Fraser took the attitude that the poor should look after the problems with the economy. His policy was to create a pool of unemployment and a pool of homelessness. Senator Walters —Unemployment under Fraser was a lot lower than it was under Whitlam. Don't be so silly. Senator WOOD —The Fraser years are certainly not a cause for pride by anyone. It behoves Senator Walters, Senator Tambling and the Minister to refrain from point-scoring and from saying that one government was better than the other government, that one Prime Minister was better than another Prime Minister. The homelessness continues. I agree that in 1987 the situation for the homeless is worse than it has ever been, but I do not think it would have been any better under a coalition government than it is under this Government. It is quite likely that it would have been worse. Senator Walters —Try us. Senator WOOD —I almost did, but I could not bring myself to do it. It is time that the priorities in this country were re-evaluated. We had the publicity sham called Priority One, which was just another public relations exercise aimed at attempting to show that something was being done for young people. In fact, nothing is being done for young people. Many years ago the Office of Youth Affairs was established, but the functions of that Office have been continually downgraded. The input of young people and young people's organisations into government policy has become less and less. Youth unemployment has grown and youth homelessness has grown. Senator Ryan —What about in education? What about improved retention rates? What about youth allowances and the young mother's allowance? Don't you know about any of those? Senator WOOD —The Minister interjects to tell us of the programs introduced and continued by this Government. Senator Ryan —Successful programs. Senator WOOD —Successful programs indeed! They have not been successful in eliminating homelessness; they have not been successful in providing young people with jobs; they have not been successful in giving young people access to decision-making in this country and in giving young people a place in our culture and in our society. Senator Ryan —What about all the young people now going to schools and universities who would not have been going before? What about Austudy and the young people's allowance? Senator WOOD —Senator Ryan makes a mistake in mentioning Austudy and universities. I was a student at Macquarie University when this Minister presided over the reintroduction of tertiary fees and fees for overseas students. A Bill we received today talks about increasing fees for overseas students. I have no doubt that in this Government's term it will move towards full cost tertiary fees. It has abandoned just about every other principle it stood for. This principle is just another one that will go. Senator Ryan —You are having a good time, aren't you, with all this rubbish? You are really enjoying yourself. Senator WOOD —I do not enjoy having to point out to the Minister, or anyone else, the situation of young people in this country. Senator Ryan —Haven't you heard of the family package? Senator WOOD —The Minister's haranguing of me does not change the fact that homelessness in this country is worse than it has ever been. Senator Ryan —What about the family package? You are not interested in the facts; you are interested in grandstanding. You are just another grandstander. Senator WOOD —The Minister seems to be projecting her own motivations on to me. She accuses me of being yet another grandstander. Senator Ryan —Exactly. Senator WOOD —Grandstanding is something that this Government does very well. This Government uses grandstanding as a substitute for policy, for government for change and for reform. Priority One: Young Australia was nothing but a grandstand. The document that has just been presented by the Minister is nothing but a grandstand. It is a sham, a grandstand to hide the fact that homelessness, poverty and unemployment are worse than they have been since the Depression. If it is grandstanding to say that, I will continue to grandstand. Injustice is something that we should all be concerned about as a real human issue. It should not be cause for political footballing. I had only a couple of minutes to look at the document so I will not go on because I do not have the detailed facts before me. I will close my remarks by making a plea to both the Government and the Opposition to cease making homelessness and poverty a political issue, a football. Fifteen years ago we had the ideas and the information. We knew how to eliminate poverty and homelessness. The proposals were there; they are there still. We have the resources in this country. There is no justification for homelessness in this country when certain figures can spend $3m at the races in one weekend; when members of the community can increase their personal wealth by $60m and pay very little income tax; when we still give tax-free profits to gold miners. There is no need for homelessness or poverty in this country. There is a crying need for the leadership and the will to eliminate them. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(3.49) —I draw the analogy between Senator Chaney's speech-rather than Senator Chaney himself-and a remark made about a United States senator many years ago. It was said that he was brilliant but utterly corrupt, that, like a dead mackerel by moonlight, `he shines and he stinks'. I think of Senator Chaney's speech in those terms. He spoke extremely well, but he was utterly wrong and I believe utterly corrupted by his view of economics. I am also reminded that after my maiden speech-honourable senators will recall it was to do with the failure of the growth economic model which is being pursued by both the Government and the Opposition and has been for a number of years and that that model is failing-Senator Chaney came up to me and said, `I enjoyed your speech. I don't think I understood it, but if I had I would have disagreed with it'. I take very strong issue with both the Government and the Opposition in relation to the economic policies which they are following because there has been an increase in the wealth of the very wealthy and an increase in poverty and homelessness, which is an inevitable consequence of that process. I remind the Senate that we are talking about a denial of one of the basic requirements of humankind. As Senator Wood pointed out, these basic requirements are food, shelter and clothing. We are not talking about the matters which concern the Government and the Opposition-whether there are more or fewer television sets being bought; the state of the economy in terms of consumption; how we can stimulate consumption and competitiveness; and how the market must rule in the economic life of this country. We are talking about homelessness, the inability of some people simply to have the basic requirement of shelter. I agree with Senator Chaney to the extent that it is difficult to see why the Government should have come forward with this extremely flimsy ministerial statement at this time, particularly as this statement says that in December there will, presumably, be a full report. I will get on to that in a moment. The statement is very lightweight. It says that the community `has been made aware of', that we are `to be encouraged to consider' and that we are `evaluating various things'. I point out again that this process started many years ago. To be told that that is as far as we have got at this stage is very depressing. It is surprising that the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) has seen fit to come up with such a lightweight document. This statement deals with the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. On page 2 there are some statistics which deal with the international characteristics of homelessness. I will mention these statistics because our economic policies are increasing homelessness and poverty in Third World countries. Page 2 states: . . . that the number of people living in poverty continues to grow steadily-and now totals around one and a quarter billion or a quarter of the earth's population. As I said a moment ago, the Western industrial world-call it the northern world, or what you will-has been pursuing a policy of active economic growth and development for 200 years. If at the end of 200 years we are still in a situation where a quarter of the earth's population cannot find adequate sustenance for the basic necessities of life, then something is wrong with that model. As Senator Wood has pointed out, we do indeed have enough resources in this country and in the world. There is something wrong with the economic model being pursued if we cannot do better than that. The Government and the Opposition extol the virtues of market forces. Indeed, in relation to the reintroduction of negative gearing, this Government has relied extensively on the market, through the increased profits which are made available to the rich, in the hope that some of that competitiveness will result in more housing for those who are less able. Markets do not ever provide for those who cannot compete in them. Markets serve the interests only of those who are able to compete-those who are already wealthy, the privileged-and never serve the needs of the underprivileged and those who are poor. Those who extol the virtue of market forces talk about trickle-down. They say that if the rich get richer somehow or other the poor will also get some crumbs from the table. That is often put forward as a reason why the Western industrial countries need to compete more successfully both with each other and with Third World countries. The fact of the matter is that that is simply not occurring. The poor countries are getting poorer, the competitiveness, again, is resulting in an increasing maldistribution of wealth, and those in underdeveloped-let us call them never to be developed-countries in fact are becoming worse off as time goes on. Competition in fact serves the interests of the well off and does not serve the interests of the poor. This country is also part of the financial structure of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Those two organisations are instruments by which the developed world has further encased the never to be developed world in increasing poverty. The structure and system of lending of those institutions have in fact increased the inability of Third World countries to provide for even the basic needs of their own people. One need only look to our north to see the way in which the World Bank has funded extensive tropical forest clearing in parts of Indonesia and on into West Irian. In fact, the indigenous people in that country have been dispossessed, the forest has been cleared, the environment has been degraded and there has been no benefit. There has been a net increase in poverty, but in the process some people in those countries have become rich through the exploitation of the natural resources. I am not sure, but I think it was J. S. Mill who pointed out many years ago that men do not want to become rich but to become richer than other men. In a world which is limited in its size and in its ability to provide the where- withal for all, competitiveness is indeed a zero-sum game; that is, some get rich at the expense of others becoming poorer. Australia, unfortunately, in pursuing its policy of increased competitiveness, is participating in a process which is increasing the inability of Third World countries to provide housing. I turn now to Australia. One finds on page 3 of this statement that the Federal Government makes available some $2 billion a year on housing and related programs. But on page 5 we find that the Federal Government will spend approximately $1.5m on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless activities. That is 0.7 per cent of the amount being spent on housing as a whole. So, again, one wonders somewhat just how serious the Government is about the bottom end of the need for housing, those who are less able to provide. Quite clearly, the majority-- Senator Ryan —That is what the $2 billion is spent on. Senator COULTER —The $2 billion, I presume, is spent on housing and related programs. Senator Ryan —Yes, like refuges, shelters, emergency accommodation, public housing. Senator COULTER —I think it is quite clear that $1.4m is spent on those who are without shelter. In relation to negative gearing, which I have already mentioned, again the Government has pandered to the rich rather than to those in real need. I point again to figures given at the National Taxation Summit in 1982-83 which show that less than 2 per cent of people who will benefit from the reintroduction of negative gearing had taxable incomes below the then average wage. I would also like to give a further example of the way in which the problem is really not one of availability of housing but one of housing equity and the inability of those who are poor to obtain housing. When the Government reintroduced negative gearing, Mr Tim Jordan, speaking on behalf of the Tenants Union of Victoria, pointed out that vacancy rates had tripled in Melbourne recently. He said: Negative gearing won't answer the problems of low income earners who need rent subsidies and not more rental property. The problem is not one of providing housing but simply the unequal distribution of the housing which is available. I would like for a moment to develop that theme. Returning to the economic model which this Government and the Opposition pursued, namely, one of growth-that is, increasing the dollar value of goods and services consumed year on year, and this takes no account of the stock-what is being measured is simply the flow of money through the building sector, which says nothing at all in useful language about the availability of housing for those in real need. There is a need to collect data of a different sort. That data needs to be related to the size of the housing stock, the number of people we have in this country and the distribution of that housing stock among the people, rather than simply measuring the number of dollars that are spent in this or that program and the number of dollars that flow through this or that sector of the economy. I suspect that if one were to look at the building industry as a whole over recent years, one would find that there has been a substantial increase in the flow of dollars through the building sector but that that has been very much in the area of commercial building rather than in the building of private dwellings. Spending has been very largely for the building of office accommodation in the central business districts of Australian metropolitan cities. To conclude, I think this statement is extremely lightweight. It is difficult to see why the Government should have seen fit to bring it forward at this time. It is inadequate in that it does not contain any of the data that is required to make even a proper assessment of the problem which it says is so important, and it does not tell us anything about what has been done to solve this extremely desperate problem. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.05) —I, too, believe that the ministerial statement of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) is the lightest of the lightweight documents that I have ever seen come into this Parliament. I do not wonder that the Minister did not want to read it because, if she had, she would have looked more ridiculous than she did. I suppose we have reached the stage where the Government is ready to see who to blame. Is it going to blame the previous Government or is it going to blame what is happening overseas? Who is it going to blame? The Government has had 4 1/2 years to do something about the crisis situation that we are in at the moment. All we have had from the Government has been these mouldy policies. Senator Maguire —We are still producing more houses than you did. Senator ARCHER —The gap is bigger than it has ever been. The crisis is greater now than it has ever been in Australia in my lifetime. Government senators have no idea how difficult it is for people to rent or own a home. It is all right for people like us because we are housed and clothed. But one only has to look at the growing number of people who are in trouble to appreciate that there is a problem. Whatever the Government is doing is totally inadequate and, in the main, totally misplaced. We have no consistency of policy, and that has been the problem with housing for the last 50 years. I am not saying that this is the fault of the present Government. But we have this on-off policy: What we are doing today we reverse tomorrow; we build it up and we slash it down. There are problems with design, problems with finance and problems with services, all built up and slashed down from time to time. One only has to look at house prices. What chance does the average person in Australia have to buy a house? The single income family with a few kids has no hope in the world of getting housed at present. Land prices are artificially high because of ridiculous regulations and ridiculous requirements. The rent for a two-bedroom unit in Canberra is about $150 a week. What chance do young people on a single income have of getting a house of their own? Look at the effect that Government policies have had on interest rates. A newspaper cutting which I have before me, dated November 1986, contains an article headed `Home loan payments jump 36 per cent in 12 months'. How can one budget when one's income might be going up 6 per cent but one's repayments are going up 36 per cent? Home buyers are the sorts of people who are getting into trouble further along the line. Recently I raised a question in this place about the fact that the number of housing defaults had doubled in 12 months. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has produced figures which show that the number of people who are in trouble with their mortgages has doubled in 12 months. This is all part of the Government's housing policy. This is the result of the interest mess, the inflation mess and the debt mess that this Government has got us into. Earlier in the debate the Minister placed great store in the fact that the Government was going to spend $2 billion on housing and related programs. That is very good!-it represents $133 a head. That is really very good! The Minister should not overlook the fact that the waiting lists for housing have risen from 100,000 to 160,000 under her Government's magnificent programs. The Government has done a great job! The problem is not getting any less and it is not likely to. I feel very sorry for the people who are mixed up with the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless because, really, they have drawn the short straw. What about the 40,000 people, or more, who do not have a home of any sort? What are we going to do about them, except engage in this sort of platitude and produce a skimpy, miserable document like the one before us, and leave it at that? Senator Ryan —You would knock the $2 billion off. Senator ARCHER —The Government has had 4 1/2 years. Do not start blaming me or us for the policies that are now in vogue. The Government has had 4 1/2 years and it has made a pretty poor job of it in that time. Senator Ryan —Every year we have had increases in the supply of housing. Senator ARCHER —Every year the Government has had a chance to do something. Every year we have got deeper in debt. Our interest rates have got higher and our inflation rate is still way above the world average. This is what is costing our young people the chance to purchase their own homes. Government policies have had a big effect on social change, of where people live and how people live. In the Whitlam era youngsters were encouraged to leave home. At that time it was considered smart to do so. But where are they now? They have no hope now of getting back. Look what we have done with the aged. People used to look after their aged once. Where are they now? A lot of nonsense is talked about negative gearing. I can tell honourable senators that all around Australia people who owned property were, in the main, involuntary landlords. The vast majority of them did not want to be landlords, but they owned property that they had grown out of but retained, property that had been left to them or property that they could not sell after moving on. What about those people? With a bit of negative gearing, they were able to maintain the place and provide a home for other people. However, the Government, in one fell swoop, said, `We don't want you to do this; we don't need you to do this. We will make you sell'. And it did. The Government cannot get those people back. It can bite the same people only a given number of times and it has bitten them once too often. No investment will come back to this area. The Government suddenly says that it thinks negative gearing was not such a bad thing after all. Of course it was not a bad thing, but those thousands of people around Australia who owned and let houses, sometimes at uneconomic rents, providing shelter for many people, will not come back. One cannot blame the real people in the real world for starting to get a bit sceptical about the mouthings that go on and about the publicity that the Government keeps blowing up and floating around that means absolutely nothing. What else is it but second rate mouthings? We expect some policy to come out of it and we expect the Government to do something. We expect the Government after 4 1/2 years to come up with some cohesive plan so that these people will be better off. The Government's $1.4 billion is neither here nor there. Its $133 per head is achieving nothing. When we look at some of the ratbag schemes that get money, and get it in quite big licks, it is a pity that we cannot do better than this flimsy, miserable document to tell people something about housing. I hope that the Government gets roasted as a result of this, as it deserves to. The Government has done nothing to deserve anything better. I think it is a disgrace that this document should come forward like this now. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.13) —There has been considerable tumult and shouting from the other side, and so there should be. This is a very serious issue. People without homes are people in tragic circumstances. People on the poverty line are, again, people in tragic circumstances. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber candidly accept that there is never enough that can be done for the poor and the homeless. The Opposition said that Senator Ryan had allowed the present situation to occur. Let us be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, as a matter of history, unfortunately, there have always been poor and homeless people. Traditionally, we on this side of the House have done a lot more than those on the other side to alleviate that poverty and homelessness. Secondly, although the Opposition has criticised the Government's performance over the last 4 1/2 years, Senator Ryan and the Cabinet of which she is a member have at least done something-shortly I will say that they have done a lot-to alleviate the situation, which has not been done by honourable senators opposite. None of the Opposition speakers so far have produced for the poor and the homeless of this country the things that Senator Ryan has produced over the last 4 1/2 years. That is a fact. Opposition members have not spent a dollar in government, because they have not been in government during that time, and they have not contributed, as this Government has, because they have not had an opportunity to do so. That is to be kept in mind when we hear the criticism from the other side of the chamber. Senator Chaney says that this is the first time this has been raised in debate, and that no backbenchers on this side have shown concern about those in poverty. If we look back through Hansard, we see that that is not correct. This much criticised statement has been an occasion for a debate which I have found very interesting and quite moving and which at long last has turned the concerns of the House as a whole to areas which obviously need to be looked at. There seems to be enough in this statement to provoke the sort of debate that has gone on. But what about this statement? This is a ministerial statement, done in the context of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, and it no doubt attempts, and in my view succeeds, to show what Australia is doing in a situation which is a tragedy not only in Australia but more particularly around the world, that tragedy being the lack of homes and indeed the poverty that exists in the world generally. That did not seem to attract the attention of any of the speakers so far. They have shown a parochial interest, and properly so I suppose, and concern for only Australia. The Opposition said that there were no specifics given in this statement. But on page 3 of the statement, under the paragraph headed `IYSH in Australia', the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) stated: The Federal Government makes available some $2 billion a year on housing and related programs That is completely ignored by those who would tend to belittle this statement. Why was that not discussed by the Opposition, and by Senator Wood, a man who I think made a compassionate and well directed speech but who, nevertheless, did not turn his attention to that question of the $2 billion a year. It is always easy to criticise and to play cricket from the spectators' side of the fence. If that is what the process is going to be on the other side, so be it. But what does the Opposition say about the many programs that this Government has brought in? What does it say about the various funds that have been made available-perhaps I should refer to some of them-under, for instance, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement specific purpose programs? What about the amount of $37.5m in 1987-88 for rental housing assistance for pensioners? What about the amount of $60m in 1987-88 for rental housing assistance for Aboriginals? What about the amount of $15.5m in 1987-88 for the crisis accommodation program? What about the amount of $25m in 1987-88 for the mortgage and rent relief schemes? What about the amount of $12m in 1987-88 for the local government and community housing program and so on? One might have hoped that those efforts would have been recognised and acknowledged by those on the other side. Perhaps they may have said that it is not sufficient. If they had said that, we might have hoped that they would then have put a program down. It is very interesting that the Opposition and Senator Coulter and Senator Wood, having got up and said that this is a lightweight statement, at no stage have put down a program on what they would do. It seems a rather peculiar approach for them to criticise a statement as being lightweight but produce absolutely no programs, no suggestions and no policies as to what should be done in place of the policy that the Government has put forward. Perhaps we should again ask why that should be the situation. The expression on Senator Chaney's face when he spoke indicated that he is a man of great sincerity. So why was he not able to produce an alternative policy? Is the reason the fact that there is no such policy? For the Opposition to talk about a lightweight statement and then to talk in an even more lightweight fashion, is incredible. Senator Stone —Come on, you know your side is responsible for policy. Senator COONEY —Senator Stone says that our side is responsible for policy and so it is. We have put down a policy and I have enunciated some of the programs under it. If the Opposition only criticises Government policy it becomes a little negative after a while. Instead of going into spasms of outrage it should say what ought to be done but it has not produced any policy in this area. I cannot remember any such policy being put forward during the election campaign when such policies should have been put forward. The Opposition makes statements about lightweight documents but the Minister's document bears reading again and again. It directs our attention first to the overseas situation and then to Australia's situation and outlines the programs. Does the Opposition want an Encyclopaedia Brittanica produced to set out all our programs? This document has to be looked at without taking it out of context and twisting it as has been done here today, which is wrong. People have remarked about honourable senators walking out of the chamber. That is more a debating point than a serious point in normal circumstances but if Senator Chaney, Senator Wood and Senator Coulter were as indignant as they said they were on this matter, why have they not stayed in the chamber as the Minister has? If they are so outraged by the supposedly lightweight statement that was made here why have they not stayed in the chamber to listen to the debate, or is their point simply to seize on this statement, to make a political play about it and then to walk out with a grand sweep of the cape saying, `Look, haven't we now made another grand attack on Senator Ryan'? Was the purpose of their speeches to make an attack on Senator Ryan or did they have genuine concern for the poor and homeless? If they had genuine concern for the poor and homeless, why have they not stayed in here and why have they not produced a policy instead of getting up and simply saying, `It is the Government's duty to produce a policy; the Opposition is not going to produce a policy for you. All of the billions of dollars that you have spent we are going to ignore because we want to make a nice little debating point at 4 o'clock on the final day of sitting, hopefully to get a Press headline so that Senator Ryan can be made to look poor.'? Senator Walters —How many of your colleagues are present? Senator COONEY —That is a good point but my colleagues have not attacked this Minister. (Quorum formed) During the forming of the quorum I had some further evidence of the great progress of the Government in this area placed in my hands. I am informed that the number of approvals for new private dwellings rose by 1.1 per cent in August and by 3.4 per cent in the three months to August. That is another indication that the number of building commencements is increasing. The Government's approach to poverty should be seen in terms of not only its housing policy but also its policy packages in other areas. The family package brought approval from Bill Kelty, who said that it had given the working people of Australia benefits that they would have taken 50 to 60 years to get otherwise. The package, which the Government produced in the course of the election campaign, also met with the approval of Julian Disney of the Australian Council of Social Service. The Government has developed programs in the area of taxation and it has increased social security payments. All these indicate a general context within which people in Australia are better off than they otherwise would have been. Let me make it clear that there is a long way to go in eliminating poverty in Australia. There is a long way to go in housing people in Australia. All Australians are entitled to a decent standard of living; all Australians are entitled to housing. The Australian Labor Party has done more than any other party that might have been in power during this time would have done to achieve the goal of having everybody clothed, housed and fed properly. The Minister has been a member of Cabinet throughout that period. She has shown compassion in this area. In fact, her record makes the statements made against her today in this debate seem very petty, mean and ungracious. She has achieved great things. This Government has achieved great things. This Government's programs will ultimately eliminate the gross areas of poverty and the homelessness that exists in Australia today. I can make that statement in the light of the evidence of the sorts of things that the Government has done already. It behoves the honourable senators who have criticised the Minister today at least to produce some alternative program. Until that is done it is not the Minister who should be criticised for lightweight statements but those honourable senators. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.28) —I intend to deal with just one section of the statement by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. I will address my remarks to the area of homeless youth because I believe that the youth of Australia have been treated so badly by this Government. Their expectation of what this Government was going to supply was raised beyond all possible fulfilment. At first we had Priority One: Young Australia. As we all know that program is finished. I am not quite sure of the name of the Government's next program but it is something like `Let's get things together'. The Minister might correct me on its exact name, although she may not even be aware of it. However, that is the latest program the Government has notified a youth group in Brisbane of. The homeless youth of Australia, I believe, have been badly treated by this Government as a result of the raising of their expectations of what the Government would do when it came to power. As chairman of a committee that went around Australia and spent several years looking at the homeless youth problem, I feel that I have a fair bit of knowledge. We visited a considerable number of shelters in each capital city. We also visited some shelters in the country areas. It was a pitiful situation, because these shelters coped not only with young men and women up to the age of 25, but also with young boys and girls aged 13. As anyone would know, those two age groups-particularly those two age groups of people in crisis-cannot possibly be housed together with any success. Yet, if the 25-year-olds were sent off, the only place they could go would be a place like an old men's shelter. That certainly would not be appropriate for a 25-year-old man. These shelters attempt to deal with this vast age group. The police would pick up 13-year-old girls who perhaps had spent the night under bridges, and, instead of taking them to a home for that appropriate age group, they would bring them along to the shelter because the 13-year-old girls refused to go to an institution. They did not have to stay there because that is no longer considered appropriate. We found many very sad instances. We found that the majority of young people out on the streets were there because of a family breakdown. By far the majority had been thrown out. They were not undisciplined; they had not run away deliberately because they were not prepared to take discipline at home. They had simply been discarded by the parents. Often, parents were living in a de facto relationship. The father would say to the mother, `It's either me or her. You make your decision'. The mother, for the sake of the security of the rest of the family, would decide to throw out the teenage daughter. One young girl said, `I couldn't put up with his interfering with me any longer, so I had to go. But Mum's not bad, she slips me $10 every now and again when she can'. There was a young lad, covered in tattoos, whose hair was pretty long, and who wore a singlet. I said to him, `What's your story, lad?', and he burst into tears. He looked tough. He was a young lad of 14 to 15. When I said to the chap running the shelter, `Go and see whether you can comfort him', he said, `Oh, he'll toughen up. It's his first night away from home, but he'll toughen up. His dad's thrown him out'. When I asked a mother if she knew where her 12-year-old daughter was, she just said, `I don't want to talk about it. My nerves won't take it. I don't want to talk about it'. That was her response. What has the Government done for these sorts of people? What has the Government done for the mother who is so distraught that she ends up in the Department of Social Security with a young toddler hanging on to her legs, on to her skirt, screaming, `Don't leave me Mummy' while mummy, in frustration, unable to cope any longer, hands over her baby. Cheap rental housing is not available. What was the Government's answer to that? Its answer was to get rid of negative gearing. The Government got rid of negative gearing because it thought some of the landlords were making too much money out of it. Negative gearing enables people to keep their rent down. When the Government found that this did not work-indeed rents went up particularly in low rental areas-it changed its mind and reintroduced negative gearing. That is how the Government dealt with this matter. When we were debating this matter a little earlier I think Senator Ryan said to Senator Wood that the Government had introduced Austudy. It was Senator Wood, was it not? Senator Wood —Yes. Senator WALTERS —Good heavens, homeless kids do not think of study. They do not know that if they go back to school, to a tertiary or technical college or engage in some higher education they can get money. They are not thinking in those terms; they are thinking purely of survival. Senator Ryan assured us that she had spent a lot of money on shelters. Are shelters the answer? I have just explained how shelters are not the answer. We cannot successfully put in the one shelter young men aged 25 and young girls aged 13. It is just not appropriate. Increasing the numbers of shelters to cope with the homeless youth is not the right answer. If Senator Ryan had gone around the shelters as I did she would have found that these young people were not after shelters; they were after low rental accommodation that they can share. When I visited Kings Cross one of the more responsible people looking after a couple of shelters in Kings Cross said to me, `For heaven's sake, don't open any more shelters in the Cross. People from outside the Cross who come to my shelter are immediately taken to a shelter in the suburbs. I will not take them into my shelters because once I do they are hooked; they are here and they will never leave the Cross'. Such people do not even collect the Government's lousy unemployment benefit. That is peanuts. They enter the prostitution trade and they get on drugs. This person looking after shelters in Kings Cross never takes people from outside the Cross into his shelter; he takes them to the shelters in the suburbs. He pleaded with me not to open any more shelters in the Cross because it was just not appropriate to do so. Do not let us pretend that this Government will fix things by opening more shelters; it will not fix things by opening more shelters. I do not know how the Government hopes to deal with family breakdowns because no one can legislate for human behaviour. Senator Cooney said that the Opposition has been critical of the Minister's speech. He can bet we have been critical of the Minister's speech. He asked why we have not put up a policy. We received the Minister's speech only in the last hour. How could we possibly have put up an alternative? We know that under this Government a record number of applicants-161,857-have been waiting on the public housing list because that is the cheapest housing. We know that the Government has cut $468m from public housing and capital funding, and this is the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. We know that this year has been a record year for inflation so people who are in dire straits have not been able to manage. The Minister told us in her statement: It has also been a year in which both government and non-government sectors have evaluated Australia's housing programs. I wish the Minister had stayed in the chamber until the end of this debate. For her to make a statement, to commence a debate, and then leave the chamber is completely irresponsible. She has been replaced by the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) who has no interest in this topic. If I were to ask him in what way have the Government and non-government sectors evaluated Australia's housing programs, I dare say he would not be able to tell me. Senator Richardson —There would not be any point in telling you because you never listen. Senator WALTERS —The Minister just answers in his smart-alick fashion that there would not be any point, that I would not listen. I ask him how he has evaluated Australia's housing programs this year. I would be really most interested to know. Let us look at the Government's aims. When the Government professes to express the aims of its policy for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless it is most important that we look at those aims most carefully. The Government says it has three aims. One is to: Improve the effectiveness of the current range of Federal and State housing programs and to ensure that Australia's overseas aid programs are addressing some of the housing related programs in nearby countries. How does the Government intend to improve the effectiveness of the current range of Federal and State housing programs? There is nothing in this statement to tell us. Nothing in this statement will enable us to evaluate at the end of next year whether that aim has been accomplished. How will Senator Richardson evaluate whether Australia's overseas aid programs are addressing some of the housing-related problems in nearby countries? I hope the honourable senator is interested enough to be able to tell the House. In what way is the Government going to address the housing-related problems of nearby countries? It is because of the rubbish in this statement that members of the Opposition are being critical. It is absolute rubbish, and I am sure that Senator Wood is beginning to realise why we are being critical of it. It is rubbish to put those aims in the statement when no intention is expressed. This is an absolutely hypocritical method for the Government to state its aims. The second aim is to: Increase the contribution of governments and the private and community sectors towards assisting the homeless and inadequately housed. If the Government increases its contribution by a dollar, it has accomplished that aim. If it increases it by one minute program, it has accomplished that aim. Is that really what the Government is aiming at? Let us turn to the Government's third aim. It is to: encourage innovation and equity in the use of existing housing, and future additions to the housing stock and the financing of support mechanisms that are necessary for providing low cost housing. How is the Government going to encourage that? Encourage it to what degree? What is it expecting? What is its aim? It also says: These aims have also been accepted by State governments. What utter rubbish the Government is talking when it puts down such a statement and expects the Opposition not to be critical of it. It has hoodwinked the public by saying that it has aims and that it has even expressed them. It has no more aims expressed as outcomes of what it wants than it has flights to the moon. The Government has said that it will spend approximately $1.4m on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Then it tells us what some of the projects on which it will spend this money are to be. It says that over 50 projects have been funded by the Federal Government around Australia. It sounds wonderful, until one gets into what those programs are. This is what the Government is wasting its money on-taxpayers' money: housing collectives, school kits and research. As if we have not had enough research in this area. The Government has reports, there have been enough surveys, the departments have done all the studies and the Government is spending more on research. There is research into inadequate housing on Thursday Island. Then there will be major conferences-more major conferences. Ye Gods! We have had so many conferences. Senator Stone —We could have a summit on it. Senator WALTERS —Yes; why not. Let us have another summit where the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will no doubt say, as he did when he got a bit carried away during the election, `There will not be a child in poverty by the end of the next Parliament'. That just shows the hypocrisy of this Government, and Senator Wood was criticising us for being critical of this statement. He can see that it is not fair for him to be critical of us, because this Government has issued a whole lot of rubbish to us, trying to pull the wool over his eyes and our eyes, trying to tell us that it has aims, trying to tell us what it has done in this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. All right, we have the major conferences that the Government is having. We have the World Planning and Housing Congress, and the Government will support dissemination of information on housing issues. How does the Senate like that one? Why is the Government wasting our money on that sort of rubbish when, over the last few years, its department has been doing surveys? Senator Bolkus —Senator Chaney said that we were not spending enough. Senator WALTERS —Senator Bolkus has just walked in and has decided that he will say a word or two. He should be sincere, get up, having read the Minister's statement, and make some intelligent comments about it. There is not a speaking list. The senator is at liberty to get up because, after all, only one Labor member has been sufficiently interested in this statement to get to his feet. I invite Senator Bolkus to get up and tell us what he knows about homelessness. It would not be too darn much. We are being told about the evaluation of the housing programs. The Minister gets a little carried away on all this evaluation. I wonder what `evaluation' means to the Minister. Of course, she is not in the Senate to answer that question. I will read from her statement: Many of the projects funded related to the first aim for IYSH-the improvement of the effectiveness of Australia's housing and related assistance programs. How in the heck can the Government evaluate that? There is no way the Government can evaluate it because the only way that anything can be evaluated is to have an object, an outcome, not just an aim. Senator Bolkus is shaking his head because he really does not understand. Senator Bolkus —I take a point of order. Staying here and listening to this economic and housing illiterate telling me that I do not understand is something I cannot tolerate. Mr President, I ask you to ask Senator Walters to concentrate on the document, the objects of the document and the priorities espoused therein, not to go on rambling about a whole range of topics. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —Of course there is not, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walters to address the Chair, not other senators. Senator WALTERS —I am. I just said, `Of course there is not, Mr President'. One cannot evaluate aims. One can evaluate only objects and outcomes. If Senator Bolkus understood that, perhaps he would not have bothered to criticise. The Government is saying that it will evaluate `the improvement of the effectiveness of Australia's housing and related assistance programs'. `Major reviews' comes under the evaluation heading. That is very interesting because this Government thinks that evaluation means major review. It says: Major reviews have been undertaken by governments to this end. That is good-Caesar evaluating Caesar. The statement continues: The Triennial Evaluation of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has resulted in amendments to the Housing Assistance Act being introduced in the Parliament. So the Government evaluates its own program. That is good stuff. The statement goes on: Reviews of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Review and the Local Government and Community Housing Program are currently in progress. Perhaps Senator Wood will now agree with me that the Government has issued a statement that means absolutely nothing. To cap it all, although the Government expects us to swallow all this lovely highbrow stuff and expects the community to do likewise, it has taken advantage of homeless youth, as I said a little earlier, by raising their expectations of what this Government could supply to them. Now it is giving them more of the same, saying that a report from the Australian Government on International Year of Shelter for the Homeless activities in Australia will also be forwarded to the United Nations. Can honourable senators imagine this report to the United Nations, full of all this lovely flowery, highbrow stuff, saying, `We have evaluated, we have aims.'? It is all a load of rubbish. The Government has attempted today with its flowery, cosmetic stuff to pull the wool over our eyes. There is no way that the Government is likely to do that and I am quite sure that Senator Wood is now well aware of what to expect from it in the future. (Quorum formed) Senator WOOD(New South Wales) —I seek leave, Mr President, to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WOOD —During Senator Cooney's speech on the statement of the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan), he gratuitously said that I was not in the chamber and suggested that that indicated my lack of concern for the issue. In fact, I was in the middle of speaking to a group called the Children's Liberation Group from New South Wales which is organising a vigil of homeless young people in Town Hall Square. These people had a vigil last week and they are having another during the weekend. I was making arrangements to speak to that group in Sydney when I received notice that the Minister was about to table this document. Because of my concern for the homeless I came into the House and spoke to the Minister's statement. I then went back to finish those arrangements. I think it was unfair that Senator Cooney should draw attention to the fact that I was not in the House when there were only three Government senators in the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —The following messages have been received from the House of Representatives: Message No. 64 The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: That the House of Representatives, having considered message No. 20 of the Senate, agrees that the Senate Standing Committee on Infrastructure, when sitting as a joint committee with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure to consider matters referred to in paragraph (1) of message No. 20 of the Senate, have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory appointed during previous Parliaments. Message No. 65 The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: (1) That this House concurs in paragraphs (2) to (5), inclusive, of the resolution transmitted in message No. 37 of the Senate relating to the powers and proceedings of the Standing Committees on Infrastructure of the Senate and the House of Representatives when sitting as a joint committee. (2) That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Message No. 66 The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that the House this day resolved that references to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure in resolutions of the House of this session be read as references to the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. The PRESIDENT —I present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. The report deals with the Committee's consideration of variations in the 1987-88 estimates for the Department of the Senate. The report also refers to the Review of Parliamentary Administration. I commend the report to the Senate. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —I present the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on income tax rulings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BOLKUS —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. On 27 May 1987, the Senate resolved that the then Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs should consider and report on: (a) the nature, function, ambit and adequacy of income tax rulings issued by the Commissioner of Taxation; and (b) the process by which these rulings are formulated and disseminated. This reference was amongst those referred to the new Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when it was appointed as the parliamentary successor of the previous Committee on 22 September 1987. The Committee received submissions from most of the professional organisations involved in providing taxation advice, as well as from a range of individuals and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Committee also received considerable assistance from the office of the Commissioner of Taxation, from whom we received two submissions. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Commissioner for his assistance. In general the submissions expressed support for the system of taxation rulings, although particular submissions took issue with particular rulings. The Committee interpreted its reference as requiring it to consider the system of taxation rulings. The Committee noted two consistent themes in the submissions. First, whether the Commissioner's rulings should be binding, particularly, whether they should be binding upon the Commissioner. The suggestions made to the Committee included proposals to elevate Commissioner's rulings to the status of subordinate legislation, to make the rulings binding on the Commissioner only and/or to establish a system similar to that which operates pursuant to the Sales Tax Procedure Act 1934 in relation to sales tax rulings. Secondly, many submissions urged the Commissioner to consult with a greater range of individuals and organisations over the drafting of rulings. In relation to binding rulings, the Committee has concluded that rulings should not be binding, either generally or upon the Commissioner alone. The Committee believes that the rulings cannot be made binding, on either a practical or a political level, without diluting their effectiveness and interfering with the operations of the Commissioner of Taxation. Our reasons for reaching this conclusion are set out in some detail in chapter 2 of our report. Of course, in reaching this conclusion, the Committee does not wish to be seen to be encouraging the Commissioner to disregard his rulings. The Committee endorses the Commissioner's existing practice which is to depart from his rulings only where there is good reason, such as where the tax Acts have been changed, or where the ruling was wrong. In relation to consultation, the Committee received some evidence on the operation of the Tax Liaison Group and the consultative processes which precede the issuing of rulings. The Committee was impressed by the degree of support for the rulings system evident among the tax professionals. However, the Committee noted that many of these professional organisations urged the Commissioner to consult as widely as possible over the drafting of rulings. The Committee recognises that there are limits to the degree of consultation which is possible before the system becomes unworkable. Nonetheless, the Committee encourages the Commissioner to consult as widely as is practicable. Some submissions argued that the Commissioner's rulings were biased against taxpayers. The Committee recognises that this allegation raises the larger question of whether the Commissioner's role is to protect the revenue on the one hand, or to assist the public on the other. If the Commissioner's role is to protect the revenue, this role will determine the decision whether to issue a ruling and the form and content of such a ruling. For example, ambiguity or uncertainty in income tax law may deter taxpayers from arranging their affairs in a particular way so as to minimise tax. The Commissioner would best protect the revenue by not issuing a ruling on the matter; second best would be to issue an unhelpful or obscure ruling. On the other hand, if the Commissioner's role is to assist the public, this would be best fulfilled by the prompt issue of clear rulings whenever requested. The two roles will not always be in conflict. In many cases, assisting the public may directly or indirectly protect the revenue. The Committee encourages the Commissioner to maintain the long term view that in most situations the revenue is best protected by assisting the public, given that voluntary compliance is the basis on which the tax system depends to such a great extent. But the Committee has accepted that where there is a conflict between protecting the revenue and assisting the public, the needs of the revenue must take priority. The Committee does not expect the Commissioner to take a detached, academic view of the law which it is his function to administer. Some suggestions which the Committee has picked up relate to the presentation of the rulings. The Committee agrees with the suggestion that the status of rulings should be perfectly clear to anyone reading them. The Committee has recommended that each ruling should contain an explicit warning that, firstly, the ruling does not have the force of law and, secondly, each decision made in the Australian Taxation Office will be considered upon its individual merits, as well as pursuant to any relevant ruling. While the rulings published by the commercial publishers at least contain a reference back to Rulings No. 1, which sets out these principles, the Committee believes that rulings, as they are issued by the Australian Taxation Office, should contain an explicit caveat. The Committee also recommends that, in the interests of the users of rulings, rulings should be cross-referenced to related rulings. Similarly, the Committee recommends that the index to the rulings issued by the Commissioner should be improved, to facilitate easier access to rulings by taxation advisers and, in particular, the general public. Consideration resumed from 29 October, on motion by Senator Macklin: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 29 October, on motion by Senator Walters: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.06) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 29 October, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 29 October, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 29 October, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 29 October, on motion by Senator Tambling: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 2 November, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Senator Alston: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.07) —Unfortunately, I have not a copy of the report with me. However, I am aware of some of the major statements within the report which have created some interest in the Press. There was a deal of Press speculation and discussion about the loss by Aussat Pty Ltd of some $17m, its having been in operation for two years. I do not wish to express concern about that in particular, but wish to draw attention to the developing problems with Aussat and its relationship with the other government bodies engaged in telecommunications; that is, Telecom Australia and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. We know from the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) that there has been established within the Department of Transport and Communications an inquiry and review of policy to nut out how Australia is to handle the various interface problems that occur between these three government owned telecommunications bodies. The problems are escalating, and this comes at a time when clearly there is an enormous potential for the development of our communications industry if only we can overcome the political, internal, monopoly and regulatory problems which exist in regard to those three bodies. At this stage I do not wish to express a view about what action ought to be taken, because clearly the Government inquiry is about trying to establish what policies should be developed. I draw attention to the need to get on with that job. Technology is developing rapidly all the time, all around us. It is of the utmost importance to the development of Australia, not only in relation to communications but also our industrial base generally, to set down that policy as clearly and as quickly as possible. Therefore, I urge the Government to get that inquiry under way. I hope that the Minister will keep his word and ensure that he is able to bring down a report from the committee of inquiry before the Parliament adjourns for the Christmas recess or as soon as possible thereafter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Senator Bjelke-Petersen: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.11) —The 1987 annual report of the Australian Bicentennial Authority is by definition the last annual report that we will have from the Authority before the actual events of the Bicentenary arrive upon us with the enormous rush for which I have no doubt the majority of Australians are singularly unprepared. I think most people will find in the course of January 1988 something is happening around them for which they are not fully prepared and which they do not altogether fully understand. That, however, will not be the fault of the Australian Bicentennial Authority which in the course of its existence has addressed a very difficult task with a degree of sensitivity and a considerable degree of imagination. The events that will take place next year will be of great significance. Some of them will be of significance in that they will simply remind people of the historical origins of Australia; some of them will be of significance in reminding people of the enormous hardships encountered in the establishment of the Australian colonies and their own nation; some of them will draw attention to the great difficulties that have confronted not only the Aboriginal people of Australia but also the migrant communities of Australia. As I look around the chamber at honourable senators I realise that at least a couple of us in the chamber at present were not born in this country. We have some understanding of the difficulties faced by families newly arriving in Australia with a variety of problems and welcome the recognition of this in the Bicentenary. Some of the events of the Bicentenary will focus particularly on the arts, the area for which I have responsibility as shadow Minister. One particular art form tends to be the subject of very little discussion and attention. I believe it to be one of the most important art forms in Australia. I refer to the dance. Of all the cultural activities dance is perhaps the most uniting. Dance is an important part of Australia's Aboriginal culture; it is important in the cultures of all of the nations from which migrant groups have come to Australia; it is able to be understood in a way in which many other class-cultural art forms are not. For instance, very great difficulties are encountered in understanding the music of other countries, whether it happens to be Japanese, Arabic or Indian music, because of the quite different bases upon which that music is founded and the different meanings that attach to that music. But the dance is certainly an activity that is uniting: it unites classical, folk and modern forms, it unites the European cultures, the Asian cultures, the Eastern cultures, the Aboriginal culture, and even the North American culture. Next year we will be fortunate in that one of our Bicentenary visitors will be the Twyla Tharp Dance Company, which I have had the pleasure of seeing perform in the United States of America and which in some ways is one of the leading modern dance companies in the world. Yet, I should pause to say that I believe that of the various art forms in Australia at present, Australian dance is probably most often equivalent to, if not better than, the higher standards set anywhere overseas. This is evidenced by the Australian Ballet, which can produce dancers who dance regularly with the Bolshoi and gain scholarships for study in Paris, and by the Sydney Dance Company and the work of Graeme Murphy who has managed to take tours to China and elsewhere. The most exciting art event that will take place during the Bicentennial is the national dance event called VAST in which the choreographers Graeme Murphy, Barry Moreland, Leigh Warren and Harold Collins will be involved. It will be an event of great excitement. People can be extraordinarily proud of an art form which, as I say, gets insufficient attention in this country yet which nevertheless puts us at the very forefront of the world. I welcome the report of the Bicentennial Authority. I congratulate Mr Kirk and the members of the Authority who have worked so diligently in the last few years towards making the Bicentenary the great national event which I am sure it will be. I am sure that the majority of Australians will be extraordinarily proud and impressed not only by the events, but also by our history and our achievements which they will be reminded of and by what I believe to be our very considerable future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 3 November, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.17) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 4 November, on motion by Senator Brownhill: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(5.18) —On behalf of Senator Chaney, I move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its inadequate and inflexible response to the dramatic developments on world share markets and their consequences for the Australian economy; and (b) calls on the Government to revise budget and labour market strategies to halt the slide in Australia's economic performance and the continuing decline in living standards. This is a serious matter. It concerns the Government's paralysis and inactivity in the face of a dramatic international economic decline and, some commentators would say, a meltdown in the world stock exchanges. I commence by considering some of the statistical falls that have taken place over the last three weeks. From 1 October to the end of October the Australian all ordinaries index fell by 41.8 per cent. That compares with a fall of 24.5 per cent in the United States, 11.5 per cent in Japan, and 25.8 per cent in the United Kingdom. The only country that has had a comparable fall in its equivalent all ordinaries index is Hong Kong. One could rightly suspect that that is because there are quite a considerable number of Australian stocks listed on that exchange. That being the case, it highlights the dramatic loss of investor confidence in the Australian economy and the extent to which investors are increasingly taking the view that our current economic strategy is unsustainable, that it does not reflect a responsible approach to the changes that are occurring about us and that despite all the euphoria that surrounded the supposedly balanced Budget the fundamentals have not changed-our inflation rate is significantly higher than those of our trading partners; interest rates are still two and three times higher than those of our trading partners, especially Japan; unemployment is stuck at around the 7 per cent mark; and, in many ways, we are simply going backwards. It is a matter of very considerable concern to all those who are worried about the future of the Australian economy. Indeed, the decline in our terms of trade has traditionally been one excuse proffered by the Government for explaining the sorts of problems that have beset us but, in reality, our terms of trade have been on the improve in recent months. The problem does not relate to that at all: it relates to declining productivity; declining ability to compete; wage levels that are much higher than those of our trading partners; and, in many ways, a refusal by the Government to take tight and responsible economic action. We are often accused on this side of the chamber of economic sabotage because it is suggested that we are talking down the value of the Australian dollar. The reality is that the market will, at times, respond to statements by Ministers in relation to the value of the dollar. We saw that not so long ago with Senator Button offering some comments-perhaps unwisely from the Government's point of view-that he would like to see the dollar fall because it would assist our ability to export. There is no doubt that the comments made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about a banana republic similarly had a fairly dramatic effect in terms of reducing the value of the Australian dollar. In recent days the Treasurer has been on the offensive in trying to quieten down the markets to restore confidence in the business community. I note in tonight's Melbourne Herald that he is in his usual modest mode in describing the Government as `experts at crisis management'. He is half right in that statement. There is a crisis, it does need to be managed, but there certainly are not the right experts in the right places. It is a belated recognition of the fact that there are some very critical problems facing the Australian economy. The Treasurer, for clearly political reasons, is not prepared to acknowledge the need for similarly dramatic changes and is only prepared to lambaste the Opposition for what he describes as anti-gradualist policies. We make no apologies for asserting that what is desperately needed in this country are wage increases that are only a reflection of productive gains that do not simply result from-- Senator McKiernan —Does that include doctors? Senator ALSTON —It includes all those who do not achieve gains in income that reflect the ability of their industry to pay and their own ability to increase the output of that industry. I would have thought that there are considerable difficulties, especially in the Public Service, in demonstrating productivity gains. Nonetheless, we are looking at a very concerted campaign to ensure that rises flow on irrespective of second tier negotiations. That is another one of those continuing tragedies that beset the Australian economy. Our productivity growth over 1986-87 was well below that of our major trading partners; indeed, it was only about one quarter of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. It is a fundamental proposition that if we have wage increases or cost increases that exceed the rate of productivity growth and simply reflect the prevailing rate of inflation, then we will compound the problem. If those increases are limited to productivity rises generally there will not be any inflation to worry about. That, of course, is one of the major reasons why Australia has an inflation rate that is out of kilter with the rest of the Western trading nations. That is a problem this Government refuses to tackle because it puts the price of industrial peace so high on the agenda that it is not prepared to take the sorts of decisions that would result in a decline in living standards, which inevitably must occur. Indeed, a decline has occurred and a further decline will ultimately continue to be forced on us if we do not get the fundamentals right. The fall in the stock market can, I think, in some measure be attributed to the lack of responsibility on the part of the United States Government. There seems to have been almost a head in the sand approach to the twin deficits that have been allowed to operate there for very many years. I regard it as little short of tragic that the experiment that was adopted some years ago in endeavouring to reduce taxation rates was not accompanied by commensurate decreases in spending in other areas. Had that been the case, there would have been some prospect of a Budget that was not too far out of balance. But, of course, the United States has had a Budget deficit of the order of $200 billion. That, of course, has caused the American economy to be one-sided, it has caused the very significant problems in trading with Japan and West Germany and it has ultimately led those countries to lose faith in their own ability to prop up the American dollar. Indeed it has precipitated a flight of capital out of the American market, which is then washed on to the world economy. It is quite clear that the American economy has survived to this point only because it has been propped up by the intervention of those surplus trading nations in the foreign exchange markets to support the United States dollar by deliberately holding down interest rates in their own countries in order to maintain differentials in favour of the United States dollar. It is clear that their justification for doing so was that they themselves had very substantial investments in the United States which they wanted to protect. That is all very well, but ultimately the chickens come home to roost. Senator Richardson —I wish the owls did. Senator ALSTON —No doubt the Minister's friends would appreciate that, but the Americans, I think, have more problems on their minds than New Zealand. The Labor Government in control of that country seems to have grasped a lot more nettles than this Government has-with things such as a goods and services tax, corporatisation and some very significant forms of deregulation which have not flowed on to this country. That was merely an aside. I simply say that the United States has in effect reaped the harvest that had been sown in the period of the last five or six years. The problem has therefore washed over, because the American economy is of such significance to Australia and, of course, to the rest of the world. Indeed, it will have a very significant impact on our own economy because global capital flows will slow. There will be less money around for foreign investment. There will be a much greater reluctance on the part of international investors to move funds around the world and we will inevitably find that our own economy will start to slow down. We will be caught in a bind, in a sense, because if we do have significant growth in our economy, if gross domestic product (GDP) increases by one percentage point-and I think the Budget prediction was that GDP would grow by some 4 per cent-it will add something like $1 billion to our import bill. That, of course, would simply compound the problem that we are faced with at present. Having regard to the size of Australia's foreign debt, the picture is simply more gloomy as the days go by. In fact, something that caught my eye the other day in a newspaper suggested that our gross foreign debt has probably reached about $120 billion, and that changes in the exchange rate in the last week have added something like $8 billion to the total foreign debt. Every US1c fall in the value of the Australian dollar will now add about $1.5 billion to our total foreign debt. Let me remind the Senate that $1.5 billion is equal to a disastrous one month's balance of payments figure. So it is quite clear that when we see falls of the order of 2c in a couple of days, as we have seen in the aftermath of the stock exchange collapse, what we are really talking about are very significant consequences for our balance of payments. Our current account deficit is a function of our balance of payments which feeds off the fact that we do not have exports that exceed our imports, or the revenue that we derive from exports is not in excess of the funds that we pay out for imports. That situation is simply compounded by the significant outflow on invisibles and other items that causes our current account deficit to be around the $12 billion mark. As I have indicated, every US1c fall in the exchange rates will have that sort of dramatic consequence. So it is quite clear that we are not going to be able to see any significant decline in our gross foreign debt. The consequence of that is that investors will ultimately take the view that the serious problems are not being addressed in this country. They will not be prepared to invest here, either by direct or portfolio investment, unless there are very significant risk rewards. By that, I mean very high interest rates to cover the differential between here and overseas to guard against further devaluation effects. I was interested to note that a recent book, Paying the Banker-Facing Australia's Foreign Debt Problem, to which a number of leading Australian economists have contributed, takes this view: Foreign debt is climbing to the point where further overseas loans will be refused. . . . . The critical element . . . is whether the dollar is low enough to stimulate exports and replace imports with home-grown products. There is not much sign of that happening at present. Mr Rob Fraser, who is an economist with the Australian Mining Industry Council, said this: One thing is certain- in the wake of the stock exchange debacle- the real economy will not be protected. The reason is that Australia has never been so exposed to international problems. That exposure is there because Australia owes more than $100 billion to foreigners. As I have pointed out, the net figure is around $80 billion but the gross figure is probably approaching $120 billion. Mr Fraser went on to say: Moreover, the interest payments on Australia's debt are increasing at the same time as our income is falling, exactly the problem being faced by the average householder. Every time there is a devaluation, a decrease in the value of the Australian dollar in relation to United States dollars, the cost of repayment of the capital and interest rises accordingly. That is what is happening at the present time. If we are to become more competitive to overcome the problems that flow from Australia being prepared to pay wage rates out of line with those of our trading partners, if we are prepared to go on having productivity growth that is a quarter of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, the only way in which we can achieve a compensation is to have a very significant cut in public sector expenditure or a very real increase in the margin of exports over imports. What Mr Fraser is saying is that the interest payments on Australia's debt are increasing at the same time as our income is falling. That is an unsustainable position. He says: Borrowing was a legitimate means of improving exports. But it imposes a need to improve productive performance. Unfortunately, Australia has not delivered. He is perfectly right. If we are making progress, if we are achieving significant gains on the balance of trade, if we are reducing the public sector borrowing requirement, if we are getting our fundamentals right, our dollar will increase in value and the amount that we have to repay will be less. Indeed, in all probability, the amount we will need to borrow will be less. The only justification for borrowing should be if one can be sure that there will be real growth gains and that the investment return will result from productive activity. Once we start borrowing to pay for current investment outlays, then we have a significant problem. It is rather akin to borrowing from the bank on one account to try to lower the level of an overdraft on another. These are reasons why Senator Walsh has made no bones about the very serious difficulties that are facing Australia, and why the miraculously balanced Budget that was presented by the Treasurer only a short while ago was in fact a mirage. What Senator Walsh has said, in no uncertain terms, is that the hard ball has not been tackled, the really significant cuts in expenditure have not been made, and therefore we are going to go further down the Argentinean road. As Senator Stone has pointed out in this chamber, on more than one occasion, probably the most significant word in that expression is `further'. In other words, Senator Walsh is acknowledging that we are already going down the Argentinean road. For those who do not appreciate the significance of that metaphor, the reality is that at the turn of the century Australia and the Argentine vied for number one position in terms of wealth. Our per capita gross national product was such that we were both commodity dependent countries with enormous potential and glowing futures. Australia has managed to dissipate its inheritance progressively over the period and we have gone from about fifth on the international table shortly after the war, to about eighteenth; so we are sliding. The Argentine has simply fallen to such an extent that it is now classically a Third World country. It has all sorts of endemic problems that beset countries that cannot handle their own economies, that find themselves the victims of periodic coups and that simply are not democracies in any shape or form. It would be a tragedy if Senator Walsh and his colleagues, such as Senator Richardson, had in mind the view that we are going even further down the Argentinean road. That means that unless we do something about the state of the economy, unless we stop pretending that somehow all will be right, and unless we stop adopting this propaganda line that the Treasurer keeps trotting out, we will indeed be making no headway. What is needed now is a very significant U-turn rather than simply slowing down our progress along the Argentinean road. I was interested to see an article in the Herald tonight in which the Treasurer concedes that business investment has suffered. He also concedes that there is a need for privatisation, although in his usually coy and code manner, he said that the issue of the retention of government business enterprises was long overdue, but that the critical aspect to be focused on at the present time was the current account deficit, and he did not want to be any more specific about the need for reducing public sector outlays. It is quite clear that the Treasurer again recognises the need for the total or partial divestiture of some government business enterprises, ones that do not have natural monopoly components or any national security implications. What he said even in relation to the $1 billion-worth of asset sales in the May economic statement was that it relates largely to real estate and largely to the embassy in Tokyo. He expressed a degree of confidence-and this is the justification for the gradualist approach-that because our exchange rate was moving in our favour in relation to the yen, somehow we would be able to do reasonably well out of the deal. Of course, that simply means that if the value of the Australian dollar is declining we will receive more for our asset if we have a sale in Japan. That is a fairly pathetic way of achieving solace from the state of the Australian economy. He is really rejoicing in the fact that the Australian dollar is falling and saying that because we have had to flog assets off-shore we will be able to earn at least what we anticipated we would earn in the Budget. Senator Messner —Of course he ignores the fact that our debt will be rising as the currency is going down. Senator ALSTON —Absolutely. The sale would be a very small benefit. Of course, let us bear in mind that the Budget also relied on $1.5 billion in windfall profits from the Reserve Bank of Australia trading on overseas currencies. Therefore, we can see that the sale is a one-off situation that certainly will not be repeated next time around. Things such as capital gains sales will not be repeated in the next Budget to anything like the same extent, although I think we are talking about only $50m or so. Senator Messner rightly points out that for the sake of that one small benefit-making a virtue out of necessity-we will be paying the sort of price I have talked about; we will have had something like $8 billion added to the level of our overseas debt. It is an extraordinarily dishonest piece of propaganda for the Treasurer to be drawing comfort from the fact that we will still get back the $1 billion from the sale of assets on the one hand and yet not mention the fact that our foreign debt is exploding on the other hand. That is simply an example of the legerdemain at which the Treasurer is expert but which, one would hope, the majority of the Australian community is no longer fooled by. Senator Walsh's comments were, of course, quite specific. He said that the new Parliament House was a scandal and that there was no need for the new Brisbane Airport. Of course, one has to assume that Senator Walsh has played a role in the decisions made in relation to these projects over the last 4 1/2 years. Of course he also gives a serve to all sorts of other areas of government expenditure. For instance, he believes that there should be an inheritance tax. We would be delighted to see the specifics of that proposal. No doubt, it will come out of the in-house wealth review undertaken in Caucus. He believes that child care should never have been enticed from the private sector and that there is a strong argument for tertiary fees. That is all good stuff. We would like to think that Senator Walsh had some clout in the scheme of things. At least he has the intellectual rigor to acknowledge the severity of the problem, but he does not seem to have the intestinal fortitude to deliver the goods. He does have a hit list of 13 major spending programs that would have to be cut to limit the future growth in the Commonwealth Budget. Maybe they were just words. Maybe they were just meant to take the shine off the Budget. Maybe they were meant to bring the Treasurer down a peg. Certainly, they had the effect of earning him a rebuke from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). If those words are to be taken at face value-if we give the man some spiritual credit for meaning what he said-they are an indication that he acknowledges that dramatic steps need to be taken, that the gradualist approach is wrong and that the Treasurer simply is attempting to fool the people. I will not use that hackneyed, Titanic comparison, but I would have thought that it was very similar in terms of non-response to a critical situation. Of course Senator Walsh's comments were not simply his own. They were based on a report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which earlier in the year made the situation very clear. No doubt the IMF had been in consultation with the Australian Government, the Treasurer and Treasury officials. It expressed the view in a report earlier this year that although some Government policy initiatives had been taken there was a need for significantly more progress in reducing public sector debt and a need for cuts in socially and politically difficult spending programs. It is clear that Senator Walsh was building on those remarks. In fact, in a throwaway line he suggested at one stage that the IMF might be forced to intervene to solve the foreign debt problems in the event of another terms of trade collapse. That is about the only problem that has not beset the economy in recent times. Our terms of trade have not continued to decline but everything else has gone awry. Yet we have had virtually no response apart from this synthetic, cosmetic public relations exercise that the Treasurer is currently embarking on. It is clear that Senator Walsh is a voice in the wilderness because he is at least interested in tackling the fundamentals whereas the Treasurer, for his own agenda purposes, wants to present an impression of calm and is not prepared to face up to these very real difficulties. It is absolute nonsense to say in the wake of the collapse of the stock market in Australia-it has probably happened to a greater extent in the Australian stock exchange than in any other stock exchange in the world-that we can simply sit back and pretend that it is a problem from which the economy is insulated. It is not. The Government has a very real capacity to respond. It has an obligation in terms of consumer confidence and in terms of business investment but it has done virtually nothing. It is very significant that today yet another pin was pulled out from the Government's platform by a report from the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC). It demolished yet another claim to economic respectability on the part of the Government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has been the principal architect of a whole range of assistance packages-the motor vehicle industry plan, the heavy engineering plan, the steel plan and the textiles, clothing and footwear plan-and they have been lauded as very sensible and, presumably, gradualist responses. The IAC has exposed the inadequacy of that attitude and it is really saying that it is no more than the old protectionist trade barriers in disguise. It is another form of hooking industry on to the lifeline of government and of becoming dependent upon government assistance, what is now known as positive assistance. This is a euphemism for government handouts. The IAC has pulled no punches. It is very interesting that these days the Australian Financial Review is very much a political journal. The stories on page one, in the course of describing the strident comments of the IAC, take time out to give us the political response from the higher echelons of government. It states: It is understood that the purist tone of the report has antagonised not only the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce but also the IAC's new found supporter and protector, the Federal Treasurer. All honourable senators will be aware that there was a very real empire tussle between those two Ministers following the Government's return to office. The Treasurer won out; the responsibility of the IAC was transferred from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce to Treasury, and this is its first effort. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(5.48) —I wish to express my opposition to the sentiments of this motion and the direction which it takes. It is interesting to have a close analysis of the motion before the Senate, which was moved by Senator Chaney, and to look at its contradictions. It states: That the Senate condemns the Government for its inadequate and inflexible response to the dramatic developments on world share markets . . . We are then asked to call on the Government to revise its Budget and labour market strategies to halt the slide in Australia's economic performance. In essence, what we have been asked to do is to look at the share crisis and, in the words of one of my colleagues, to subsidise the gambling losses of the bosses by making the workers and the Australian population pay. Senator Messner, in his normal shell of ignorance, is shaking his head but he should read the motion before us. If he does he will see that that is basically the underlying philosophy. The Government is attacked for being inflexible in its approach to the share crisis. I ask the Senate to recollect the days of Fraser, Lynch, Howard and Stone when the Australian economy was in difficulties. Their response was very much the one that has been proposed today. We remember that the great wages freeze touted before an election was the answer to Australia's problems. All that did was induce greater and greater recessionary trends. What we are offered today in this motion is very much the old trick from failed magicians. It is also interesting to discuss this motion on a day when we have spent the best part of 1 1/2 to 2 hours discussing Australia's response to homelessness. Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker has been grandstanding about the Government's neglect of that area. What this sort of motion would embody as a macroeconomic response to Australia's problems is a cutback in budgetary and labour market resources. What is implied in it is a direct cutback in resources in areas such as those that we discussed this afternoon. The Opposition is trying to have it both ways. It wants, on the one hand, to show care for the homeless by advocating greater Government initiatives and responses while, on the other hand, it is saying half an hour later that we should cut back even further. Senator Alston made a couple of points to which I wish to respond. He talked about the Government's Budget and what he sees as hollow figures within it. However, I ask Senator Alston and other members of the Opposition to compare the honesty in this Government's Budget and its final outcome with the sorts of responses that we had under Howard, Stone and Fraser for eight years. Their greatest trick was to defer expenditure, especially before an election. They would bodgie up the figures by ensuring that payments were made outside the relevant budgetary period and to ensure that their budgetary deficit looked good in the eyes of the Australian people. Let us also ask the Senate to remember that the day after they lost government in March 1983, the then Secretary to the Treasury, now the Leader of the National Party of Australia in this chamber, and his advisers, came to the Government and said, in essence, `We are stuck with a $9.6 billion deficit. It is up to you to fix it up'. Senator Michael Baume —Rubbish! That is simply false. Senator BOLKUS —Let us look at the contributions from the Opposition. The failed personality of Tasmanian talkback radio interjects, as he always does. The new Senator Vigor wants to make his contribution. What we have had this afternoon from Senator Alston is a continuation of carping criticism. He must have a real problem at the moment-a real conflict of interest. On the one hand, he and his colleagues have probably got heaps invested on the share market and they would love to ensure that the market does not slide any further. Senator Messner may not have, because he is not economically astute enough to get into these things like some of his colleagues-- Senator Michael Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. It is highly disorderly to impute any sort of motive to a member of the Opposition when he has been speaking to a matter, particularly one of such significance. I ask for that imputation against Senator Alston to be withdrawn. Senator BOLKUS —I withdraw that imputation; I do not know why, but in deference to the point of order and without wanting to debate it. The point is that, on the one hand, Opposition senators would love to criticise the Government for not responding, and in doing so, raise the heat of the crisis. On the other hand, they must be losing heaps of money on the share market. What this Government has been about, over our 4 1/2 years in office, has been very much a flexible, responsive, economic approach, and that should be remembered by the Opposition and the Australian people. We also recognise that we do not live alone in this world. When we listen to a 20- or 30-minute speech from the Opposition about our economic problems and the share crisis without one reference to the fact that Wall Street has collapsed, as have the Tokyo and London markets, or one reference to international trends, we have to ask ourselves who the inflexible ideologues in this place are. In essence, the basic problem that has struck Australia over the last couple of years, particularly with the share crisis, is the international one. The big economies of the world have failed in their responsibilities. That is the basic point that people should recognise. Take the United States of America, crippled under a failed, senile leadership, not only politically but also economically. It has failed to respond to its Budget deficit time and time again, despite the calls of economists in the States and of thinkers throughout the world. It is saddled with a President in his dying stages of office who, if he were to fulfil his responsibilities to the Western world, to Western economics and to the capitalist system that he so proudly stands for, would have no other option but to resign today and let someone else with complete competence take over. That would be the greatest psychological boost to world economies that could be made by any one person at the moment. But I suppose that he would have enough trouble trying to sign his name on the resignation paper. For some time now all economists have been saying that the two major industrial economies, Japan and West Germany, have responsibilities to expand their own markets. All that they have been prepared to do is exploit the United States of America as an easy market. We are suffering now from the market having come down at the end of a number of years of grinding collapse. The markets have said `enough is enough' and that they will take the decision-making out of the hands of politicians. Essentially, that is what is happening world-wide. Senator Messner —Why have Australia's markets gone down further than those of Japan and America? Senator BOLKUS —Senator Messner makes some point about deficits. Let us look at Australia's response in terms of deficits. In the last 12 months-between August 1986 and September 1987-Australia actually cut its budgetary deficit outlays by $7 billion. In equivalent terms, were the United States to take the same sort of action, it would cut its Budget deficit by $175 billion. It has not moved marginally towards fulfilling its responsibilities to the Western world. This Government has been asked to revise Budget and labour market strategies. Let us have a look at this Government's labour market strategy-the pivotal part of the motion before the Senate. It is significant to note that growth in labour costs under the Hawke Labor Government has moderated substantially-and continues to moderate. Recent earnings data continue to demonstrate the significant restraint exercised by Australian wage and salary earners. Senator Messner might smirk, but the reality is that average earnings rose by 6.3 per cent a year in the June quarter of 1987 and by 6.6 per cent in the 1986-87 financial year. This compares with an average rate of 11.9 per cent under the Fraser-Howard-Stone troika. Wages growth has been well and truly below prices growth in recent years. That should also be acknowledged. When we are called upon to look at labour market strategies and to defer and freeze wage increases and so on, we should point out that the Australian worker has well and truly made his or her sacrifice. As a result of the restraints shown by the Australian worker over the last few years, the index of real unit labour costs has fallen by 8.7 per cent since 1982-83. The Opposition really cannot argue about that. If it were to be consistent and honest, it would not include this reference to labour market strategy in a shonky motion before the Senate. The other factor relating to growth in labour costs is on-costs-not the direct labour costs, but the on-costs. They also have been reduced quite substantially and are far lower than they were under previous conservative governments. But what we are being asked to do now is what I said earlier. Workers are being asked to subsidise the bosses' gambling profits. The Opposition has to acknowledge that this share crisis has come at a time when world economies are growing faster than had been anticipated six to nine months ago. The crash also came after the bull phase in the share markets had been going on for five solid years. The correction had to come some time; it has come now. The reality is that we had inflated share prices for so long that the good economic managers on the other side of the chamber knew that the correction had to occur and privately they will say so. That correction has taken place. But as a government our response was not to say `Well, that is it-we will wipe our hands clean of it'. The Government has responded and continues to take a flexible responsive attitude to the problem. We recognise that we cannot escape from being affected by the recent turbulence. We recognise that we need to have in place an effective economic strategy for the long haul-not for today and not for tomorrow. We also feel that it is important to recognise that if we were to panic now, if we were to respond to the plaintive and frenetic pleas of the Opposition, all that would do is to destabilise the market and the economy even more. Good economic managers do not jerk around in the dark. We are continuing our effective long term policy, monitoring developments and responding in a planned way-something the Opposition or its financial spokesmen do not know about. The Government's first response was to recognise the need to provide for the heightened demand for liquidity in the financial system-something we rarely hear about from Opposition members. The Reserve Bank made clear its recognition of the need for adequate liquidity in the short term and responded accordingly. Our second response was not to freeze the wage rises due to the work force under the first tier arrangements agreed to between government and labour organisations. It would have been short-sighted in the extreme to withdraw our earlier commitment and to support this increase. One can imagine the sort of economic turmoil and destabilisation, a return to the Fraser days of industrial conflict, if one were to load that into the current system as it now runs and see what the computers on Wall Street would do. We have in place, and will continue to have in place, an effective and flexible means of wage restraint and wage negotiation that has been basic to this Government's economic management goals and has served the Australian economy well. Thirdly, we responded to those who have called for an immediate mini-Budget-demands that were made well and truly before any rational or worthwhile assessment can be made of the impact of what has occurred over the past couple of weeks. As I said earlier, a haphazard instantaneous response would only have increased instability, and the Opposition should be aware of that. Let me respond to Senator Alston who mentioned the report of the Industries Assistance Commission. This Government does not shy away from the fact that basic to our economic future is the living standards of the work force. We do not shy away from the fact that we have commitments in certain industries, or that we need to plan our economy and industries within it for restructuring. The ultimate goal of the Australian Government is to ensure that we can tap into international markets so that our domestic markets and industries can be competitive. We have a commitment to structural adjustment and to government assistance. That also is one of the basic planks of economic management. I reject the Opposition's motion on two grounds. It is inconsistent, tired, old, ideological rhetoric which the conservative parties always come up with in this place. Secondly, it is forged out of unreality. It is a frenetic response and would have no other effect than to destabilise the market at a time when it needs stability and it is also based on inconsistencies. What we have seen in the Senate this afternoon in this debate, and the earlier debate on the Government's response to homelessness, is total hypocrisy. On the one hand, Opposition senators say that more expenditure is needed to combat homelessness; on the other hand they suggest in the motion greater cutbacks in the Budget. The greatest responsibility which the Opposition has in this place is to the Australian people-and that is to come up with clear, consistent, rational and coherent policies. This afternoon has shown the Opposition's bankruptcy in this area. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.05) —Senator Bolkus's contribution to this debate underlines one of the enormous dilemmas facing this Labor Government. Even when it moves in the direction of having policies that might almost be appropriate it is hag-ridden by its left wing. Its capacity, its scope for movement, flexibility and appropriate economic policies is severely limited. In the present situation it is inhibited by the fact that the bulk of the Labor Party has not and generally will not agree to the sorts of economic policies which are clearly required and which the Department of the Treasury is advising the Treasurer (Mr Keating) should be pursued. One imagines from the way the Treasurer speaks, rather than acts, to groups and to people overseas that he recognises and accepts them as the right course of action. Senator Bolkus's peroration about tired, ideological rhetoric applies so appropriately to the incredible nonsense he came out with. He said that we need stability above all else-forget reality. Reality has nothing to do with what Senator Bolkus said about the economy. His socialist objective is an imposed stability, even though stability may be totally inappropriate when there is a need for massive flexibility. Talking about rhetoric, honourable senators heard his claim that the present situation, as we describe it, would involve a subsidising of the bosses' gambling losses by the workers. Have honourable senators ever heard such pathetic, tired rhetoric at a time when there is a need for positive action to correct a situation which is clearly not being adequately met by the Budget brought down in September? The final point that should be made about Senator Bolkus's pathetic contribution to this serious matter is his claim that the Government's `successes' in various areas showed that we were doing much better than we have done in the past. The only measure of success is that which relates to the activities of our trading partners. It is no good saying that we are getting inflation down compared with what it was last year-it was ludicrously high under this Government-unless we get it down to a level which compares favourably with the levels of our trading competitors. The fact is that we are not doing so. Under this Government, our costs relative to those of our major trading partners and to those of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations have been appalling. Our inflation rate compared with those of our major trading partners is the worst in post-war history under this Government. It is absolute nonsense to talk about how inflation is not as bad in absolute terms as it was last year or the year before. The reality is that the only measure we can afford to regard seriously is the measure of how we compare. In a comparison of Australia with the rest of the world the situation is disastrous. That is why we are now so vulnerable to the economic changes and to the threats that face us. That is why I support with great vigour Senator Chaney's motion: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its inadequate and inflexible response to the dramatic developments on world share markets and their consequences for the Australian economy; and (b) calls on the Government to revise budget and labour market strategies to halt the slide in Australia's economic performance and the continuing decline in living standards. In doing so, I remind the Senate of the thrust of the reply of the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, to the Budget Speech. He quite correctly observed that the Budget did nothing to recognise the vulnerability of the Australian economy to changing international conditions. He said: The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has brought down a Budget which seeks to paint a coat of veneer over a brittle and fragile economy. . . . . My fear . . . and the fear of the Opposition, is that Labor's fifth Budget will not, as time passes, match the extravagant praise heaped upon it in recent days. . . . . On behalf of the Opposition, I simply say: Let the buyer beware. Of course, that line of argument has been overwhelmingly endorsed by subsequent events. The fact is that we do have a brittle economy and, because of major changes in the world economic situation, the risk taking nature of that Budget has now been exposed. As a result, it is now clear that our ability to deal with the Australian economy and Australian living standards and our chances of trading ourselves out of our disastrous balance of trade problems and our overwhelming international debt have been massively diminished by the inappropriate nature of that Budget. Let us just see exactly what the problem from overseas is. I will quote from Salomon Brothers Inc., a major American company of brokers and advisers which in fact advises the present Australian Government. The Treasurer has often been happy to quote Salomon Brothers when it suited him. I will quote from the comments by Henry Kaufman which were put out by Salomon Brothers on 23 October to outline that this stock market crash is not simply something that affects the rich or the punters on the stock market. It was pointed out that not only will it affect the world economies but also it will have an enormous impact on the Australian economy as a supplier to and trader with the United States and those other major economies, such as Japan, which deal so significantly with the United States. To pretend that this is something that does not affect Australia-as the Treasurer tried to do for the first week or so of the stock market crash-is absolutely absurd. We also heard the sort of politics of envy from Senator Bolkus, who talked about avoiding any measures that would simply offset the gambling losses of the rich. This is not only to avoid the reality of what is happening; it is deliberately to seek to hide it from the Australian people for some sort of nonsensical political purpose. I will now read from Salomon Brothers market comments, in which it is said: The collapse in stock prices has altered the immediate prospects for world economic growth, inflation and interest rates. It is premature to quantify these effects, although the direction is clear: Growth will be weaker, inflation will be lower, and interest rates will decline further- that is around the rest of the world, I stress, not necessarily in Australia. Some of these elements will take place in Australia. Growth will certainly be weaker in Australia. Inflation may be lower, but I doubt it in view of the fall of the Australian dollar which will, of course, push up the price of imports and, as a result, increase the level of inflation. Interest rates will decline further worldwide, but probably not in Australia as interest rates may have to be pushed up to defend the Australian dollar. In any event, I continue with what Salomons had to say: Real growth in the United States will likely slow in the fourth quarter of this year . . . Moreover, economic activity may well contract in the first quarter of next year. United States economic weakness will also trim growth among our major trading partners. As far as Australia is concerned, America is a major trading partner. Salomons continues: By itself, the contraction of wealth would dampen United States consumer and business spending. More important, the extremely uncertain economic and financial environment resulting from the plunge and unprecedented volatility in most financial markets may well result in a retrenchment in spending for big-ticket consumable durables, new houses and new investment projects. Growth in United States corporate profits, in turn, will be pared substantially. These sharply diminished demands will trim imports- I interpolate, including imports from Australia- and narrow the US trade deficit. The drop in imports will reduce growth prospects overseas . . . Salomons is clearly saying there that Australia's growth prospects will be diminished, that there will be a drop in imports, which will reduce growth prospects overseas. Certainly that is a matter of significance, not simply because of our exports directly to the United States but because of the enormous impact this will have on the Japanese economy on which such a large volume of Australia's exports depends. Salomons continues by saying that growth prospects will be reduced overseas `notably in Japan and debtor nations, but also for our major trading partners'. Salomons goes on to say: Over the near term, US inflation will stabilize at the recent 3 1/2 per cent-4 per cent annual rate and we do not expect significant upward pressure on prices. In other words, in the United States there will be no upward pressure on prices and a stabilising of inflation. But, of course, here, because of our devaluation, we are going to see an inevitable increase in inflationary pressures. The Government is saying that there is no need to do anything at all because everything is right-the economic policy settings are right; there is no need to worry and no need to fuss. This attitude reminds me of the 1984-85 financial year when the Government kept saying that everything was wonderful and the Opposition was described as disgraceful, just as it has been described in the last few days, for suggesting that the Government was wrong. In those days, anyone who suggested that perhaps the Australian economy was not in the very best of hands, to adopt a line from one Li'l Abner, was subjected to personal abuse from the Treasurer. The country was certainly not in the very best of hands then. It was only a little while later, having denied that there was any risk or any threat, that we then saw the Treasurer admitting that Australia ran the risk of becoming a banana republic. He did this, having denied that there was any such risk and having abused those, particularly members of the Opposition, who had been warning of the consequences of inappropriate, ridiculous policies. The sort of arrogance that Mr Keating displayed at that time, which was shown to be so wrong, is being repeated now. That arrogance might be all very well for political purposes. Mr Keating might get nice headlines and he might get noted by the media. The reality is that that arrogance is now a threat to Australia's economic future. That arrogance prevents him from conceding that maybe the Opposition is right, maybe the Opposition is correct, bearing in mind what organisations such as the Salomon Brothers say is going to happen. That arrogance, for some extraordinary reason, drives him to the view that he should not consider change, that he should not recognise the real threats that are developing. As I said, that arrogance is a real threat. It is the personality of the Treasurer that now probably poses the biggest single threat to Australia's economic future. The Treasurer refuses to recognise the threats posed by this massive change in the economic outlook that has developed since the world stock market crash. One of the interesting things that have happened in the last couple of weeks has been the 10 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. The extraordinary thing is that this Government has a vested interest in that devaluation, simply because of the curious impact of the value, for stock valuation purposes, of foreign currency held by the Reserve Bank of Australia as our foreign reserves. Every time the Australian dollar is devalued the relative value, in Australian dollar terms, of the Reserve Bank's holdings of Deutsche marks, United States dollars, pounds sterling, the yen and so on, increases-not in real terms, but in terms of its relationship with the Australian dollar. So when the Reserve Bank last week came in strongly, massively buying Australian dollars, it was in fact taking a paper profit, and that paper profit is going towards balancing this Government's Budget. This Government, as I said, has a clear vested interest in this kind of devaluation, in order to resolve its budgetary problems, particularly as there are going to be some real difficulties in meeting other Budget revenue targets and, as I pointed out yesterday in the debate on the income tax Bills, particularly in view of the ludicrously large estimate given by the Government in the Budget Papers of the increase in provisional tax collections next year. It has said there will be an 11 per cent rise, which of course is self-evidently nonsensical after the stock market fall. There are clearly serious problems ahead of us. For example, there is the prospect of a further bad balance of payments figure on the current account in a couple of weeks time. I would not be surprised if it got up as high as $1.5 billion, which of course will indicate a far higher outcome for the full financial year than the estimate of $11.5 billion which is contained in the Budget Papers. The situation has been highlighted and dramatised by the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard. He asked a question of Mr Keating yesterday, in the House of Representatives, which I believe encapsulated the sorts of problems that our economy faces. Mr Howard asked the Treasurer whether he was aware of an article in the Wall Street Journal which said that `a weaker Australian dollar will lead to a tightening of monetary policy and a lifting of interest rates'. He asked whether the Treasurer was aware of the fact that: . . . the Australian stock market has fallen by 44 per cent since late September-considerably more than major overseas markets? Is it true that the Australian dollar has fallen by 10 per cent against the world's major currencies since its post-Budget peak on 22 September? Is it a fact that Australia's inflation rate runs at more than double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average? Is it a fact that Australia's gross foreign debt is now 42 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with 21 per cent in June 1983? This Government has certainly made a mess of that. He went on: Is it a fact that our current account deficit is the second largest in the Western world? . . . Is it a fact that the Government has supported an across the board wage increase at a time when nominal wage increases run far ahead of those of our major trading partners? He ended up by asking: Is it not time for the Treasurer to stop lecturing the rest of the world and to come clean with the Australian people as to why Australia is performing so badly and, most importantly, what he intends to do about it? That is the crux. What does the Treasurer intend to do about the fact that so many of the bases on which this Budget was founded, the shifting sands of assumptions, have now been so clearly revealed to have no chance whatsoever of being sustained, and therefore the Budget outcomes will not be reached, and of course, the Australian economy will suffer severely from the continued incompetence of this Government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Stone in a personal explanation this afternoon. I do not have a transcript of what he said, but the substance was that I had accused him of misleading the Senate. It was not my belief that I had done so. I have been waiting until now to get the Hansard pinks and I have discovered that not only did I not accuse him of misleading the Senate but also that the company concerned was at fault. I stated: I assume that he has resigned his directorship of Lartron Pty Ltd, which was formerly known as Sperry Ltd. However, I draw his attention to the fact that his name still appears on the list of directors. Senator Stone might wish the management of that company to correct that oversight. Senator Stone's interpretation of my remarks is quite mistaken. It is important because Senator Stone was reported as a director of the company in its 1986 return to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). As of this morning the CAC had not received a form 61 from the company informing it of a change of directors. Under section 238 (7) of the Companies Act a company has committed an offence if it does not submit a form 61 within one month of a change of directors taking place. Of course, it is important not only that these records be accurate but also that they be up to date because an investor may have been encouraged to invest in that company in the belief that Senator Stone was a director or, conversely-and probably more likely-an investor may have been discouraged from investing in that company if he had thought that Senator Stone was a director. I am also surprised at Senator Stone's hypersensitivity because he said, in a public address to the Mont Pelerin Society, of a former Prime Minister: . . . Mr (now Sir William) McMahon perhaps the most unlikely-as well as the most unworthy-man ever to have become Prime Minister of Australia. `Billy the Flea', as he was so aptly nick-named by the late Sir Arthur Fadden . . . Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —by leave-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) relating to his recent overseas visit. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- On 9-26 October, I visited the United States, Canada, Ireland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. In making this report to Parliament on my visits, I will focus most closely on four themes. First, a central element of my activities abroad was the continued advocacy, in a number of important forums, of the cause which stands as essential to Australia's long-term prosperity: trade liberalisation. Second, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Vancouver, I pursued a number of issues of importance to Australia including, most particularly, the situation in Fiji and southern Africa. Third, my visits to Ireland and Yugoslavia allowed me to cement even more firmly the close and productive ties of kinship that link Australia and those countries. Finally, I engaged in constructive talks with the United States Secretary of State George Shultz relating to Australia's vital alliance with the United States. TRADE LIBERALISATION There should be no dispute with the statement that the interests of both Australia and the world would be best served by the freeing up of the international trading system. Yet the political will needed internationally to translate that logically unassailable truth into effective reform of the trading system, and to defy the rising tide of protectionism, still needs bolstering-and, of most immediate impact for Australia, there needs to be the political will to phase down and ultimately eliminate the high and growing levels of agricultural subsidies. Accordingly, I took every opportunity during my trip to argue the merits of trade liberalisation, to marshal support for that goal, to demonstrate Australia's active commitment to it, and to help show the way forward towards it. In particular, I addressed the issue of trade liberalisation in public speeches in San Diego and Geneva, and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It was also an important element of my bilateral discussions, to which I will return later. San Diego The chief purpose of my visit to San Diego was to deliver a speech to the Australian-American Chamber of Commerce on bilateral and multilateral trading issues, and their impact on the close relationship between Australia and the United States. San Diego was an especially appropriate venue for my address, for two reasons. First, because San Diego is on the Pacific Rim, it is part of the fastest growing and most dynamic region in the world. The fortunes of the countries of the Pacific Rim, including Australia and the United States, will depend crucially upon the success of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations and upon the ability of the major economies to remedy their structural imbalances through the right macroeconomic and industry restructuring policies. Second, San Diego is the home base of the United States Pacific Surface Fleet and the site of significant defence-related manufacturing. Australia is the second largest cash purchaser of American defence equipment-a fact which contributes significantly to the favourable United States balance in trade with us. The theme of my San Diego speech was that world economic tensions, reflected in massive external imbalances, could only be resolved satisfactorily if the major economies implemented appropriate domestic policies coupled with open trading policies. I noted that there is some evidence that domestic policies and the external imbalances had begun to adjust appropriately in certain countries but that much more needed to be done. Subsequent events in the financial markets have dramatically underscored the latter point. I noted with particular concern, however, that in some quarters in America, protectionist pressures had been intensifying. Australia has a first class alliance with the United States, which we value, and we are a nation of significant strategic value to the United States. Our alliance is firm and secure, yet Australians may be the victims of the mounting protectionist pressure within the United States Congress. We are also concerned at the possibility that the United States may seek to resolve its trade imbalance with Japan at Australia's expense through non-commercial deals. In short, I told my American audience that Australians would not tolerate being regarded by the United States as first-class allies but second-class friends. I noted that the Administration had shown great determination in resisting those pressures to date and called upon it to maintain that resistance in protecting Australia's legitimate trading interests and with it, the strength of the Australian-American relationship. Vancouver CHOGM The Commonwealth, as an association of nations ranging in size and wealth from the populous and the economically powerful to the debt-prone and the minuscule, speaks with a unique and powerful voice on world economic issues. It was my honour to lead the CHOGM discussion on the world economy. After outlining major developments on the world economic scene since the Nassau meeting of CHOGM I identified the main challenges for the future. In examining global economic prospects I repeated my message of San Diego that the enhancement of world growth depended upon the commitment of governments to steady rectification of fundamental domestic and external imbalances, coupled with an open trading system. Owing to their size and influence the major economies had a special obligation to rectify their structural imbalances and I called on the Commonwealth to use all its influence to encourage those major countries to accelerate the processes of adjustment and to maximise low-inflation world growth. In turning to the particulars of international trading problems I acknowledged one important step forward that had been taken since Nassau-the launching of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations. Nevertheless protectionist pressures are still grave, especially because of the trans-Atlantic agricultural subsidies war and the increasing strength of calls for bilateral solutions to trade deficits. I suggested the Commonwealth could make a valuable contribution by supporting the momentum for trade reform. Consequently, I supported Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's idea of a Declaration on World Trade by Commonwealth Heads of Government. I proposed that the Heads of Government declare that we remain gravely concerned by and firmly opposed to protectionist measures; that we stand for trade liberalisation; that we support a strong, credible and working GATT; and that we agree on the crucial need for reform of all distorting and indefensible agricultural policies. Such a declaration was drafted and was adopted by the Commonwealth leaders. The following is a copy of the Vancouver Declaration on World Trade. It is entirely consistent with the thrust of the Government's policies on international trade and will serve as a useful reference point to reinforce the pressure we will be seeking to maintain on this vital issue. THE VANCOUVER DECLARATION ON WORLD TRADE The Commonwealth leaders representing a wide range of both developed and developing countries note with grave concern rising global protectionist pressures. Continuing implementation of protectionist measures would be counter-productive, would increase the risk of further exchange rate instability and would exacerbate the problems of development and indebtedness. Trade restrictions affect particularly the exports and growth prospects of developing countries and their ability to service debt all of which in turn impact adversely on the economies of the industrial countries. We welcome the progress of negotiations in the Uruguay Round covering a range of important subjects. We will work for a balanced outcome to develop a more open, viable and durable multilateral trading system to promote growth and development. We recognise the growing importance and the asymmetrical position of developing countries in the trading system. This underlines the need to give special consideration to their interests within the agreed framework of the Uruguay Round. It is essential that the Punta del Este commitments on ``standstill'' and ``rollback'' be fully respected and implemented. We agree on the crucial need for reform of all trade distorting agricultural policies, both domestic and international. We urge early action on agriculture in the Uruguay Round so as to reduce the uncertainty, imbalances and instability in world markets. This will benefit both developed and developing countries. A strong, credible working GATT is essential to the well-being of all trading countries and is the best bulwark against mounting protectionist pressures. The function of the GATT should be improved through enhancing its role in maintaining an open multilateral system and its capacity in the area of dispute settlement. We hope that the negotiations will make sufficient progress on agriculture and other key subjects to enable a mid-term ministerial review of the Uruguay Round as allowed for in the Punta del Este Declaration. We welcome the assistance which the Commonwealth Secretariat is providing to member governments in the trade field, including the re-establishment of a Trade Adviser's Office in Geneva and increased levels of technical support, and we request the Secretary-General to continue to give priority to work in this field. In addition, the larger States of the Commonwealth undertake to assist developing countries, including smaller States, through regular consultations and trade policy training programmes. Vancouver 15 October 1987 Geneva My visit to Geneva was primarily for the purpose of addressing representatives of the Contracting Parties to the GATT. That address allowed me to do two important things. First, I announced that Australia was prepared to negotiate a broad package of measures to reduce overall levels of effective assistance to Australian industry-including tariffs-as part of a broad-based multilateral approach. I said that in this context Australia was prepared to eliminate, over an appropriate implementation phase, all quantitative import measures designed to protect domestic industry. This means we would phase out all our quantitative restrictions, including tariff quotas, licensing and embargoes. I stressed that we would be looking to our trading partners to reciprocate this offer by making similar reductions in their effective rates of industry assistance-not only tariffs but the range of non-tariff measures and subsidies. Second, I had the honour on behalf of the Cairns Group of Fair Trading Nations to present the Group's proposals for agricultural trade reform. Honourable Members will recall that the Cairns Group was established following a meeting, held in Cairns in August 1986 under the chairmanship of the then Trade Minister John Dawkins, of representatives of 14 fair-trading nations. Cairns Group members were frustrated by the slow process towards freer trade being made by the major economies-in particular the US, the European Community and Japan. Since that meeting the Cairns Group has established its credentials as the vital third force in agricultural trade negotiations. The Cairns Group's proposal which I launched contains three elements: a long-term objective of the elimination of subsidies and market barriers, within ten years at most; a framework for the rules and parameters necessary during the phase down period and a set of priorities for change; and immediate relief from the worst subsidies and market distortions, in recognition of the crisis facing world agricultural trade. Unlike the proposals of the United States and the EC, the Cairns Group proposal focuses in detail on the reform period and the mechanisms required to achieve a free and open agricultural trading system. It gives priority to phasing out those measures that most disrupt trade and provides for the greatest distorters to make the greatest contribution to reform. In my address I also noted the importance Australia attaches to developing rules and procedures to encourage freer trade in services. That is an area long neglected by GATT which needs to be addressed in the Uruguay round. My address was the first in the GATT's 40-year history made by a Head of Government, and I trust it will have augmented the prestige and influence of that organisation. I believe the speech was well received and gave Australia, and the Cairns Group, new prominence in GATT at a crucial stage of the negotiations about the future of world trade. COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Vancouver, 13-17 October addressed a very wide range of issues and also provided a valuable opportunity for bilateral discussions with many of the other 44 countries represented. In describing the outcome I shall not attempt to be comprehensive; I draw the attention of honourable members to the Communique of the meeting. CHOGM provided the first opportunity for the Commonwealth to consider the tragic events which have taken place in Fiji this year. It permitted those countries which, like Australia, are members of the South Pacific Forum, to carry forward the consultations held in Apia in May. Our discussions were frank and intensive. Without in any way detracting from the admirable commitment and steadfastness of the Governor-General through the crisis, it was clear by the time CHOGM convened that Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau no longer exercised authority in any other than a purely formal sense. Therefore, we recognised the need to address the situation in Fiji as it was, rather than on the basis of wishful thinking or a fiction about who exercised real authority in that troubled country. This was clear to me from the outset of the gathering in Vancouver and was accepted by virtually everyone to whom I spoke. Some who were either unable, or refused, to grasp this fact, and in consequence made a number of quite silly observations at the time, were quickly exposed in the light of immediate developments. On 14 October Heads of Government were informed that the Governor-General of Fiji had advised The Queen that his endeavours to provide constitutional government had proved in vain. He had requested The Queen to relieve him of his appointment with immediate effect. We were informed, as background for our discussion, that a Republic was now to be regarded as in being in Fiji and that The Queen had ceased to be Head of State in Fiji. Importantly, Her Majesty expressed the hope that Heads of Government would have uppermost in their minds the question of how best the interests of all the people of Fiji, of whatever race, could be safeguarded under a Republican form of government. The discussions at CHOGM proceeded on that footing. Notwithstanding differences of nuance in particular national positions, a common view was evident at Vancouver on a number of key propositions. All those present at CHOGM considered the principal challenge in the period immediately ahead to be the need to achieve a new political structure in Fiji which was satisfactory in terms of the legitimate aspirations and rights of all the people of Fiji. A fundamental point of agreement was that the problems confronting Fiji were ultimately for the people of Fiji themselves to resolve. Above all I consider there was agreement on the key objective which now needed to guide our thinking: encouraging those in authority in Fiji to adopt policies of moderation and to chart a course offering the hope of a republic decent and democratic in character rather than oppressive and authoritarian. Accordingly, there was a willingness in Vancouver for the Commonwealth to offer to help Fiji during the critical formative period in which a new political structure will be fashioned. Heads of Government attached importance to foundations being laid which were consistent with the Commonwealth principles which I have described. It was clear furthermore that the character of the future government in Fiji will influence views taken by Commonwealth countries on the question of Fiji's readmission to the association. This then was the thinking which informed the statement made by CHOGM on Fiji and which I quote: ``Commonwealth leaders acknowledged that on the basis of established Commonwealth conventions Fiji's membership of the Commonwealth lapsed with the emergence of the Republic on 15 October. They viewed with sadness the developments in Fiji and hoped for a resolution of the problem by the people of Fiji on a basis consistent with the principles that have guided the Commonwealth. They agreed that the Commonwealth would, if requested, be ready to offer its good offices towards such a resolution and, on such basis, if the circumstances warrant, to consider the question of Fiji's membership of the Commonwealth if asked to do so.'' This outcome is entirely consistent with my Government's own policies. Indeed it reflects the initiatives which I took at the meeting of South Pacific Forum leaders at Vancouver preceding CHOGM, and in the lengthy discussions at and during the conference. Australia deplores the overturning of democracy in Fiji. We believe we can speak for all Australians in saying that the friendship of Australia toward the people of Fiji is undiminished. We are deeply concerned not only about the political uncertainty now facing Fiji but about the economic costs and the disruption to Fiji's international relations which have resulted. We recognise, as a matter of fact, that the future political system in Fiji will be different from the one existing before the military intervention. But we attach high importance to the evolution of a political structure which represents a return to basic democratic principle and which recognises and protects human rights. We hope that all those leaders in Fiji capable of exerting influence and playing a role to that end will do so. We consider it to be a matter for the people of Fiji to determine their political path. Inevitably, however, Australia's relationship with Fiji-both in terms of its general quality and in terms of specifics such as aid and defence co-operation-must be affected by the direction Fiji takes internally. Put bluntly we could not have the same relationship with a military dictatorship as with a representative civilian government. We support the Commonwealth, as we earlier supported the South Pacific Forum, in the offer to assist Fiji in its present political difficulties. Those offers are on the table and I believe deserve close consideration by the authorities in Fiji. I turn now to southern Africa, the political issue of greatest importance for the Vancouver meeting as a whole. Aside from the meeting in London last August of seven Commonwealth countries, Australia included, Vancouver provided the first opportunity for Commonwealth leaders to assess events since the major decisions taken at Nassau in 1985. In the intervening period the situation within South Africa itself has deteriorated; instability and violence had increased; the Government had become more oppressive; the efforts by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group to facilitate dialogue and negotiation had been rejected by the South African authorities; South Africa had put increased pressure on neighbouring states; the southern African region as a whole had faced a combination of military and economic destabilisation; and the root cause of all of this, the abhorrent system of apartheid, remained fundamentally unchanged. At Vancouver we discussed the issues against that background, and Heads of Government issued a Statement on Southern Africa and Program of Action. This document makes the important judgment that ``in spite of the Pretoria regime's increased intransigence since Nassau, we remain convinced that only through negotiations can catastrophe be averted''. It calls for the South African Government to accept the Negotiating Concept developed by the Eminent Persons Group which remains as valid today as it was when the Group put it forward. The decisions of Vancouver, including on sanctions, need to be seen in that context: not as contradicting dialogue and negotiation but as promoting them. The approach adopted at Vancouver was to secure the universal adoption of the measures which have now been put in place by most Commonwealth countries and others including the United States and the Nordic countries. At the initiative of Australia an expert study will be undertaken of South Africa's relationship with the international financial system, a system which has itself imposed significant pressure on the South African economy in the past. I wish to comment briefly on the effectiveness of sanctions, since clearly this was an issue which, at Vancouver as in the past, divided Britain from the rest. Ironically, and most uncomfortably for those who deny that sanctions are effective, at the time CHOGM was meeting the South African Government itself conceded that sanctions were hurting. On 15 October the South African Finance Minister, speaking at the National Party's Natal Congress, said that the negative economic effect of sanctions should not be underestimated. South Africa had, he said, accumulated billions of dollars worth of non-productive assets, such as oil, which had to be stockpiled because of sanctions. He asked his audience to imagine what could be done if, for example, South Africa had certainty regarding supplies of oil and other strategic commodities and was able to release these reserves to finance development and infrastructure. Moreover, critics of sanctions tend to have a simplistic view. They seem to be saying that unless the measures adopted bring an economy to its knees then they have failed. But the Government has indicated frequently that the aim is not to bring South Africa to its knees but to bring it to its senses. Changes in public attitudes and in the attitudes of a Government as locked into the past as are South Africa's, may well take time. Far from helping this process, easing up on external pressure would be utterly counter-productive. As the Eminent Persons Group report says ``if the South African Government comes to the conclusion that it would always remain protected from such measures the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase in momentum and the descent into violence would be accelerated''. Nor can the view be sustained that the Commonwealth is not in a position to exert significant pressure. That ignores the catalytic role of the Commonwealth in raising the consciousness of the international community and in encouraging measures on the part of the major economic powers. Opponents of sanctions also seem to ignore the fact that some situations are so abhorrent that it would be inadequate simply to declare them wrong, without making a tangible expression of that abhorrence. They would leave the Western countries with no concrete means of demonstrating support for those striving for change in South Africa, support which they have every right to expect from countries espousing liberal democratic principles. But it is also a matter of self-interest. To refuse to lend forthright support is a recipe for alienating from the West the future leaders of the post-apartheid South Africa. It is to undermine those leaders of the struggle who have the moderate objective of political equality, social justice and economic prosperity for all citizens regardless of race. CHOGM also addressed what the Eminent Persons Group appropriately called ``the external face of apartheid'', the security and economic problems of South Africa's neighbours. We decided to initiate an enhanced program of coordinated Commonwealth assistance. This will be directed towards the Front Line and neighbouring states, particularly Mozambique. I note in this context that the Government in the last Budget provided for an increased program of assistance to the southern African region amounting to $55 million over 3 years. Another important element of the CHOGM decisions was a new effort to reach into South Africa through, among other measures, the provision of assistance to the victims of apartheid such as detainees and their families and support to the trade union movement. I draw attention also to the establishment of a mechanism by the Commonwealth to provide high level impetus and guidance on the southern African issues between meetings of Heads of Government. This will take the form of a committee of Foreign Ministers which will meet periodically. Australia will be represented on that committee. As I said at the outset, CHOGM addressed many other political and economic issues of interest to Australia ranging from the welcome improvement in East/West relations, through prospects for progress in arms control to such important regional issues as New Caledonia and international economic questions such as debt. Our decisions are reflected in the Communique. Finally, I note the reaffirmation at Vancouver of the value of functional cooperation between Commonwealth countries. It is important to recognise that of course there is a limit to how much the Commonwealth should do or how widely it should spread its activities, particularly at a time of tight budgetary restraint. My Government does not take the view that Commonwealth programs should forever expand. But equally we do recognise that there are areas where the Commonwealth can and does play a valuable role. In that connection I mention the steps which the Vancouver meeting decided to take to facilitate distance education. This has real promise and potential. Australia, with our experience in distance learning, should be able both to contribute to and benefit from the co-operative arrangements which are to be established. In closing I pay tribute to Brian Mulroney, and the people of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, for their hospitality during what was a very well-run and friendly meeting. IRELAND AND YUGOSLAVIA My visit was also devoted to the task of forging closer links with two European nations which are of particular importance to Australia: Ireland and Yugoslavia. About one in three Australians today claim Irish ancestry, since there has been a steady flow of immigrants to Australia from Ireland dating from the first day of European settlement of this land. More recently, significant numbers of Yugoslavian people have chosen Australia as their new home. These links of kinship with Ireland and Yugoslavia were reflected in the warmth of the welcome I received in both countries. Nor are our ties with these countries merely of an emotional nature. We share a number of valuable commercial interests and we are affected by the broad range of pressing global political issues. I took the opportunity in my discussions with leaders in both countries of exploring Australian concerns in these fields. Ireland Nobody who has ever sung an Australian folk song, become involved in Australian politics or participated in Australian sport could have done so without recognising the profound and generous contribution of the Irish people to the development of our nation. Outside Ireland itself, there is no country more Irish than Australia. As I told the Irish Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, on my arrival at Dublin airport, I felt as if I had arrived home, so friendly and familiar was the atmosphere. As Australians approach our Bicentennial, it is appropriate that we look back over two hundred years of Irish involvement in the broadest spectrum of our economic, political, religious and cultural life. And as we continue in the creation of a truly multicultural society, it is appropriate we recall the struggle for equality of opportunity and cultural freedom fought by the Irish, who constituted our first and largest ethnic minority. On my visit to Ireland, I discussed these links of kinship in an address at University College Dublin. This college is the home of the Keith Cameron School of Australian History, a professorship jointly funded by the Australian Government and Mr Tony O'Reilly, a generous benefactor of Ireland and Irish culture. I also had the pleasure of witnessing contemporary manifestations of the Irish-Australian heritage at Croke Park Dublin-namely the first Test match between Irish and Australian footballers. Though Australia lost by a narrow margin, it was a highly enjoyable game of football. I was pleased to note that the Australians have since gone on to win the series. I wish the organisers well in their continuing efforts to seek a compromise form of rules to allow the unique Australian and Gaelic codes to be contested at the international level. The Irish Dail, or Parliament, gave me the honour of an invitation to address them. This was only the third time the Dail had extended such an invitation to a foreign head of government, my two predecessors being President Reagan and the late President Kennedy. As I told the Dail in my address on October 21, their choice of two Americans and one Australian reflects the historical truth that though Ireland is the most anti-imperialist of nations, it is the head of a spiritual empire-an empire of Irish kinship, character and commitment-of which Australia and the United States are the principal provinces. Australia's historical links with Ireland are particularly important as we approach our Bicentenary. I thanked the Irish Government on a number of occasions for its generous involvement in our Bicentennial celebrations which will include the gift of microfilm records of the 40,000 Irish men and women transported to Australia from Ireland in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. However it would have been inappropriate if my speech to the Dail, or indeed my entire visit to Ireland, dwelt solely on the historical elements of our relationship. As medium sized industrial economies, which share and nourish the same commitment to democracy, Australia and Ireland can bring important perspectives to resolving the range of pressing contemporary issues we face. Australia has chosen the path of a firm alliance relationship with the United States and is in the process of enmeshing itself in the dynamic Pacific Rim, while Ireland has chosen neutrality and membership of the European community. But both countries share the same aspirations for peace, arms control, human rights, the principles of national self-determination and the elimination of apartheid. Just as successive Irish Governments have been committed to enhancing the prospects for international peace-through, for example, their contribution to United Nations peace keeping forces-they have been dedicated also to the achievement of peace on their own borders. I told the Dail that Australia supported the efforts of the Irish and British Governments through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to end the communal strife in Northern Ireland. And I know all Honourable Members would support me in giving an assurance to the Irish Government that we would do all within our power to discourage any Australian citizen from adding in any way to the violence in Northern Ireland. On economic issues, the Taoiseach and I discussed strategies of consensus and cooperation through which our nation could create the self-discipline needed to meet the economic challenges we face. We found common ground in the observation that countries like Australia and Ireland cannot afford to live beyond their means. Governments must take the hard decisions to reorder our priorities, reduce deficits, attack indebtedness, tighten spending and question the assumptions of the past in order to secure long-term economic health. In my speech to the Dail, I added that all these hard adjustment decisions would avail a nation little if it faced a hostile international environment-particularly one which damaged the international trading system. Consistent then with the overall thrust of my trip, I told the Irish, as members of the European Community, that the EC's policies of agricultural subsidisation were damaging not just countries like Australia but ultimately, were damaging the perpetrators of protectionism as well. Yugoslavia Australia and Yugoslavia have an active and constructive relationship based in particular around Yugoslavia's pivotal position in East-West relations and its prominent role in the Non-Aligned Movement and, on a bilateral basis, around the 300,000-strong community of Yugoslavian descent now living in Australia. My discussions in Belgrade with Prime Minister Branko Mikulic focused largely on economic and trade matters. They were frank, informal and very friendly. I outlined to the Prime Minister the Australian position on international trade and the efforts we had been making in a number of fora, including my address to the GATT, towards liberalising world trade. The Prime Minister indicated that Yugoslavia shared Australia's concerns and supported our efforts to free up world trade, especially in agriculture, since Yugoslavia had been suffering from the United States-European Communities subsidies war. In the area of domestic economic policy, the Prime Minister and I discussed our respective policies of economic stabilisation and economic reform. I was particularly indebted to Prime Minister Mikulic for his extremely frank and detailed exposition of the reforms being pursued in Yugoslavia in an effort to remedy the very significant economic problems facing the country. The reforms they are undertaking are clearly market oriented. They are designed to overhaul the economy and particularly, to ease the country's significant external debt problem. In my judgment the Prime Minister's exposition reflected a sound understanding of the nature of the problems and the remedies that are necessary. The explanation consisted in part of saying that Yugoslavia had been living beyond its means during the 1970s and that inevitably, therefore, adjustments had to be made. He referred to the fact that during the 1980s real wages had fallen in the order of 25 per cent. Prime Minister Mikulic expressed his frustration and that of Yugoslavia, that many Western countries seem still to regard Yugoslavia as part of the Eastern bloc. He pointed out that they are not; they are non-aligned. He explained for example that for 1987 to date, more than half of Yugoslavia's trade was with the West. Yet this perception, he said, had been damaging for the prospects of economic co-operation between Yugoslavia and the West. I undertook to the Prime Minister that I would do all we could to dispel the misconceptions held by Western countries. In particular, I undertook to talk to our friends in the United States to the effect that it would make sense for them to be more forthcoming in economic relations with Yugoslavia. Prime Minister Mikulic and I agreed to formalise our bilateral economic relations to seek to enhance trade, and to extend joint ventures-building on the success of Rudi Cajavec's enterprise with the Telectronics company of Australia to assemble and to manufacture Australian designed heart pacemakers for use in Yugoslavia and for export from Yugoslavia. We also will be looking at ways of promoting scientific and technical co-operation. We have agreed that there will be an initial meeting of officials to be held at the earliest practicable opportunity. That meeting of officials will then seek to formalise the form that the annual meetings between our two countries will take. The presence in Australia of so many people of Yugoslavian origin is overwhelmingly a positive link between our two countries. But as I told Mr Mikulic, it would be foolish of both sides not to recognise that on occasion it can create some awkwardness in our bilateral relations. In exercising their right to free speech in Australia, people may say things which touch old wounds and scrape sensitive nerves. We are determined to maintain this right of people to speak freely even if they may say things with which we disagree. That is their right as free Australians, as long as they do not move towards violence, which the Australian Government will not tolerate. Although this is a problem that is, thankfully, diminishing with time, it still occasionally occurs. What is encouraging is that in recent instances, the recognition by both of us of the strength and importance of our friendship, together with the discretion and commonsense shown by the respective governments, have enabled us to find solutions. Yugoslavia's leading role in the non-aligned movement and its strategic position and independent approach give it a particularly interesting perspective on issues of importance to Australia. In Belgrade, I had the opportunity to exchange views on foreign policy issues of common interest with President Lazar Mojsov, a distinguished international statesman. We had useful discussions on East-West relations, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and Indochina. THE AUSTRALIAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE Honourable Members will recall that the United States Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary for Defence, Caspar Weinberger, visited Sydney in June for bilateral Ministerial talks with Mr Hayden, Mr Beazley and myself. Those talks confirmed the strength of the alliance between our two countries and the close and friendly nature of the Australia-United States relationship. On my recent overseas visit, I had the opportunity to spend several hours in discussion with Mr Shultz, in and around San Francisco on 10 and 11 October. I found these talks particularly useful. They took place against the background of important developments in East-West relations, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and the world economy. I drew Mr Shultz's attention to the speech I had made in San Diego on US trade policy and Australia-American relations, to which I have already referred. We discussed developments in the Persian Gulf and, in the light of the Secretary of State's forthcoming visit to Egypt and Israel, which has since of course taken place, the prospect for an International Conference on the Middle East. We exchanged views about the Philippines and reiterated the firm support of both our Governments for President Aquino. I gave Mr Shultz our appreciation of developments in the South Pacific. Without seeking to exaggerate the situation, I expressed the view that the overthrow of parliamentary democracy in Fiji and France's insensitive policy in New Caledonia were among the factors which had made it a less stable region than was the case at the beginning of the decade. Mr Shultz previewed for me his visit to Moscow, which took place last week. From Australia's point of view, I expressed the importance we attach to the conclusion of an INF Agreement, both for its own sake and as a step towards reductions in strategic nuclear arsenals and other areas of arms control. The Secretary of State very kindly offered to send a member of his delegation to brief me on the outcome of his talks with Mr Gorbachev and Mr Shevardnadze, immediately they were concluded. Accordingly, Mr Tom Simons, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a Soviet specialist, flew straight from Moscow to Dubrovnik and gave me and my party a detailed and very informative account of the meetings and some interesting impressions of the important developments now taking place in the USSR. Overall, my visit confirmed very clearly that Australia's relationship with the United States is in excellent shape. Australia must continue to push hard on the issue of trade liberalisation. I am happy to report that my efforts overseas to make progress on this front were well received. Although negotiations will inevitably be slow and painstaking, I believe Australia has established the credibility of its voice in urging an early harvest of results. I am also pleased to report that our role remains a prominent one in that valuable global association, the Commonwealth. Our alliance relationship with the United States remains soundly based. And our friendly bilateral relationship with Ireland and Yugoslavia have been put on a new and even more constructive footing. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.29) —In light of the hour and in light of the fact that the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is being debated in the House of Representatives, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1987 States Grants (General Revenue) Amendment Bill 1987 States (Works and Housing) Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 Occupational Superannuation Standards Bill 1987 Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner Bill 1987 Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1987 The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 November 1987 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 49) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 September 1987: (1) Is the Australian Army considering sites in Queensland for the School of Artillery currently located at North Head; if so, which sites are being considered. (2) Is the Army still considering co-locating the Infantry Centre with the School of Artillery at any Queensland location. (3) Is the Army still considering co-locating a large manoeuvre area with either or both the School of Artillery or Infantry Centre. (4) Is the Army investigating any sites in Queensland for a large manoeuvre area independent of other facilities; if so, which locations are under consideration. (5) Would any of the Queensland sites being considered by the Army for any of these facilities require the acquisition of land not already used by the Army as a range or training area. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes-Brisbane, Rockhampton and Townsville. (2) No. (3) Both the School of Artillery and the Infantry Centre will require ready access to a field firing range. (4) No. (5) Yes-in the case of Rockhampton or Townsville. Planning is based on acquiring suitable land through voluntary negotiations (ie avoiding compulsory acquisition). Senator Walsh —On 26 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1210), Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations to the very belated reply I received last week from the Minister for Industrial Relations on the subject of severance pay in the building industry. In particular, I draw to his attention the Minister's indication that the Government would not endorse the severance pay scheme unless the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was satisfied that it did not breach the wages principles. The Minister also indicated that unless the scheme was modified to fit within the wage principles, the Commonwealth would not agree to its payment on government projects. I note the Minister's acknowledgement that the existing scheme does not adhere to the national wage case principles, and ask him to agree that as a matter of simple logic it must therefore be in breach of the Government's code of conduct. If he agrees with this simple proposition, I ask him whether the Government intends to take action to exclude those who have breached the code of conduct from future government works; and, if not, why not. In my reply I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: As previously advised in my answer to Senator Chaney, Senate Hansard, 23 October 1987, page 1196, I wrote to the parties advising them that the proposed redundancy scheme could not be supported by the Government in its present form. I requested the parties to reconsider the proposed scheme to ensure it is bona fide and capable of receiving Commission endorsement. I have subsequently been advised by the parties that they are committed to the introduction of a genuine scheme and will be addressing matters of concern raised by the Government. I reiterate that the Government has no objection to a genuine scheme that is endorsed by the Commission and accepts the parties' commitment to work towards this end. Accordingly the Government considers that any application of the Code of Conduct would be premature at this point of time.