Wednesday, 18 November 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition from certain citizens of Western Australia respectfully showeth that In view of the number of expert witnesses and Government departments that have cast doubts on the cost, inadequate safeguards and purported benefits of the Health Department's claims for the proposed Australia Card and In view of the demonstrated inability of the bureaucracy in general, and the Health Department in particular, to protect the privacy of information entrusted to them and In view of the gross infringement of an individual's civil liberty that would be created by the proposed Card: Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Neither pass nor reject nor fail to pass the Australia Card Bill but rather refer the Bill to an open Senate inquiry that is held in public and that after all the facts have been considered a national referendum be held on the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Australia Card legislation on the following grounds: 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians and is a grave interference in the civil liberties of Australian citizens: 2. That it will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud; 3. That it will create unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy; and calls on the Senate to reject the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 94 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Government, by persisting with the Australia Card Bill, has wilfully rejected the advice and recommendations of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia's ``Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card'', which unequivocally rejected the Government's proposal in these words: ``The majority believes the creation of a new bureau-cracy of 2,000 public servants within the Health Insu-rance Commission (HIC), with the sole task of identifying every man, woman and child in Australia, is a wasteful exercise which will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud but will provide the mechanism by which the very fabric of our society will be irreversibly altered, opening the way for the greatest attack on the privacy of individuals as the `Identity Bureau' identifies, monitors, and updates information on every person in Australia' (Report, 4.55, page 148) Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government now withdraw the Bill as being contrary to the Common Law and traditional freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed in Australia, and should the Bill be nevertheless re-introduced, that the Members of the Senate, without regard for party, should unanimously reject the Australia Card Bill as being contrary to our personal liberties and the national interest. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 105 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 128 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sho-weth that: The Hawke Labor Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal and that the card won't stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID card proposal as the Australian public haven't given the Government a mandate to introduce it. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tambling (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as Australia Card. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should oppose any Legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 10 citizens). To The President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 335 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Government has no clear mandate to introduce the Australia Card. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled insist that the Government not proceed with the Australia Card without the consent of a majority of the Australian people in a majority of the States as determined in a national referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 75 citizens). To The President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 16 citizens). To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Identity Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Identity Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 227 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Bishop (from 33 citizens) and Brownhill (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Jenkins (from 12 citizens), Reid (from 14 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 113 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We consider the Federal Government's decision to have Telecom charge for the cost of ``Directory Assistance'' enquiries will greatly disadvantage, the sick elderly and the handicapped. Specifically, it will impose an unjustified financial burden on those with sight impediments and reading difficulties, such as the elderly. It will also disadvantage physically handicapped people and persons confined due to illness. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to: Reverse its decision to have Telecom charge for ``Directory Assistance'' enquiries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 110 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 1985-1986 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 Durack (from 112 citizens) and Jenkins (from 68 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational archaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available at all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should:- (1). Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia, and (2). Ban the import of Cobalt-60 and Caesium 137 and Caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 393 citizens). To the Honourable The President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 357 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Senator Watson (from 140 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 54 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia. On June 9th the Greenpeace yacht ``Vega'' was involved in a peaceful protest against the nuclear armed frigate U.S.S. Ramsey because of the threat that her presence posed to the people of Australia. We the undersigned demand that criminal charges against her crew be dropped. by Senator Jenkins (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effected in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia oppose the granting of certain areas of land in connection with the Jawoyn (Katherine Area) land claim. Specifically, petitioners request that the following lands not be granted. (a) That part of the Katherine Gorge National Park comprising the Katherine Gorge system and adjacent developed areas and all areas to the north thereof, including Edith Falls; (b) The whole catchment areas of those sites under consideration for utilisation as future water supply for the Katherine township and, in particular, the catchments of McAddens and Dorothy Creeks. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs does not make a land grant, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, as recommended by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner in his report of 6th October 1987, but that he heeds the desire of the undersigned citizens of Australia, thereby excluding from grant, the areas defined above. by Senator Tambling (from 341 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth; We ask that the Federal Government abandon its proposal to establish a gambling casino in the Australian Capital Territory for the following reasons: 1. It would detract from the unique status of the National Capital - a status recognised and maintained by every preceding Government. 2. All sources of information including Justice Connor's report to the Victorian Government suggest that no method of control can prevent the infiltration of organised crime, and 3. It would be likely to exacerbate existing social problems and create new ones. We urge you to recognise the devastating effects of gambling in the community and the opposition of the majority of voters in the ACT to the establishment of a casino. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: 1. They are concerned that in the Tuggeranong Valley area of the ACT, no non-government schools have Year 11 and 12 places. 2. They want the new Catholic secondary school to be built at Isabella Plains to go to Year 12. The petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensure that adequate resources are provided by the Government to allow Year 11 and 12 places to be provided at the Catholic secondary school at Isabella Plains in accordance with the Government's commitment to a dual system of education and greater school retention to Year 12. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 140 citizens). Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —I present to the Senate the following petition from 114 citizens which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form and does not contain a prayer at the end thereof, asking that the Australia Card Bill be rejected: To: The Prime Minister-Mr B. Hawke and Members of Parliament-Government of Australia. We the undersigned citizens of Manjimup Western Australia are opposed to the Government to legislate for an identity card. We feel it is a gross waste of taxpayers money to implement the card. The people of Australia are not consulted. This is unfair-undemocratic to the freedom of choice in Australia. Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on Tuesday, 24 November, I shall move: That- (1) unless otherwise ordered, the Orders of the Senate relating to the days and times of meeting of the Senate and the routine of business be varied for the remainder of this period of sittings as follows: (a) Thursday, 26 November and Thursday 10 December- 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (b) Friday, 11 December- 9 a.m.- 1.00 p.m. 2 p.m.- 3.45 p.m.; (c) Monday, 14 December- 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (d) Tuesday, 15 December- 9 a.m.- 1.00 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; (e) Wednesday, 16 December- 9 a.m.- 1.00 p.m. 2 p.m.- 7.30 p.m.; (f) Thursday, 17 December- 9 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (g) Friday, 18 December- 9 a.m.- 1.00 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (2) The routine of business for Wednesdays apply to Tuesday, 15 December and for Fridays apply to Friday, 11 December; and (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders, Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —The notice I have just given has been the subject of some preliminary discussion between managers of business and whips in this place but not yet any final agreement. It has been put down as a basis for discussion in party rooms and, as indicated in the text of the notice of motion, I do not intend to move the motion until next Tuesday. I hope that under those circumstances it will be possible to reach amicable agreement about some comparatively minor variations in sitting times and procedures which will enable us to complete a very heavy program by Friday, 18 December. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I thank the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) for proceeding in this way. I think it is conducive to the smooth running of the Senate. Giving the notice in time for us to examine it in our party room means that there is greater prospect of our having a sensible discussion about what are reasonable hours and times of sitting for the remainder of the session. I wish publicly to acknowledge the action of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in view of the predicted and observed changes to the Earth's ozone layer which will cause damage to many terrestrial and aquatic life forms, including increased human diseases, the Government should urgently introduce legislation to prevent the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to the atmosphere by requiring that- (a) use of CFCs be no longer allowed in any pressure pack preparations; (b) all new refrigerators and airconditioners be fitted with pipework so designed that CFCs can be readily removed, condensed and recycled, and that there be a mandatory requirement to do so whenever equipment of this type needs regassing; (c) where CFCs are used as foam expanders or solvents, these operations be carried out in closed systems, the CFC gas being pumped out, condensed and recycled; (d) when equipment containing CFCs is scrapped, the contained CFCs be removed, condensed and recycled; (e) motor vehicle airconditioners be required to meet stringent standards as regards CFC containment; and (f) any other steps designed to prevent the release of CFCs to atmosphere be taken. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953 to ensure that the Australian national flag is not altered except with the approval of the Australian people voting in a referendum; that the Australian national flag is not supplanted by use of the powers under the Act; and that the appointment of other flags and ensigns is subject to disallowance by either House of the Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, and for related purposes. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Government for getting 122 countries to vote for its resolution on a comprehensive test ban treaty at the United Nations on 14 November; (b) notes that the only votes against the resolution were by France and the United States; (c) notes, too, that the United States position has hardened from that of 1986 when it abstained; (d) urges the Government to explain to the Australian people why our great friend and ally, the United States, is deliberately blocking the establishment of a comprehensive test ban which the world has been waiting for since the partial test ban treaty in 1963; and (e) calls on the Government to maintain its campaign for a comprehensive test ban at the international level, including the establishment of the proposed global seismological network to monitor nuclear tests. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. I also seek leave to have the guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 1. Guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports-pursuant to sub-section 25 (7) of the Public Service Act 1922. 2. Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 35 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986. 3. River Murray Commission-annual report 1985-86-pursuant to section 14 of the River Murray Waters Act 1983-together with the Auditor- General's report. GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORTS General Principles 1. Reports should be accounts of departmental operations during the year under review. Special attention should be given to changes that occurred during the year, and departments may wish to foreshadow expected developments in some areas. 2. The orientation of reports should be towards performance, and the administrative and managerial aspects of departmental activities. 3. Reports should be concise, and achieve a balance between the need to avoid undue repetition of material available to the public elsewhere and the need to provide a comprehensive overview of operations. 4. There should be consistency with information provided by departments in other forms (e.g. in Budget Papers). Any material inconsistencies should be explained. 5. Care should be taken in presenting any comments with a bearing on the operations of other departments or of authorities. 6. The structure and layout of reports should be designed to ensure clarity and public acceptability. AGPS guidelines on standards of production must be observed. Consideration should be given to the advantages of camera-ready production. 7. The detailed content and structure of reports are the responsibility of Secretaries of departments, who should consult their Ministers as appropriate. 8. Reports should be prepared on a financial year basis and be available for the estimates debates in the Budget Sittings. When reports are not available in time, departments should provide an interim statement in A4 duplicated form (not including financial statements which have yet to be audited) for the information of the Parliament. In any case reports should be available within 6 months of the end of the reporting period. Contents 9. Each report should contain (but not necessarily be limited to): (a) a reference to the legislation requiring the preparation of a report, that is, sub-section 25 (6) of the Public Service Act 1922, and an indication (in either the letter of transmittal or in the contents pages) of reports made pursuant to other Acts, which are included in the annual report; (b) a clear statement of the department's goals; (c) a description of the department's structure, with an organisation chart, showing senior officers, regional offices and associated bodies; (d) an account of the department's significant activities during the year, showing the legislation it administers and, in respect of each of its programs: (i) objectives; (ii) results achieved and progress towards the achievement of objectives and targets; (iii) resources used; and (iv) reasons for any significant delays, amendments, deferment or cancellation; (e) an account of the management of the department during the year, including the operation of any major trust funds/trust accounts and other trading and/or cost recovery activities, and, as appropriate, financial and staffing information of the kinds listed in the attachment to these guidelines; (f) information on significant changes to business regulations for which the Minister has responsibility, setting out costs and benefits, including changes in public sector resources; (g) an account of activities in the field of occupational health and safety; (h) a report of the implementation and operation of the department's industrial democracy plan, as required under s.22C of the Public Service Act 1922; (i) a summary of the department's equal employment opportunity plan, with performance assessed against it; (j) information on post-separation employment cases handled by the department during the year (in compliance with Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants); (k) information relating to the Freedom of Information Act, including information required under s.8 of the Act (covered by separate guidelines issued by the Attorney-General's Department); (1) information on any significant judicial decisions affecting the department or the users of the services provided by the department, and any consequent changes in departmental procedures; (m) information regarding any reviews by the Auditor-General or parliamentary committees which directly affect the department, showing recommendations arising from such reviews and the action taken to address them; (n) information concerning any major reviews of the objectives or structure of the department during the year, the outcome of the reviews and changes or proposed changes resulting from each review; (o) where appropriate, information on the extent and main features of client complaints, indicating any services improved or changed as a result of complaints or suggestions made by clients; (p) reference to other sources of information concerning the department, including publications, policy information and policy discussion papers, submissions to advisory bodies or inquiries, major Ministerial Statements printed in Hansard and major Ministerial or departmental news releases, with bibliographical details and addresses and phone numbers of information officers; and (q) reference to the activities of smaller statutory bodies which are responsible to the Minister and do not produce reports of their own, and information (in line with the response by the Government to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations' Interim Report, or any relevant Government decision announced subsequently) on non-statutory bodies in the Minister's portfolio. 10. Reports of departments providing laboratory services should include information on facilities such as that contained in Volume 3 of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories (the Ross Report). 11. Reports of all departments should reflect the general thrust of the Government's package of administrative reforms and should show the impact of those reforms on departmental operations. Some aspects of the reforms are adequately treated above; the attachment to these guidelines is designed to indicate the bearing of other aspects on management issues likely to need coverage in annual reports. A. Management Issues 1. Where appropriate departments should include in their annual reports reference to: (a) their approaches to financial and staff resource management; (b) recent and planned developments, and initiatives instituted, in financial and staff resource management, and progress in implementing the aims and requirements of Program Budgeting (treated in the body of the Guidelines), Staff Budgeting and the Financial Management Improvement Program; here should be included such aspects as: (i) corporate planning structures and resource management strategies; (ii) the impact of consolidation of appropriations and cash limits; (iii) developments in management information systems; (iv) the extent of delegations granted and functions devolved to managers and others; (v) management of staff resources (i.e. comparative data on recruitment, retention rates, exit rates and mode of separation-e.g. resignation, invalidity, retirement); (vi) the relationship between organisational structure and program structure (with specific reference to the allocation of responsibilities between program and functional managers); (viii) cash management reviews; and (viii) developments in financial/staff resource management training; (c) performance measures used, or being developed, in evaluating financial and staff resource management; (d) performance-monitoring activities undertaken by internal units and external agencies; (e) progress made during the financial year in achieving economies; (f) work undertaken on behalf of departments by other agencies, and vice versa; (h) procedures for the collection of revenues and the incurring of forward obligations; and (i) details of breaches of approved forward obligation limits and any other breaches of the Audit Act 1901 or the Finance Regulations or Directions. B. Financial Statements 1. Financial statements should be in accordance with the guidelines determined by the Minister for Finance pursuant to a proposed revised section 50 of the Audit Act 1901. Until section 50 provides for such a determination and until such guidelines come into effect, financial statements should include, as a minimum: (a) details of receipts and payments (departments on program budgeting should report this information on a program basis) and explanations of significant variations from budget figures; (b) details of free services provided by other agencies and (where practicable) an estimate of the value of each service; (c) details of individual Trust Account operations under sections 60 and 62a of the Audit Act 1901, including cash and investment balances; and (d) details of accounts payment performance. 2. The following information should also be provided in financial statements, where practicable: (a) summary information regarding debtors, creditors and prepayments; and (b) a schedule of outstanding forward obligations. 3. The information listed in (2) above will be required in reports for 1988-89 and subsequent years. In earlier reports, where such information cannot be provided, there shall be a statement by the departmental Secretary indicating why it cannot be provided and what steps are being taken so that the department will be able to provide it in future. 4. In 1988-89 and subsequent years departments' financial statements, shall also be required to include schedules of major capital assets operated (by class), their value and the date and method of valuation. 5. Financial statements should be accompanied by an explanation of significant changes from one year to the next and must be consistent with other published financial data and include current year actuals and, where applicable, budget estimates and actuals for the previous year. 6. Where a department undertakes operations of a commercial or quasi-commercial nature in respect of which the Minister for Finance has determined, pursuant to section 41d of the Audit Act 1901, the form in which it shall prepare financial statements for those operations, the departmental annual report should: (a) incorporate audited financial statements in the form determined; (b) provide information as to the operational performance of those undertakings (e.g. the operating surplus as a proportion of total assets employed, trends in turnover, etc.) including, where practicable, non-financial performance measures; and (c) list any section 41d statements not yet finalised and/or audited, which will need to be tabled separately by the Minister. 7. The financial statement referred to in paragraph B.6 must comply with the Guidelines for the Form and Standard of Financial Statements of Commonwealth Undertakings, issued by the Department of Finance. 8. Until section 50 of the Audit Act is amended to require audit and certification of departments' financial statements, the Auditor-General shall have discretion to decide whether or when to audit these statements. After section 50 has been amended, interim statements prepared in accordance with paragraph 8 of these guidelines should not include financial statements for which audit certificates have not yet been obtained. C. Staffing Information 1. Departmental annual reports should provide an overview of the staffing levels and characteristics of the department, with statistics in a sufficiently standardised form to permit comparisons with Service-wide statistical information published by the Department of Finance. 2. The kinds of staffing information in reports should include information on the classifications and locations of staff, with indications of how many are employed under the Public Service Act 1922/other Acts. Statistics on temporary staff should be included and the numbers of men and women in the department and in various categories of staff should be shown. In relation to Senior Executive Service Staff, there should be information regarding level, sex, gains/losses and participation in staff development activities. 3. Details should be given of the extent to which external consultants are used by the department, including (where practicable) the names of the consultants, the projects involved, the cost to the department and the justification for their use. 4. Other kinds of staffing information, reflecting the nature of particular departments and their work, should also be included in annual reports as appropriate. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 to ensure compliance with directions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is being introduced at a time when the Opposition's view that there is a need to hasten the pace of adjustment in the Australian economy is gaining increasing adherence. Since the Budget, the Minister for Finance, in a supposedly private speech to Labor lawyers in Perth, expressed his doubts on this point. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce echoed these doubts in relation to industry policy last week. Virtually every assessment of what is wrong with the Australian economy and what is required to enable it to meet the competitive challenge we now face includes reference to the labour market. The Opposition has a clear policy aimed at making changes in the way the labour market operates in Australia. The fundamental objective of the Opposition's policy, which was published in May 1986 by the then Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, the Honourable Neil Brown QC, is to achieve an harmonious and constructive relationship between employers and employees. Our policy of encouraging employee share ownership and profit sharing, like our policy of encouraging voluntary work place agreements, is part of a general reform approach which is aimed at setting aside the destructive adversarial behaviour which has dogged industrial relations in this country. A second major thrust of our policy is to restore accountability to the industrial relations system. Unfortunately all the co-operative behaviour in the world can still be destroyed by the unreasonable behaviour of a few. This year we have seen examples in the building industry, with the plumbers and gasfitters, in the actions of a minority of metal workers in Victoria, and with storeman and packers in New South Wales. A feature of many of these destructive disputes is the fact that the renegade elements of the trade union movement involved are frequently in conflict with the trade union movement generally, and with the government of the day, as well as employers. What has been lacking up till now has been an effective mechanism within the industrial arbitration system which enables those renegade elements to be made subject to the system of which they are so ready to take advantage. A system of conciliation and arbitration which binds only one side of the employer-employee relationship is clearly defective. The existence of this defect has been conceded by the present Government and we introduce this Bill because the Government has made it clear that it has no intention of coming to grips with the problem. This Bill is the first in a series I intend to introduce to give legislative effect to various aspects of the Opposition's industrial relations policy. In particular I intend to follow this Bill with legislation to encourage employee share ownership and to provide for voluntary unionism. This Bill is designed to introduce effective compliance provisions into the conciliation and arbitration system. One of the most serious defects of the existing system is that there is no effective way of ensuring that unions comply with the decisions and orders of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The existing arbitration system is in effect totally lop-sided. For example, when the Commission arbitrates for a pay increase, that is written into the award and the employer is legally obliged to pay. Moreover there is an effective system of sanctions to ensure that he does so. Employees who are members of the union may sue their employer for any payment due to them under an award. Moreover employers can be, and often are, prosecuted by the Arbitration Inspectorate under section 119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for monetary breaches of awards. Yet when unions disagree with the outcome of arbitration they are, in practice, free to indulge in industrial action to impose their claims with virtual impunity. The Australian Chamber of Commerce noted recently that `there is a widespread view amongst commerce and industry that the trade union movement practices only selective and optional compliance-and then only with regard to those decisions/directions that suit their interests.' The Chamber went on to state its strong belief that any system of arbitration and/or adjudication must contain an effective system of sanctions for those who fail to comply with its orders, processes and requirements. This Bill squarely addresses this issue. Under the existing system Commission directions to return to work are regularly flouted by unions, and there is no effective means of dealing with this. A good example of the way in which unions treat Commission decisions is the Dollar Sweets dispute of 1985. In that case the union-the Federated Confectioners Association of Australia-engaged in a campaign of industrial action in pursuit of a 36 hour week. This claim was totally outside the Arbitration Commission's wage principles. The employer sought to resolve the dispute through the conciliation and arbitration system. Commissioner Bain held a hearing and conducted an inspection of the employer's premises. He then issued a recommendation that the picket line imposed by the union be lifted. To quote the Supreme Court judge in the later common law action: It is apparent that the union and the defendants paid no heed to this recommendation. Instead they, as it was put, thumbed their noses at the Commission and continued with their picketing and illegal practices, apparently aware that the Commission is powerless to apply any sanction. It has to be recognised that the lack of effective compliance provisions not only prejudices the position of the immediate victims of industrial action-it also introduces a fundamental bias into the system. It is hard to deny that the Commission's inability to enforce its decisions and orders means that the Commission often has to weigh up what is right with what is acceptable to the unions. The question of acceptability to the employers-who will be obliged to follow the decision whatever the outcome-is barely of consequence. In fact an arbitration system that is voluntary on one side, but compulsory on the other will eventually lose its legitimacy. As the Minister for Industrial Relations pointed out recently to the ACTU Congress, the lack of effective compliance provisions in the system has led to an increasing resort by employers to remedies outside the system, either through common law or the Trade Practices Act. The Government's own ill-fated Industrial Relations Bill did recognise the inadequacy of the existing situation. Mr Willis, in introducing the Bill on 14 May stated that: An essential element of any industrial relations system which provides benefits and protections to registered organisations and their members is that there should be an effective means of ensuring adherence to the principles on which the system is founded and compliance with the decisions of its institutions. The Minister announced that: the present bans clause provisions, which have long since fallen into disrepute and are now substantially moribund, will be replaced by a new direction and injunction process. In our view there were substantial defects in this new process. I will discuss these objections in greater detail when I outline later the major provisions of the Bill I am now introducing. Nevertheless, even with these defects the new directions and injunctions procedure represented an improvement on the bans clause system. What was totally unacceptable, however, was the attempt to present these new provisions as a trade-off for major restrictions on employer access to common law and Trade Practices Act remedies. The result of these changes on balance would have been to give unions even greater scope to engage in industrial action with impunity. In particular they would have denied employers access to the rights to which every citizen has under law. This aspect of the Government's proposals produced united employer opposition. The Opposition condemned the proposals on their introduction. Eventually the Government backed down and on 6 June the Minister for Industrial Relations announced that there would be no changes to employer access to common law actions or Trade Practices Act remedies. At the same time he announced that monetary penalties for non-adherence to compliance provisions in the Industrial Relations Bill would be the same as those currently applying in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. However he announced that the range of non-monetary penalties in the Industrial Relations Bill would be retained. Thus the dropping of the proposed $5000 a day fines was effectively presented as a trade-off for dropping the common law and Trade Practices Act changes. Three weeks later, on 29 June, Mr Willis, in a debate with me on radio, reiterated the Government's position. He said: . . . the original proposals to prevent the use of common law and to require conciliation before trade practices action could be taken in respect of 45d and e against trade unions, that those provisions will not be gone ahead with, nor will the increase in monetary penalties. That will leave us with a compliance system which is more similar to the one which currently exists but with some very substantial differences, a direction system which I believe will be more effective than the current bans clause system which has virtually been moribund for 20 years and also with an array of non-monetary penalties where unions or the employers refuse to accept Commission decisions or orders. Thus during the election campaign and after the backdown on common law and the TPA Mr Willis was still telling the voters that the Government was committed to introducing new compliance provisions based on a direction and injunctions process. However after the election, reports appeared in the media that the unions were not willing to accept this. On 17 August in the Australian Financial Review Simon Crean was quoted as saying: Our position is that if the Bill does not touch Common Law or the secondary boycott provisions of the Trade Practices Act then it must not increase or strengthen sanctions. They can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. The ACTU had given its orders and Mr Willis once again changed his position. On 10 September on The World Today he stated: . . . in the absence of a willingness by the employers to make concessions in respect to penalties which can apply to unions outside the arbitration system, we don't believe it is appropriate to be amending the provisions within the arbitration system now. Thus Mr Willis admitted that the Government was going to do nothing about the totally inadequate compliance provisions. Three months after having traded-off the retention of the employers' rights with respect to common law and the Trade Practices Act, having accepted that there should be no changes to monetary penalties as a quid pro quo, Mr Willis then had the incredible and extraordinary hide to blame employers for his failure to deliver a better compliance system. What had changed? Nothing, except that after the election the unions put on the thumbscrews and demanded he back down on his 6 June announcement. Post-election a new argument against sanctions was produced by the Minister, that of `double jeopardy'. It would be unfair to expose unions to sanctions within the arbitration system if they still faced sanctions outside it. Why did this argument not apply during the election campaign? Was it because Mr Willis did not want to admit to the voters that he had no intention of doing anything about compliance? In any case, does this argument have any credibility? It should be understood that this so-called `double jeopardy' would not be some new product of a system of directions and injunctions. It already exists. There is an overlap now between Sections 45d and e of the Trade Practices Act, the Common Law, and the bans clause provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Indeed there is an overlap between some of the industrial torts. The fact is that it is not at all uncommon for there to be more than one legal remedy available to deal with a certain situation. The courts are quite experienced in dealing with this and there would be no new problems created by the establishment of a new directions and injunctions procedure alongside common law and the Trade Practices Act. I now outline the provisions of the Bill. The Bill would insert a new Part VIa into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Under this Part, the Commission would be empowered, where industrial action was occurring or likely to occur, to issue such directions as it thinks necessary or desirable to prevent or stop industrial action or to prevent further industrial action. Where, on the application of the Minister or a party to the industrial dispute, the Federal Court is satisfied that a person has breached or is intending to breach a direction, it may issue an injunction enforcing the direction. This procedure differs from that initially proposed in the Government's Industrial Relations Bill in the following ways. First, it would not be necessary to obtain a certificate from a Full Bench before proceeding to obtain an injunction. In our view such a step is totally unnecessary and would be likely to lead to substantial delays. Time is often of the essence in industrial disputes. Under the procedure set out in the Industrial Relations Bill employers could be financially ruined while waiting for a Full Bench to be convened. The second major difference is that the injunctions would be obtained in the Federal Court. Under the Government's now-abandoned proposal injunctions would have been issued by the newly established Labour Court. The Opposition is opposed to the establishment of a Labour Court. In our view such a Court would be potentially prejudiced by cross-membership with the Arbitration Commission. The comments made by Sir Richard Kirby, the first President of the Commission in his 1971 Annual Report are pertinent: . . . it would be unwise for the Tribunal responsible for conciliation, to have any connection whatever with enforcement or punishment. Given the need for both types of power . . . experience over the years has in my strong opinion shown that the power to conciliate and arbitrate and promote goodwill in industry could not be performed with reasonable success if the entirely different power of enforcement or punishment were to be exercised by the same tribunal.'' [Extract from the 15th annual report (1971) of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission]. The Opposition does not accept that it is sound in principle to establish a court to deal with these matters made up of persons `with skills and experience in industrial relations' as Labor proposed. We think it entirely appropriate that enforcement of Commission decisions should be handled by a separate court. A third major difference is that breaches of injunctions would be treated as contempt of court. There would be no arbitrary restrictions on the power of the court to decide the appropriate punishment. In the Industrial Relations Bill there was a limit imposed of $5,000 a day for breaches of injunctions. There is normally no upper limit for penalties for contempt of an injunction of the Federal Court or a State Supreme Court. The penalty is related to the circumstances and the seriousness of the contempt. For example, in the plumbers dispute earlier this year a penalty of $10,000 per day per site was imposed. It is crucial that penalties be set at a level sufficient to deter a large union. By way of comparison it can be noted that breaches of the Trade Practices Act can result in fines of up to $250,000 in the case of a body corporate for each separate breach. A fourth major difference is that under this Bill a person who suffers loss or damage as a result of industrial action in breach of a direction can sue the responsible union in the Federal Court. This would permit aggrieved third parties as well as employers to sue unions for damage resulting from industrial action forbidden by the Commission. The extraordinary aspect of industrial relations in our society is that it is the only area where an organisation can willfully set out to wreak damage and expect to escape responsibility. Those who operate within a system which provides extensive rights to go to arbitration in the event of a dispute can least of all claim that such actions can be justified. It is a provision of this Bill that the new directions and injunctions procedure in no way overrides or limits any other legal rights a person may have in the face of industrial action. Employers would retain their full common law rights, nor would actions under Sections 45d or e of the Trade Practices Act be affected. The proposed Section 126e is a `deeming' clause. It provides that industrial action in breach of a direction by an officer, employee, member or agent of an organisation shall be deemed to have been taken by the organisation, unless the organisation can establish that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from taking the action. Similar `deeming clauses' are contained in the Government's Building Industry Act (which was used to de-register the BLF), and in Section 188 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The aim of such a clause is to ensure that unions are not able to disassociate themselves from industrial action by their members and thereby escape being subjected to the penalties provided for engaging in such action. These provisions replace the existing bans clause procedure, which is repealed by the Bill. It is a pity that this legislation has to be introduced by the Opposition. In circumstances where the government has clearly admitted that it is essential to the industrial relations system that there should be an effective means of ensuring adherence and compliance with the decisions of its institutions and which further proclaims that the present arrangements have fallen into disrepute, one would expect the government of the day to act. It is a measure of the failure of this Government to do its duty by the whole community that in the face of such admissions it is prepared to do nothing. I hope that the introduction of this legislation will remind the Government of its duty and that the legislation will receive a speedy passage both here and in the House of Representatives. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Jones) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) having regard: (i) to the desire of all people to live in peace and freedom and to enjoy basic human rights, including the right to self-determination, (ii) to Australia's membership of the United Nations and regard for the principles of its Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by its Geneva Assembly on 14 December 1960 by Resolution 1514 (XV), and the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement, and (iii) to the fact that, whilst the Australian people have acquired these rights and freedoms, other peoples are deprived of them; and (b) taking note- (i) of the Resolution of the European Parliament on the Situation in the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) adopted on 13 January 1983, (ii) of the fact that the 3 Baltic States were independent sovereign republics and members of the League of Nations during the years 1918 to 1940, when they were occupied by the Soviet Union in consequence of an agreement between the then German Government under Hitler and the Soviet Government under Stalin (the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact), (iii) of the fact that the occupation of these states by the Soviet Union still continues, but that in accord with other democratic governments the Australian Government has not recognised de jure their incorporation into the Soviet Union, (iv) that the peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are being denied many basic human rights but that they have not given up their struggle for self-determination and freedom, and (v) that an intensive process of Russification is taking place in these occupied countries aimed at elimination of the indigenous languages and culture; (c) resolves- (i) that Australia, as a member of the United Nations, should fulfil its obligations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and should support the European Parliament's Resolution in respect of the Baltic States, (ii) that in order to do so the Australian Government should, on its own initiative, and by seeking the support of like-minded governments, bring the question of human rights and self-determination for the Baltic States before all appropriate forums of the United Nations, and especially before the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and (iii) that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should be directed to take all necessary steps in order to implement this Resolution. Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(10.14) —When the debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 and cognate Bills was interrupted last night, I was making the point that the Australian people deserve better from this Government than the inadequate response provided by this Budget to the current economic situation. A great shortcoming of the Budget is that it has destroyed the options for Australia in the face of any change in the international economic climate. That climate has changed with the stock market crash and, as a result, this Budget is sinking Australia further into the mire. This is magnified by the Government's failure to take correct initiatives since the stock market crash. Since that crash the Government has done two things. Firstly, it has allowed a 10 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. Secondly, it has supported a 7 per cent wage increase. Senator Hamer —A $7 wage increase. Senator CHAPMAN —I thank Senator Hamer for his assistance. The Government has supported a $7 a week first tier wage increase. The 10 per cent devaluation will have a number of detrimental consequences for the Australian economy. It will add about one per cent to the consumer price index. It will add about $1 billion to our interest payments on our existing foreign debt, thereby worsening the invisibles on our balance of payments by $1 billion. The devaluation will also worsen our trade imbalance by some $300m. Finally, this devaluation once and for all destroys the myth, which has already been laid bare, that this is a balanced Budget. The inadequate response of the Government to the stock market crash will add a further $1 billion to the existing real deficit of between $2 billion and $3 billion in this Budget. Last night, I dealt extensively with the folly of allowing wage increases that are double those of our trading partners. For the Government to support first and second tier increases in the face of the impact of the stock market crash reveals its total irresponsibility. More accurately, it reveals a government controlled by trade union power. Lower global growth is an inevitable result of the stock market crash. Even though in reality the fall in stock market values is only back to the approximate levels of early last year, the psychological effect will be to reduce consumption and investment spending. This will obviously be reflected in Australia, so the 2 to 2 1/2 per cent rate of economic growth on which the Budget was predicated is more likely to be zero or even negative growth. By increasing liquidity in our economy in the context of existing high liquidity, the Government is building up further long term problems for the economy in an effort to paper over its immediate problems. The longer the Government delays taking the hard decisions about appropriate remedial action-and those hard decisions are, first, a realistic approach to wage levels and, secondly, real and significant reductions in government spending, rather than the camouflage to which we have been treated in this Budget-the greater and more painful will be the adjustment required later. Senator Walsh accuses his leaders of complacency. That is not so. Complacency is an emotion reserved for junior Ministers. At the top is genuine, 100 per cent, gold plated, unadulterated smugness, overweening arrogance and preening self-satisfaction, and it is that, in part, that has resulted in the Government failing to take the necessary action to correct economic imbalances which are currently evident. It does not require me to pass judgment on the failed economic management of this Government. The world economy has done that. In the recent crash in the stock markets around the world, values were discounted by some 20 to 30 per cent, but in Australia they were down by some 40 per cent. Clearly, the international financial markets are not impressed by our self-proclaimed world's greatest Treasurer (Mr Keating). The international financial markets obviously believe that the Government has lost control of fiscal and monetary policy, is unable to contain wage escalations and has presided over the greatest fall in living standards in Australian history. That is why it is important that the amendment that will be moved by the Opposition with regard to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) is carried by this chamber. That amendment reads: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that: (1) this Bill is part of a continuing pattern of failure by the Hawke Government to face up to the need for adequate and timely adjustment of the economy; (2) this failure by the Hawke Government has heightened Australia's vulnerability to changes in world economic conditions at this time of crisis on world financial markets; (3) because the Government has squandered time and resources while persistently running Australia into massive debt, our national economic options are now so narrowly limited as to largely deprive us of independent options; and (4) the Government no longer has the scope to protect jobs, to stop the prospective rise in unemployment, to stem the continuing rise in numbers of Australians living in poverty or to protect the position of families more generally; and therefore calls on the Government to revise its fiscal, labour market, taxation and other micro-economic policies with a view to providing a more appropriate economic framework to meet our current economic and social dangers''. The points made in that foreshadowed amendment home in on our current economic difficulties and provide the alternative approach and the alternative strategy which must be adopted by this Government if it is to provide sound economic management over the next 12 months in light of the current international economic climate. Only an approach which adopts a much tougher stand on government spending and a much tougher approach to wage determination will, indeed, provide the climate in which Australia can weather the approaching storm. It is important that that foreshadowed amendment to the second reading motion be supported by this chamber. In conclusion, while the Treasurer basks in the false euphoria of the phoney balanced Budget which I have highlighted during this debate, I offer him a real challenge; that is, to balance the average Australian family's household budget. I offer a quotation from Mr Keating's avowed hero, Thomas Jefferson. I think he had the Budget in mind when he said: Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.21) —This Budget is part of the continuing pattern of failure by this Government to face up to the need to adjust the economy to cope with the kinds of economic difficulties that we are trying to cope with at the moment. This is just one more failure by the Government. We have a government that has been prepared to fritter away our time and our money and leave us with an enormous foreign debt-previous speakers have referred to the size of that debt, $83 billion net-and a current account deficit that is far too high. Because of the policies of the last 4 1/2 years, we have run out of options. Australia is staring the lack of options squarely in the face. I believe that that was highlighted yesterday when most of the commentators in this nation breathed a sigh of relief and said, `Wow, we suffered only a $1.2 billion increase in our debt'. For goodness sake, what has the nation come to when we can countenance an increase of over $1 billion a month in our indebtedness? Have we lost all sense of reality? Can the Government possibly get off the hook when this is what the nation has been brought to? In making hay while the sun shines and failing to recognise that prudent governments should make provision for the future, the Government has squandered the good years that we have had and we are now having to cut back; but we are cutting back on the Government's responsibilities, including the most important responsibility of all-the defence of the country. The current budgetary response to unfavourable economic conditions has been short term penny-pinching with no thought to the future. That is borne out by a number of the facts which have been revealed in the recent Estimates committee hearings. They reveal that not only has the Government failed in fiscal and monetary policy terms, but it has also failed in basic good housekeeping of the nation. We on this side of the Parliament recognise that all government departments have to tighten their belts in response to these tough economic times. These economic circumstances are not likely to improve in the short term; so it is more vital than ever that the moneys that are available to government departments are spent wisely and that savings are made where they can be made. But we have to be very careful to see that these savings are not short term savings at the expense of long term efficiency. That is what I mean by `good housekeeping'. One of the most absorbing and worthwhile jobs which senators have to do, I believe, is serving on Estimates committees of the Senate in which the spending of government departments is scrutinised and seeing that money is being spent as wisely as possible. I am very concerned that money is not always being spent wisely and that decisions are being made which could be disastrous economically and disastrous in other ways in the long term. I believe that two major responsibilities of government have to be satisfied before any thought can be given to expenditure in other areas. I think the two major responsibilities of government are the protection of law and order and the defence of the country. These are the concerns of the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Defence. Both departments were examined by Estimates Committee E, of which I am a member. Another very important area of responsibility for the Federal Government is the management of Commonwealth assets-assets which belong to the people of Australia. Those are the concerns of the Department of Administrative Services, which also comes before Estimates Committee E. That Committee found evidence that in all three departments decisions are being made which are concerned more with short term economies than with long term efficiency. The maintenance of law and order, the security of our country and the effective management of our national assets are not expendable. They must be carried out to the best of our ability within the inevitable economic constraints. In recent months fraud against the Commonwealth has been particularly newsworthy. It is a matter to which the Government, to give it credit, has been paying some attention. However, it has been a matter to which the Government has been giving attention on and off over the whole 4 1/2 years of its life. But action seems to be what has been lacking. The amount lost through fraud has never been clearly quantified but we know that it runs into billions of dollars. The estimates vary widely. The Attorney-General's Department has the responsibility for the detection and recovery of fraud against the Commonwealth but I believe that it is not being given the resources which are necessary to do the job as well as it might. In 1985 the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) asked for 1,364 extra staff. In the last three years the police have had 294 more staff as a promised 3-year manpower increase. They certainly cannot be expected to give equal priority to and carry out with equal ability all of the jobs they are given. They have to juggle resources. Senator Tate —That goes against the evidence given to you at the Estimates Committee. Senator NEWMAN —In no way does it go against the evidence. I think the honourable senator must have a very short memory. The officers sent to the hearings were very loyal but they had to admit that they did some jobs better than others and they had to make adjustments to their priorities. That is a very loyal way of saying, `We cannot do everything that we are expected to do as well as we are expected to do it'. They have enormous responsibilities. They have to deal with drug trafficking, organised crime, fraud against the Commonwealth, Australian Capital Territory policing, protection of internationally protected persons, coastal protection and counter terrorism, as well as with specific matters referred to the Australian Federal Police by the Commonwealth. They simply do not have a hope of doing all these things at the same time and they are limited by the fact that, naturally enough, most personnel have to specialise in areas of the highest priority. This limits their ability to shift their resources around to meet the changing priorities. Surely further manpower is justified when the Australian Federal Police, like the Director of Public Prosecutions, is cost efficient in that what it recovers from its investigations pays for the resources outlaid on those investigations. If the AFP and the Director of Public Prosecutions were given the resources they would be able to achieve a great deal because, as I have said, they are cost effective. In the last two years the Director of Public Prosecutions has had judgments entered for nearly $97m and has actually collected $37m with more to come. I believe that it is a very effective way of paying for a service which is needed to protect the nation against fraud and to prevent people ripping off the system. The extra resources granted to the Director of Public Prosecutions during the time that that $37m was collected amounted to $5.8m. The benefits exceed the costs, therefore, by 6 1/2:1. Let me quote from the civil remedies report of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which states: To pass legislation attacking crime or criminals is never, of itself, a sufficient response. What must then be done is to take the necessary administrative steps . . . adequate resources are a condition precedent to success in practice. We need to spend money to get the money back for the Commonwealth. The important thing to remember is that highly qualified people are needed in both the Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but those people are lost to private enterprise, which can pay them more. We must look at what we can do to recruit and keep good people. The Government must have the will to decide that it is prepared to put sufficient people on the payroll to solve the problems that exist-problems with priorities in the Australian Federal Police and problems with moneys outstanding to the Commonwealth that are not being brought in fast enough because of lack of resources. In reference to the proceeds of crime legislation, which will give the Australian Federal Police wide-ranging powers to assist in following the money trail in major fraud investigations and in forfeiture of the proceeds of crime, the annual report of the Australian Federal Police states that `in order to fully utilise the legislation, the AFP will require not only additional resources but investigators with a high degree of specialisation'. I am not just talking about the benefits to the nation in money terms although, clearly, that is extremely important, especially when the Government is casting about for revenue and for savings in expenditure. If a matter being investigated has a key deterrent effect on others, surely criminals will be less inclined to think that they can get away with fraud, and Australia will be a more wholesome place as a result. Surely, that also must be an aim of a national government. It is time we got our priorities right. In these tough times, programs such as Art in Working Life are still being funded, and they could well be funded by some of the wealthy unions that are the beneficiaries of such programs. We are still keeping the Constitutional Commission moving around the country in grand style at a great cost. We are installing spa baths and desks worth $5,000 each for parliamentarians in the new Parliament House. We are producing extremely costly publications, such as Windows onto Worlds, and we are funding John Brown's overseas trips. I was interested to learn that yesterday he said that he has spent only 7 per cent of his time as a Minister away on overseas trips. Only 7 per cent! They are the sorts of things on which the Government has been spending money. I question the Government's priorities, and I am sure Australians everywhere question those priorities when they are compared with the expense of recovering more of what is lost every day through fraud against the Commonwealth. Government agencies seem to have little regard for getting value for money. I think of the Parliament House Construction Authority and the history of the Department of Housing and Construction. Both those bodies, I believe, have little appreciation of the fact that the dollars they are spending are the hard-won dollars earned by the taxpayers of Australia. It should be a priority to maximise the returns due to the Commonwealth and to perform the vital tasks of a government as efficiently as possible. When referring to the question of management of Commonwealth assets, we must ensure that they are managed as effectively as possible so that a minimum is wasted and a minimum is lost through illegal activities. Despite some very public lessons in relation to the sale of Hercules aircraft, the Department of Administrative Services does not yet seem to have come to grips with the problem. The fraud report that I mentioned earlier had instructions to all Commonwealth departments that they are to put into place measures to prevent and detect fraud against their departments. The departments have had that report since about March this year, but I was concerned to find when the Department of Administrative Services appeared before the Estimates Committee that it is really still considering the matter. The sale of Hercules aircraft has been a matter of national concern for a number of months and years. Clearly, the lessons that should have been learnt by the Department from that sale have not been taken on board and effective action has not been taken for the future. The Commonwealth has been defrauded of moneys under the Hercules aircraft contract-two contractors have failed the Department-and lessons should have been learnt. The fraud report made it clear that all departments had to upgrade their techniques. I shall quote from a report of Estimates Committee E, which states: The Committee also examined in some detail a number of issues arising from the proposed sale of surplus Hercules aircraft. . . . Government purchasing and sales activities are obviously areas where, unless proper safeguards are in place, fraudulent practices may occur. In particular, where novel selling options arise there is a need to ensure that adequate checks, controls and fraud prevention measures have been developed to minimise and preferably eliminate any potential for fraud in new ventures where official experience may be less extensive than in other areas. The Committee considers that it is important that the lessons to be learnt from the way in which the Hercules matter has been processed should not be overlooked. Mr Holdich, departmental Deputy Secretary, told the Committee: We are looking at the recommendations of the fraud inquiry. We are seeing in what ways we need to alter our arrangements to take account of the recommendations of that committee. We have already taken steps to strengthen the arrangements in the purchasing and sales area so that these sorts of problems that we have had in the past should not recur. We have not finalised precisely what we are going to do-we still have a couple more months to work that out-but action is being taken to try to strengthen the arrangements to prevent these sorts of abuses in the future. The Committee also states: . . . that there is always a need for high standards of official care and diligence in devising methods to minimise the incidence of fraud in government purchasing and sales activities. Finalisation of precise and effective procedures requires serious and urgent attention. I did not get the impression from the answers received that that serious and urgent attention was being addressed. I may be being unfair-I am sure that Senator Ray would consider that I am-but the answer that the Committee received from the Deputy Secretary was like one received from Sir Humphrey: `We are looking at it. We are seeing in what ways we should do it. We have not finalised it precisely'. I am not satisfied with that because I am concerned that the Department, which is dealing with Commonwealth assets worth millions of dollars and which is dealing with Commonwealth contracts, should be an extremely efficient organisation. The fraud report should have been one on which action was being taken to implement the recommendations as fast as possible. The Department should not have said that it still had `a couple more months to work that out'. I should have hoped that with the experiences the Department has had in the past it would have worked it out already. I now turn to security. Some of the responsibility for our internal security, for example, in relation to airports, lies with the AFP. They are constrained by a lack of manpower in the same way as the defence forces, as I said earlier. We were told by the Department that the resources are sufficient to meet the level of threat as it currently exists. But one cannot go on talking down the threat to meet the resources that are available, and I suspect that that is what is being done. We must be prepared for the unexpected. I suspect that `to meet the level of threat as it currently exists' means that one is writing the threat once one knows what one's resources are. That is the situation that applies in regard to the defence forces today. Mr Dibb, who reported on the Australian defence situation for the Government only last year, said that a 3 per cent real increase was needed each year to meet credible contingencies. But the appropriation has already been whittled away this year to a one per cent reduction in real terms. In reality, the defence of the country cannot be maintained for any length of time against even a low level threat because of the drain on manpower in our defence forces. The lack of care that the Government has shown for this problem is evident in the Budget cut for the repair and maintenance of defence housing. The cut is not huge; it is $1.3m. In national Budget terms, it represents a drop in the bucket. However, it is one more blow to the service families. The lack of maintenance of defence homes in the past has been the very reason that so many of the homes have become sub-standard. The Department considers 60 per cent of defence housing to be sub-standard. To allow the maintenance of defence houses to drop by even the smallest amount is, firstly, a waste of Commonwealth assets, which we cannot afford, and, secondly, it puts one more nail in the coffin of Australia's defence, because the inadequate housing for our defence families is well recognised to be one of the major reasons why today the defence forces have such a high wastage rate. What could be more degrading to one's quality of life than living in a substandard home, frequently in a very substandard area of the nation? We have been hearing in recent weeks of how proud the Government is of the fact that, at long last, it has established the Defence Housing Authority. The legislation to set up this body, which was in the pipeline for nearly two years, has finally gone through the Parliament. But at the very time it was going through the Parliament, the Government was cutting back on repairs and maintenance of existing defence housing. It is just incredible and beyond belief how the Government can even contemplate such a move when the drain in manpower is costing a fortune in terms of training replacements. It would be a worthwhile investment if the necessary money to carry out repairs were made available as soon as possible. If this were done, savings would be made in the recruitment and training costs of the personnel who are needed to replace those people who can no longer put up with the conditions. Mr Acting Deputy Presi-dent, I want to draw your attention to last year's figures. It was revealed that last year it cost Australia $91m to recruit and train-that is just for basic training, not corps training or any further advanced training-the replacements for the 8,614 men and women who left in 1985-86. This year we have lost 8,919 people-that is, 300-odd more than the year before. So the figures are up again. In this coming year, with the way separation rates are going, it looks as if we will be replacing 10,000 people. I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it cost us $91m for basic training and recruiting to make up for the 1985-86 separations. We cannot afford to lose that sort of money. That is what I am talking about when I say that there has been bad housekeeping. Not only is this Government bad at running the economy in every other area; it is also short-sighted in its basic housekeeping. Some of that $91m could have been invested effectively in improving the quality of life of these people so that the families do not say, `That is it. We are off'. Service families are now taking matters into their own hands and in an unprecedented way they are holding public meetings right around the country. Many service people are leaving and they tend to be the people with a lot of experience. The cost of basic training does not tell the story at all because we are losing people of senior non-commissioned officer and middle officer rank who are older and usually married. The high separation rates are being caused by the effect of service conditions on their families. We constantly hear about the pilots. They are not, by any means, the only people who are leaving. They are just somehow more colourful and perhaps more newsworthy. The pilots we are losing have between six and 16 years of experience. A large number of them are qualified flying instructors. It is criminal that we are losing them as they are very difficult to replace. Let us not forget that we are also losing our computer operators, engineers, ground engineers, ground staff and signals people-people who can still expect to get a good job outside the defence forces even though our unemployment rate is running at 8.2 per cent. When unemployment is high the defence forces, traditionally, do not have high wastage rates. The fact that we have such high separation rates at this time means that the people leaving are really very desperate. Of course, we are losing the very best qualified and most experienced people and therein lies the terrible seriousness for the country. Air Vice-Marshal Bradford told the Estimates Committee E that service people are leaving for quality of life reasons. The Royal Australian Navy has also had its problems. It is having great difficulty in finding crews for our submarines. I do not believe that we have a full complement of submariners. The position had been helped by the very satisfactory increase in the submariners allowance some months ago. Clearly, a very major part of the problem is that allowances just have not kept up with the times and people will not stay around and put up with unsatisfactory quality of life when their pay is not keeping up. Pay is not the only factor but it obviously contributes to the difficulties. We have difficulties with landing craft which are laid up in Cairns because, we are told, we do not have the manpower to maintain them. What if we had to conduct a landing anywhere around the coast of Australia or amongst our near neighbours? We have island territories such as Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island. We have to think about these things if we are really serious about defending the people of Australia. Yet clearly we are shortsighted in regard to our expenditure within the defence vote, quite apart from the fact that the defence vote has been cut so seriously. These decisions are affecting our very ability to defend the country. I draw attention to the effect on the defence vote of the drop in the Australian dollar. The Australian dollar was estimated in the Budget only a few weeks ago to have an exchange rate of US71c-today it is US69c. The 2c difference may not mean a lot to many people, to the man in the street, but it is very serious because last year 62.2 per cent of the defence equipment and stores vote was spent overseas and the vote in this year's Budget for capital expenditure on equipment and stores is $2,590,319,000. That is an enormous amount of money. Any change in the exchange rate immediately has an impact on our ability to equip ourselves. So when this Government is so careless about the future in its fiscal and monetary policy, when it is careless about its housekeeping, we all pay for this in a host of hidden ways, some of which will be seen by many people only when it is too late. In these times it is extremely important that the country, its assets and its people are made as secure as possible. We cannot afford to continue to lose billions of dollars through fraud. We have to provide the resources to allow fraud to be thwarted. We cannot afford to allow corruption or lack of manpower to erode law and order in this country. We cannot afford to allow Australia to be vulnerable to attack. To allow these basic responsibilities of a national government to slip is not economically sensible; it is quite irresponsible. I believe that the priorities of this Government are quite misplaced. We simply cannot afford to have all the programs that we have become used to having but which are essentially luxuries at the expense of programs which are vital. I can only hope that the Government will see reason and will address this imbalance and allocate its resources more efficiently to meet our most urgent needs. I consider it a disgrace that we have been brought to this situation by a government which has had the time to make the adjustments necessary to enable Australia to become more productive and so put a stop to the growth in our foreign debt. But the cupboard is now bare. We have all been encouraged to make the most of the good times for as long as they last. We have all been encouraged to eat cake. We will be lucky if in the future we can be guaranteed bread and cheese. Senator PARER(Queensland)(10.49) —I wish to speak on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) and of course to support the Opposition's amendment. It is interesting to look at the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and in particular the Government's economic strategy included in that speech. The Treasurer stated: The Government's policy response has been innovative, strong, and most of all, right. Notwithstanding the enormity of the trade difficulties we have faced, our economic strategy is now bearing fruit. It was obvious from Senator Walsh's subsequent comments that he did not agree. He referred, as everyone is aware, to some 200 programs which could be cut by a government with the courage to do so. I find it fascinating and somewhat hypocritical that as regular as clockwork Senator Walsh comes in here and demands to see the cuts which would be proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, and others and yet as a senior Minister in this Government he is coy about divulging his own list of 200 programs. I would be interested to hear that some time from Senator Walsh. In fact, if he named them, it might take some of the heat out of the current Caucus room debate on privatisation. Even before the stock market crash, Senator Walsh had quite justifiable reservations about the lack of real courage by this Government to address government expenditure. The Treasurer said that the Labor Government's economic strategy is now bearing fruit. Let us have a look at some of that fruit. Since this Hawke Labor Government came to power gross foreign debt has increased from $34 billion to $109 billion. Net foreign debt has increased from some $21 billion to approximately $83 billion. The Treasurer has blamed big trade deficits in the early 1980s for the build-up in the foreign debt burden, which is patently not correct. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for our current account balance show a deficit for 1984-85 of $11 billion; for 1985-86, $14.5 billion; for 1986-87, $13.6 billion; and so far, including yesterday's figures for October, for 1987-88, $4.75 billion. I find it extraordinary, as do other speakers from this side, that somehow a figure of approximately $1.2 billion for the month of October is looked upon as something good. It is an appalling balance of payments figure. It is an improvement on the figure for the equivalent month last year but I compare it, for instance, with the final year of the Fraser Government. I believe the figure was something like $600m for the same month. So it is double what it was for October in 1983-84 when the policies of the previous Liberal-National Party Government were in effect. So foreign debt is out of control. I turn to interest rates. I think one must always be careful to point out that interest rates in Australia are important relative to competing nations. The prime bank rate is the one that we should all look at because that is the rate available to some parts of the private sector. It has constantly been more than double that of our trading partners. I ask: Is it any wonder that, in an effort to compete, the private sector has chased funds from overseas and thus lifted the level of the private sector overseas debt? At least the private sector overseas debt can be serviced because it has been put to productive use. One cannot say the same about government overseas debt. In regard to taxation, I think it is worth quoting Thomas Jefferson's inaugural presidential address, in 1801, when he said: A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread that it has earned . . . This Government has been very adept at taking from the mouth of labour the bread that it has earned. It has talked loud and long about tax reform. The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, bragged: We have done it the right way-by better targeting government spending and by repairing and reforming the tax system. The fact is that this is the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia's history. In June 1983 Government receipts totalled $48.5 billion. As at June 1988 the Budget estimate is $78.12 billion-an increase of 61 per cent in four years under this Labor Government. The volume of tax legislation in the last two years has exceeded that of the previous 40 years. It has become even more complicated. There has not been the simplification promised to us by the incumbent Government. There are few accountants who would not agree that we have one of the most complicated tax systems. For instance, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to understand the capital gains tax. In fact, there are only a few accountants who really know what the Government is on about. Let us look at another of the fruits of this Government-inflation. Our inflation rate is running at about 9 per cent, or perhaps a little higher. Let us compare the figures. As at May this year, the latest month for which I have figures available, for comparative purposes, Australia's inflation rate was 9.3 per cent. It is true that it has recently come down to about the 9 per cent figure. Japan's inflation rate at that time was minus 0.4 per cent, the figure for Holland was minus 1.1 per cent, the United Kingdom, 4.2 per cent and the United States (US) 3.8 per cent. The only countries ahead of us on the inflationary scale are Greece, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Turkey. Senator Robert Ray —Spain. Senator PARER —And Spain. I thank Senator Ray. A figure that is not often cited is that of wholesale prices. I think it provides a guide as to what the future inflation rate will be. I think it is worth looking at the latest edition of the Economist, which compares wholesale prices in various countries throughout the world. Wholesale prices in Australia were running at 8.4 per cent, West Germany, minus 1.7 per cent, Holland, minus 0.1 per cent, Japan, minus 0.2 per cent-so there were decreases in prices in those countries-and the United Kingdom, 3.5 per cent. So our wholesale prices, which are indicative of what lies ahead of us in regard to inflation, are about eight to nine times higher than prices in countries like West Germany and Japan. This is the unhappy situation foisted on the so-called lucky country by this Government. The question one has to ask, of course, is: What has the Government done about it? It has done one or two things. Firstly, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has leaked to the media the contents of his letter to the President of the United States, demanding that the US cut its deficit. Secondly, the Treasurer, in an address to the Fabian Society in Melbourne, tipped a bucket over the Whitlam Government, acknowledging the great and lasting damage done to the Australian economy by the last Labor Government. Obviously, he was working on the basis that, after a certain passage of time, one can follow the practices of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China and tip a bucket over a previous leader and a previous government. That enlightened discovery could have been heightened by the acknowledgment of the great damage done to our manufacturing industry by the then president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who is now the Prime Minister of this country. Everyone surely knows that, if we are to get out of this mess, we have to become more productive. Our unit costs of production must be reduced so that our exports are more competitive and so that we can move with confidence into import replacement. The key ingredients for this to happen, the sorts of things that will make people invest in enterprises that are either export oriented or import replacement oriented, are as follows: our interest rates must be equal to or lower than those of our trading partners. As I have shown, this is patently not the case in Australia. Our interest rates are two to three times higher than those of our trading partners. There must be new capital investment. The recent collapse of the dollar, of course, means higher prices for essential capital equipment, which must be imported if we are to become more productive. Labour unit costs of production must also be competitive. While wages are a large part of the cost, many other factors must be addressed in regard to labour unit costs, and not just talked about. Restrictive work practices which were foisted upon this country and on industries in more affluent times must be abandoned. We cannot afford to talk about trading off dollars to get rid of practices which have destroyed industry and jobs; they must be abandoned. Restrictive work practices really mean being paid for not working. The most common, of course, is what is termed `featherbedding', which means two or three people doing the job of one. These practices are endemic throughout Australia. They are a major cause of the increases in the unit costs of production, and thus our lack of competitiveness. They exist in every industry one looks at. Australia, which is an island continent, has some of the highest seaboard costs in the world. I mention also costs in the construction industry, as exemplified by some of the practices we have recently seen with the new Parliament House, the mining industry, the transport industry, educational institutions, the public sector, and so on. There was, and regrettably still is, an attitude in Australia that, if three or four people are doing work which can be done by one or two, somehow that will help the level of employment. That is a recipe for long term unemployment because it makes us less competitive. It is also a disincentive for investment. It was a great error of judgment for the Government to support the national wage rise of $7 a week. It has been reported to me that when Cabinet discussed whether it would oppose or support a $7 a week increase, Mr Kelty sat outside the door of the Cabinet room to make sure it supported it. We know who is calling the shots in this country. We cannot pay ourselves more when the world economy is moving in the other direction. I do not wish to fuel gloomy talk of a recession, but none other than Mr Rupert Murdoch was recently quoted as saying: I would be very surprised if we don't have a recession in this country within the next few months. He is also quoted as saying that he expected that the stock market crash would have a greater impact on consumer confidence in Australia than in any other country. We must wind back debt, not run the risk of increasing it with a wage rise, which may increase imports and blow out the current account deficit even further. The Australian newspaper on Friday, 30 October 1987, when discussing last week's national wage case, put it this way: It is difficult to imagine any action that the Federal Government could take that would be more dangerous to Australia's economy than the submission it has made to the Arbitration Commission at its hearing on the national wage case. The message being shouted to the world is that this country does not take the financial crisis seriously and is so dependent on the good graces of the leaders of the trade union movement that the achievement of a spurious industrial peace is of more concern than our long-term economic survival. While all this was happening, figures just released show a sharp rise in the unemployment figures. The rise in the October unemployment figure is disturbing to everyone. It appears that Australia remains locked in to an unemployment level of around 8 per cent or more. The United States, for instance, has an unemployment level of 6 per cent. Our level of 8 per cent compares very unfavourably with that. If this were not enough, figures have also just been released which show that industrial disputes rose to their highest level of the year in July. Mark Davis, writing in the Australian Financial Review of 17 November, said that the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed that after a sharp fall in the level of industrial disputes during the election campaign in June it more than doubled in July to its highest monthly level this year. That is another cynical example, if one were needed, of unions managing to keep the lid on things long enough to disguise their real intent-to ensure that their party gets back into power. The growth in the list of our country's economic woes in four short years is almost unbelievable. We just seem to lurch from one crisis to another. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are obviously totally unwilling or totally incapable of doing anything about it. The Government's response to the stock market crash and our precarious economy reminds me of that little rhyme made famous by Hughes Mearns: As I was going up the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, I wish, I wish he'd stay away. Ignoring the issue and wishing it would go away is of no help to Australia whatsoever. Australia is locked in to the global economy. The world has changed. Government policy must be flexible enough to react to that change. Of course, the question is whether it is too late. Has this Government frittered away the opportunity? I think it has. That is what is reflected in the Opposition amendment, which states: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that: (1) this Bill is part of a continuing pattern of failure by the Hawke Government to face up to the need for adequate and timely adjustment of the economy; (2) this failure by the Hawke Government has heightened Australia's vulnerability to changes in world economic conditions at this time of crisis on world financial markets; (3) because the Government has squandered time and resources while persistently running Australia into massive debt, our national economic options are now so narrowly limited as to largely deprive us of independent options; and (4) the Government no longer has the scope to protect jobs, to stop the prospective rise in unemployment, to stem the continuing rise in numbers of Australians living in poverty or to protect the position of families more generally; and therefore calls on the Government to revise its fiscal, labour market, taxation and other micro- economic policies with a view to providing a more appropriate economic framework to meet our current economic and social dangers''. There has been inaction by the Treasurer and reliance by him on the J-curve. We do not hear too much about the J-curve these days but the theory of the J-curve was: collapse the dollar-diminish the value of our currency on international markets-thus making our exports more competitive. The theory was that a lower dollar would increase the cost of our imports thus creating more import replacement and, Q.E.D., the problem would be solved. The Treasurer persisted with reliance on that simple exercise. It did not work. It did not work for a number of reasons, which I will not go into at this stage. Notwithstanding the reservations of Senator Button with regard to that, what has happened is that the Government, by just pursuing this course of action and doing nothing else, has got us in the position where we really do not have a feather to fly with. We are arguably in one of the most economically precarious situations in the history of this country. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(11.11) —I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 and cognate Bills and as they apply, in particular, to this nation's Bicentenary. There has been a lot of talk about the economy in this debate and I will be commenting on the economy later in my speech. Perhaps first, though, we could have a little change of outlook in regard to what is going on. The Australian Bicentennial Authority will spend $136m on this wonderful occasion. There have been attempts, and no doubt there will be more attempts, to play down the event. It is my belief that, no matter who we are, there should be no reason why a majority of Australians should not be able to celebrate their 200th birthday. People are expecting a celebration and funds have been allocated. I am rather disappointed that Senator Wood is not in the chamber-he was supposed to speak prior to me-because I intended to mention something that he said in his maiden speech. He said: I have a vision for the Bicentennial. I see the Bicentennial as a time when, rather than celebrate a manufactured history put together in some public relations sweat shop and sold to us the way they sell margarine and jeans, there should be a true reappraisal of Australian history so we can move on from there. I hope that his view is not shared by too many people in Australia. I do not think it is. The facts of the matter are that most Australians have had ties with Australia for 200 years. Senator McGauran is one of our newer imports. Senator McKiernan —Hang on! There will be a personal explanation about that one. Senator CALVERT —I will say something about that later that might interest you, Senator McGauran. Senator Robert Ray —Senator McKiernan. Senator CALVERT —I am sorry. Senator McGauran was sitting here a moment ago. I wish to congratulate the Bicentennial Authority on the way it has tried to produce a balanced, very interesting and constructive program for 1988. Of course, much of the money is coming from the Federal Government, but much also is coming from the people-State and local government and private enterprise. It is truly a community exercise; so it should be. Regardless of all the criticism we have, we should be looking forward to it with great anticipation. I will mention some of the community projects. If I can be somewhat parochial, Madam Acting Deputy President, you will be as pleased as I am to see that my State, Tasmania, will be represented at World Expo 88. We are looking forward to going to the great State of Queensland and being part of the Expo celebrations. Of course, it is unfortunate, and it is becoming more evident, that people from around the world who want to come to Australia in 1988 will be able to do so only with much difficulty. It has been reported to me that, for instance, there are standby waiting lists on international flights up to February or March next year. That is quite unacceptable. The Government has a responsibility and it should have realised that one cannot just go out and advertise a great event like our Bicentenary and not take note of this, among other things. I suppose that it is as a result of the economy and our dollar being so low that people want to come here on the cheap and see what we have. It seems that we do not have enough flights coming in. Belatedly, I think Senator Gareth Evans has made some arrangements with Qantas Airways Ltd. But I think that you, Madam Acting Deputy President, will be aware that these proposals will not come in until 1 October. World Expo 88 concludes on 31 October, so that will be a big help! Let me return to a list of things that will be happening during the Bicentenary. In Tasmania, the major projects, both ongoing ones and those of a more permanent nature, will cost about $10.4m, of which $2.3m is to come from the Commonwealth Government and $6.3m from the State, with local government, particularly the Glenorchy City Council, paying $1.7m. The Derwent Centre in Hobart, which will cost $7.6m, will probably be the most expensive and best remembered bicentennial project in Tasmania. It is something that is needed in the south of the State, and will be an entertainment centre of world class. There are other projects, such as the athletics centre at Penguin costing $900,000 and the Dowling Street stadium at Launceston costing $1.5m. A National Trust of Australia restoration fund, to restore some of our beautiful old buildings, will raise about $300,000. The community activities will be of great interest to everybody. For instance, in my munici-pality we are planning to restore the oldest farm building in Australia, dating from about 1806. The restoration of a farm building that old and the relocation of artefacts and evidence of our history over the last 200 years into an area like that are things that we can enjoy for many years, and they will give people an idea of what a great country we have and the amount of work that has gone into this great country of Australia over the past 200 years. Diverse activities are planned around Tasmania. For instance, on Flinders Island there are plans to extend the local museum and establish native gardens and carry out tree plantings. The penitentiary chapel and criminal courts are being improved. The wind-driven sails at the Callington Mill will once again turn. Everybody knows that Tasmania is well known for superfine wools, and the Tasmanian Wool Museum in the historic village of Ross will show the history and development in the area of this important industry. Even an old hotel that served the goldfields of Mangana is to be renovated. The major bicentennial project in the City of Launceston is the creation of an urban forest close to the centre of the city. These are all very tangible innovations for our bicentennial year and I believe that they are projects that will put their mark on our State for many years to come. There will be many major sporting centres, most importantly the athletic stadium in Launceston and the Derwent Centre at Glenorchy. We shall host the world pennyfarthing championships. While these are all reasonably minor events, I am leading up to one of the two main events being promoted by the Commonwealth Government during the bicentenary year and for which funds of about $6.8m are being provided-the magnificent tall ships race from Hobart to Sydney. If anybody is intending to travel to Hobart, I can assure him that it is the only place, apart from Sydney, where one can see all these tall ships together. We are proud and pleased to have many international vessels coming to Australia for the Bicentenary. It is interesting to note that quite a few of these tall ships are already on their way. The Young Endeavour, the British gift to Australia, has already arrived in Western Australia. The annual report of the Australian Bicentennial Authority shows that, owing to a visit from the now demoted Hon. Barry Cohen, MP to five South American countries-I am sure that he must have had a wonderful time-two tall ships are coming from South America. At least he was successful in one of his overseas jaunts. I just hope that Mr John Brown was just as successful for Australia in his more recently publicised overseas visit. The Tall Ships Race 1988 will focus world attention on Australia, and this is the first time that such a spectacular gathering of vessels will be seen in the Southern Hemisphere. It is the biggest gathering of tall ships since the salute to the Statue of Liberty in America. One can see that we are looking forward with a great deal of hope. I trust that it will not bore the Senate too much if I list some of the overseas vessels that will be coming to Hobart. Those vessels represent many countries, large and small. A 13-metre ketch is coming from the principality of Andorra. From Ecuador comes a 78-metre barque called the Guayas. Another ship coming as a result of Barry Cohen's persuasions is the Captain Miranda, a 60-metre schooner from Uruguay. India will be represented by Varuan, a 29-metre brig. I point out to Senator McKiernan that Ireland will be represented by Asgard II, a 31-metre brigantine, and I am sure that, if he can find his way south to Hobart, the crew will be more than happy to trade some Irish whisky with him. Switzerland will be represented by the Galatea, a 22-metre ketch. Spain will be represented by one of the most famous tall ships in the world, the Juan Sebastian Del Cano, a 113-metre barquentine. Our friends from Oman will be represented by the Shabab Oman, a 54-metre barquentine. The Netherlands is sending the Abel Tasman-not the one that plies between Melbourne and Devonport, but a 23-metre schooner. Poland will be sending a magnificent 108-metre fully rigged ship, the Dar Mlodziezq, on which there are young Australian crew members. New Zealand will be represented by the Spirit of New Zealand. As I have said, the United Kingdom will be represented by the Young Endeavour, its $4m bicentenary gift to Australia. This sail training vessel will be used around Australia in the years to come and it will be a great memorial to our bicentenary year. The United States of America will be represented by The Eagle, a 90-metre barque which is that country's most famous tall ship. Germany has a tall ship coming, the Gorch Fock. Japan will be represented by the Nippon Maru. I am led to believe that Italy and Russia have leased tall ships to compete in the event. A great variety of international vessels will be coming to Hobart. They will be complemented by our own. Some States have tall ships either under construction or already constructed. In my own State we have a replica of one of the most famous early vessels in Australia's history. I refer to the Lady Nelson. It is currently being built in Tasmania and is being funded by Tasmanians. I am hopeful that that vessel will be competing in the tall ships race from Hobart to Sydney. Interestingly enough, the Lady Nelson was probably Australia's first armed naval vessel. It played a big part in the early history of Australia; in fact, it investigated and charted Port Phillip Bay and it carried disenchanted settlers from Norfolk Island to a place called New Norfolk in Tasmania. It had a very colourful history. Unfortunately, it ended up on an island called Baba Island, north-east of Timor, where the crew were slaughtered and the ship was burned. Nevertheless, Tasmanians will be very proud to have the Lady Nelson competing in that event. Although nominations do not close until the end of November, it has already been confirmed that at least another 150 vessels will be participating in the event, such as maxi-yachts and privately owned tall ships. I would like to detail to the Senate both the role and the importance of the tall ships to Tasmania and, in particular, to its capital city of Hobart. As Australia's second oldest city and the site of one of the world's most beautiful harbours, situated in the Derwent estuary, it is fitting that Hobart should be chosen as the starting point for the vessel race to Sydney. It reminds me of the early days when grain clippers raced from Tasmania to Sydney to feed the starving colony. It is certainly going to be the most spectacular event in Tasmania's recent history. We estimate that Hobart's population will increase by half. That will mean that almost 100,000 people will flock to the capital to witness this unique event. From the day the ships converge on Hobart, on 10 January, 5,000 young people will be living on the various vessels moored in the Derwent River. For those honourable senators who are not aware, most of the crews of these international ships and yachts will range between 18 and 20 years of age. As I said, along with about 200 to 250 of these vessels, we will have ocean liners and warships all round the harbour. For the uninitiated, a tall ship is defined as any sailing vessel with a minimum waterline length of 9.14 metres. Of those competing in the event, half the crew must be young people. As well as that, there will be other races for rated yachts. To cope with the influx, streets along the Hobart waterfront are to be cordoned off to create a huge pedestrian mall. Shops in the city are to be granted extended hours and the famous Salamanca market will operate on a daily basis. At the height of the celebration the docks will be illuminated by decorative lighting from the ships. I am pleased to say that I am aware already that my Party Whip, Senator Reid, and her husband will be attending. I just hope that quite a lot of the other senators have had their appetites whetted and will be going down to Hobart in January. Senator McGauran —I'll try to get there. Senator CALVERT —I thank the honourable senator. On 14 January the 200-plus vessels participating in the Hobart to Sydney tall ships race will be escorted by four warships, two cruise ships and thousands of spectator craft in a massive parade of sail on the Derwent River to the starting line in Storm Bay. It is envisaged that this will result in a line of ships and sails stretching for 15 kilometres down our wonderful river. At 1430 hours, following a salute to the reviewing officer off the John Jarrow light, the fleet will head to Sydney. I believe the Governor-General will be starting that race. Such events do not come without cost. I referred earlier to the $6.8m that the Australian Bicentennial Authority has allocated for this wonderful event. At least half a million dollars will be spent on the provision of emergency and other services by local authorities, such as the police and the State Emergency Service. In Sydney there is to be a parade of sail on the harbour on 26 January, the day after Britain hands over its magnificent gift that I mentioned, the Young Endeavour. I am very proud that my State is playing such a significant role in this once in a lifetime event. As I said earlier, it brings together vessels and young sailing trainees from Europe, Asia and North and South America. I know that the generous hospitality and friendship for which Tasmania has a world-wide reputation will, once again, come to the fore. Perhaps we should not forget that the ultimate aim and legacy of the Tall Ships Race 1988 will be the establishment of a national program of sail training for Australia's young people, with all the associated benefits that go with it. Equally important will be the international good will and bonds of friendship between Australia and other nations which will flow from this event. As I mentioned earlier, other things will be happening in 1988 all round Australia. I think 1988 is a year that we should be celebrating and one in which we should look back on our history, but it is also one in which thinking Australians should be very careful. I do not believe that 1988 is a year that we should get carried away and start wrecking our Constitution. There has been some talk about changes to our Constitution and changes to our flag. I know that some people in the Government are keen on changing our flag and are talking about having a republic. I believe that 1988 is a time to reflect on our history and to retain our ties and our local identity. I repeat that 1988 is a once-off event. We will have to wait at least another 200 years for the next event. None of us will be here to see it. Let us hope that the people of Australia will shake off the feeling of doom and gloom that seems to pervade the country at this time when we look at what is happening to our economy. It will be a good opportunity for the Government to show some leadership to this country in an economic sense. It might start taking notice of some of its members who seem to be talking economic sense-I refer to Senator Peter Walsh, of course. In 1988, if the Government is so inclined, it could give Australia the best bicentenary birthday present it could receive; that is, some tough economic decisions that will set Australia on the right path. Mr Hawke has been talking about export heroes. In looking at the forward figures I noted with a lot of pride and interest that Tasmania and Queensland are the only two States that have expectations above the national average. I hope that those export heroes will get the encouragement that Mr Hawke talks about. The Government should take note and set us on the economic path that we have all been asking for and talking about in the debates over the last day or so. In conclusion, I am proud to be associated with and talk on the allocation to the Australian Bicentennial. There will be a lot of debate about what is going on in 1988, but it is probably the last time we will hear anybody in the Senate talking about it, particularly with regard to the tall ships event. I earnestly implore all members of the Parliament who can make the time available to go to Hobart to see one of the greatest events that will happen in 1988. I thank the Bicentennial Committee once again for the amount of work it has put into making this, hopefully, such a success. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.35) —I want to use the opportunity of this debate on the Appropriation Bills to look in some detail at the impact on women of government decisions in the last few years and of the current economic situation in particular. I do so in a spirit of generosity and helpfulness towards the Department of the Treasury since it seems to be unable to work out exactly what the impact has been and how it should assess these things. In fact, it seems to be unaware of the fact that decisions that have been made by Treasury, by the Department of Finance and by the Government generally have had quite a severe impact on women and their children in Australia over the last few years. At least that appears to be the case if the statement from Treasury in the Women's Budget Statement 1987-88 is any indication. On page 279 of the Budget document, under the heading `Impact on Women', we find the statement: Macroeconomic policies have a major impact on the living standards of all Australians, through, for example, policies which determine the overall level of Government spending or the level of interest rates. The Treasury contribution to the Women's Budget Statement also states: It is difficult however to determine a particular impact on women as there are no accurate means by which to measure the relative burdens and benefits of macro-economic decision on the basis of gender. I would just like to add at this point that Treasury could actually try asking some women in the community what the impact has been of some of these macroeconomic decisions. If it does not want to do that, if that is too difficult, it could try reading some of the studies that have been brought forward by organisations, such as the Institute of Family Studies, that have looked at the relatively severe impact on women, families and children of government macroeconomic decisions over the years. The Treasury statement goes on: Nevertheless, women as lower average wage earners pay less average income tax than men due to our progressive tax rate scales and tend to benefit less from tax concessions. So I suppose in a way Treasury has acknowledged, somewhat indirectly, that some of the policy changes that it has made in the last few years have not had much benefit as far as women are concerned. Treasury finishes its contribution on the impact of budgetary measures on women by saying: Women and their children will be the major beneficiaries of the new Child Support Agency in the Tax Office. And women will welcome improved price surveillance activities. All I can say to that is `big deal'. It is certainly little enough to make up for some of the dramatic impacts on women that have occurred recently through government policy decisions. I think we need to get an acknowledgment from Treasury, not that women will welcome improved price surveillance activities or that they will be major beneficiaries of the new Child Support Agency in the Australian Taxation Office, but that a little direct help is necessary instead of Treasury and the Department of Finance still depending on the outmoded, discredited, trickle-down theory to improve the lot of women and their children in Australia-direct assistance of the sort given, for example, to the banks and the oil companies a year or so ago when they claimed that they were being affected by national and international economic events and policy decisions. If it is possible for Treasury to take direct action to help some of the wealthiest companies in this country get over some of the real or imagined problems they are facing as a consequence of economic conditions, both nationally and internationally, it ought to be possible, even for Treasury, to come up with some decisions that will not have an adverse dramatic impact on women and their children in Australia. The fact is, of course, that the economic problems facing women and their children are not new in this country. Historically, this group has suffered disproportionately when there has been an economic crisis and, again, it takes longer to recover when an upturn occurs. The reason, of course, is fairly obvious. That group essentially is powerless and voiceless, unlike the wealthy and well-known entrepreneurs in the community who can command headlines apparently at will and therefore are in a position to bully governments into increasing corporate welfare expenditure at the expense of social welfare expenditure. Whenever times become hard, or whenever they appear to be so for one of the better-off, more powerful sections of the community, the newspapers carry headlines quoting some corporate giant or another calling for a reduction in government expenditure. Now what they mean by a cut in government expenditure, of course, is cuts to supporting parent benefits, cuts to health care-and they generally include in that total the abolition of Medicare-cuts to education funding and so on. Needless to say, if all these things were implemented they would have a direct impact on the quality of life of women and children. It is equally needless to say that we never hear these same people calling for the removal of negative gearing provisions, accelerated depreciation allowances, or the tax free status of the big life and superannuation funds. All are elements that affect men far more than they affect women, and companies more than they affect individuals. The lack of interest in the income and the economic well-being of women and their children is clearly indicated by the fact that, in the decade between 1975 and 1985, the real value of the family allowance fell while, at the same time, the real value of the dependent spouse rebate increased. It is no surprise to anybody that the major recipients of the family allowance are women and the major beneficiaries of the dependent spouse rebate are the male members of the community. This disparity caused some problems for many women for whom the family allowance was their only source of independent income. Since 1985, in general terms, the situation for women has not improved either. After an initial flurry of things such as the Sex Discrimination Act, affirmative action legislation and some tax reform measures, which Treasury admits have benefited men more than they have women, the Government settled into implementing a range of policies that I would have thought would more usually be seen on the agenda of conservative governments. Almost all of those policy decisions and almost all of that legislation impacted badly on women and children. So it was with some considerable amusement that I noted recently the complaint by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that there is a perception in the community-he seems to believe that it is an unfair perception-that this Labor Government no longer supports the working classes. I think he is probably right; there is that perception in the community. I do not think it is an unfair perception unless the Treasurer, by referring to the working classes, is referring to people of the same class as the Alan Bonds and the John Spalvins of this world because certainly those working classes have been significantly assisted by government policy and government actions through legislation. Certainly the Treasurer cannot have been serious if he was arguing in any way at all that low income earners, the working classes that are on average weekly earnings or less, have been supported by this Labor Government in the last few years in particular. However, what is more important-the Treasurer did not comment on this at all-is that this Government no longer supports the needs of the non-working classes, again another group that it has traditionally claimed to be the champion of. It has not supported the needs of aged pensioners; it has not supported the needs of supporting parents; it has not attended to the needs of secondary and tertiary students; and it has not attended to the needs of long and short-term unemployed people, male and female, of all age brackets. Government strategies towards those people have essentially reduced assistance to those groups. In doing so, the Government has reduced their standards of living; it has reduced their disposable incomes; and it has increased the number of people living in poverty; and that has had repercussions in the retail and small business sector which have seriously affected trading. I made a number of comments in that regard when, last year, this Government, with the support, I might add, of the Liberal and National parties in this place, delayed the normal November consumer price index increases to pensioners and beneficiaries. The impact of that was felt very severely by the retail sector right across the country. The Government, of course, has taken those actions in the name of fiscal responsibility, and because those policies have been so ultraconservative, the Government has done so with the support of the Liberal and National parties. The Government has reintroduced tertiary fees, although it has tried to get around that policy anomaly by calling them administration fees. They have had a dramatic impact on the participation of women, particularly from low income families, in post-secondary education. A quick look at any of the university statistics before and after the introduction of administration fees will indicate the number of women who are now not proceeding with post-secondary education. That will inevitably affect the future employment prospects of those women and, hence, their earning potential. The Government moved to eliminate Austudy payments to families on low incomes with a 15-year-old student in year 11 or 12 of secondary school, and that has had a dramatic impact on a lot of families. It has not only reduced the income of low income families by up to $2,000 a year but also meant that fewer young people and young women in particular, were finishing secondary school. I was appalled by Senator Ryan's statement during the committee stage of the debate on the Austudy cuts that the 15-year-old students in South Australia and Western Australia-the two States most affected-should get part time jobs. I do not know whether she thinks jobs pop up on demand, but it is not only extremely difficult for 15-year-old boys and girls to get part time work but also not something I would have thought any Minister for education would recommend, particularly for those students having difficulty at school since working part time would only reduce their study capacity and thereby have a deleterious effect on the work they are doing. Taken in conjunction with the $30m cut to technical and further education funding that came at the same time, the impact of those measures on young people has been quite dramatic. The prospects of their being adequately trained to survive an economic decline is pretty limited as a result of those measures. Sole parents, mainly women, have also been economically hard hit by changes to eligibility for a Class A widow's pension, for example. That pension now cuts out when the youngest child turns 16, leaving the mother to face the prospect of job hunting or collecting unemployment benefits. A number of issues I have just mentioned were implemented after pressure from the New Right in this country for governments to cut expenditure and, in particular, to reduce the amount of funding put towards social welfare. I wonder how many of those businessmen who were party to the calls for cuts are likely to employ a woman of 40 or more who has been out of the work force for the last 10 or 20 years. Certainly, none of them is prepared to accept the skills and qualifications of a woman who has raised and cared for children, run a home and budgeted, often on a very small income, the money that has been coming in for 10 or 20 years. Those skills are rarely acknowledged by business people. The chances of those women getting jobs are next to nothing. They are then faced with the prospect of fronting up to the Commonwealth Employment Service on a weekly or fortnightly basis, being turned down and suffering a considerable loss of self-esteem as a consequence. All of these measures undertaken by this so-called Labor Government were taken prior to what is quaintly called by the media, the recent stock market meltdown. I find it rather odd that they have used a nuclear expression to describe what has happened in that freest of all free market systems. In any event, it was a meltdown which was made worse in Australia by the number of foreign investors buying into our local companies, real estate and so on, as well as the fact that negative gearing has encouraged many individuals, from yuppies to billionaires, to borrow heavily to play the market. When those people panicked-the people involved were almost entirely well off men-and the drop began in earnest, those people started selling shares foolishly and too quickly in order to cover losses and bank loans. They then claimed that the downturn means that Australia can no longer afford a $7 a week pay rise. Strangely enough, I do not think I or anyone else heard them 12 months ago when the market was booming offer a pay rise or claiming that now the market is up, it is time to spread the largesse around the community generally. Yet again, it seems that the poor will be punished for the greed and foolishness of the rich. If they succeed in the claims they are currently making to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, additional pressures will be placed on women in the home in trying to balance diminishingly effective housekeeping budgets, as well as pressures being placed on women in the work force whose disposable incomes will purchase less. It is still too early to see, of course, exactly what will be the effect of the stock market crash on our economy. However, no serious economist can ignore the possibility that this country will experience another significant economic downturn. That, of course, brings out of the woodwork all of the people claiming that there should be Budget surpluses and that these have to come from cutting the Public Service, cutting Government expenditure and putting the unemployed, pensioners, the less well off, into the laps of their families, who can ill afford to look after them, and the community generally which does not know what to do with them anyway. Balanced budgets, reduced government expenditure, deregulation and all the things promised by the Treasurer and endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) under pressure from the New Right are not, in fact, the policies that should be pursued in the 1980s. Reducing Government expenditure means that benefits and services must be taken away from some individuals. They are usually taken away from those people who can least help themselves and who most need government assistance. Provision for social goals, like equal employment opportunity, affirmative action, equality of educational opportunities, consumer protection, health standards, and conservation of the environment-all these things, claim the proponents of the New Right, can be scrapped. According to deregulators, they can be scrapped because they represent an interference with the rights of an entrepreneur to produce whatever he can make money from and to do it in any way that he can. I suggest that public spending cuts for their own sake and further deregulation will not automatically solve our economic problems. In fact, they will not assist women and their children in any way. Economic and social changes in the last decade have already produced large pockets of poverty in what is otherwise an affluent society. To exacerbate that problem is foolhardiness on the part of this or any other government. There is an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor in Australia, and the Government needs to attend to that before it starts propping up companies that have speculated on the market and claim, on the one hand, that further deregulation is needed while, on the other hand, further protection is needed in order for them to survive. Accumulation of personal wealth by the very rich in Australia has jumped in recent years. There are said to be more than 30,000 millionaires in Australia; one per cent of our adult population owns almost 25 per cent of private wealth in the country, while the top 10 per cent of the population owns 50 per cent of the wealth. That leaves 40 per cent of private wealth in the hands of 90 per cent of the population. If the Government considers that a sensible distribution of wealth and assets in this country, it is very much mistaken. Most studies show that poverty in Australia has also increased significantly in the same decade that saw a dramatic jump in the number of millionaires in this country and, until the stock market crash, billionaires. In the period between 1981-82 and 1985-86, an extra 100,000 families and single income earners have slipped into poverty. More than 650,000 households now live in poverty. The biggest losers over this period were families with four or more dependent children. That is the very group that we, as members of parliament, and government, in particular, ought to be looking at protecting and assisting because it is from within those families that the future work force and productive capacity of the country will come. If children are not properly educated and brought up in a reasonably equitable society, their chances of fulfilling that capacity are somewhere between Buckley's and none. Women suffer especially from economic in- equalities. It is not hard to argue that the history of women is a history of economic disadvantage. There is nothing new about the fact that women are likely to suffer most during a period of economic decline. After all, even in times of economic prosperity, whatever the relative improvement of their circumstances may be, women rarely enjoy personal affluence comparable to that of men. The economic disadvantages experienced by women relate to all areas of public policy: education, employment, child care, housing, and health care. Women continue to be discriminated against in each of those spheres, and the effects of inadequate education and housing, for example, play a part in perpetuating a vicious cycle of disadvantage. By any indicator one cares to name, women in Australia are still bearing a disproportionate share of economic inequality. Women generally and women with dependent children in particular are consistently left out in the cold, economically as well as sometimes literally, by governments and decision makers. Not only are the economic needs of women generally ignored while the economic demands of well-to-do men, like the Alan Bonds and John Elliotts of the world, are pandered to, but the contribution women make to the economy, both in the work force and in the home, is generally either disregarded by economic analysts or overlooked. Equal pay might be given to men and women who do the same job, but there is still not equal pay for work of equal value for the simple reason that the powers that be do not regard work traditionally done by women, either in the home or in the work force, as being as highly useful, profitable and important as work traditionally done by men. Choices for women might seem on the surface to be better than they have been, but women are still, by and large, economically worse off than men. The bulk of families living in poverty are still headed by women. Female headed income units are still five times more likely to be very poor in comparison with income units headed by men. Of all very poor families with children, 45 per cent were single parent families headed by women. Despite all the apparent advances that we have seen in the past 10 to 15 years, women are still clustered in the lowest paid jobs, are still regarded as unstable and unsuitable employees by some employers, and are still not appropriately educated to vie for and get the better paid jobs with prospects that have been the sole province of men for so long. A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald states that women still face significant job discrimination. This morning's Sydney Morning Herald carried a report of a study that was undertaken by Monash University, which study shows that approximately 40 per cent more discrimination exists against women than exists against men. The study involved sending in bogus job applications, supposedly from men and women with exactly the same qualifications. In certain areas, women were simply disregarded from among the list of applicants, although on paper no difference existed between the women's qualifications, skills and experience and those of the bogus male applicants. The study showed three times more discrimination against women than men in response to applications for work as gardeners and computer analysts/programmers. Despite affirmative action legislation, sex discrimination legislation and, in a number of States, equal opportunity legislation, both the public and the private sectors are circumventing this by simply ignoring applications by women in a number of areas which are regarded as traditional male areas of work. No wonder Australia has the worst record of all countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in equality in the work force. No wonder men still earn significantly more than women in Australia. In the middle of this year, total average weekly earnings for men were $446.30 and for women were only $287.60. No wonder the minute there appears to be an economic downturn or there is one, the areas from which women receive their incomes are hardest hit. Stores put off counter staff, not managerial staff, and part timers before full timers. Women fit into the first two categories more frequently than men. That is a fairly nasty application of the women and children first syndrome. Women suffer significantly from the impact of government policies and from economic downturns. To make matters worse, women are still disproportionately represented in industries in which many positions will be made superfluous by technological change. Conversely, women are not well represented in industries in which growth is expected to exceed national productivity growth over the next five years-areas such as finance and business, electricity, transport, storage, communication, and mining. Therefore, women's prospects in the future, as business and industry change in this country, appear to be even worse. This sort of prospect means that a dramatic change in government policy towards education and development patterns for women is necessary if women are not to be disproportionately disadvantaged by economic circumstances. As I said earlier, over the past few years government action has resulted in the reverse; it has exacerbated the problems faced by women and their children-especially in the social welfare, education, health, and child care areas-rather than significantly improving them. While the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which indicates the spending priorities of the Government, is being addressed, it is about time the Government recognised that women and their children have unique needs. It is about time Treasury was able to make a more positive statement about the Budget's impact on women in the Women's Budget Statement 1987-88. It is time that representatives of the Treasury and the Department of Finance spoke to women's groups, the Institute of Family Studies and individual women in the community to ascertain what the past impact has been and what policy measures and legislation should be implemented by the Government to offset those problems. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —I call Senator Cooney. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.05) —We have heard Senator Haines make a speech in her usual logical and forceful way. She had much to say about the situation of women and children. Towards the end of her speech she indicated very clearly that the position of women was uppermost in her mind. She is not alone in that, Madam Acting Deputy President. Perhaps I can refer to your efforts as a woman member of the Australian Labor Party team in Victoria, and the great work that you have done amongst women's groups in that State and throughout Australia. I think it is only fair to indicate the great work that you have done and, no doubt, that Senator Haines has done as well. One thing concerns me about Senator Haines's speech. The honourable senator talked about the efforts this Government has made and should have made on behalf of women. The Labor Party has to be looked at in the context of not simply the political wing but also the industrial wing of the labour movement. No doubt Senator Haines would acknowledge very readily the great work that was done by the movement in getting equal pay for women through decisions obtained in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the 1960s and throughout the 1970s and the work that this Party has done over the years in terms of safety, conditions and wages applicable to women. This Government, which has now been in power since March 1983, has helped considerably with the employment of women. I think it would be correct to say that it has created over 800,000 jobs, well over half of which have been for women. Senator Haines —And how many were in high income areas? Not too many at all. Senator COONEY —Senator Haines asks how many of the jobs in the higher echelons have been created for women. A lot more women are now employed in jobs of high status than would otherwise have been the case but for this Government. This Government appointed the first woman ever to the High Court of Australia, Justice Gaudron. Senator Stone —Don't go on about that. Senator COONEY —Senator Stone said we should not go on about that. There are no problems with this Government going on about an appointment which has been received, as it properly should have been, very well throughout the community. Senator Haines —You are not saying she did not get there on merit, are you? Senator COONEY —Of course not. As Senator Haines says, she very much got there on merit. Any suggestion otherwise from anywhere else in the chamber is to be rebutted. The other matter that should be mentioned is affirmative action. The legislation that enabled that to come in was brought forward by this Government. Senator Haines properly supported that as, indeed, did members of the Opposition. Senator McGauran —Not the Nationals. Senator COONEY —The National Party of Australia did not support that. As Senator McGauran says, the Nationals have never supported legislation to enable women not to get priority over men but simply to get an equal status with men. That is what that legislation was about. The National Party refused to pass legislation which would simply give women an equal opportunity-not a better or greater opportunity and not, as it were, a free kick on the football field. The Nationals denied them that. Senator Haines has to be congratulated for supporting the Government in its initiative in that area. This was historic legislation and it will go down as such in future years. I agree with Senator Haines that women still are not afforded the opportunity to hold the positions that they ought to have in society. But their position has been much redressed under this Government and as a result of the actions that the labour movement has taken part in over the years. Their position now is much better than it would have been had there been an alternative government in office. The course has now been set to enable women to achieve their proper place in the work force and elsewhere. Senator Haines is absolutely right-in terms of their dignity and their ability to look after themselves and their children, work and the proper work, is the way to go. Senator Haines spoke about and criticised the trickle down effect. I again agree with her. A proposition which says that people, particularly women and children, ought in some way sit around and wait for a trickling down effect to occur in a patriarchal society is quite wrong. In any society where justice prevails, conditions should be such that everybody, irrespective of their sex, colour or age-of course, I am talking in terms of working age-ought to be given an opportunity to get work of a proper nature, work that allows them to exercise with dignity their skills, whether physical or intellectual. That sort of society is the proper society we should look to achieve. Senator Haines criticised the Government because of its concentration, as it were, on economic matters. It is true to say that the debate in this Parliament, and in the two parliaments before it, has been very much directed to the economy, to how to get it right, because the logic is that if the economy is right there is a bigger slice of the cake for everybody and some cake for all. Senator Haines —Tell me how introducing negative gearing for property speculators gets the economy right. Senator COONEY —Senator Haines has asked how negative gearing for property helps. In the time available I do not want to go into that specific matter, but clearly that is an economic question. Senator Haines in her question to me quite properly concentrates on economic issues. Senator Haines talked about how the cake should be shared out and the proper facilities that should be available in this community for women and children. Those issues must be talked about in the context of the overall necessity of having an economy which provides enough money and the wherewithal for this to happen. It is one thing simply to go about creating an economy for the sake, as it were, of getting some macroeconomic machinery into place so we can sit back and say, `Is that not a magnificent piece of machinery? We have an economic model that works beautifully'. To simply look at the economy and say that it is beautiful is like our having a great big car that we never drive. Senator Stone —That is the Heath Robinson model, is it? Senator COONEY — Senator Stone asks whether this is a particular model. I am concentrating not so much on the model but more on why we want an economy which functions well. We want that because it will provide the wherewithal, the money and the sinews to enable this society to function as it should, where justice is done to all. We want an economy that provides enough for all. Senator Haines —Where is the justice in negative gearing? Senator COONEY —I agree with Senator Haines that there is always a danger when talking about the economy of forgetting the reasons why we want a good economy. Sometimes, particularly in recent times, we are carried away by the economic debate and we forget about the people in it who are affected by the changes that take place and who, often, are asked to make sacrifices in the interests of some other section of the community. That is the point Senator Haines was making. It was fair to say that there ought to be a sharing of the burden, that there ought to be equity in the sharing of the sacrifices that have to be made as there should be equity in the sharing of whatever is produced by this economy which this Government, to be fair to it, has got into better shape than anybody else could have. The economy is now in better shape than it was when we came to office. Senator Haines —I would hate to think it was in worse shape. Senator COONEY —Of course, everybody would hate to think the economy would be in worse shape. That is a very negative approach. The approach that should be taken is to consider the positives the Government has achieved, and there are many of them. It has achieved a great deal in the social area. I turn to some of its achievements now. There are always two considerations-economic and social-and a proper balance has to be achieved between getting the economy right and making sure that the citizens of this country are not ground down and tortured by the lack of wherewithal to live, by poverty. Senator Haines —Which citizens are you talking about? Senator COONEY —I hope I am talking about every citizen in Australia. I do not want to create a class war such as Senator Haines referred to when she talked about the rich and the poor and the two-country approach of Benjamin Disraeli; I am talking about Australia as a whole. I shall go through some of the programs that this Government has introduced and which it is now developing. It has been mentioned that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the other day said that concern ought to be expressed for the traditional Labor voters. I understood him to say that that concern has always been there but that it should be better expressed. This very day the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launched a policy which indicates that this Government has great concern for those areas in society which are deprived. He launched the Aboriginal employment development policy. Senator Haines and Senator Stone are here. I was a little disappointed that they were not at the launching but I am sure they were both there in spirit. This policy of the Government will help what is conceded to be one of the poorer sections, if not the poorest section, of this society. Senator Stone —All on borrowed money. Senator COONEY —Senator Stone's interjection indicates the Opposition's approach to this whole question. The Opposition's approach, as expressed by Senator Stone, is that no matter how downtrodden people might be, no matter how deprived they might be, no matter how bereft of income they might be, if the economic model which is a figment of the imagination of the Opposition is in any way prejudiced by social considerations it is the social considerations that should surrender, according to the Opposition, and not the economic considerations. That is the real problem. Opposition members have no heart. I do not say that lightly but whenever a piece of social reform is introduced by the Government-and there have been many of them over the life of the Government-the Opposition invariably says that we cannot afford it as if economics is the only consideration instead of one of the major considerations. The Aboriginal employment development policy seeks to give economic independence to the Aborigines. It arises out of a report by Mr Mick Miller. I think he is to be congratulated on his report, which points out a situation which should have been observed earlier. If Aborigines are to enter the work force in jobs that are commensurate with the dignity of any worker, they themselves should make decisions on this matter. They themselves should be able to choose the areas in which they are to be educated and in the areas in which they are to undertake their efforts. It is interesting to note that half the Aboriginal population of Australia lives in cities and towns. In those areas the Aboriginal employment development policy offers training that leads to job assistance and assistance to establish Aboriginal businesses. Careful planning is needed to create real employment opportunities in industry and in the public sector. That policy was launched this morning by the Prime Minister. Senator Stone —But under this Government there are more Aborigines out of work today than ever. Senator COONEY —I do not want to insult Senator Stone but it would be interesting to see the statistics on that. If that is the situation-and there have been hard economic times-this Government, in contrast to the Opposition, has a plan, has an Aboriginal person in Mr Mick Miller to develop a report and has done something about it. That has been welcomed by the Aboriginal community. It is a very positive policy; it is a very positive program which will lead the Aborigines, hopefully, into playing a greater role in this community and which will for years to come direct their endeavours in a way which will give them dignity and take them out of the social security system. They do not want to be attached to that system. The policy will give them the sort of status they deserve. I turn to the family package program that this Government has brought forward. It is in contrast to the Opposition's election promises on the family, which demonstrated a very scattergun approach. According to the Opposition policy which was read out during the election campaign, it would introduce a care allowance of $800 per annum for a child paid through the Australian Taxation Office as a tax credit or a cash payment to the primary carer. In contrast to that sort of policy, which did not target those most in need and which as it were did not try to identify where the real hardship lay, this Government has brought forward a family package. I have some background material here from the office of Brian Howe, the Minister for Social Security, which I think makes interesting reading. The Budget announced a $500m family package in fulfilment of an election commitment made to the people of Australia by the Prime Minister. Senator Stone —Financed with more borrowed money. Senator COONEY —The Prime Minister was then elected again, in the light of that promise, to a further term of government. Senator Stone says it was on borrowed money. Does Senator Stone say that people should not be helped, that the economy should not sustain people who are in need? Does he say that people should be thrown on the scrapheap forever, or does he want to do what this program does? The main part of the family package is the family allowance supplement. The new family allowance supplement pays $22 a week for each child. If the children are 13, 14 or 15 years of age, the payment for each child is $28 a week. Families on a gross wage of $300 a week or less can get full payment if they have one child. The bigger the family is the more money that it can earn while still getting some payment. Because the family allowance supplement is tax free it is better than a pay rise. This was acknowledged by Bill Kelty, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He said that this family package represented an advance for the workers of Australia which would otherwise have taken something like half a century to achieve. A family on $400 a week with two teenagers and paying rent will get $27 extra a week. Because it is tax free, the family allowance supplement is equal to a pay rise for that family of $45 a week or 11.25 per cent. That is a major achievement in that area and an indication that this Government is targeting areas of need. It does have compassion, which sometimes it is alleged it does not have, for those who are in need. For example, the same family on $350 a week will get an extra $5 to add on to its wage-equivalent to a pay rise of $86 a week or almost 25 per cent. That is worth emphasising because it is, I think, quite amazing. The family package promises to help all children in low income families to make ends meet. Senator Haines talked about people in receipt of social security benefits. Certainly, those who are in need of social security support are the people who should, and do, get our attention. Parents on social security get a child payment of $17 a week for each child. That payment is called an additional pension for people on pensions, and an additional benefit for people on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or other benefits paid by Social Security. Those child payments for people on social security will go up automatically in December. People do not have to apply for the increase. It will lift their payment of $17 a week by $5 for children under 13, and add $11 a week for 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds. The family package means that lower income parents will get the same child payments if they are on social security or working-there is no difference. In the next financial year the family package is expected to help about one million children across Australia. That is a great achievement for a government that has been criticised by Senator Haines and others as being unfeeling, as being, as it were, in a straitjacket of economic considerations and nothing else. It is evidence that the description given by Senator Haines and others is inaccurate. As I said, in the next financial year the family package is expected to help about one million children across Australia-about 440,000 children in working families and another 740,000 children in families on social security. The other thing that the Government has done since coming to office, and particularly since the last election, is to set benchmarks to ensure that children are lifted out of poverty. I think it is worth referring to those benchmarks. Children will be provided with income along these lines: 15 per cent of combined married pensions for children under 13, and 20 per cent of combined married pensions for 13- to 15-year olds. Another point regarding the family package is that for the first time the Government will pay up to $15 a week in rent assistance for working families in private housing. Families on unemployment and sickness benefits will no longer have to serve a separate waiting period for rent assistance and will get help for housing from their first benefit payment. The Government will also introduce a new child disability allowance to replace the handicapped child's allowance. Some 27,000 severely disabled children will have their payments increased from $92 to $112 a month. It should be remembered that the Prime Minister has promised that no Australian child need live in poverty by 1990. There is one other set of figures I would like to read out, regarding pensioners-the aged, invalids and widows. Fifty-seven per cent of social security payments are paid to pensioners who are aged, invalided or widowed. Measures are being brought forward by this Government to protect indexation for pensioners and to help them beat poverty traps by giving them the ability to earn income and to increase their income by those earnings. Until now, many pensioners have hesitated about taking casual jobs for fear of losing their one form of security-the pension. This Budget introduces a new earnings credit scheme from 1 November 1987 which will give pensioners the incentive to supplement their income. Under the earnings credit scheme eligible pensioners will be able to earn up to $1,000 each from casual jobs without losing their fringe benefits or having their pensions reduced. I will cite some specific figures for the aged: the next pension indexation is due in December. It will take the rate to $116.10 a week for single people and $96.75 each for couples. The maximum rent assistance for age and other pensioners will increase from $10 to $15 a week. Senator McGauran —We did more than that. Senator COONEY —That, no doubt, is a reference to the Fraser Government. It is interesting to note that the level of pensions under the Fraser Government was 22.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. Under this Government it rose to 24.8 per cent in June 1987. One has to go through a fairly tortuous exercise in logic to agree with what Senator McGauran said. He said, by inference, that the Fraser Government-I presume he was talking about that Government-did more than this Government. The figures show that that is absolutely incorrect. We have heard interjections in the course of this address from Senator Stone who, in answer to every initiative that I have raised, in order to show what the Government has done for the more deprived sections of this community, said, in effect, that this country cannot afford it. Senator McGauran, by inference, has said that the coalition, including the Nationals, will do something for pensioners. How does he answer the Leader of this own Party who, every time the issue of social fairness is raised, says that the country cannot afford to give people in desperate need what they deserve? This Government has maintained the balance, which it clearly understands needs to be maintained, between the realities of economic life in this world-the need to make sure that the economy is adjusted so as to take account of our overseas debt, the need to sell more overseas and to produce more-and the requirement and the crying need of people living in near poverty to live properly, as decent citizens of this country. In spite of what Senator Haines says, this Government will not lead this country into becoming two nations, comprising a rich group and a poor group. This Government wants to see everybody properly fed, properly housed, properly clothed, properly schooled, and able to live a decent, honest life amongst everybody else who, hopefully, have the same opportunities. In achieving that balance, according to some perceptions, at times the balance in terms of economic consideration has sunk or risen, depending on how one looks at it. That perception is wrong. There has been, throughout the life of this Government, a perception and a realisation that, ultimately, what matters are the people who elected it to this place for the third time in a row. There is an understanding of the reality that not only those people but Australians as a whole need to be looked after. Each person is entitled to be given proper regard. It is in the light of that context that this Government has brought forward this package and social security provisions and has, at the same time, managed the economy so well. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(12.35) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I realise that I have only 10 minutes in which to speak before the Senate breaks for lunch and that it will not be until after lunch, even 3 o'clock, before I can finish my remarks on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 and cognate Bills. Senator Robert Ray —There is to be an MPI. It will be about 6 o'clock. Senator McGAURAN —I understand from Senator Ray that it could be as late as 6 o'clock before I can resume my speech. However, what I have to say I will complete today. I will begin my remarks, before I actually address matters relating to the 1987-88 Budget, by taking the opportunity to mention my good colleague Senator Boswell, who has allowed me to take his place on the speakers list today because he has had to return to his home State of Queensland to accept a very prestigious award-the Fisherman of the Year award. I do not know whether the award is just for Queensland or whether it is a national award, but certainly Senator Boswell deserves it. Although he gave me very late notice about taking his place on the list, I thank him very much for the opportunity. I congratulate him on becoming the Fisherman of the Year. I know that he is very proud of that achievement. Anyone who knows Senator Boswell knows that he is a very hardworking man and that certainly he is a man of the people. In particular, Senator Boswell is a man who concentrates on the forgotten people in society. Nothing is more needed in political life than a man such as Senator Boswell when the Government has handed down a Budget of the sort it has. Senator Boswell is a very compassionate man. He is a man who has compassionate words for the forgotten Australians. Certainly, though, he is a man who has damning words for those who will not listen and act. Again, on behalf of my National Party of Australia colleagues, I congratulate Senator Boswell. I now turn my attention to the Budget. I, like others on the long list of my colleagues who have done so, condemn the Government's 1987-88 Budget. The Budget has been a false document, in terms of its assessment and predictions, from the time it was handed down. It is false in its presentation as a balanced Budget. It is false in its predictions in regard to present economic conditions. It is false in its predictions for the economic conditions which will face the nation in 1988. The Budget's credibility now lies in tatters in the wake of the economic realities that have hit the financial and stock markets like a massive earthquake and which have left the Government's Ministers stunned like rabbits under a spotlight, too frightened to move and waiting for the death shot from the dark. Surely that death shot will come from the dark. We can expect several more shock waves in the near future, in the New Year. We can expect several more twists and turns in the stock market situation and in regard to the Australian dollar. We can expect these to come in our bicentennial year-a year for celebration. Really, that will be a year of very unfortunate stocktaking in this country. Every assumption that was made in the Budget when it was handed down no longer applies. Indeed, such assumptions never were soundly based. In 1988 we will have higher inflation than was predicted in the Budget. We will have higher interest rates, a greater depreciation of the Australian dollar, and a higher debt level. So it goes on. Just about every economic indicator cited in the Budget Papers is now worthless. Sadly, the Government knows that but does nothing. We are now preparing to enter our bicentennial year. As I said before, it is a year in which to celebrate this nation's great achievements and to confirm our traditional beliefs. However, after 200 years of carving out a very proud history and a very high standard of living, as a result of which we were once known as the lucky country, we have now had all this smashed by an incompetent government. I ask that for the sake of this nation, for the sake of the working men and women, the farmer and the small business person, the Government act now to turn back the tide of recession and that it stop its lies to this nation. I ask the Government to return the rewards for work to the people, to the real contributors to Australia, who now more than ever need to be able to rely on a government that is capable of administering the country's finances. It is ironic that in the wake of the collapse of this nation's economy, the Australian Labor Party has indulged in a bitter debate as to whether the Whitlam Government was a truer Labor government than the Hawke Government. My answer to this very useless question and debate is that both governments will leave the same legacy to this nation. History will judge both governments as incompetent economic managers. Their legacy is a legacy that all Labor governments have left this nation. Let us look at the Scullin Government when it was in office in 1929, the year of the famous share market collapse. At the next election in 1931 it was thrown out of government. The Whitlam Government, in particular, will be remembered for its high interest rates. If it is possible for me to pluck one thing out of the air in regard to what the Whitlam Government should be remembered for, it is its presiding over probably the first of the great interest rate rises in this country. Interest rates on 90-day bank bills reached an extraordinary 22 per cent and beyond. If it is possible to pluck out of the air one particular aspect for which the Hawke Government should be remembered, that would be the great debts it has imposed on the working men and women of this country. The overseas debt stands at $110 billion-increasing at $1 billion per month. Those figures have been cited many times in this chamber. From this debate will come the conviction that the Labor Party never has been and never will be a competent manager of the economy. Members of the Labor Party have not got it in them to be competent managers. Regardless of the fact that the Labor Party is running our country into the ground, we still live in a great country. Australia is still a very lucky country. It is a great nation and it is very hard to kill off a nation that has such great resources. Today we still have some of the world's greatest resources holding the economy together-albeit that the economy is a little threadbare. The five major exports of this country are coal, wool, beef, gold and wheat. Three of our major exports are from the agricultural sector and earn in excess of $8 billion in export revenue. Be it as a result of ignorance or politics, this Government over its term in office has given scant acknowledgment to rural Australia as the real contributor to this nation's standard of living. More particularly, rural Australia is the real contributor to resolving the balance of payments crisis. If only this Government understood that! However, this Budget has decreased the outlays on pastoral and agricultural industries by $56m. Since the Budget, the Government has set about directly increasing the costs of production applying to such industries. That has taken place since the Budget was brought down and since the share market crash and the fall in the Australian dollar. The Government has set about increasing costs applying to our most valuable exports. I will go through those. The wheat industry brings some $1.7 billion in export revenue to the country. This is at a time when, as reported in the Press today, the increase in our balance of payments debt was greater than $1 billion. The Government has decided to increase costs by way of lifting the export insurance premiums. I have asked the relevant Minister several questions concerning the lifting of the export insurance premiums. I got no satisfactory answer. The only answer I really got from the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, was that the Government has a fine relationship with the Australian Wheat Board. I will quote from an article to show what the Wheat Board thinks of this Government's decision. That article refers to statements of Mr Clinton Condon, who is Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator ARCHER —I preface my question to the Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health with a brief explanation. The International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI) was established on 9 May 1984 to promote further international discussion on this important question. Australia, along with nearly 30 other countries, was a founding member and attended the 1985 and 1986 meetings. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that at the meeting of the ICGFI in November 1986, the then Department of Health pledged $US5,000 as Australia's contribution to the 1987 year? Is it a fact that this pledge was withdrawn after the then Minister for Health refused to sign the cheque, with the result that Australia will not be represented at this year's meeting in December? Why did the Minister refuse to sign the cheque, thus denying Australia a role in discussions about a process described by the Minister for Transport and Communications in this place on 17 February? He said: The technique is at the stage where it is thought generally to be appropriate for implementation on an industrial scale. Senator TATE —I regret to have to say that, flipping through the brief provided to me, I can find nothing on that topic, and I am unable to give the comprehensive answer that I am sure the Minister would wish to give. I shall pass the question on to the Minister and ask him to make a response. Senator COLLINS —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Has the Minister had a chance to examine further allegations that a member of his staff advocated in 1986 ecological sabotage techniques? If so, what is the Minister's response? Senator RICHARDSON —As a matter of fact, I have had a chance to examine further the allegations that were made yesterday by Senator Puplick. I can only say that, upon further examination, I am more outraged than I was yesterday because either Senator Puplick deliberately misquoted and misrepresented what Simon Balderstone wrote, or the senator was given false information that he did not check. If it is the case of the former, he stands condemned-- Senator Chaney —He tabled the article. What are you talking about? Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Puplick tabled it yesterday, and I shall get on to that in a moment, Senator Chaney. Be patient, and we shall get there. Senator Puplick said that the article analyses a series of techniques, including monkeywrenching, `ecotage' and tree spiking in detail. The first thing to say is that it does not. Nowhere in the article does anything like that appear. Senator Puplick also said that the article contained `a very explicit guide of how one goes about the process of tree spiking'. It does not. In the article, tree spiking is mentioned only once, and that is only in a quote from a book. Putting bolts in trees is mentioned, but to say that it is rare in Australia. There is a comment on it, but that is all. Senator Puplick also claimed that Simon Balderstone said: Lobbying often fails, and more drastic measures have to be taken. This time, Senator Puplick got it right. Simon Balderstone said that. The article goes on to explain just what direct action means in this context. Senator Puplick has not only advocated direct action in the environment but also participated at Terania Creek, where he was in there trying to stop the logging. I congratulate him on that. I do not know what the views of the National Party of Australia are on this, but that is where he was. He was over in Canada trying to stop the seal hunt. Good on him-that is direct action. If it is good enough for Senator Puplick to participate in it, why is it not good enough for Simon Balderstone to write about? Senator Puplick went on to allege that the article mentioned that `a silent and cordless drill should be used' to spike trees, that it was `better to use ceramic rods' and that it was very important to use silicone to conceal the spike. These are extraordinary and incredible allegations from Senator Puplick when one considers that such phrases are contained in a cartoon story placed in the magazine in the middle of Simon Balderstone's article-a cartoon story that he did not write and did not know about. Further, Senator Puplick tabled some other writings that were not Simon Balderstone's, including one giving information on monkeywrenching and how to go about it. Senator Puplick has tabled in the Senate words that he attributes to Simon Balderstone, words that Simon Balderstone never wrote. What I said yesterday stands true. At no stage did Simon Balderstone ever advocate any action that would cause harm to the person. He has been deliberately misrepresented by Senator Puplick and, as I said yesterday, Simon Balderstone deserves an apology. Senator Puplick is in enough trouble already with the environment movement because he will not stand up on World Heritage listings. He will be in a lot more trouble if he will not act honourably in this House. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, refers to a recent item in the Australian newspaper which states that cattlemen fear that the gamba grass seed is a disease risk. Will there be stringent testing of the 3,000-bag consignment of gamba grass which is to come into Australia from Brazil shortly? Is the Minister aware that cattle producers believe that this consignment poses a serious threat of foot and mouth disease being introduced to Australia as it could contain fungal diseases already known here? Will the Minister ask Mr Kerin to ensure that stringent testing of this gamba grass seed is carried out? Senator WALSH —I do not know anything about this. Indeed, I had never heard of gamba grass before. Whatever the normal quarantine and testing arrangements are, I assume that they will apply to this grass seed importation and I will get the details of it as soon as possible. Senator CHILDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the remarks of Senator Lewis yesterday regarding manufacturing, production, employment and investment contained in the 1986-87 annual report of his Department? Does the Minister accept the picture of the Australian manufacturing sector depicted in the senator's remarks? Does he agree with Senator Lewis that trends in activity during the past year are `fascinating in the light of all that Senator Button has been saying in relation to manufacturing'? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis's remarks have been drawn to my attention. As I recall, it was Senator Childs who did so. I want to make a brief comment about some of the things that he said, because it is unfortunate that Senator Lewis reached only the summary pages of the prefix to the report. Had he gone a little further, he might have developed a slightly different view. I want to make the general observation that Senator Lewis is quite right to draw attention to the fact that a number of things happened in a year when the economy was fairly screwed down. Senator Haines —As distinct from screwed up. Senator BUTTON —I am not concerned about the interjections of those for whom those words have only one connotation. I draw attention to the fact that there was relatively static production overall in the manufacturing sector and a small decline in employment in the manufacturing sector over 1986-87. This is not surprising. But significant changes are occurring across Australian manufacturing industry and focusing on the last year ignores some of those fundamental changes in industry performance and export activity. Recent indicators suggest that the Australian manufacturing industry is adapting to the new tougher world economic environment and is responding positively to incentives provided by the Government. Increasingly, firms face competitive pressures and, as they do so, they are not rushing to governments for higher tariffs and other protection as was the practice in the past. Instead, they are actively seeking means of raising their internal competitiveness through cost reductions, increased efficiency, improved product quality and better marketing. I think Senator Lewis would also be pleased to know that the export orientation of local manufactures is growing strongly. In 1986-87 exports of manufactures grew by 25 per cent in nominal terms and 14 per cent in real terms. That compares with the real average annual growth rate of only 4.9 per cent between 1977-78 and 1983-84. Importantly, imports of high value added manufactures grew at a stronger rate of 30 per cent in nominal terms during the last year. So Senator Lewis's attention might have been better diverted to the table showing export performance of selected manufactures during the last few years. That is located in the appendix rather than the prefix to the report, which is what I suspect Senator Lewis read. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Minister's Department holding an Australian International Development Assistance Bureau file on Mr Rod Kelly? Does the file record an investigation into Mr Rod Kelly? What conclusions did this investigation reach? When did Mr Hayden become aware of the file? Is there any evidence that Mr Kelly was involved with the Alliance Party and/or coup and/or military leaders in Fiji in the time leading up to the coup in that country? Is it true that the report canvassed the possibility that Mr Kelly was receiving funds from foreign intelligence sources? What is and has been Mr Kelly's relation to Mr Hawke and others in the Centre Unity faction of the Australian Labor Party (ALP)? What positions, if any, has Mr Kelly held in the ALP and what input has he had to ALP policy? What action does the Minister intend to take in relation to the activities of Mr Kelly in Fiji? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said the other day in relation to a question from Senator Sanders, `Another day, another conspiracy'. Here we are again with the Australian Democrats. Senator Coulter did give me some short notice of this, which did enable me to check with Mr Hayden, and I am advised as follows: Mr Kelly came to the attention of the Australian High Commission in Suva in 1986 in relation to commercial aspects of an aid project then under discussion with the Fiji authorities concerning a Fiji fisheries project. Inquiries into Mr Kelly's commercial background were instituted through normal commercial channels. Those inquiries were inconclusive. The High Commissioner was aware that Mr Kelly was in contact with some members of the then Fiji Government, but there was no suggestion that these contracts had other than commercial purposes. There was gossip at the time in Fiji which associated Mr Kelly with foreign commercial organisations, but there was no suggestion of any links with foreign intelligence services. As to the question of Mr Kelly's supposed links with the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, I have no particular knowledge of the subject and have very considerable doubts as to its relevance, particularly in the light of the answer that I have just given. I do know that he was involved for a time rather publicly or conspicuously, in trade union affairs in Victoria. He was a member of the Labor Party; whether he still is, I do not know. I do not think I have ever heard of him playing any active, let alone any influential, role in relation to policy formulation. That is the prerogative of a rather small and select group in the Victorian ALP. I did ask the Prime Minister a few minutes before Question Time, the question having been explicitly raised by Senator Coulter, whether he knew Mr Kelly. He told me that he did, but he had had no close association with him. As to the final part of the question-what action does the Minister intend to take in relation to the activities of Mr Kelly in Fiji? I think in the light of the answer I have given it should be self-evident that it would not appear that any further action of any kind is justified. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I ask: has the Minister seen the Police Complaints Tribunal report tabled by the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Mr Bill Gunn, exonerating the Queensland Police of any blame for the ugly incident that occurred during the Minister's visit to Ravenshoe on 4 September? Are the conclusions in the report accurate? Further, does the Minister agree with Mr Gunn's personal attack and supplementary comments that Senator Richardson is, indeed, a raw prawn? Senator RICHARDSON —As a matter of fact, the Police Complaints Tribunal report has been drawn to my attention. I only wish the Police Tribunal had been drawn to my attention when it was conducting its inquiries. I have been criticised in the Queensland Parliament for having the temerity not to have presented evidence to the inquiry. Honourable senators will find it is always a bit difficult when one does not know the inquiry is on, when the Tribunal does not divulge when or where it is meeting and does not make any inquiries to see whether a person wants to give evidence. There was a little more to this report than just that. We are accustomed to Queensland whitewashes; we are not accustomed to whitewashes of such massive dimension. Let me go through just a few of them. The first is the finding of the Police Tribunal that no acts of actual violence occurred. One wonders how to describe an act of actual violence in Queensland. I would have thought that being kicked and punched and having one's hair pulled was, indeed, an act of violence. In Queensland it may be an act of love, but everywhere else in this country we all know exactly what it is. The only time that anyone in my party engaged in an act approaching violence was when one of these gentlemen had a strong grip upon my hair and when I was being kicked and punched one member of my staff did actively discourage the gentleman holding my hair from continuing to hang on. The next comment I would like to make on some of these extraordinary findings, which make pretty comical reading, is that great play has been made of the fact that I used a taxi to pick me up from the helicopter. The police expected me to be in an official limousine. Well, I did not bother to ring the Minister for Administrative Services to see how big the Commonwealth garage was in Ravenshoe. I just assumed we were a bit light on for limousines that day and did what I thought was the only thing I could do; that is, ring for a taxi. I will go into the taxi driver's comments later. She has had a bit to say as well. The police also said that they could not actually get to me on my arrival, even though they tried. The Queensland Police Force is a pretty intrepid bunch. When we came in in the helicopter we did a couple of circuits of the course around the town and then landed at the golf course, which is three minutes away from where the demonstration occurred but they could not find that, that was all a bit tough. When we arrived I got into the taxi and off I went happily into the main street. As we were driving along, honourable senators will not be too surprised to learn, there was some consternation. The locals began screaming, yelling and hurling abuse. The police said they did not know I was coming until the taxi had gone past them. Who the hell do they think the crowd was screaming at? Let me go on, because there is more. The police said that there was no neglect of police duty in failing to provide adequate protection. Let us examine this `no neglect of duty'. There I was on Government business driving along the street peacefully in a taxi, driven by a Queensland citizen, when we were rather rudely set upon. The first thing that happened was that the taxi got rocked to the point where it was about to go over. The taxi was abandoned by me and the staff. We did not have much choice. We were not going anywhere in it, given that someone had already pinched the keys. We got out of the taxi and we were prevented from going to the town hall where the meeting was supposed to be held by a group of fairly angry people. They blocked our way and pushed us to the truck. The police at this stage of the game were some 50 to 60 yards away leaning against the police car. They were in animated conversation. That was the only animated thing they were doing at the time. After an hour on the truck, where proceedings were a little difficult, I announced my intention to leave and proceeded to get off the back of the truck. This is where I found the whole Queensland report really too stupid for words because when we got off the back of the truck a great number of the crowd had managed to station themselves between me and the getaway car. In attempting to approach the getaway car we were then attacked. At this stage of the game the police still watched. I want to make it clear that at the time I said publicly-I repeat it now-that I wanted to forget the incident. I chose to have a go at no one in the Queensland Police Force. The main reason was that one Queensland policeman showed great courage. Leaving his five colleagues still leaning on the car, he barged into the middle of the crowd, took on the ringleaders by screaming some unparliamentary language at them and encouraged them to get out of the road. That bought us enough time to get to the car. The Queensland Police report, however, congratulates the police for being smart enough to have me get away in the police car and not in the taxi. This was a very clever move, except that it was organised by my senior private secretary, David Tierney. Even after he had arranged for the police car to be parked in the right spot, after he had gone and asked them to move it there, the police still tried to put us in the taxi. Fortunately we managed to persuade them at the time that they ought to move us. I think this wonderful police tribunal, this great investigation, this great example of Queensland justice, needs to be exposed. I would have thought that all honourable senators would be interested in anyone among their number being attacked, given that yesterday we were expressing concerns about harm to persons. The main finding really exposes-and this then becomes not a matter of opinion-the paucity of investigation by this Tribunal, as revealed in the statement that the Queensland Police were never told that I was coming. Of course, that is wrong. They were told. I think this investigation was conducted by somebody called Judge Pratt. Honourable senators may have heard of him in recent times. If the gentleman had had a look he would have known that the Protective Security Co-ordination Centre, administered by my colleague Senator Tate, had given a couple of weeks notice, by telex, to the Queensland Special Branch. I am happy to table this telex; it goes through my itinerary in great detail. What sort of an inquiry could not find that out? Senator Knowles —What is your itinerary for tomorrow? Senator RICHARDSON —I will discuss it with the honourable senator later. I will be in Port Douglas and Cairns, if the honourable senator is interested, trying to do what Senator Puplick and the honourable senator's Party will not do-that is, save the rainforests. This telex was sent weeks in advance. Senator MacGibbon —We are not interested. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator MacGibbon is not interested in the fact that the report of a police tribunal in Queensland is so abysmal. Does he support it? I always thought that the Liberal Party in Queensland was trying to distance itself, but Senator MacGibbon is right in there and he is welcome to be. Having exposed this telex, which I table for the information of honourable senators, might I say that even local citizens such as Joan Bailey, the taxi driver, were entitled to be consulted because they were outraged by what they saw. Millions of people saw it on television. It staggers me that the Liberal Party is willing to go along with the National Party of Australia in this sort of disgraceful cover-up. Senator REID —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the Government's decision to establish the Aviation Central Training College in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask: Will the college be constructed in the Australian Capital Territory as recommended by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works? Why has the appointment of a successful tenderer for the construction of the simulator wing of the college not yet been announced and construction not yet commenced at the college site? Will the simulator be completed in Canberra on schedule? If so, when will construction commence? Senator GARETH EVANS —That matter is being dealt with-very competently, I might add-by my colleague Mr Duncan and I am not up to date with the latest developments in relation to the tendering process and the timetable that is envisaged. The future of the training college is the subject of some further internal discussion at the moment. If that discussion leads to any change of direction or intention from that which has previously been foreshadowed I will make sure that an announcement to that effect is immediately made. Senator REID —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The thrust of my question was: Will the college be constructed in Canberra, in accordance with the Government's decision? Does the answer that the Minister has just given indicate that there is some risk that the college may now not be built in the national capital and may be built in some other place? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have answered the question to the best of my ability. I have nothing further to add. Senator HARRADINE —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, refers to the resignation from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) in the first four months of this financial year of 75 pilots compared with the annual graduation of 55 to 60 pilots. Is it a fact that Air Vice-Marshal Ray Funnell has directed that flying training be given priority although the rate of pilot training is governed by the retention of qualified flying instructors? Is it not also a fact that the RAAF has a scheme whereby projects can be progressed and some positions filled on a temporary basis by employing suitably qualified and experienced officers from the Reserve, but that this does not apply so far as pilots and flying instructors are concerned? Is it not a fact that the great majority of experienced pilots and qualified flying instructors who have left the permanent Air Force are in the Reserve by their own choice? Would it not be a good idea for the RAAF to utilise flying instructors from the Reserve to assist with training as an interim measure until experienced levels within the permanent Air Force increase? Senator ROBERT RAY —As Senator Harradine would be aware, the question of separation rates in the RAAF has been raised on several occasions in this chamber and also explored in some depth at Estimates Committee E. I think at some stage the honourable senator may have referred to this concept in casual conversation. I have not yet had a chance to raise this matter with the Minister for Defence. I will undertake to do so and get a detailed response as to the feasibility of the honourable senator's suggestion, hopefully by the end of the week. Senator BROWNHILL —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that, for the 1987-88 financial year, single age pensioners in receipt of income other than their pensions amounting to anything above $192 a year will be forced to lodge a taxation return? Is the Minister aware that this is in contrast with the position in 1984 when the effective tax free threshold was $984 per annum? Does the Minister not agree that it is an impost on the pensioners and an uneconomic exercise for officers of the Australian Taxation Office to process returns for such small amounts? Would it not be a more sensible approach to raise the pensioner rebate for single pensioners from $250 to $450 so that single age pensioners would need to be in receipt of more than $1,000 to be affected by taxation? Senator WALSH —Somebody on the Opposition side was sufficient of a hypocrite to say `Hear, hear' when the question was finished. I do not know the revenue cost of the proposal; I will find that out. But in general, pensioners should count themselves extremely lucky that the Opposition was not returned to government because a number of people in the Opposition were advocating the non-indexation of pensions-just letting inflation erode the value of the pension itself. Of course, that would be very much more difficult for pensioners to cope with than paying some taxation if they have income over and above their pension income. Senator BROWNHILL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the Minister's reply that he thinks pensioners are very well off now. Is that correct? Senator WALSH —No. I certainly did not say what Senator Brownhill apparently believes I said. I said that pensioners would be immeasurably worse off if the lot opposite had won the election. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, and it is on the subject of housing. Is the Minister aware of claims by Mr Porter, shadow Minister for housing and public administration, that home ownership in his electorate of Barker in South Australia has not changed in recent years? Are Mr Porter's claims correct? Senator TATE —My attention has been drawn to claims by Mr Porter along the lines suggested in the question by Senator Maguire. I have a response provided by the Special Minister of State. The 1986 census shows 34,925 households in Barker. Of these, 23,342 householders were owners or purchasers. The percentage of owner-occupier households was, therefore, 66.8 per cent. At the 1981 census, home ownership in the Barker electorate was as follows: of the 32,301 dwellings in the redefined Barker electorate, 12,300 were owned outright and 7,971 were being purchased; 20,879 dwellings were owner-occupied, or 64.6 per cent of the total. Consequently, home ownership in Barker has risen from 64.6 per cent to 66.8 per cent, or by 2.2 percentage points, despite the claims of Mr Porter that `the percentage has not changed since the 1981 census'. It seems that Mr Porter has bungled by not allowing for the change in his electoral boundaries in 1984 following the increase in the size of the House of Representatives. It appears that Mr Porter, for the 1981 census, has used figures for the old and much larger boundaries of his electorate, and has compared them with the 1986 census figures collected within the new and smaller boundaries. I also add that the current forecasts for the housing industry augur well for construction throughout Australia, including the electorate of Barker. The Indicative Planning Council recently estimated dwelling commencements for 1987-88 as between 126,000 and 130,000. The Council has since advised that the actual commencements will be the maximum forecast. That is an increase over the past two years. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Is it a fact that the Budget Papers predict that Australia's gross domestic product (GDP) will grow by 2 3/4 per cent during the current financial year? Is it also a fact that the Budget Papers predict that our current account deficit will amount to 4 per cent of our gross domestic product during the current financial year? Does it therefore follow that, even if the Budget forecasts are correct, the growth in Australia's economy will be slower than the rate of increase in our international indebtedness? Why are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer so smug about our present economic position when we are accumulating external debt faster than our capacity to repay it? Senator WALSH —If I remember correctly, the Budget forecast for the current account deficit was $11.5 billion, which is, if not precisely 4 per cent of the forecast GDP, very close to it. It follows axiomatically, therefore, that with a growth rate of 2 3/4 per cent, and if all those forecasts are realised, debt as a proportion of GDP will increase. The cumulative deficit on the current account for the first four months of this financial year is about $1 billion lower than it was in the same four months of the preceding year, suggesting that the Budget forecast for the current account deficit for the year is on track and there is perhaps some mild reason for optimism that it might come in somewhat lower than that. I am not sure what the purpose of the question is except to have the figures and the arithmetic confirmed. It is no secret that debt, as a proportion of GDP, will continue to rise, and it takes time to wind back these things, unless one is willing to take the option of plunging the economy into a catastrophic recession. One could close the current account deficit in that way, but it is highly speculative what the unemployment rate required to do that would be; it would probably be somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent. That is not the sort of option the Government is willing to take. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister seen a report in yesterday's Adelaide Advertiser reporting an address to the real estate marketing group, the Real Estate Professionals, by the President of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, self-styled New Right activist, long-time hopeful for Liberal Party of Australia pre-selection in the seat of Higgins, and extraparliamentary pretender for the Liberal Party leadership, Mr Andrew Hay, in which he called for a five-year program to reduce the component of the work force in the public sector to 30 per cent from 43 per cent? Does the Minister agree that 30 per cent is an appropriate target for the proportion of public sector employees within the total labour force? Will the Government establish a five-year plan to achieve that objective? Senator WALSH —The Government certainly will not be establishing a five-year plan to achieve the objective of having 30 per cent of the work force in public employment, because just over 24 per cent of the work force is now in public employment-24.7 per cent to be precise. The Government has no intention of establishing a five-year plan, a 10-year plan or a 100-year plan to lift that percentage to 30 per cent, which Mr Hay believes would be an appropriate target. If one wants more precision on the figures, I shall provide it: for the 1987 June quarter, total employment in Australia stood at 7,094,000, of which 1,752,000 were employed in the public sector, that is, local, State and Commonwealth government. It would seem that Mr Hay is still practising the skills he learned when he helped prepare Phillip Lynch's rubbery Budget in 1977. His figures are about as reliable as they were then. However, it demonstrates, apart from the pig ignorance of Mr Hay, the philosophical prejudices of the extreme Right, which keeps making assertions that have no basis in fact. If that is a fair measure of the standard of performance that can be expected from one of the would-be high-fliers of the Liberal Party, Roger Shipton should be quite safe in his seat for a very long time to come. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I ask: In regard to the business migration category, how many people have been allowed to enter Australia under this program in each of the last five years? What follow-up procedures are in place to ensure that those migrants who enter the country under that category do, in fact, remain the beneficial owners of their claimed half a million dollars and do not repatriate or repay all or part of that money to other parties? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator MacGibbon for his question, but I am afraid it is rather detailed in nature. I will have to ask him to place it on notice and I will get a response from the Minister as soon as possible. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister at all familiar with the program? Senator REYNOLDS —I am certainly familiar with the program, but Senator MacGibbon asked me specific details over five years, and I do not have that material with me. I shall ask Minister Young to provide it as quickly as possible. Senator SANDERS —My question is to the Acting Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and for the Bicentenary, who I understand is Senator Button. Is the Minister aware of the great contributions made by Sir Paul E. Strzelecki, including being the first to discover gold and silver in Australia; leading the exploration of Gippsland, which led to subsequent settlement; climbing and naming Australia's tallest mountain, Mount Kosciusko; and publishing the first systematic account of the geography and geology of Tasmania? Is the Minister also aware that Sir Paul received his knighthood from a grateful Queen Victoria for his efforts in the relief of the great Irish famine of 1847-48? Is he further aware that the only recognition of Sir Paul's contribution is a small plaque on Mount Kosciusko, in spite of the fact that Pope John Paul II praised Strzelecki as perhaps the most famous Polish Australian? Senator Robert Ray —What about the Strzelecki Ranges? Senator SANDERS —Does he also realise that the Polish Government has already indicated its willingness to pay $60,000 towards the cost of a proper monument and that the Australian Government has refused to match the offer? Why does his Government continue to maintain that the contributions of Sir Paul E. Strzelecki do not warrant the construction of a fitting and proper monument during the bicentennial celebrations of the country which Sir Paul did so much to help establish? Will the Minister take steps immediately to see that the monument is funded? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the Government's decision not to contribute towards the cost of a monument to Sir Paul Strzelecki. It is not based on any lack of regard for his considerable achievements. Senator Ray pointed out, by way of interjection, that the Strzelecki Ranges are the most beautiful monument for which one could perhaps have wished. As Senator Sanders pointed out in his question, there is a plaque on Mount Kosciusko that would be good for people to see-good for the people rather than the plaque. The Government has no problem with the proposal for a further monument and would be happy if it were realised. The Government would welcome a contribution from the Polish Government towards erecting such a monument or even a donation from the Vatican. However, it is not the Government's role-- Senator Chaney —Just lay off! Senator BUTTON —Senator Sanders asked a question about the views expressed by His Holiness about this matter. It is not the Government's role to fund directly bicentennial community projects like the proposed monument. The Government established the Bicentenary Authority for the purpose of managing and co-ordinating the national celebration of the Bicentenary, including the disbursement of funds in response to applications from community groups. The Strzelecki monument proposal was considered by the national office of the Bicentenary Authority and the New South Wales State Council of the Authority and both bodies decided that the monument should not be supported. Under those circumstances and given the current economic climate, it would not be appropriate for a special allocation to be made to fund the proposal. However, in light of Senator Sanders's interest in the matter, I shall bring his question to the attention of the Bicentenary Authority. Senator PARER —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I refer the Minister to his response to Senator Jones earlier as to his description of the treatment he claimed he received at the hands of the people in far north Queensland and his subsequent back door escape. Can the Minister explain the difference between that alleged treatment and the gracious and hospitable treatment offered by the people of far north Queensland to John Howard and Senator Puplick, on three occasions, and other Liberal senators and members? Is it because of the authoritarian style jack-booted approach of a heavy-handed government to the real concerns of ordinary, decent Australians who are genuinely concerned about their future and those of their children and their communities? Senator RICHARDSON —My treatment was even worse than Senator Parer thinks. When they took me into the forest I was given only a sandwich. Senator Puplick was given a barbecued steak. I have to tell honourable senators why Senator Puplick got a barbecued steak. Senator Michael Baume —Because they were too busy grilling you. Senator RICHARDSON —Oh, the wit of the man from Tasmania! I think he used to be on the front bench. I remember going back to Queensland about two months ago and I can recall being asked, while I was in Ravenshoe and speaking from a truck, where the Liberal Party stands on this issue. I said to the people of Ravenshoe, `I do not know. You will have to ask them'. They have been asking that question for a long time and so has the rest of Australia, and none of us has received an answer. The reason those Liberals were treated better is that presumably they and Senator Parer are prepared to go along with Senator Boswell, Senator MacGibbon and the rednecks to ensure the rainforests are destroyed. We want to save them. Senator COOK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to a report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald that the Liberal Party President, John Elliott, had told a Liberal Party lunch in Adelaide yesterday that the Australian dollar should be more properly valued at about US61c. Does the Government agree with Mr Elliott that Australia's exchange rate should be targeted at US61c to improve our competitiveness and trade performance? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald. If the exchange rate were around US61c or US62c, no doubt, in the short term, Australian industry would be more internationally competitive. Whether it would be in the longer term depends upon a number of other variables which may well be affected by the lower exchange rate. I was asked whether the Government has any intention of targeting that rate. The answer is no. The Government does not have any intention of targeting that or any other rate for that matter. That sort of policy went out the window when the Australian dollar was floated nearly four years ago. If the Opposition had won the election in July and had introduced its Budget built on supply-side voodoo, there is little doubt that Mr Elliott would have had the very much lower exchange rate that he wants, because that sort of Budget would have touched off such a panic in the financial market that he might well have got an exchange rate of half that, in the end, and a commensurate inflation rate. Senator Stone —Rubbish! Senator WALSH —`Rubbish', says Senator Stone. Had it won the election, the Opposition would have been committed to implementing an irresponsible Budget, loaded, as I said, built on supply-side voodoo-the very policy that has got the United States into its present position. It is worth noting that this is the second time this week that Mr Elliott has publicly commented on fundamental questions of economic policy, despite the assurance that he was apparently required to give to the parliamentary leadership-such as it is-that he would not be making public comments on economic policy. This week not only have we heard two comments from Mr Elliott, but also that other extraparliamentary pretender to Liberal Party leadership, Andrew Hay, commented about economic policy. I mentioned that earlier in Question Time. It is worth noting that on the steps of Parliament House this morning Mr Howard stated the following in response to a question about this matter: I don't make it a practice, nor does the Liberal Party, of nominating a particular level- that is, a particular level for the dollar. Senator CALVERT —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. I ask whether she is aware of the urgency motion which was passed unanimously by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations at its annual conference on 11 November 1987 and which read: 1. That this Conference involving representatives of the 836 Local Government Councils in Australia expresses its abhorrence at the recommendation of the Goran Report that elected democracy be removed from the central area of the City of Sydney and replaced by a State Government appointed Authority. 2. That Australian Local Government calls on the New South Wales Government to adhere to the International Declaration of local Self Government, adopted by the International Union of Local Authorities and supported by the Australian Government, and immediately restore elected Local Government to the City of Sydney, with elections to be held prior to 1 January 1988. Does the Minister intend to speak with the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Unsworth, to ensure that democracy is restored to the city of Sydney? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the Government still condones the action of the New South Wales Labor Government in removing a democratically elected city council for its own political expedience? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator Calvert for the question. Yes, I am aware of the motion passed by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. I have already indicated publicly that I am very concerned about the implications of the recommendation that has been made to the New South Wales Government. I have communicated my concern about the principle to Mr Unsworth's office and I have also spoken to the office of the New South Wales Minister for Local Government. Local government bodies are established and have powers devolved to them by State and Territory legislation. In answer to the second part of Senator Calvert's question, the dismissal of the Sydney City Council is essentially a matter for the State Government. However, I have considerable concern in regard to State government-and I speak generally about all State governments in Australia-relationships with local government. For this reason I am quite happy to speak publicly about the issue. There is a very delicate balance between a State government taking arbitrary decisions and acting responsibly in protecting the people of that State. It is not for the Federal Government to intervene in that regard. I am sure that honourable senators on the other side who are always preaching to the Federal Government about States rights would agree totally with that principle. The replacement of a council, as recommended-and I stress that this is only a recommendation at this stage which I am sure will be given very full and detailed consideration by the New South Wales Government-by a semi-autonomous non-elected commission is of very considerable concern. It is certainly of concern to me as Federal Minister for Local Government and I know that it is of great concern to the Australian Council of Local Government Association, which has passed a resolution in this respect. A recommendation which does not allow communities to have a say over the preferred direction of the development of their areas strikes at the very heart of democratic accountability. The residents of Ultimo, Pyrmont and the Rocks in New South Wales effectively would be disenfranchised with respect to local government if this recommendation were accepted. Let us remember that the debate about control of the central business districts is current not just in New South Wales. In my home State, the Queensland Government is dictating to the Brisbane City Council about the type and height of buildings in the central business district of Brisbane. There are similar debates in Victoria and Western Australia. I hope that with calm and rational consultation and communication, and a genuine acceptance that local government is part of our three spheres of government and public policy planning, these issues can be resolved in a sensible and democratic way. I feel sure that this will be possible. This is one of the reasons why I am a strong advocate of constitutional recognition of local government. It is not that I want to place local government in any special or privileged position vis-a-vis State or Federal governments. I simply want to see local government recognised as a major policy-maker in the governmental process. It is vital that Federal, State and local governments communicate, consult and make the best possible decisions, as elected members, for the benefit of the people of Australia. Senator VALLENTINE —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Australian Financial Review of 22 September 1987 which reports the presentation of the IR100 award in Chicago on 17 September to Queensland Science and Technology Ltd for its development of an X-ray laser for the United States (US) Department of Energy (DOE). I ask the Minister: Is the US Department of Energy the department responsible for US nuclear weapons production for research into certain directed energy weapons? Is not the DOE deeply involved in the strategic defence initiative (SDI) program? Can the Minister give an assurance, in line with the Government's opposition to the US SDI program, that the X-ray laser developed by Queensland Science and Technology Ltd will not contribute in any way to the SDI program and particularly to the SDI X-ray laser, which is to be powered by nuclear detonations in space in violation of a treaty between the super-powers? If he can give no assurances, why can he not? Senator BUTTON —I cannot give any assurances about any parts of that question because, although Senator Vallentine kindly passed this question to my office at 10.45 today, responsibility for preparing an answer runs across a number of portfolios. I have sought information from various departments, but I am unable to obtain at present as full an answer as I would like to give. I hope to be able to do that as quickly as possible. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. In light of the fact that this week is national skin cancer week and that Australia is considered to have the world's highest incidence of skin cancer, will the Government be reconsidering its May economic statement decision to remove the cost of the treatment of pre-malignant keratoses, potentially cancerous skin lesions, from the list of services that may be claimed for under Medicare? Senator TATE —I am afraid that, once again, without the benefit of some short prior notice of the questions coming from the other side, in the brief available to me I have nothing on the question which I know has been the subject of a lot of investigation at Estimates committee hearings. I would have thought that at that stage an answer would have been forthcoming which would have satisfied the query of Senator Watson. Senator McKIERNAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications, relates to the decision of Telecom Australia to centralise its country operations in Western Australia. Does this centralisation involve the closure of utilities in Bunbury, Albany and Geraldton? If so, what effect will this have on employees who are likely to be displaced? Is the Minister satisfied that in making this decision, Telecom will give due regard to the effect the withdrawal of its country operations would have on the economic and social needs of the communities affected? Has Telecom consulted State and local governments about the economic and social impacts that its centralisation decisions may have on the towns and regions? Finally, is the Minister aware of any commitments Telecom may have given to those authorities about consultation? If so, will the Minister take action to ensure that such promises are honoured and that minimal disruption will occur as a result of Telecom's actions? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure whether the brief I have fully answers all the parts of the question. I am able to say that Telecom is required to act commercially. Therefore, the Government expects Telecom regularly to review its operations in the search for efficiency and economy gains. After a detailed strategic and financial analysis of the existing three country districts, Telecom has decided to amalgamate the three districts into a single unit, with management and administrative headquarters in Perth. That is estimated to save over $2m per annum in overhead costs. Telecom certainly expects there to be no negative impact on customers as customer service offices will remain in Bunbury, Albany and Geraldton. Telecom stresses that there will be no forced retrenchments of administrative staff at any level as a result of the amalgamation. Installation and maintenance staff will not be affected by the proposal. As part of the consultation process, responses to the proposal were requested from staff organisations and individual staff members. Following detailed consideration of these responses, the decision was taken, as I have said, to amalgamate the districts. With regard to more recent Press reports in Western Australia, Telecom's Western Australian management made no commitment to the Western Australian Government to delay a decision on the amalgamation until the State Manager, Mr John Magee, returned to duty on 9 November 1987. The formal decision to proceed with the first phase of this 18- to 24-month plan was announced by the Acting State Manager on 6 November. Mr Magee was consulted on the matter during his absence overseas. Senator PANIZZA —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the impending rise from 2 per cent to 25 per cent in the duty on imported replacement parts used for diesel injection pumps and turbochargers? Is he further aware that the duty on imported complete units, new or serviced, will remain at 2 per cent? Will he then agree with me that this will mean a loss of jobs in the repair industry for these units by unfair competition from places such as Singapore or even the United States of America? Finally, will he undertake to correct this situation by removing this unjust duty as it is only a taxing measure and not a protection of an Australian industry as these parts are not manufactured in Australia? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware of the particular detailed circumstances which the honourable senator put to me. I think what he is probably talking about is arrangements which have been made for the introduction of the harmonised tariff as from 1 January 1988. In the process of the introduction of harmonised tariffs anomalies will arise and there will be some lifts in tariffs in particular sectors in order to obtain a degree of uniformity and simplicity in the tariff. In those circumstances I am not in a position to agree or otherwise about the conclusions which the honourable senator seeks to draw from the earlier parts of his question. However, as I said, I am not familiar with the particular detail. The harmonised tariff arrangements are immensely complex. I will draw the matter to the attention of the Australian Customs Service and see whether we can obtain a more detailed answer. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will recall that I provided to the Senate on 23 October 1987 information on the Australian parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations in response to a question from Senator MacGibbon. I am now able to inform honourable senators that the Speaker and I have received a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) informing us that he is prepared to accept that financial responsibility for the parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations should rest with the Department of Administrative Services. This is in line with funding responsibility for all other parliamentary delegations except those under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations will be reinstated for 1988 as part of the annual program of outgoing parliamentary delegations. Precise details applying to the delegation will be formulated as the program for 1988 is developed and honourable senators will be kept informed in the normal way. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —by leave-I will be brief. Mr President, I thank you and the Speaker for the effort you have put into re-establishing this grant to the Parliament. I have no personal interest in this but I believe that it is very important that the Parliament have the opportunity to continue to send advisers to such posts. Because of the importance I attach to this matter I have resisted responding to the cracks that have been made by Senator Walsh in his profound ignorance at various stages in various speeches since I brought this matter to your notice. Sadly, Senator Ray also got involved in this act. For a country such as Australia that relies so heavily on exports and an understanding of world affairs it is vitally important that those people in this Parliament who are interested in enhancing our export performance and in foreign affairs have the opportunity to attend the United Nations in New York to see the international arena as it really is. For that reason I am very grateful that you and Madam Speaker have been able to re-establish this grant. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Alston proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Minister for Transport and Communications to accept the draft report of the Departmental review team recommending substantial deregulation of the telecommunications industry and his capitulation to naked political pressures. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(3.05) —In bringing before the Senate this matter of public importance I seek to draw the attention of the Australian community to what is happening in the telecommunications industry. Despite the fact that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) made a very good announcement in September of this year in establishing a high-powered departmental review team to determine the future of the telecommunications industry-indeed, at that time he hoped that he would be able to make a significant public announcement on the future of that industry before Christmas-unfortunately there has been a slippage to the extent that the Minister is now saying that he does not expect to be able to make any such statement before February or March of next year. What is of much greater concern to the Australian community is the reason why there has been such slippage and the likely outcome of the deliberations and negotiations that are presently going on. I have to report that, sadly, the Minister's supposedly new-found verve and enthusiasm for deregulation have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. He has become a captive of union pressures and he is in the process of selling out the future of the telecommunications industry in this country. Those who had the good fortune to read a speech of the Minister delivered on Monday in relation to the privatisation debate would have been under no illusions about this loss of pristine beauty because the Minister said in his opening paragraph at a conference: I hope you will forgive me for saying that the only privatisation debate that really matters in Australia at the moment is the one that will take place within the Australian Labor Party in the run-up to the next national conference in June 1988. Apart from being monumental arrogance, it is also a very stark admission that the national interest of this country is subordinate and entirely subservient to the wishes and dictates of the Labor Party and its organisational wing. In other words, we are no longer concerned about what is in the best interests of the country, we are no longer concerned about how we can devise an efficient telecommunications industry or indeed the whole range of public trading enterprises that are in need of such drastic reform and massive injections of capital. The Minister says that Government members are concerned to ensure that the party is on side and if it is not that is the end of the game. So the only debate in town, according to the Minister, is the internal machinations of the Labor Party. That is dead right as an explanation for why there has been a sell-out to date. In recent times a Telecom watchdog committee has been established inside Caucus comprising three members, two of whom are former Telecom Australia employees. The reason that that came about is that there was a proposal to perpetuate the Telecom monopoly in all of its present glory. The Minister's compromise involved establishing that committee on the basis that it would be entitled to have access to bureaucrats and Ministers: in other words, to lean on them to ensure that they were made acutely aware of the `political realities'. That is a tragedy. It is a tragedy not just for good government but a tragedy for what one would have hoped was a recognition that telecommunications is an expanding industry which has unlimited potential and which provides great opportunities for Australia if we are prepared to grasp them. Unfortunately, the Minister's attitude was brought to the attention of the public on page 1 of the Australian Financial Review only a matter of a week or so back. In what I understand to be a very accurate description of the process it is indicated that the Minister had been presented with a series of policy options. Of those, some were highly deregulatory. The Minister made it clear that he was not going to wear that sort of suggestion and in effect sent the proposals back to the drawing board. That certainly is not the way in which the Minister ought to have gone about his task. It is necessary for any report, when it is ultimately forthcoming, to go before the structural adjustment committee of Cabinet for final decision. The Minister is capitulating in advance, pre-empting the debate and ensuring, in effect, that Cabinet does not have the full range of options before it. What I do not think has been revealed to the Australian community to date is the real reason for such capitulation. The sad reality is that this is about the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association (ATEA) exercising industrial muscle, making it patently clear to the Minister that there will be massive industrial action unless and until he is prepared to bring pressure to bear on Telecom to negotiate redundancy packages that are, no doubt, extraordinarily generous. The fact is that there is no need for any such redundancy arrangements. There may well need to be transitional arrangements if the high water mark of the monopoly position at the moment-in other words, customer premises equipment, the installation of the first phone and the subsequent wiring and maintenance of customer premises-is deregulated. At the moment there is a massive oversupply of labour. There are people who work about a five-hour day when they could well be working much harder and earning much more if they were in the private sector. There is little doubt that when the time comes, as it should, for that sector of the market to be opened up to competition those employees will be stampeding in their desire to exit from the public sector. They will be more than happy to form their own corporate arrangements and to set up maintenance and installation companies. One has only to look at the 1982 report of the Davidson Public Inquiry into Telecommunications Services in Australia and the proposal for teletricians, as they were called. It was clear to the Davidson Committee that, subject to setting satisfactory standards and monitoring adherence to them, there was absolutely no reason why this needed to be an area of monopoly. Yet five years have gone by. There was a four-year period in lotus land before the Minister made his announcement of the need for a fundamental review. What we are now seeing are the advanced stages of the total sell-out. The tragedy will be that ultimately some minor concessions will be made, such as in regard to the installation of the first phone handset. At the moment the Telecom rental charge is about $120 a year. Telecom imputes a manufacturing cost in that charge of $40 per annum when, in reality, the cost of manufacturing plastic moulding of that sort is about $15. So there would be absolutely no concession in opening up that section of the industry. We desperately need much more extensive deregulation in that area. I fear that all the signs are adverse. The ATEA has put it on the line to the Minister. It is no doubt acutely aware that the jobs of 3,000 to 4,000 of its members would be at risk. Indeed, in the article in the Australian Financial Review to which I referred there is even a suggestion that 23,000 Telecom jobs would be lost. That, of course, is the total number of technicians in the area, together with about 8,000 administrative staff most of whom would be rendered unnecessary in the event of deregulation. Senator Stone —The only risk they would be subject to is that they would no longer be members of the union. Senator ALSTON —Of course that is the union's concern. One would be justified in saying that the workers, at the end of the day, might see the light and realise that there is much money to be made out there in the real world. Of course, the union will not have a bar of it. It is trying to force the Minister to arrange union coverage, so that even if the employees are in the private sector they will still remain in the ATEA. Senator Stone —Slave labour! Senator ALSTON —Absolutely. One could understand why that union is wanting to exercise that sort of muscle, but it is totally unnecessary. There has been a very low attrition rate to date. I suspect that there could well be an almost total departure of those people. The important thing is that they would not lose jobs. There is excessive demand for the work that is carried out by those electricians and trades assistants and they would be well and better employed in the private sector. I make it clear that there is absolutely no justification for any forms of golden parachutes with which the unions might be hitting the Minister over the head at present. Telecom's costs in that area are completely out of line with private sector reality-probably 50 to 60 per cent higher than necessary. There are vast opportunities within the customer access network for productivity gains. Again, it is very sad that the business and service manual which Telecom put out recently conceded that even Telecom's private target of one per cent productivity growth was inadequate. It is clear that everyone realises that there are vast gains to be made if only the Government will bite the bullet. Of course, it does not require much more than political will to do that. Another example that I will give relates to cellular radio. Telecom presently charges about $5,000 for this equipment. That price is achieved because Telecom regulates the standards to be applied in the manufacture of all such equipment, so the price is always at about the same level as that of the Telecom article. There is little doubt that if Telecom were not the regulator of its own equipment and the approver of its competitors' equipment, the great demand for those products would mean very significant falls in cost, probably down to about $1,500. There are any number of examples around the world of the explosion of demand for cellular radios. Yet at the moment Telecom is insisting that this equipment remain within its monopoly province. Again, I challenge the Minister to tell the Senate and the community whether Australian consumers will be as ill-served as they have been to date by current arrangements or whether the very high usage fees, which include connection charges, will be maintained as a sole Telecom preserve. At present, STD rates operate in regard to the use of cellular radios in the metropolitan area. There is absolutely no justification for that. Similarly, there is no justification for the imposition of a fixed charge maintenance fee of about $50. I therefore ask why cellular radios cannot be regarded as part of the network. At the moment they are not. They are not treated, as a form of value added service (VAS) and therefore they remain not subject to Telecom's own value added services policy. But one could well ask for the justification for that policy. There is much to be said for freeing up the market completely in that VAS area. The third area I wanted to touch on relates to Aussat Pty Ltd. It is clearly not viable at present. Its annual report discloses its latest loss, and it is clear that it is not able to make a profit because of the undue influence that Telecom has brought to bear on it. It should be allowed either to be taken over by a broadcaster or to diversify its services. At present, it is able to do neither. It could provide switched services at a much lower cost, if given the opportunity. It could give some of its capacity to Telecom to enable it to provide switched network services but at the moment, of course, it is hidebound and hamstrung by Telecom's very limiting arrangements. The end result is that there is very little opportunity to use Aussat services. Many major corporations would welcome the opportunity to make use of leased lines from Aussat, as back-up capacity for data and voice transmission, but at the moment they are simply not able to because of those restrictive arrangements. I submit that at present the Minister is determined not to make the concessions which he recognises are necessary. He is not prepared to acknowledge the many exciting opportunities that lie ahead if only we can regard the telecommunications industry as market driven, no longer technology driven and certainly not union driven. We have to be prepared to take account of some of the very real capital problems that will confront Telecom. It is not just a capital intensive industry; it has about 90,000 employees. Of course in many ways they constitute part of the problem. There is a lot of obsolete equipment in the system that needs to be replaced but, of course, Telecom is exempt from any privatisation discussion, by the Minister's own definition. Many inefficiencies in the service relate not only to the customer premises equipment area but also to the maintenance of PABXs and key systems, such as the Commander system. Those private exchanges have been a Telecom monopoly for very many years. Telecom has recently been forced to approve two-line PBXs which are much cheaper, provide much greater billing information and much more effective software updates and have bearer facilities. Yet, Telecom has only very recently allowed those PBX systems to become competitive with its own system. Therefore, there is a very desperate need also in the key systems area for increased competition. In the customer premises equipment (CPE) area which occupies, as I said, about a quarter of the work force, it is already clear from a recent trade practices decision that the Telecom monopoly is not sustainable. The Minister and the Government have done nothing to respond to that decision, which is more than 12 months old. I know for a fact that there are submissions that have gone to the Government spelling out some much more severe limitations on that monopoly and which, in fact, make it clear that Telecom is achieving and maintaining its monopoly position as a result of bluff. There are many ways in which the cross-subsidisation arrangements could be made more effective, by which there could be regard to capacity to pay. Means testing could be introduced to ensure that proper pricing charges are arrived at. If there is a booming tourist industry in this country, and we hope there is, there is no justification for rural and remote tourist operators to be getting the same sorts of massive subsidies as might operate in regard to those on lower incomes. These are just some of the very many opportunities that are going begging at present. As a comparative example, in the United States in the customer premises equipment area, which is something like 35 times the size of the Australian market, there would need to be a work force of 2.4 million if it were to be equated with the Australian arrangement, whereas at the moment it is currently below one million and falling. In other words, if one were to translate those figures into the CPE work force in Australia it could effectively be halved, despite the fact that the United States has higher maintenance costs. There are many growth areas that Telecom would do well in if allowed to compete on a level playing field with others in the market-place. At the moment the Minister shows all the signs of doing the Australian community a great disservice by not being prepared to embark on the sorts of deregulation that in his more unguarded moments he has been prepared to acknowledge have validity. It would seem that the pressures from Caucus, the trade union movement and the vested interests around the country are likely to ensure that there will be very little and, at best, incremental, change. Even the Managing Director of Telecom acknowledges the justification for having an independent regulatory authority. Yet, we have not even heard much about that to date. What we have heard is a campaign of disinformation, the sorts of Caucus pre-emptive strikes that, no doubt, have put fear into the heart of the Minister. The end sufferer in all these machinations is the Australian consumer, and Telecom subscribers in particular. I conclude by saying that I regret the fact that the Minister has not been prepared to take on board all those options, including the more deregulatory ones; that he has been so timid in his approach in this area that he has sent that review committee away to tailor its final recommendations. I hope that it is not too late for him to recant and that he will acknowledge that there are very many deregulatory opportunities that must be embraced. There are transitional arrangements that will need to be put in place but the last thing the Australian community wants or deserves is golden handshakes and union driven telecommunications industries in this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(3.25) —I must confess to a certain disappointment with Senator Alston. Once upon a time I thought that he was a very sound, sensible sort of fellow, a good mainstream Missenite Victorian wet, resisting the Huns and Visigoths of the Right Wing down there and generally being an all-round Liberal of a kind that one could reasonably deal with and could reasonably take into account. He is now drying out before our eyes. He is entranced by the prospect of becoming a sort of Young Lochinvar of privatisation and deregulation. He is entranced, I suppose, by the prospect of making his way within an allegedly dry Liberal Party of Australia these days by taking the high ground and smiting all around him with an array of propositions which, as I will demonstrate in a moment, are palpably nonsensical. He seems to have succumbed in the process. I do not know whether it is the tutelage of Senator Puplick or Senator Michael Baume, regrettably neither of whom was here today to hear his pupil. But he has succumbed to the kind of lurid, vulgar grandstanding that I really previously did not think he was capable of. No doubt it is a function of the frustration of opposition-the impotence of opposition. Some of that is becoming evident in the kind of language he is using. I see that the matter of public importance talks about `nakedness'. He talks elsewhere about the need for me to `cool my ardour'. I can understand the frustration he is feeling. I can appreciate the impotence and the awfulness of it all over there on those Opposition benches. But really that is no excuse for the kind of nonsense that is being peddled in the terms of this alleged matter of public importance before us today. I remind the Senate of it. What Senator Alston is asking us to take seriously is a proposition in these terms: The failure of the Minister for Transport and Communications- that is me- to accept the draft report of the Departmental review team recommending substantial deregulation of the telecommunications industry and his capitulation to naked political pressures. I just say that that is based on a series of premises. It is based on the premise that there was a draft report recommending substantial deregulation of telecommunications. It is based on the premise that I failed to accept that report. It is based on the premise that there was political pressure brought to bear, `naked' in character-whatever that means. It is based on the premise that I capitulated to the said `naked' political pressure. Might I say that every one of those premises is wrong. There was no draft report to which I responded by way of acceptance, rejection, modification or otherwise, so the question of political pressure-naked or otherwise-simply does not arise; nor does the question of my capitulation to that pressure. However, I make the point for the record that there was and has been no political pressure, of which I am aware, that remotely succumbs to that sort of description. There are always people bashing particular drums when major policy matters of moment are being debated, discussed, analysed and considered within government. Of course there has been plenty of that in the context of the telecommunications review. But it is not the sort of thing which Senator Alston's highly coloured view of the world has led him to articulate in the terms of this matter of public importance. The spurious character of the language he has employed as an excuse for getting himself before an unsuspecting Senate today is, I think, made particularly clear when one compares it with the language in a letter that he wrote to me just a few days ago, on 12 November, when he said to me, amongst other reasonably amiable pleasantries: I trust that media reports that you have rejected the preliminary report of the Telecom Review Group are incorrect. It would be very disappointing if your initial ardour- here we go again- for extensive competition and deregulation in this vital industry has been cooled, if not frozen, by naked- here we go yet again- threats of industrial action. I draw attention to the character of that particular prose. It is inquiring, questioning and trusting. It is taking the view that media reports may well be inaccurate, highly coloured and have an ardour of their own. Senator Alston is asking in that letter whether it is the case. However, today by contrast we have in terms of this particular matter of public importance, simply, as I said, lurid, vulgar assertions being made, making claims that matters of fact have in fact occurred and been the case, and not allowing any room for questioning of that. As I have said, those assertions are quite unfounded. Senator Alston should be-whether he will be or not is another question-contrite for the way in which he has brought this matter forward. Let me describe what has been happening. The telecommunications review exercise was set in train by me in a speech to the International Institute of Communications in Sydney on 3 September when I identified four large questions and a number of sub-questions which I believed then, and still believe now, needed to be comprehensively, systematically and honestly addressed. Let me show, for the record, what those questions are, because essentially they are the framework within which the present tele- communications review is proceeding. My speech went as follows: 1. What should be the nature and extent of the monopoly powers granted to our telecommunications carriers? Included here are such questions as: What precisely are the community service and cross-subsidy obligations that an organisation like Telecom should have, and to what extent are monopoly powers necessary for such obligations to be honoured? What other national or public interests are served by the retention of the various existing monopoly rights? Where precisely should the boundary lines between monopoly and competition be drawn in the provision of Basic Network, Value Added Services and Customer Premises Equipment. 2. To what extent should private sector involvement in the provision of telecommunications equipment and services be allowed or encouraged? Included here are such questions as: In areas where the telecommunications carriers have no legislative monopoly, are there nonetheless barriers to effective private sector competition which should be lowered or removed? Should any private equity be sought for any part of the carriers' operations, and if so to what extent? 3. To what extent should the telecommunications carriers be restructured or relieved of Government constraints to enable them to perform their functions more effectively, and in particular compete effectively in open commercial markets? Included here are such questions as: Should the relationship between Telecom, OTC, and Aussat be changed or clarified? Which, if any, of the constraints imposed by the Government in relation to superannuation policy, borrowing, public service employment, industrial relations handling, tendering practices, contract approval and the like should continue to apply? 4. How should the industry be economically and technically regulated? Included here are such questions as: To what extent would more precise definition of the boundaries of competition and monopoly reduce the weight of the argument in favour of independent regulation? Which if any of Telecom's present regulatory functions should be handled independently, and if so by what kind of agency? Those questions, which Senator Alston was kind enough to acknowledge in his speech were the right questions, are still the questions that are being asked, every one of them, and answered, every one of them, in the review that is now proceeding. There is no question of backing away from the scope of that inquiry, or from the consequences of where that particular analysis leads us. It has been made clear by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and me in various speeches over the past couple of months that we are not in the business of privatising Telecom Australia or, for that matter, Australia Post, in the sense of selling it off in whole or in part. To the extent that one might have thought that an option of that kind was subsumed in possible answers to one or more of those questions-I do not think it was, but one could have thought that-that option has been explicitly ruled out, for reasons that have been stated by me and the Prime Minister elsewhere. Certainly, all the other questions that are at issue here, including those very sensitive questions about first telephone monopolies and PABX maintenance monopolies, and so on, are very much on the table and very much open to questions, and they are being addressed by the Government with an open mind. It is the case that I have established, to consider these questions, in the first instance, a Department-based task force headed by First Assistant Secretary Mike Hutchinson, with as consultants to it Professor Henry Ergas and a number of other people including representatives from Telecom, and Telecom is closely involved in the whole process. That particular departmental task is working with a wider interdepartmental group of officials preparing material for the Structural Adjustment Committee of Cabinet. It is not focusing on drafting recommendations for Cabinet at this stage, and perhaps will not ever do so. The essence of the exercise is to outline the issues, identify the problems and certainly to identify some broad possible approaches to those problems, but it is not in the nature of a familiar report writing exercise generating recommendations for acceptance or rejection. It is a misconception of the nature of the analytical process that is presently going on. Not only was there no draft report in existence at the time that Senator Alston's highly coloured imagination seems to have worked upon-no doubt aided by some equally highly coloured imagination of the Press-for either me or Cabinet, other than in the form of half-completed papers around the place, to which I had no particular access, but also no draft report has been completed even yet, as I understand it, and it is not proposed to lodge it before the Cabinet until the end of this week. Senator Alston —Are you saying that you have not been given a series of options? Senator GARETH EVANS —What I am saying is that I obviously talked, on an ad hoc basis, with particular members of my departmental task force and, when I sat down with them for a substantial part of the day on 22 October to talk about the issues in a systematic way, I did so in order to identify and understand what the issues were, and to look carefully in particular at issues like the nature and scale of community service obligations, how they could be quantified, options for continuing to finance such obligations, and a series of other extremely complex issues. Of course questions arose as to different ways that one could go down in responding to the nature of the problems thus identified and thus, where appropriate, quantified, but it was not then, and has not yet been, a matter of choosing between particular options or limiting lines of inquiry. I certainly expressed some views as to what may or may not be realistically achievable in some of those areas. I do not propose to share those views with Senator Alston or anyone else publicly, much to his disappointment, no doubt. However, the point that I am making is that an inquiry of this kind must necessarily, by its very nature, be one that is genuinely approached in a spirit of open-minded inquiry and a willingness to understand the issues and appreciate what the implications of different possible courses of actions are. It is quite absurd and inaccurate to suppose that consideration of any of the basic issues that I outlined, or threw up in the form of questions in that speech back in September, or the answers to any of those questions, have been foreclosed. The Caucus itself, which seems to have so infuriated Senator Alston by its involvement in this exercise, did not become involved until a number of days after the meeting which seems to have generated some of this leakage to which I have referred. The Caucus did not become involved until 27 October, following a motion that I moved myself in the party room to establish a working group to liaise more closely with both me and the interdepartmental committee, and in particular with my departmental task force, for the duration of the exercise. I appreciate that the Liberal Party of Australia and its representatives are always very unhappy about the notion of consultative processes. They have always operated on the Fuhrer principle in terms of their party organisation, where some particular line either springs full-blown into the mind of the leader and is passed down to the unsuspecting and uncomplaining ranks below, or, at best, a series of limited options are thrown up by a compliant bureaucracy to a particular Minister who will choose between them-sometimes, I suspect, by the turn of a knife on a table-and then, having made that decision, force his will downwards again on the rest of the system. Woe betide, notwithstanding all the ideology to the contrary, anyone who chooses to question the party line thus imposed. We do not operate that way in terms of our choice of Ministers or our approach to input in the policy-making process from the movement or the party at large. We do not operate that way in terms of the way in which we relate to our own rank and file parliamentary party members whose views we respect, and who are intelligent human beings in their own right, elected as such and conscious of the mood and sentiments of the nation at large and keen to contribute in that process. They are views we fully take into account in any decision-making in which we engage, because if we do not we will have to suffer the consequences: but that is an aspect of the matter I shall not dwell on at any great length on this occasion. What we have in this particular instance is not some large Monty Python ministerial foot stamping on the ranks of the backbenchers who might have views to the contrary. We have participation in the policy making process by the Party as a whole through its representatives. If they can bring some accumulated experience to bear in terms of their previous incarnations in industry, government or business enterprises, or come what may, that is all to the good and the skills and contributions that they make are very much appreciated. There are very real issues involved in this particular matter. Of course, it is primarily about getting efficiency and effectiveness into our nation's infrastructure and the industry policy that is associated with that. But it is also a matter of coming to grips with some quite fundamental issues about cross subsidies and about the human implications-the employment implications certainly-both of people working directly in the industry and, of course, of people working indirectly with Telecom Australia by virtue of their role in supplying manufactured components and so on to it. Of course they are issues which have to be understood. We have to understand the implications of any particular path one might go down, as well as just being entranced by all the high technology whiz-bangery of it all which has so excited Senator Alston. It is not a matter of succumbing to anybody's pressure; that is a crude and vulgar caricature of the situation. Rather, it is a recognition that there are complex issues involved and that they require sensible balancing. That is the approach that I have adopted to privatisation and I expect similar support and involvement from the Party as we work our way through that particular complex set of issues. I make no apology whatsoever, notwithstanding what Senator Alston had to say, for saying, as I did on Monday, that the only debate that matters about privatisation in this country in the next six months is the one that is taking place within the Labor Party. That simply reflects the reality which Senator Alston and his ilk have not yet quite come to grips with-that it happens to be the Labor Party that is governing this country at the moment. However much Senator Alston may huff and puff and fulminate and carry on, however much he may debate the issue in his own ranks and however much kudos he might generate for himself by demonstrating that he is ahead of the field and drier than anybody else in sight, it is not going to make a hap'orth of difference to the particular kinds of policy conclusions we reach because we, regrettably as those opposite might regard it, but triumphantly as we do, happen to be running the country at the moment and it is what we have sorted out in our own ranks that is going to determine the outcome. What happens after that is in the lap of the gods and history and so on, but it is just simply a statement of the obvious. I make no apology for the approach that I have adopted to this matter. I am not proposing to spend any time telling honourable senators where we are at in terms of the kinds of conclusions that tentatively some of us might be beginning to reach about the answers to some of these problems. So far as I am concerned, I approach and I continue to approach all these things with a totally open mind. I will weigh, I will balance the arguments and I will make my recommendations to the Cabinet accordingly and I believe that the Cabinet will respond in the same way. I repeat what I said at the Australian Information Industry Association last week in what Senator Alston was gracious enough to refer to, in conversation with me yesterday, as a very boring speech. I think he is probably right about that. I, in fact, told him that that is the secret of ministerial success. It is far more sensible to make boring speeches than to make the other kind. I have learnt by hard experience. But be that as it may, I might finish up by quoting one paragraph of that speech which I think bears repetition. I said: . . . the outcome we arrive at will not be the result of any ideological biases, but rather a result born of the desire to see services improved and delivered more efficiently and in a way which is acceptable to the whole Australian community. We are not in the business of taking enormous risks to pursue benefits whose existence depends on accepting some mystic faith, and whose size is dubious. What I am saying-what I was saying in that speech and what I am saying now-is that we approach these very complex and difficult policy issues with an open mind, tempered with a healthy sense of realism. It is an approach that I commend to Senator Alston and the Opposition. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.45) —The Senate is debating this afternoon a matter of public importance submitted by Senator Alston in which he expresses concern about the Government's reaction to `naked political pressures'. In responding to that matter of public importance I simply suggest that Senator Alston, by his public statements, comments and publications in recent times, appears to be wanting to exert some rather naked political pressures himself. Perhaps his concern about the actions of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) is that the Minister is not succumbing to his political pressure but rather to other political pressures. I wish that I could share Senator Alston's confidence that the Minister and his Government will not submit to the pressures which are coming from the right in politics in Australia at the moment. The Minister has told us that a draft report of a departmental review team has not been presented to him. However, the Australian Democrats certainly would not have condemned the Minister for not accepting a report of the kind that was publicly reported to exist. We would congratulate the Minister for referring back to the review team, which he admits exists, a report which recommends the scrapping of the first telephone monopoly, the opening up of a value added services market and other problematic matters regarding Telecom. But I reiterate that the Democrats would oppose those sorts of recommendations should they surface in the future. Another recommendation which was said to have been in the mythical report is the dismantling of Telecom's cross-subsidy of rural and remote services. Any responsible Minister would ask a review team to go back and look further at future options and, more importantly, liaise more closely with all sectors of the telecommunications industry. In the wake of reports along these lines, it has become evident that both Telecom and Telecom unions are concerned that there is inadequate consultation in the procedures of this review-and Senator Evans admits that there is a review. It seems that the task force has really been interested only in obtaining basic information rather than seeking appraisals of different options and their implications from Telecom's viewpoint. We believe that Telecom should be involved much more closely in consultations with the review team. As the Minister has said, there are some very important decisions to be made in the future about the direction of telecommunications in Australia. In fact, both the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the coalition parties must decide where they are headed on these issues. First and foremost, the Government needs to decide whether it is committed to Telecom's charter of universal service. That is the bottom line. To use Senator Alston's rather colourful phrase, the Government must resist `naked political pressures' such as those being exerted by Senator Alston and his ilk to abandon this charter. The Australian Democrats lack confidence in the Government's position on this matter. We have heard about Senator Walsh's hit list. We know that a debate on privatisation is rampant in the ALP. The Minister has told us that that is the only real debate that is about at the moment. Even after looking at statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we do not have a lot of confidence in the Government's ability or its intentions in the areas of deregulation and privatisation. Two comments made by the Prime Minister show that opinions and intentions can change over time. On 21 July 1985, the Prime Minister said: What the Liberals are on about is a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. They would transfer them into the hands of a privileged few, to the cost of every one of us. Then in July 1987, two short years later, the Prime Minister said: The question should be not `Why should we sell a given enterprise?' but `why should we continue to tie up our resources in it?' Going back to the initial statement from which I quoted, the Prime Minister seemed to be indicating-certainly the Democrats would agree with him-that government-owned enterprises are public assets; they already belong to the people. Before giving up those assets the issues must be very thoroughly canvassed and the negatives and positives must be clearly able to be seen. The Liberal and National parties must also examine whose interests they are out to protect. As the Minister has already pointed out, Senator Alston appears to have found a niche for himself, after 1 1/2 years or so in this place, and it seems to be in the gung ho privatisation issue. Of course, he has to get it right otherwise he might find himself waiting for a long time for the ministerial merry-go-round. When we were debating the Primary Industry Bank Repeal Bill-legislation in which the Commonwealth sold off its interests in the Primary Industry Bank-Senator Alston made a speech in the Senate on 2 November and he made some fairly incredible comments in relation to issues of cross-subsidisation, issues which, as I have said, are very important in this debate and which concern the fate of communications in Australia. At one point in his speech he said: It may well be that a much greater contribution should be made to remote areas than is being made at the moment. The blind notion that somehow everyone ought to have a telephone today will be translated into the equally blind notion that tomorrow everyone should have a television set . . . The real question to be asked is when should governments stop picking up the tab for such activities? If people choose to live in country areas, it does not axiomatically follow that they should be entitled to all of the services that are perhaps taken for granted in some country areas. To the extent that they are necessary for the public good, there may well be a case for government subsidy. Otherwise, I would have thought that the choice should be a private one, not a public one. A little earlier he had directed a comment to me in that debate suggesting that, if I chose to live in a remote area, I would be entitled to have a telephone connected myself, even in the event that it might cost me several thousand dollars simply to do that. That sort of contempt, if you like, for the plight of the people living in, and working outside, metropolitan areas must have incensed many of his coalition colleagues and certainly will alarm people living in rural Australia and, of course, I include many small businesses in that category. I wonder what his National Party coalition colleagues feel about that. Certainly we know that in August this year Mr Sinclair expressed doubts about the feasibility of privatising Telecom. An article in the Australian Financial Review by Wayne Burns pointed that out. Mr Sinclair made these comments, appropriately, in rural New South Wales. As well as that, Liberal Party people have come out in stark opposition to this view. Mr Ewen Cameron, the Liberal member for Indi in rural Victoria, in a recent interview in the Shepparton News, which made the front page, expressed horror at the prospect of the removal of cross-subsidisation. I remind the Senate that we are not talking about a very small minority. There are 2 1/2 million telephone users outside the capital cities who really depend on that cross-subsidisation to keep their phone services at an affordable price. I think the Liberals and Nationals need to get their act together to decide whether they are at all concerned about rural people, or whether they are interested only in pleasing the insatiable thirst of a large corporate sector for massive deregulation. In regard to the issue of means testing which was raised by Senator Alston, I wonder what his colleague Senator McGauran, and other people like that whose capital assets would be enormous and who would obviously be wanting telephones in remote areas, would think about that. Really, though, the differences between the coalition and within the coalition and between the coalition and the Hawke-Keating Government are really just differences of degree. These are policies which are designed to win the approval of bankers and businessmen. They are policies which the previous Fraser Government flirted with in theory by not in practice. We often see Opposition senators salivating on the Opposition benches when the Government takes action attempting to push them along just a little further. They are policies that are based on the assumption that it is simply bad for a government to own public enterprises, to regulate, to spend or to borrow to achieve socially desirable aims and conversely, that private ownership and private borrowing with little or no government regulation is automatically good. Shades of Dickensian England come to mind in that kind of assumption which is not based on fact or rationality. I think it is fortunate that at this stage at least there do not appear to be the numbers on the Government side for those gung ho Cabinet heavies who would really like to go down the road which Senator Alston continues to point out to them. I noted in a recent industry publication that the Australian Telecom Users Group-a misnamed group if ever there were one-which represents only the very large Telecom corporate users and a group which apparently has no regard for the service to domestic subscribers, has been very pleased with the way its 20-page submission to the review task force was received and it was optimistic that the views it expressed would be reflected in the recommendations of the task force. When I read something like that I wonder what is worrying Senator Alston. It was conveniently not mentioned by the Minister when he talked about the capital requirements of publicly-owned enterprises. The Minister, in his speech this week on privatisation in Australia, said that at the end of the day the crunch problem is the need to periodically inject public enterprises with large funds from the Budget. That issue really needs to be addressed. However, in the case of Telecom it is not necessarily a valid excuse for moving down the privatisation road. Following the mini-Budget this year Telecom was required to pay customs duty and sales tax. This will bring in $300m for the Government. In all, payments to government by Telecom now come to more than $1,500m. To use Senator Evans's argument on privatisation, that is a lot of money that is available for important social projects. Another area that has not been looked at is the high level of local purchasing by Telecom. Ninety per cent of high technology purchases are of Australian products and, of course, there are employment ramifications from some of the options that are available. For example, the removal of the terminal monopoly would result in the loss of 10,000 to 12,000 jobs. I am sure that it would not take Senator Walsh long to estimate the economic cost of that in retrenchments, let alone the social cost. I think it is worth spending a few minutes talking about how the domestic and small business consumers will be affected by some of the options being floated, because up until now their interests have been universally ignored in the political debate about the future of telecommunications. There is no doubt that, if the deregulation of Telecom takes place along the lines that have been suggested, there will be a dramatic increase in costs for ordinary Australians-not just those Australians living outside the capital cities-and an equally dramatic decline in services, particularly for rural subscribers. If Telecom is split into several sectors, all required to return a profit, domestic users can expect a concentration of fees of up to $40,000 and averaging $20,000 for rural connections. Honourable senators should not take my word for it. In 1985, Mr Duffy predicted that telephone bills would rise by up to $600 a year for Cairns residences if Telecom was privatised or split into profit sectors. This is the prospect for the future: massive increases in annual rentals, an increase in the cost of calls and a loss of public telephone booths and directory assistance services for people in urban areas. The prospects of this sort of attack on the average Australian is totally unacceptable and the Democrats reject the direction of this kind of policy. We believe that the Government must commit itself to the universal service provided by Telecom and we will reject any of those right wing rantings, whether they come either from the Opposition or from the Government, and we will fight to ensure a strong telecommunications industry in Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The discussion is concluded. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak to the guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports. It is important to point out that until 1982 there was no requirement on Federal Government departments to produce annual reports and then table them in Parliament. After 82 years of Federal government, that is extraordinary. It is also extraordinary that it has taken a further five years for guidelines to be produced for the preparation of departmental annual reports. I would have thought it was very important that statutory authorities and government departments make as full a report to the nation as they possibly can, outlining the discharge of their duties and the expenditure of public funds. Nevertheless, until recent years they have not been compelled to do so. Until now, no guidelines have been laid down, as I understand it, for the preparation of annual reports. I do not intend to go into the detail of the guidelines because they are very detailed and they look to me as though they cover the area thoroughly. However, I draw attention to general principle No. 8 which states: Reports should be prepared on a financial year basis and be available for the estimates debates in the Budget Sittings. When reports are not available in time, departments should provide an interim statement in A4 duplicated form (not including financial statements which have yet to be audited) for the information of the Parliament. General principle 8 continues: In any case, reports should be available within 6 months of the end of the reporting period. Quite clearly, they should be available before that six months is up unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Some departments are trying very hard to get annual reports to the Estimates committees in time for proper consideration to be given to them before the committees conduct their hearings. In that regard, I must pay tribute to the Attorney-General's Department, which provided a draft report to Estimates Committee E. However, I also note that in the three weeks since the Estimates committees have completed their hearings 28 annual reports have been tabled in Parliament. By the nature of things, those 28 annual reports must have been available in draft form at the time the Estimates committees were sitting. They include reports which were of particular interest to me, including the annual report of the Australian Federal Police and the Defence Report. I also draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that annual reports in the list provided to me by the Clerks date back to 1985 and 1986. I refer to the National Health and Medical Research Council which, on 29 October, tabled its 1985 report as well as its 1986 report. That is just not good enough. That is not the only body that has been so slow in producing annual reports for the Parliament. I know that the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration has a list of statutory bodies that do not provide Parliament with up to date reports. The Opposition is not suggesting that these should be exercises in self-aggrandisement; it is not suggesting the reports need to be glossy publications or very expensive. But it is important that information be provided to Parliament and to the public. Government departments need to be accountable, and I draw the attention of the Senate to the reports of Estimates Committee E and Estimates Committee A, both of which criticised the lack of availability of departmental reports, including reports from the Department of Defence and the Parliament House Construction Authority. To that end I refer honourable senators to page 9 of the report of Estimates Committee E. I also draw the attention of honourable senators to a quotation at page 13 of the report of Estimates Committee A, which includes the following warning delivered by the President of the Senate, President Sibraa: It might be that the search for style is delaying the delivery of substance . . . Form should not obstruct, delay or hide substance, which can be prepared economically and must be presented in a timely way. I believe we require early access to the text of reports, to the basic contents, as distinct from form. Parliament is entitled to information on what is being undertaken by the Federal departments, as are the people of Australia. I welcome these guidelines and I shall keep a close watch to see how much better the departments can perform in producing reports to Estimates committees next year. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.05) —I support Senator Newman's welcoming of these guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports. It is certainly about time they were produced, and it is certainly about time that government authorities and departments actually met guidelines that are imposed by governments on the private sector. Companies which followed the lax, incompetent and delayed production of annual reports along the lines of government authorities and departments would be fined and delisted from the stock exchanges if they behaved in that way. It is intolerable that a government which imposes restraints, restrictions and demands on the private sector is not prepared to require the same discipline itself. The points that Senator Newman made were of particular concern to the Senate Estimates committees I sat in on. There are a few honourable exceptions to the departments in general, and I refer to the fact that the Department of the Senate reported before the Senate Estimates committees sat. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet also gave its full report before the Senate Estimates committees sat this year. However, the Department of Defence tabled its annual report on 29 October, seven days after the relevant Estimates committee met. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce tabled its annual report on 17 November, four weeks after the Senate Estimates committee that was supposed to discuss the details of the Department's expenditure for the coming year, based on its knowledge of what happened in the previous year, met. The failure to provide these reports for the benefit of senators and the people of Australia at a time when the forward estimates of their expenditures are being discussed is, at best ludicrous and, at worst, an utter disgrace. A number of departments provided Senate Estimates Committee A with either draft or tabled reports. The important thing is that if a department cannot get the report in on time, at least it should have the courtesy to provide Parliament, and through it the people, with a draft report. The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, the Joint House Department, the Department of the Senate, the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Australian Customs Service all provided draft or tabled reports to Senate Estimates Committee A. Senate Estimates Committee B, however, was not provided with a full or draft report from either of the departments it was considering-the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Transport and Communications. Senate Estimates Committee C was provided with a draft report only from the Department of Finance, but the Treasury and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy did not supply draft reports. Senate Estimates Committee D was provided with a draft report from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, but no full or draft reports were supplied by the Department of Employment, Education and Training, the Department of Community Services and Health, or the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Senate Estimates Committee F was not provided with one draft report, let alone any completed reports, from any of the departments that appear before it. The guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports state: When reports are not available in time, departments should provide an interim statement in A4 duplicated form (not including financial statements which have yet to be audited) . . . That would remove the need for many of the questions asked of public servants by politicians in these Estimates committees. I must commend the Australian Institute of Marine Science for providing at very short notice a draft report of its annual report to the committee on which I sat. It is annoying, however, that when one asks a group-for example, the Australian Bicentennial Authority; an authority which is of some concern to most Australians in view of the large amounts of money it is spending-when this year's report will be available to the committee that is supposed to be discussing its financial statement, one is told it will be available in three or four days. Missing it by that time is ludicrous. The worst examples of this are provided by government authorities. The Parliament House Construction Authority presented its annual report for the year ended June 1986 in March this year. The same situation applies this year: the Parliament House Construction Authority, which is spending $1,000m of public funds, will not report to this Parliament basically until this House resumes in February. This sort of reporting is disgraceful. If there is a dispute with the Auditor-General, Parliament should be required to be advised of the reason for every delay in every annual report, and departments and authorities that do not meet the statutory requirements we impose on the private sector should be obliged to explain why. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(4.10) —I also welcome the guidelines. The general principles enunciated are certainly not put down before time. This set of principles applies to departmental annual reports and is in contradistinction to those applying to statutory authorities and government business enterprises. Certainly the gestation period dates back to prior to 1982 and perhaps even 1977 when the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, as it then was, established a series of committees that reported on the continuing oversight of the financial and administrative affairs or undertakings of Commonwealth statutory authorities and other bodies. Since that time, various working parties have attempted to devise sets of practical guidelines. This is the outcome in relation to government departments. It is interesting to note that the general principles are unexceptionable. They certainly spell out requirements that many of us would take for granted and certainly, in light of the plain English requirements for a number of government documents, such concepts as change, performance, conciseness of expression, consistency of reporting, clarity, and acceptability are all process items that should have been assumed long ago. When one has regard to the contents of the reports and what it is suggested they should contain, a number of slack areas still exist. For example, the reports are required to contain an account of activities in the field of occupational health and safety but in relation to equal employment opportunity they are required to contain not just a summary of the department's plan but of performance assessed against it. In relation to equal opportunity, that seems to require some measure of whether it is achieving its objectives and the cost involved in those sorts of arrangements. There is no such requirement in the plans for occupational health and safety and industrial democracy. One would have thought that it was an open invitation to provide the usual waffle about how well it is all going and what a marvellous contribution it is making to the welfare of the nation without getting down to the bottom line: the cost of implementation of such programs. That is not to prejudge the effectiveness of the programs but simply to enable the community to make a sensible judgment about whether certain proposals are worthwhile. A matter of balance is always needed and the only sensible way in which that balance can be struck is to examine the cost of the program and its achievements. I regret that some of the content requirements still seem to lack sufficient tightness. When it comes to the attachment and the management issues that are set out, again it is highly desirable that annual reports contain a number of modern management technique requirements. That is not to say that they will ever be sufficient but certainly they should be necessary. One has only to consider the performance of WorkCare in Victoria and the number of ways in which these new approaches to program budgeting and the like have been in operation for some four or five years in Victoria. That has not stopped massive deficit blow-outs and overexpenditure of the order of $2.4 billion for WorkCare. Obviously, that situation will require dramatic surgery: certainly, either a trebling of employer premiums or a substantial reduction in the benefit to workers. Presumably, that is not what the Government had in mind when it set up a number of those statutory reporting requirements. Whilst it is clear that these requirements will not ensure efficiency and transparency, they will certainly go a long way towards enabling decision makers to make sensible judgments at the relevant time. Time is of the essence and we have all had experience in recent days of annual reports coincidentally appearing just after the sitting of the Estimates committees. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognise that, no doubt, it would suit the departments concerned to do that. Departments have tended to be much better in their attendance to time requirements than some of the statutory authorities. Nonetheless, the report is a very welcome achievement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(4.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. At the outset I make the comment that this will probably be the second last report of the River Murray Commission because legislation currently before the Parliament-the River Murray Waters Amendment Bill 1987-will replace the River Murray Commission with the new Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Historically, various bodies and governments involved with the River Murray have taken a narrow, single issue approach, focusing on water quantity-water quality issues were added to the brief of the River Murray Commission only in 1983-and water supplies for irrigation, and urban and industrial use. This approach has failed. It has failed to take into account the interconnectedness of the river system with other natural resources in the area, such as wetland areas, forests, agricultural land, and natural bushland. The Australian Democrats are very pleased to see that the new River Murray legislation provides for an holistic approach to basin resource management and will address itself to water, land, and environmental management practices. The Australian Democrats believe that this approach, the total catchment management approach, is of fundamental importance and is most desirable, and is the only approach that is likely to be effective in this particular type of environment, especially in the delicate environment that we have on this most arid continent in the world. This approach has been promoted for a number of years by many people, including the Australian Democrats. It has been a matter of policy of the Democrats for its full 10 years of existence. I specifically mention the Catchment Education Trust, which was led by the venerable Ernest Jackson, who is now based in Albury, a town which is recognised by the annual report of the River Murray Commission as the largest population centre on the River Murray. The total catchment management approach is, I am pleased to say, now part of the national conservation strategy. A recent paper from the New South Wales Soil Conservation Service, entitled Total Catchment Management, shows that the approach has become umbrella policy under which other land resource policies will fit in that State. In Victoria also, catchment management has become the recognised process. Put simply, total catchment management involves the co-ordinated use and management of land, water, vegetation and other natural resources on a catchment basis. Its implementation seeks to balance resource utilisation and resource conservation through the minimisation of land and soil degradation and the maintenance of water yield and quality. The New South Wales Soil Conservation Service document, Total Catchment Management, states: Catchments are a logical unit for natural resource planning and management as they are natural systems of interdependent components (of land, water and vegetation) whose boundaries are readily identifiable. The scope of Total Catchment Management is wide, and includes the full range of land uses-conservation, forestry, agriculture, recreation, urban and industrial and infrastructure development. The same document also states: Total Catchment Management will be achieved by various means including development of greater interdepartmental co-operation, an increased community awareness of a land conservation ethic through education and participation in programs and the development of TCM strategies for each of the major river and lake catchments in New South Wales. As I have said, it is a most desirable system, a system which, if it had been implemented many years ago, would have enabled the River Murray Commission to have been more effective than it has been. I note from the report this comment: . . . salinity of River Murray waters generally remained at acceptable levels during the irrigation season. I suggest that for many people, particularly those in the Kerang area, that is an arguable point. What are acceptable levels of salinity in one area certainly are not acceptable in another. I believe quite strongly that under the new system of looking at the Murray-Darling Basin in totality, we will be able to see some redress for the severe environmental problems in that area. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.21) —I would also like to commend the River Murray Commission for its report, because the Commission, which functions according to the River Murray Waters Agreement of 1982, which Senator Powell has already alluded to, most probably will go out of being in the next year or two after the River Murray Waters Amendment Bill comes to this place. The new Murray-Darling Basin Commission most probably will take over from the River Murray Commission. If and when it does, it will represent a much greater area, which produces one-third of Australia's total output from natural resources-based industries. The area that will be in contention supports some 25 per cent of the nation's cattle and dairy farms, about 50 per cent of its sheep, lambs and crop land, and almost 75 per cent of irrigated land. Production derived from that area is valued at some $10 billion. The River Murray Commission has had quite a problem with salinity in the area. Salinity is caused most probably by over-irrigation in some areas and a lack of trees and timber, which have been taken from that country. It is good to see in this report that the salinity of the River Murray waters generally remained at acceptable levels during the irrigation season. That is good to see. The people in that area should be commended for their recognition of the salinity problems. The soil conservation service, about which I talk in this place at every opportunity, has done admirable work in that area to help with the soil erosion problems and the siltation of the Murray. That is part of its job but it has been done in an admirable way. It should be commended for the job it has done. The fact that works have been carried out that have helped to alleviate the erosion, siltation and salinity prob- lems says a lot for the people in that area. I commend the paper to the Senate. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Australian Government Publishing Service, dated 18 November 1987. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I present the fourteenth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987, the Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 (No. 2), the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Horticultural Export Charge Bill 1987, the Horticultural Levy Bill 1987, the Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill 1987, the Horticultural Levy Collection Bill 1987, and the Horticultural Policy Council Bill 1987, and I also present the annual report of the Committee for 1986-87. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator COONEY —On behalf of the Committee I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 15 dated 18 November 1987. I seek leave, Mr Deputy President, to make a statement relating to the annual report. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The annual report of the Standing Committee again highlights the important function the Senate serves as a House of review, particularly of legislation presented to the Parliament for its consideration. The continuing work of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has greatly reinforced and focused this role. The report contains a general overview and comment on the Committee's work during the year, and deals in particular with a number of matters which have been of particular concern to the Committee. Foremost among these concerns is the question of legislation by Press release, where a media announcement of intended legislation is made and the legislation, subsequently passed, is made retrospective to the date of the announcement. The Committee has continually drawn the attention of the Senate to such legislation by Press release. The Committee has indicated in the past that it recognises the special conventions associated with retrospective legislation making changes to the taxation laws where these changes are announced to the Parliament in the Budget or in similar statements and the necessary legislation is retrospective to the date of that announcement, the reason for such retrospectivity being that taxpayers might otherwise take advantage of the foreknowledge provided by the announcement. The Committee has also indicated that there may be a case for retrospective legislation where an announcement is made that a particular avenue for tax minimisation which has been abused is to be closed off and the subsequent legislation is backdated to the day of that announcement. Even in such circumstances the retrospectivity involved should, in the Committee's view, be kept to the minimum necessary to prepare the relevant legislation. The Committee would, as a matter of course, draw the retrospectivity to the attention of the Senate. The attempt to introduce the practice of legislation by Press release in areas other than taxation, such as the area of broadcasting ownership and control legislation, has also been noted by the Committee. The Committee has pointed out that, in its view, to extend this method of changing the law appears to have problems. The Committee has noted that its objection is not to the announcement of governmental decisions to alter the law being made at the earliest opportunity, but to the retrospective application of legislation to the date of such announcements. The practice of legislation by Press release raises two major concerns in the Committee's view. The first is that by indicating that the legislation implementing the changes in the ownership rules would, when introduced, be retrospective, the Minister's announcement creates uncertainty as to the state of the law during the period between the date of the announcement and the passage of the necessary legislation by the Parliament. Secondly, by the time it comes to consider the Bill the Parliament is placed in the invidious position of either agreeing to the legislation prepared by the Government without major amendment or upsetting the many transactions which have taken place in the industry during the intervening period in reliance on the Minister's announcement. During the year the Committee has continued to consolidate its representation, both in and outside Parliament, as an important and helpful adjunct to the legislative process. There continues to be prompt and considered responses to the Committee's comments by Ministers and consistent reference to the Committee's Alert Digests and reports during debate on Bills on which it has commented. It is particularly worth noting that a number of amendments, based on the Committee's comments, were successfully moved during the year. In the long term, as the Committee has noted in the annual report, it appears that the measure of the Committee's effectiveness will not be so much an increased awareness on the part of senators of the sorts of concerns the Committee raises as an increased awareness of those concerns among the officers of executive departments responsible for the formulation of legislation. There is already substantial evidence of the internalisation of certain of the Committee's concerns in the process of legislative development and the Committee has been prepared to facilitate this process by taking a pragmatic approach in relation to matters such as the removal of the privilege against self-incrimination and the reversal of the onus of proof. In conclusion, I believe a strong note of thanks is due by the Committee and the Senate to the former chairpersons of the Committee, Senator Michael Tate and Senator Rosemary Crowley, whom I succeed as Committee Chairman. The thanks of the members of the Committee must also go to Giles Short, who, as Secretary to the Committee during the last Parliament, made such a conscientious contribution to the Committee's work. I remark on the efforts and work put into this Committee by Senator Tate, Senator Crowley and Mr Short in the past. I commend the reading of the annual report to all honourable senators. Debate resumed. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(4.31) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was addressing my remarks to this Government's 1987-88 Budget. I outlined the complete incompetence not only of the Hawke Government but also of the Whitlam Government and, further back, the Scullin Government. I concluded that history will always show Labor governments as incompetent economic managers. Further to that, I was speaking about the great primary industries, the five great exporting contributors to Australia. In particular, I pointed out that the pastoral and agricultural industries have received a reduction of $56m in government outlays in this Budget. I began to outline-this is where I pick up my address-that since the Budget this Government has steamrolled on to increase the costs of all those industries. For example, the wheat industry brings in some $1.7 billion of export revenue yearly. At a time when our balance of payments is at its usual $1 billion a month deficit, the Government decided to increase costs to the industry by way of lifting export insurance premiums. I refer to the article by the Australian Wheat Board Chairman which condemns this decision by the Government. The Chairman said: The Government have failed to acknowledge the extremely competitive credit arrangements offered by governments of competing wheat exporting nations and wheat growers will no doubt find it difficult to understand why after two years of extremely depressed market conditions and financial returns the Government have imposed these costs. I recall asking the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) a question on this very matter on 5 November. I asked him what actions the Government was intending to take. At that time he said that whatever decision the Government made would be in total agreement with the Australian Wheat Board. That is absolute rubbish. As I have just said, the Chairman of the Wheat Board condemned that decision by the Government and I would like Senator Button to explain away the answer he gave to me in this House. Or is he just going to join the already long list of Ministers who cannot shoot straight when it comes to economic and financial matters? The beef industry contributes $2.2 billion of export revenue yearly. Since handing down the Budget, the Government has set about increasing this industry's costs also. It has increased the maximum slaughter levy to some $18 per head and in doing so has broken a commitment to meet 50 per cent of all export inspection charges. Because of the breaking of this commitment, the industry now has to take the full brunt of the inspection charges brought on by the chemical residue incident, which is estimated at around $35m. The gold industry contributes about $2.5 billion a year-of course, this is ever increasing-to our export revenue. In the last few days the member for Burke in Victoria, Mr O'Keefe, has called for a return of the gold tax. Surely that must send shivers up the spine of the gold industry. The Government made a commitment prior to the election not to have a gold tax and not to consider one. Now one of the leading members on the Government's rural committee is calling for a return of this tax. The gold industry has every right to believe now that the Government has not put aside the idea of a gold tax. Of course, the reasons given by Mr O'Keefe for the reintroduction of the tax are nothing short of envy and spite towards this industry. I refer to an article in which Mr O'Keefe publicly comes out and calls for a return to the gold tax. Mr O'Keefe said that he would be approaching the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as a member of the rural task force as early as possible to call for the return of the gold tax. Burke, I believe, is the most gerrymandered seat in Victoria. The greater proportion of that seat is rural-based yet it has been cleverly or cunningly cut into the suburbs of outer Melbourne. Although the suburb of Broadmeadows makes up more than 40 per cent of the population of that seat, it is a very small part of it in terms of size and that is how Mr O'Keefe wins in elections. If he were to make those comments about a return of a gold tax in a seat which contains towns such as Ballarat and Bendigo-we all know the great traditions that those two townships have in gold mining-without the security of this gerrymander, he would be thrown out on his neck. I only hope that Senator Ray, in his considerations of redrawing the boundaries before the next election, takes this into consideration. I believe that the seat of Burke will be redistributed and I hope that this member is redistributed out of this Parliament. Senator Maguire —You have a lot to learn, sonny boy. The boundaries are drawn by an independent commission. We have no hand in drawing the boundaries; you should know that. It is a purely independent commission. Senator McGAURAN —I will pick up that interjection to say that Senator Ray has no hand in drawing up the boundaries. All this simply goes to show that the industries that we so badly rely on at the moment are not being supported by this Government in any way whatsoever. Yet the problem does not stop there. This Government has allowed the coal industry-a primary export industry which contributes over $5 billion to our exports-to be driven into the ground by the union movement. Thankfully, in the last few days this industry has received a package of $40m to bail it out to subsidise-I believe the term `subsidise' is correct-the freight charges. This cynical move, of course, is totally based on the New South Wales election. That seems to be one of the main motivations of this Government whenever it makes economic decisions. Those decisions are all political; they are an attempt to save Federal or State seats. New South Wales is the finest example of this. The point that I am clearly making is that our five major export industries are not getting the attention of this Government. This Government has had a false belief that the so-called sunrise industries could quickly replace our farm industries. It is time that this Government realised the futility of assisting the high technology industries, trying to pick winners amongst these industries and giving them exclusive support at the cost of the rural industry in the hope that the winners will one day replace rural exports as the basis of this nation's foreign earnings. This Government thought it was witnessing the death throes of our farmer produce as an export strength. How wrong it was. In this false belief it has applied excessive assistance to the so-called sunrise industries while at the same time indicating that the rural industries have to go it alone, that they will be getting less assistance. I am proud to say that the agricultural sector has adjusted and has maintained its productivity, which is twice the level for the industry generally. In these sombre times of stock market crashes and Australian dollar freefalls, it is worthy to reflect on the contributions that primary industry makes to our living standards. It is a far more substantial and enduring contribution than that provided by the current set of high-fliers and paper shufflers in the stock market that we have had to endure over the last 4 1/2 years. The farmers of Australia are not paper shufflers; they are true workers, just like the blue collar workers. They face the cruel elements of the Australian environment-droughts, floods, bushfires and Labor governments. Farmers are very much small business people, too, who have to adapt to changing world markets, changing technology and changing consumer demands. The men and women of rural Australia in so many ways have been, and still are, the backbone of this country's economic welfare. As this nation faces its greatest economic challenge-and that cannot be denied-it is time once again to turn our eyes to rural Australia. The National Party of Australia, unlike the Australian Labor Party, which has drifted far and wide from its traditional base and is now trying to crawl back to its traditional base, can stand up and be counted as having always stood by its traditional followers. It has never drifted far and wide, as the Labor Party has. The Labor Party has clearly admitted that it has drifted, and it is now trying to crawl back to those suburbs. Well, it is not on. The National Party's great strength has always rested with its commitment to Australia's productive industries, consistently maintaining its conservative values, and our conviction that the rural people of Australia deserve a party that owes its loyalty to them. These have been our strengths. We should not flinch from the message that we are a conservative party with a firm belief in traditional Australia and rural Australia. Because of this established history, I would like to direct my remarks, as a National Party senator from Victoria, to the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association. I believe that because of our rural tradition and history, such federations should get off the barbed wire fence and give greater recognition to a rural based party such as the National Party. The Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association is well organised and has a very large membership. But the reality is that the Labor Government gives no priority to rural Victoria; rather, it gives a great deal more priority to its constituents in the city. The Victorian branch of the National Party is a soundly based rural party which holds all of its parliamentary seats in rural Victoria. The Association, by channelling its energies and resources towards the Victorian National Party, will give a stronger and more distinct voice to its concerns. The trade union movement clearly has the loyalty of the Labor Party. It clearly funds the Party and influences Party policy. It owes its loyalty to the Labor Party, and the Labor Party owes loyalty to it. It has never prevented a conservative government from having the good sense to recognise the trade union movement's value and its contribution to the overall policy debate. I believe the reverse is true: the Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association should place itself squarely behind the rural policies of the Victorian National Party and, indeed, the coalition's policies. There is no doubt that the single issue that has dominated the term of this Government is the economic welfare of Australia. People are continually being blinded by the very highfalutin economic language and the snowballing tactics of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Australians have often witnessed a blinding competition between the economists and Government Ministers over not only the real state of the economy but also the use of the best economic terms that have not yet been invented. So it is right to say that some of the debate has been lost on the people because of an inability to explain the facts clearly. If I can get one single message through the mass of economic language that is used in this place to highlight one single issue in this debate, to sum up the real problem as directly and as simply as possible, it is the level of this country's overseas debt. This is the crux of the economic debate. It influences our economic indicators, such as interest rates and our inflation rate. Those rates directly influence the household of every Australian. When Labor came to government in 1983, Australia's gross foreign debt was $35 billion. Now, in 1987, it stands at greater than $100 billion and is increasing at the rate of $1 billion per month. The point is that it took 200 years for Australia to achieve a debt of only $35 billion and just 4 1/2 years to achieve a debt of greater than $100 billion. As we prepare to enter our bicentennial year, this is a very pitiful legacy that the Hawke Government will leave for the generations that follow. There are several ways of placing the size of the Australian debt into some relative perspective. Any debt should be related to the size of the economy. One measure of this is the net debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio. Another is to look at the cost to our external accounts of servicing that debt-for example, the ratio of net interest payments to export earnings. However one looks at it, these are how the figures stack up: Australia's gross foreign debt stood at almost 42 per cent of GDP at the end of June 1987. The interest payments on this debt are equivalent to 21 per cent of Australia's export earnings, compared with the 1982 figure of 8 per cent. With regard to the balance of payments, we are continuing to run deficits on the balance of goods and services, which means that we are borrowing just to pay interest on our foreign debt. Interest upon interest-that is the situation to which this Government has led us. It is important to understand that these ratios are not just academic exercises. They form an important part of an analysis undertaken by international banks and investors in assessing whether to invest funds in Australia. It is clear that Australia has well and truly reached the point where it is now subject to an intensive, critical and even cruel assessment by the world financial markets. It will not be too long before world bankers will insist that Australia must pay the interest bill on its debt without resorting to further borrowings. In conclusion, no one in Australia should be led to believe anything but that this country is on the decline, is in crisis and is being poorly managed. I do not believe anyone in Australia should be led to believe anything but that in 1988 we will see more waves and falls in the share market and the Australian dollar. As each month goes by, Australia is running a deficit account. Today's papers show how great that deficit will be. If the debate is about how great the deficit will be, the king has no clothes; the king is naked. As Australia enters its bicentennial year I have great hope that the traditions and spirits passed on through the generations will enable those who serve this Parliament to have some courage and will to take the right steps to save this nation. Above all, what is called for, in regard to this courage and will to take the right steps, is leadership, and that is exactly what we are lacking. We are looking for leadership that will replace political opportunism with integrity; leadership that will replace political careerism with courage and will; and, above all, leadership that will inspire the young and quicken their heartfelt dreams. Sadly, we do not have that leadership today in government. I commend the coalition's second reading amendment in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 to the Senate. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.50) —The Budget to which the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 and cognate Bills relate is in my opinion, and I am sure in the opinion of most senators on this side of the House as well as most Australians, an absolute sham. We are told that it is a balanced Budget. However, in reality it is some $2.6 billion in the red. We are told that it will lead us up the path to economic recovery. However, for the last two months the balance of payments has been $1.38 billion and $1.11 billion in the red. That means that we have more money going out of our country than is coming into it. We all know the consequences for any household that lives in that manner and does nothing about it. We are told that the Government's policies are working. However, our annual inflation rate is announced to be some 9.3 per cent. By any economic account Australia is not faring well. Our prospects for recovery are not much brighter. Our balance of trade position is dreadful. The fact that a balance of payments deficit of $1,180m is considered good is an indication of how dangerous a road this Government is taking. The Opposition has been talking about this for some three years. It has been talking about options for recovery. We have stressed time and time again how important an increase in exports is. We have seen that in the short term manufacturing will not provide that export income. It is doubtful that, even in the long term, manufacturing is the answer. However, we will still subsidise the motor vehicle industry to the extent of some $500m over the next five years while our rural sector will receive only some $35m in assistance. It is generally agreed that we must improve our export performance, and certainly our rural commodities offer the only real choice. Senator McGauran alluded to this matter when he spoke just before me. When we talk to our exporters of meat, fruit and vegetables we find that they are trying to be competitive, they are trying to export but they cannot get freight flights out of Australia. There is no point finding markets for our commodities if we cannot guarantee a reliable delivery. The problem is definitely well and truly recognised by the airlines. The latest annual report for Qantas Airways Ltd states: Qantas currently provides 38 per cent of air freight capacity into Australia and 41 per cent out of Australia. In the last six years air cargo capacity has doubled. . . . . Primary produce made up 70 per cent of the Qantas uplift of goods from Australia in 1986-87 with as much as 95 per cent of Perth's uplift falling into this category. Exporters from Australia benefit from some of the cheapest freight rates in the world. . . . Whilst these very low outbound rates have clear short-term benefits they have brought longer-term problems. The principal problem is the lack of capacity, particularly in the peak season, because rates are so low. The rates are insufficient for airlines to provide capacity. Increases in the rates are essential for the introduction of a new capacity. I accept what Qantas is saying. Air freight rates out of Australia have been very favourable to the exporter, although because of a 38 per cent increase in Australia's horticultural exports last financial year there has been increased competition for freight space and rates have risen. Air freighted fruit and vegetable exports have increased from about one per cent to 13 per cent of total agricultural exports over the past decade. Austrade estimates a potential increase in horticultural exports next year of some 25 per cent, but only if the airline operators earn adequate returns. Qantas is not renowned for loyalty to the Australian horticultural industry. It has a reputation for making hard-nosed business decisions which sometimes have left Australian produce rotting on the tarmac. Obviously some accommodation must be reached over freight rates to overcome this problem so that we can help our balance of trade. However the Government, which is the body we are talking about in this place, must also act responsibly. Airlines have applied for routes; they have been knocked back. There has been protection of Qantas routes. As Qantas itself says, it carries a large share of the inbound and outbound freight. Something has to be done about that. If the Government is going to continue that line, it is important that Qantas provide the service. It has already been announced that air freight capacity to the Middle East and Europe could be reduced next year as a result of Qantas's 747-400 series Jumbos flying direct to London with only one stop. These one-stop flights could cut services through the Middle East and Europe; however, Qantas has not indicated how it intends to restructure. Will the Middle East carriers be allowed access now? That is the question I ask the Government. The Government's charter policy review has the capacity to free up space by making charter more attractive. The industry is expecting a more relaxed policy. If this Government is serious about helping our exports it will provide that extra capacity. The complete botch up of the air freight of perishable exports is yet another example to which my colleague Senator Stone referred in his speech yesterday. The lack of commitment by this Government to rural exports is part of the continuing pattern of failure of this Government to look at our balance of trade problem. The Government's head in the sand policy might have worked in the short term, but we have now had four years of the Hawke-Keating Labor Government and decisions must be made. This Government simply is not making those decisions which are necessary. The Government's handling of the pesticides scare is yet another example of this. When all else fails and the Government cannot think of anyone else to blame it pushes the blame and the cost on to the rural sector. The Government has ignored the fact that the problem is not the fault of the beef producers, that is not a problem simply for the rural sector. If blame must be apportioned, State and Federal governments must take the lion's share. It is the State and Federal governments that provide the permits and the authorisation for chemicals to be available for sale. Certainly farmers have used those chemicals over the years but they have done so in good faith. The farmers also provided beef for export in good faith; they did not willingly send contaminated meat to the market. They did not knowingly allow their cattle to feed on contaminated pastures and grain. Of even more relevance than blame, however, is the responsibility for the problem in the aftermath of its discovery. It really does not matter who caused the problem or how it arose. The fact remains that the problem is here. The problem is ours and we all will suffer if Australia loses its export industries. During this debate I wish to direct some remarks to the present quite alarmingly depleted staffing situation in the Bureau of Rural Science (BRS). No doubt public servants are quite used to and have adjusted to successive governments splitting departments, giving them new names and transferring functions. One such area is the Bureau of Rural Science, which was established in 1986. I quote from the preface of the Bureau's Budget estimates, which states that one of the Bureau's objectives is: To assist the development of efficient primary industries in Australia, able to compete in domestic and international markets. The Bureau addresses the cost-price squeeze being experienced by the rural sector which without substantial Government support relies upon increasing productivity through innovation, the conservation and management of agricultural, pastoral, forestry and fisheries resources. It is also responsible for the efficient and effective management of certain operational activities which provide for the protection and improvement of animal health, production and welfare. One of its other functions is the co-ordination of the clearance of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. It will do all of those things this year with a budget of some $34m. That is what the Budget estimates tell us. The coming year will be a most vital one for the Bureau, given the immediate problems of chemical residue testing and the quarantining of properties, the supervision of live sheep exports to various countries and the rundown to completion date for the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign. Yet, in the last year, there has been an enormous number of staff resignations from the Bureau, which was known as the Bureau of Animal Health and is now amalgamated into the BRS. The most senior and experienced veterinary officers appear to have left or to be leaving. Other positions have been advertised and there has been some difficulty in finding suitable replacements or, indeed, any replacement for some positions. The Bureau is accumulating economic and administrative expertise, but it is not doing the same with its veterinary trained staff, and I ask the Government another question: Why is this happening? I know that people within the Bureau are concerned and those who have left are concerned. I am concerned that this situation is occurring at a most critical time, when the Federal Government needs qualified veterinary opinion on tap. I have no idea whether the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, is aware of the situation, or, if he is, what he is doing about it. Is it a mere coincidence that so many officers have left? I doubt it. I intend to put questions to the Minister and I hope that the answers that I get will not be just a fob-off. That is why I have raised this subject now, because this Parliament must be kept informed, and the people who serve it must have the ability to provide that information. As I have said, the question of chemical pesticide residues is a vital one for Australia and its export industries. The Government mouths platitudes and talks about the importance of export markets and the need to reduce expenditure, but in reality, it slugs the producer for the cost of increased testing while continuing to dole our money for women's surfboards and dubious grants to minority groups. Senator Reynolds —Don't you like women? Senator BROWNHILL —I love them. I think that they are a necessary part of our environment and that they are equal to all males in the community. That was an unnecessary remark for a Minister to make. People out in the real world are fed up with the rhetoric that comes out of this place. They get fed up listening, day after day, to the Government blaming everyone but itself. This Government has blamed overseas forces, the weather and previous coalition governments for Australia's economic ills-it blames everyone except itself, and that is where the blame lies. It is good to remember that this is the highest taxing, highest spending government in the history of this country. It is this Government which has lost us our international credit rating, quadrupled our overseas debt to unaffordable levels and continued on its economic path despite every indication that it is the wrong way to go. It is this Government that has allowed wages and the inflation rate to rise when small business has no capacity to pay. It is this Government that has allowed export markets to be lost because of trade union militancy, that has forced companies into submitting to union pressure because business knows that it will not get Government support if it takes on the unions. It is this Government that has abrogated its responsibilities. It has fiddled around with the economy to such an extent that we are relieved when the balance of payments comes in at under $2 billion, and when inflation is only two or three times higher than that of our trading partners. We are all expected to breathe a sigh of relief when our stock market falls by only 44 per cent, even though stock markets in the rest of the world fall by less than that. We are the prey of external economic forces and until the Government changes its policies, things can only get worse. Before I finish, I wish to make a few comments directly related to the running of the Estimates committees and some specific responses from departments. This was mentioned earlier by Senators Newman, Alston and Michael Baume. I think that what I say will support what they have said. I find it is practically impossible for senators properly to analyse the explanatory memoranda for the Estimates committees when those documents are received only shortly before the committees are due to sit. There has been a general failure on the part of departments to answer questions promptly. That is one of the points that were made clearly by Senator Michael Baume. It is not good enough to get replies back only just before the appropriation debate. Similarly, the answers given have not at all times been accurate. I hope that the reason is more a matter of ignorance than a deliberate attempt to mislead the Parliament. One such instance relates to a question on motor vehicle safety standards. I raised a question involving one person's dispute with the Mitsubishi car company. The Department of Transport and Communications claimed that the issue had been resolved. However, this is not the case and the extremely important question of motor vehicle safety standards has not been adequately addressed. Again, I do not believe that such carelessness is satisfactory, and it is for that reason that I raise the matter now. I do not ask questions in Estimates to be fobbed off with wrong answers, nor does any other member of the Senate. I hope that the departmental officers who have had to attend these hearings for hours, and at times days on end, do not feel that any answer is good enough just so long as they give a response. That has already been alluded to this afternoon. I have a couple of specific issues that I wish to raise. I probably mention soil conservation too much in this place, but I will continue to do so until the Government does something about it. I have continually attempted to raise the profile of the soil conservation issue, which does not seem to enjoy the popularity of other environmental issues, such as rainforests, with this current Government. At present, the Government is providing some $22.2m towards the rainforest conservation program. Soil conservation, on the other hand, is receiving a mere $6m. In the Estimates committee hearings I was told that the most recent figure available as to the cost of repairing land degradation was of the order of $670m and that was estimated in the mid-1970s. Since then, there has been no update on the figure needed, and I am sure that the position can only have got worse. Following a recent debate in this chamber on soil conservation, Chris Watson from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Division of Soils sent me details of a scheme currently operating in the United States. That scheme is designed to give farmers a financial incentive to cease crop production on the most erodable soils. The farmer is paid a fixed rent per hectare over a 10-year period for withdrawn land. Technical and financial assistance is also provided for the establishment of pastures, trees and so on. It seems to me that until we get that sort of approach from governments, we will get nowhere and our soils will keep on disappearing. It is not a matter of handouts or subsidies but of protecting our resources. But of course what we get from this Government is nothing that it cannot perceive a vote in. So, we will continue to see attention to rainforests; indeed, as I understand it, Senator Richardson will be back up in the Daintree yet again tomorrow. But we will still see nothing for soil conservation. I will start to believe this Government's sincerity when it puts its money and its Minister where its mouth is. The Government and the Minister talk big about soil conservation but it is not the salt ravaged areas of the Murray to which the Minister is going tomorrow, and on which a paper has already been presented this afternoon. He is going to the rainforests yet again, for the third or fourth time in almost as many weeks. When will the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Government do something about this? There were also questions about the rural adjustment scheme in the Estimates committee hearings. It was stated that there was a $5m shortfall in expenditure from the amount appropriated in 1986-87. The reason offered for this shortfall was that funds had been available but the circumstances of 1986-87 were such that these funds were not picked up. It seems extraordinary to me that, given the rural crisis in various sectors of the industry, such sorely needed funds were not picked up. It seems to me that there is a lack of communication between the Department and the industry, and this needs looking into. So I ask the Government: Why did this happen? In the Estimates committee there was considerable comment regarding bias in the media, particularly in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Through the Estimates Committee I was given access to the complaints sheets from the ABC switchboards. The documents themselves make very interesting reading. However, I will quote one assertion from the senior publicity officer for the ABC in Tasmania, which sums up the position regarding perceived bias on the part of the ABC. He said: I estimate that more than 90% of callers accused ABC-TV of bias in favour of the ALP. I think the evidence speaks for itself. As I have already said, this Government has presided over the highest taxing and highest spending we have ever seen. Economists have said it must stop; the man in the street knows it should; but the Government continues to believe it knows better than all the best economic advice. I support the foreshadowed amendment to be moved by Senator Stone for the Opposition. I will repeat the second part of the amendment, which states: this failure by the Government to face up to its responsibilities has heightened Australia's vulnerability and exposure to changes in world economic conditions and has resulted in our being more adversely affected by the recent and continuing crisis on world financial markets . . . Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.11) —The Australian Democrats must draw the attention of the Senate to a glaring inadequacy of the Government's Budget in relation to the sum allotted to veterans' affairs. The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) fail to anticipate recommendations of Mr Bob Hogg which are now before the Cabinet; indeed, they are very significant recommendations. As honourable senators will be aware, Mr Hogg, at the commissioning of the Cabinet, has reached conclusions which, if acted upon, must add substantially to expenditure. Moreover, other recommendations have implications for expenditure beyond veterans' affairs in the areas of public investigation, scientific investigation and public health. Mr Hogg also reports some serious inadequacies in the way in which public moneys have already been expended. The Australian Democrats are, as are all senators, concerned that Australians get value for money spent. That is precisely what this debate is all about. We are gravely concerned, therefore, that the recent expenditure of public moneys on the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam was not money well spent. Indeed, the very opposite was the case. More and larger sums must now be expended because of the tragically grave inadequacies of the Commission-sums which are not anticipated in these appropriation Bills. Honourable senators will recall that on 23 September I moved an urgency motion whereby the Senate called upon the Government to acknowledge and rectify the inadequacies of the Evatt Royal Commission into the effects of agent orange on Vietnam veterans. Honourable senators will recall also that the motion was rejected by the Senate. That urgency motion was not moved lightly; it was moved for important reasons. Let me cite only three of them. First of all, the Vietnam veterans had asked me to do so because they had serious reservations about the Commission's methods and findings. Secondly, the Government also had sufficient concern about these matters to appoint a special Cabinet consultant, Mr Bob Hogg, who, as honourable senators will be aware, is a former member of Mr Hawke's staff. He was appointed specifically to investigate and report to Cabinet on the adequacy of the Commission. The third reason that urgency motion was moved by me was that the scientific community at large had very serious reservations and had expressed those reservations about the Commission's methods and findings. We believed that these were sufficient reasons to warrant the Senate's urgent attention. Mr Hogg has now reported and Cabinet will soon consider his confidential report. In the meantime, however, the Press has published substantial leaks from that report. I cite the Australian of 18 November, pages 1 and 2, and the Sydney Morning Herald, at page 8, which contain comprehensive statements from that confidential document, a document which has not yet been considered by Cabinet. Furthermore, I am in a position to inform the Senate of the most important aspects of the Hogg report, such as the nature of the leaks from this Cabinet. In fact, the recommendations of the Hogg report raise matters of profound public importance, some of which my colleagues and I will, in the public interest, explore in depth in the committee stage of the appropriations debate. Before turning to the details of the Hogg report, I will remind the Senate of the most salient points of my urgency motion and some of the interesting responses from both sides of this chamber. Most of all, I claim that my urging of the Senate's concern has subsequently been vindicated by Mr Hogg's findings. They reveal not only matters of grave public importance but the gross waste of public moneys associated with the Evatt Royal Commission-a sum of $3.8m. The issue is a very serious one indeed. It is not only an issue of justice to veterans, but it raises vital questions regarding the quality of public investigation and it raises grave doubts about the protection of public health. I am deeply conscious of the seriousness of what I am about to do. I will be quoting from a confidential public document which has already been leaked to the Press and has already been published in the Press this week. I have what I believe is an accurate transcript of parts of the Hogg report; that is, I believe I have in front of me the contents of a confidential Cabinet document that has not yet been considered by Cabinet, yet which has already been leaked to the Press and disclosed. I believe the transcript which I have to be an accurate one in substance, if not in precise wording. Only the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys) will be able to confirm or deny the substantial validity or otherwise of what I tender here as fact. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of Senator Reynolds, who is acting on behalf of the Minister. I call upon the Minister to affirm or deny its essential accuracy as soon as possible. I believe that that is a just request of the Minister. I will share its contents with the Senate because I sincerely believe that it is in the public interest to do so and I cannot be assured that this document will ever see the light of day-that is, any more than it has already, having been published in our Press three or four days ago. I begin by making the observation that the very appointment of Mr Hogg as a special consultant to Cabinet to investigate the adequacy of a Royal Commission that had spent $3.8m of the Australian people's money is, in itself, an extraordinary thing. Clearly Senator Gietzelt, the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, must have had grave reservations about the adequacy of the Commission's work. He is to be commended for his appointing of Mr Hogg. Cabinet itself must have had serious misgivings for it to have taken this extraordinary step. So we are confronted with a situation where the Cabinet and the presiding Minister of the day had the gravest of misgivings about the findings and report of the Royal Commission that had cost $3.8m and taken two years to deliver. In my speech to the Senate on 23 September, I presented the deep misgivings of some of the most respected scientists in the country and some of international repute. These misgivings related to the findings and methods of the Evatt Royal Commission. The Vietnam Veterans' Association believed that Mr Hogg's brief was restricting and that the restrictions had been spelled out in writing. This was denied by the previous Minister and the present Minister. It seems that the veterans' concern was justified. I believe that page 12 of the Hogg report quotes from a letter from the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to Senator Gietzelt. I believe that I am quoting the substance, if not the precise words, of that letter. This is my assumed quote: The submission would essentially- and the Prime Minister is referring to the submission required from the appointed consultants- draw together but not seek to reopen issues or re-examine the work that has already been done in your Department, and the Department of Defence, as well as more recent work of the Attorney-General. I see this as being the full extent of the task which the consultant is to be asked to undertake. I would be particularly concerned to ensure that the consultancy was not drawn into the legal intricacies surrounding the report. Senator Stone —Senator, in the light of that quotation, are you suggesting that subsequently Ministers have misled the Parliament in their description of the task given to Mr Hogg? Senator McLEAN —I would prefer it if that question were asked later in my presentation. I will address myself to the honourable senator's concern in what I have to say later. I sense at least confusion. Both Ministers have denied the intention to whitewash. Both Ministers have denied intended constraint upon Mr Hogg. Their interpretation of these instructions differs greatly, certainly from my interpretation, from my colleagues' interpretations, from the interpretation of the Vietnam veterans and, I respectfully acknowledge, from Senator Stone's interpretation of the passage that I have just read to the Senate. The Australian Democrats and the Vietnam veterans believe that Mr Hogg is to be congratulated. He has been fair, honest and courageous. I say `courageous' because he has stepped outside the constraints imposed upon him. He has delivered an honest statement to the Cabinet, despite the fact that these restraining terms of reference suggest that the Government did not want to hear any conclusion which disclosed the inadequacies and waste of the Evatt Royal Commission. As commendable as Mr Hogg's work is, it has its limitations. He attempted to satisfy the demands of his constraining formal brief. One would suspect-I believe that Senator Stone joins me in this suspicion-that he was conforming with the demands of an even more constraining informal briefing. On the one hand he is attempting to fulfil those constraints and, on the other hand, he is attempting to fulfil the requirements of his own conscience in this matter. In doing so, unfortunately, I believe that he has fallen into contradictions and I will cite some of the contradictions inherent in the document. He advises Cabinet-and this is advice that Cabinet has not yet seen but which has been published in our national Press-to accept Evatt's conclusions, yet he provides damning condemnation of the Commission's methods and makes significant recommendations about the structuring of future royal commissions with a scientific orientation. So, on the one hand, he advises Cabinet to accept the conclusions and, on the other hand, he condemns the methods and findings. The second observed contradiction is that he advises Cabinet to accept Evatt's conclusion that agent orange is innocent, yet he recommends that five further studies be undertaken and elaborates reasons why such a conclusion is unacceptable and why such further studies are necessary. I cite a third contradiction in what I refer to as a courageous and very beneficial report. Mr Hogg denies that the Commission is guilty of plagiarism and bias, yet he comprehensively cites examples of non-attributed material. Honourable senators will recall that, in my address to the Senate on 23 September, I said that international commentators have cited 360 pages of submissions to that Commission which were not attributed. So want it or not, Mr Hogg gave the Cabinet a damning condemnation of the Evatt Royal Commission. I wish now to quote what I believe to be the substance of page 17 of the Hogg judgment of the Evatt Royal Commission report. I believe that Mr Hogg says on page 17: Rather, its lack of credibility- and he is referring to the report of the Evatt Royal Commission- is the result of the manner of the conduct of the inquiry and the form of the reporting of its work. The Commission defeated itself and in doing so let down the government, the veterans and the general community. It has not enhanced the debate on the effect of chemicals used in Vietnam or generally in agriculture. It has kept the issues alive in a way which will not be productive if pursued in the way the VVAA prefers. I believe that I have quoted Mr Hogg's summary of the credibility of the Evatt Royal Commission report. Bob Hogg has also been prepared to address the grave accusation of plagiarism levelled at the report of the Commission. Here Mr Hogg is caught in the dilemma imposed upon him by his constraining brief. On the one hand, in his conclusions, he rejects claims of bias and plagiarism but, on the other hand, I believe that on page 19 of his report he acknowledges the realities-again I believe that I am quoting from page 19 of Mr Hogg's confidential report to Cabinet-when he says in part: The Commission recognised the sensitivity of veterans and others in many ways but then confirmed suspicions and fears by using large slabs of the writings of others such as Monsanto without adequate attribution. To have used Monsanto's submission, in part or in full, in the sense of incorporating parts and agreeing with them was always a difficult approach to take, given the suspicions of this material, even if the inclusions were clearly and repeatedly attributed to the source. To use their material without obvious attribution was, to put it kindly, sheer folly. It is not possible to see how such an approach would breed confidence in the final conclusion and recommendations. Rather than an expression of bias, its efforts were plainly clumsy. I am confident the Commission on reaching its conclusions on the substantive questions tried to set about reassuring veterans. Its execution of its intent demonstrably failed-its approach proved to be highly insensitive. It departed from the process of clinically analysing and reporting and tried instead to put `ghosts' at rest. It succeeded in doing the opposite. Mr Hogg has been courageous enough to express reservations about the Commission's objectivity. He makes the following point about how the Commission handled evidence cited in arguing the innocence of agent orange. Once again I believe that I am quoting-this time from page 32-where he says: But for the Commission to come to the point of putting on trial and making clear judgment on the honesty, integrity and accuracy of the environmental movement worldwide over the past 30 years, and to get to the point of giving a definitive analysis of the cultural and psychological mood of the veterans and general community at the time: without calling evidence without seeking learned opinion without cross-examining those accused and to do it by lifting from the uncontested writings of a book presumably read by someone on the Commission simply demeans its own actual work and diminishes itself to the point of indefensibility. I believe that to be a written statement from Mr Hogg to the Cabinet, as yet unreviewed by the Cabinet. Clearly it is imperative that the document in toto be made public in the near future. I call upon the Minister for an assurance that that will be the case. To deny Parliament, the Vietnam veterans and the public this document would be dishonest and irresponsible and it would confirm the public's worst suspicions about a cover-up, a cover-up which cost the Government $3.8m. Members of the Australian Democrats congratulate Mr Hogg. At least in recent months it seems that the Cabinet and the Australian people, have, in our view-admittedly based on limited information-received good value for money, even though I do not know how much money. As a result of Mr Hogg's honest and courageous reporting, several vital public issues have been placed on the political agenda. The first of those issues is justice to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals in Vietnam and justice to their families. The second is the need to protect vigilantly the standards of public inquiry in this nation. The third is the need to evaluate, monitor and control in all contexts the use of chemicals in our society, especially the potently toxic herbicides, weedicides and insecticides. The fourth is the need for governments, especially the executive arm of governments, to be as open as possible in matters relating to justice and public health, indeed, all matters. The recommendations of the Hogg report are especially fair and honest in relation to veterans' entitlements. Mr Hogg recommends the maintenance and extension of counselling services; he recommends ongoing studies into mortality and morbidity; he recommends a review and updating of data in relation to veterans' health; he recommends agricultural studies of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T; he recommends birth defect studies of women exposed to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and the Dapstone study. Mr Hogg mentioned a cost of $30m over 15 years for ongoing studies alone. Such costs are not acknowledged in these appropriations. Of course, if one accepts the central role of adequate and comprehensive counselling in the health care of Vietnam veterans, then the projected expenditures of the Budget are extremely inadequate. Mr Hogg, the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia and the Australian Democrats all argue that to be the case-the projected expenditures in this Budget are extremely inadequate. In short, the appropriated sums in relation to veterans will, if the Government accepts Mr Hogg's recommendations, be very inadequate. The Australian Democrats draw the Senate's attention to this. Above all, however, we cite the broader relevance of this brief but significant document of Mr Bob Hogg. In drawing the Senate's attention to these inadequate appropriations, I call upon the Minister and the Government to do the following: firstly, advise us when and to whom the Hogg report will be released; secondly, clarify the Government's attitudes towards the counselling services considered so vital by the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia and independent evaluators-five of them in the past two years; thirdly, clarify the Government's attitude concerning important evidence ignored by the Evatt Royal Commission and subsequent important evidence in relation to agent orange. The Australian Democrats believe the Royal Commission was guilty of both things: it ignored existing evidence and, since then, there has been insignificant acknowledgment of subsequent evidence in relation to agent orange. Fourthly, the Australian Democrats require that the Minister advise the Senate of Cabinet's reaction to the Hogg report, and, fifthly, we seek advice as to how the Government intends to accommodate and rectify the acknowledged inadequacies of the Evatt Royal Commission, acknowledged not only in Mr Hogg's report but also over and again by commentators, indeed, international commentators, inside and outside of Parliament. The Australian Democrats give notice of our intention at the committee stage of this debate to explore further four dimensions of the Evatt and Hogg reports, namely, questions relating to Prime Ministerial, ministerial and departmental attitudes towards and handling of these inquiries; matters relating to the adequacy of the veterans' services; questions of standards and value for money in public inquiry and major questions of public health flowing from the Evatt and Hogg reports and the inadequacies of their findings and recommendations. Of course, the Australian Democrats will also pursue these matters vigorously outside of these appropriations and outside of this chamber. Senator Stone —I ask Senator McLean to table the documents from which, during the course of an extremely interesting address, he has been quoting. Senator McLEAN —I am happy to table the quotations. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that I believe them to be quotations and also to the fact that I have sought the assistance of the Minister responsible to confirm whether they are valid or invalid quotations. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(5.37) —As I rise to speak to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 I recall with amazement my reading of this morning's newspapers showing the Government's ecstasy that the trade deficit was a mere $1.18 billion and not as predicted as being somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. It is indeed remarkable that the Government can rejoice in an addition to Australia's growing debt. I am pleased to support Senator Stone's amendment that delineates the Government's shortcomings in the five opportunities it has had of bringing down Budgets. We have had five Budgets from the Hawke-Keating Government, four of which gave deficits and the last one of which purported to be a balanced Budget. Indeed, Mr Keating's opening words when he brought in that Budget, stating that the Budget for 1987-88 is in balance, go down with one of the other great phrases in the English language-a cheque is in the mail. This morning's trade figures remind us that the total current account deficit for 1986-87 stood at $13.6 billion, or 5.1 per cent of gross domestic product. While the Government rejoices in the fact that the escalation of our debt is a bit less than was predicted it would be, in the words of Senator Stone's amendment, it takes away the ability to protect jobs, stop the prospective rise in unemployment, stem the continuing rise in numbers of Australians living in poverty or protect the position of families more generally. In other words, having lost the options available to the Government, Australia is now being buffeted by international forces and is left with very little choice. Senator Walsh is often quoted in this place, and I shall quote what he said on 19 September 1987: Certainly, if there was another commodity price slide, the International Monetary Fund will be knocking on the door again. A country which has a high level of foreign debt and a continuing large current account deficit is a country which has few options. We have few options for the simple reason that the Government has destroyed the opportunities that it has had over the past five years. We are at risk. In a world where United States protection and isolationism is growing, where Japan and the European Economic Community (EEC) still keep protected markets in agriculture, Australia is indeed a country at risk. With 40 per cent of Australia's earnings coming from agriculture, 40 per cent from extractive industries and 20 per cent from the rest, the fact that the EEC and Japan still maintain highly protected markets is a problem for Australia. Senator Walsh was right when he said, `If the commodity prices slide again, trouble for us is at the door'. The dominant issue for Australia from now until the year 2000 concerns just how Australia will integrate its trade, foreign affairs and defence policies. To my way of thinking, those policies must be integrated. Let us have a look at our own region. Let us have a look at the mess that we are in because we have not had policies that have paid heed one of the other. Australia's attitude to New Caledonia is that the Kanaks are a minority Melanesian group that should have independence. We move across to Fiji, where we have Colonel Rabuka's regime. Australia's view is that as it represents a minority, it is not entitled to be recognised. In Vanuatu we see the Russian, Cuban and Libyan influence, yet if we had been perspicacious and paid attention to our own region perhaps we could have taken the initiatives which the Russians took when they came in with their fishing agreements. If we move across to Papua New Guinea, we see that it has already recognised the Rabuka Government. One sees the problems that arose in Papua New Guinea with our aid program. Papua New Guinea is the recipient of most of our aid and it has been, to our credit, untied aid. We have not tried to tell that government how it will spend the money that Australia has given it; we have given it in an untied form and said that it will be part of the budget of Papua New Guinea to spend as it will. Several years ago, under the chairmanship of Sir John Crawford, an alteration to the sums given by way of aid was introduced. Subsequent to that and unilaterally, Mr Hayden decided to reduce part of that aid paid to Papua New Guinea. The disaster of the handling of that foreign affairs policy was that the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Wingti, read about it in the newspaper. That is not the way one conducts foreign policy with one's nearest and closest neighbours. The problems that we see on our own doorstep are largely the product of the fact that we have treated our region with benign neglect. Our relationships with Indonesia are at an all time low. We have postulated that Indonesia is a potential enemy. We have structured our defence policies so that now we are incapable of taking troops off the mainland to fight. They can fight nowhere but on our own homelands. The throw-away line that was given at the time of the coup in Fiji that perhaps Australia should send in troops was not only stupid for the reason that it was a silly thing to do but also an impossible thing to do. We have no way of taking troops to Fiji or, indeed, anywhere else in our region. Instead of regarding Indonesia as a most important trading partner, we look at Indonesia in terms of it being a future enemy. When I say that there is a need to integrate our foreign affairs, trade and defence policies, I can only hope that will force a change in attitude to our nearest neighbours. The Pacific basin is no longer true to its name; it is no longer pacific, no longer tranquil. It is a place of change and challenge. The Russians now have their largest fleet in our ocean, in our region, at Cam Ranh Bay. We have not seen any Russian ships our side of the Equator; but that is what they have decided, as distinct from their not having the capability. Not so, however, with submarine activity. The extension of some of the fisheries agreements that have been negotiated does offer the Soviets the opportunity to increase activity in our region. I do not raise these matters simply to try to raise up a spectre or to scaremonger, but simply to say that Australia must reassess its attitude to its own region. Australia has to know that if it is to maintain an influence in its region, the policies of benign neglect and the attitude that we could behave simply as a country that handed out pieces of charity to its near neighbours and expect them to be grateful for it, have come to an end. Therefore, to my way of thinking, the integration of trade, foreign affairs and defence is most important and high on the agenda for development from now until the turn of the century. I shall revert to the Appropriation Bills themselves. Earlier I said that this Government has had the opportunity of bringing down five Budgets. In those five Budgets 17 new taxes have been introduced. That is an average of one new tax every three months since March 1983. Those taxes are enumerated as follows: capital gains tax; fringe benefits tax; 30 per cent lump sum superannuation tax; disallowance of entertainment expenditure; abolition of negative gearing, subsequently reinstated; increase in the corporate tax rate to 49 per cent; foreign tax credit system; abolition of concessional expenditure rebate; bureaucratic substantiation provisions; automatic excise of traditional excises; new sales taxes; wine tax; introduction of an increase in the Medicare levy and removal of the levy limit; large increases in excise on petrol; new excise on intermediate and new oil; resource rent tax; and an immigration clearance fee, which is the first tax in Australia's history ever to be placed on Australian citizens seeking to return to their own country as well as on every other passenger who might come as a tourist, a visitor or a potential migrant. Concurrent with those new taxes and with the mismanagement of the economy, there are all time high rates in bankruptcies. They show the worst number of bankruptcies in this country's history. As was predicted in February, Australia has had the highest number of bankruptcies on record, with more than 8,000 businesses going to the wall under this Government's high interest rate, high tax and anti-incentive policies. Bankruptcy figures for the last quarter indicate that the situation could be even worse this year, with an estimated 9,900 bankruptcies in 1987-88. In other words, bankruptcies have increased 34.2 per cent in 1986-87 to a record high of 8,597. The latest September quarter bankruptcy statistics are up 21 per cent over last year. The average annual level of bankruptcy and administration orders under this Government is 46 per cent higher than under the previous coalition government. The recent stock market crash can be expected only to exacerbate that situation. The Government does nothing but gloat that the trade deficit has not been quite as great as predicted. Yet again we are seeing the cargo cult economics that this Government likes to practise. Like Mr Micawber said, we just wait to see whether something turns up. At the time the Budget was brought down, Ross Gittins, who also likes a Dickensian turn of phrase, said: I seem to be the only person in Australia with the temerity to be left unsatisfied by the perfection of the balanced Budget. I'm playing Oliver Sleezebag to Paul Keating's gruel-doling Mr Bumble, the beadle. I would like to make one important point in a different area. It concerns the future of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. Under the new management arrangements, the staff of the Public Accounts Committee is to be cut from 15 to five. The Public Accounts Committee is a statutory committee and a joint committee having responsibility both to the House of Representatives and to the Senate. It has been said in defence of the Government's proposal to more evenly distribute staff to the various committees that with the new House of Representatives committees work can be reallocated. The important differential to make is that those committees are just that: House of Representatives committees. They are not responsible to this half of the Parliament-the Senate; it has no voice. I do not think it is necessary to point out-although perhaps it is-that the Government controls the numbers in the House of Representatives; it does not control the numbers in the Senate. Therefore, the Senate's participation on that watch-dog Committee is most important. I raise the matter because we are coming to the stage where these new staffing measures will be implemented. This is relevant to the Appropriation Bills. The Committee is willing to wear its share of cost cutting but to cut down by two-thirds the staff that has been allocated in previous years to carry out statutory requirements seems a bit beyond the pale, to put it mildly. The Public Accounts Committee is the Parliament's watch-dog. Therefore it is the people's watch-dog. The Committee is not particularly glamorous and does not particularly get the eye of the public through publicity stunts or having attention drawn to the work it does, but it is an important committee and it is important that the Senate's attention be drawn to the fact that its staff is to be cut by a massive two-thirds. In concluding my remarks, I would like to quote again remarks by Ross Gittins because he made a most important point when he talked of how the media are now managed with regard to much of the information that is given on Budget matters. Senator Stone has pointed out in his foreshadowed amendment that it is simply not good enough for the Government to stand back and do nothing. He has itemised areas in which the Government should act. The quote from Mr Ross Gittins is as follows: There is a subsidiary reason why the media and market reaction to the Budget was so approving. Mr Keating has converted the Budget lock-up from an aid to time-constrained journalists to an instrument of media management. Stage one was to exclude business economists from the lock-up . . . to cut journalists off from any source of independent professional analysis on Budget night. Stage two was to fill this vacuum by supplementing the usual junior Treasury advisers in the lock-up with a bevy of deputy secretaries. These gents worked the tables assiduously-with opening gambits such as `there is not much to criticise, is there?'-trying to knock down objections before they got up. The subtlety of their technique seems to have stopped it working in my case. As I said earlier, the Government seems to practice a variety of cargo cult economics. Like Mr Micawber, it keeps hoping that something will turn up. Senator Walsh knows that this is not so. He has pointed out that if something is not done the International Monetary Fund will come knocking on the door. It is the future of our country that we are talking about; the future of our children and our children's children that we are discussing. It is a matter of the gravest importance. Debate interrupted. Explanatory Notes Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I table the explanatory notes relating to the Conciliation and Arbitration (Compliance Provisions) Amendment Bill, which I introduced into the Senate this morning. Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.55) —The Senate is debating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. This legislation involves the appropriation of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds for the various tasks of government. The debate for the Opposition was led by Senator Stone, who foreshadowed an amendment to which I would like to refer. The Opposition, of course, will not oppose the passage of these Bills. But Senator Stone foreshadowed an amendment on our behalf which reads: At the end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that: (1) this Bill is part of a continuing pattern of failure by the Hawke Government to face up to the need for adequate and timely adjustment of the economy; (2) this failure by the Hawke Government has heightened Australia's vulnerability to changes in world economic conditions at this time of crisis on world financial markets; (3) because the Government has squandered time and resources while persistently running Australia into massive debt, our national economic options are now so narrowly limited as to largely deprive us of independent options; and (4) the Government no longer has the scope to protect jobs, to stop the prospective rise in unemployment, to stem the continuing rise in numbers of Australians living in poverty or to protect the position of families more generally; and therefore calls on the Government to revise its fiscal, labour market, taxation and other micro-economic policies with a view to providing a more appropriate economic framework to meet our current economic and social dangers''. Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills Appropriation Bills I wish to support that amendment because it adequately summarises many of the concerns which the Opposition has been expressing, both in this debate and elsewhere, about our country's present position. We are used in this place-it is the same in the House of Representatives-to hearing Ministers focusing on isolated pockets of success to which they can point. I would like to point to some of the evidence of the deterioration of living standards in the lives of the people of Australia under this Government. That message has been widely understood in the community and the community is confused at the disparity between the rhetoric of this Government and the condition of the lives of the people. I also want to refer to the enormous risk the Government has run with respect to the management of Australia, the great risk which is referred to in the foreshadowed amendment by Senator Stone, which relates to the enormous overhanging burden of debt which this Government has saddled us with. I also wish to refer to one of the most critical difficulties we face in getting out of our present problems; that is, the stagnant investment in Australia. If Australia were on the mend and about to burst out of the deficiencies which beset us at the moment, by now we would be seeing evidence of some of the investment the country so badly needs if we are to become a more productive nation. The figures are an appalling indictment of this Government and indicate that the country is not about to make the progress which is required. I want to refer also to the trade union control of vital policy areas. That control is felt most, of course, in wages policy and with respect to the operations generally of trade unions. The movement seems to have a veto power over Government decisions. We saw that most recently in the May view of this Government that the present industrial arbitration system was defective because it was one-sided. The rules applied to employers. They could not successfully be applied to trade unions which did not wish to abide by the rules. We saw an attempt by the Government, through Minister Willis, to introduce legislation which would put effective enforcement provisions into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We saw the Government back down on that issue very quickly. Post-election, we saw Mr Crean pronounce publicly that if the Government were to introduce legislation, it could not contain provisions which would improve the compliance provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government has backed down and accepted that direction-another indication of our perilous position. Finally, I wish to refer to the fact that the country is living beyond its means in the sense that at both the personal and the government level we are spending at a greater rate than we can afford. That, of course, is the cause of our growing indebtedness at the personal and national level. Some frightening figures are now being produced about the level of personal and private indebtedness in this country. I note with alarm the fact that the Government's Budget suggests that there is no sign of the sort of productivity lift which would enable us to be confident that we will fight our way out of our present difficulties. I return to the national debt or the nation's debts. I think the figure is widely understood in the community but it is worth referring to it again. On 30 June 1983, shortly after the Government came to office, the external debt was slightly in excess of $35 billion or slightly over 21 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP). By 1987 the figure is just over $110 billion or 41.6 per cent of our gross domestic product. The growth in our net foreign debt is even more frightening. It is the debt which we owe, offset by our holdings of foreign currency. From June 1982 to June 1987 net foreign debt increased by more than five times. To go back to the date that I used for comparison originally, from the end of June 1983, after this Government took office, until June 1987, our net foreign debt grew by more than 3.6 times. That is a quite terrifying growth. Senator Button —Are you going to analyse that for us? Senator CHANEY —I am sure that the Leader of the Government in the Senate would like to analyse that. Perhaps he can tell us at what point he thinks that debt will stabilise. The simple point I wish to make is that the Government has allowed us to move to a perilous position under a series of Budgets in which it has increased the discretionary expenditure of government. The first two Budgets of this Government greatly increased expenditure. The Government failed to take action which could have been taken by a government without any great difficulty at that time to reverse some of the trends of that time. I turn to business investment, a matter which is of great concern to the Minister at the table, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. Private investment in plant and equipment has fallen in real terms over the last two financial years by 5.7 per cent in 1985-86 and by 3.9 per cent in 1986-87. Investment in non-dwelling construction has been much stronger, up by 22.8 per cent in 1985-86 and 15 per cent in 1986-87, but this has not been strong enough to boost total and business investment significantly. In 1985-86 and 1986-87 business investment grew by only 0.2 per cent and 0.9 per cent in real terms respectively and business investment as a share of our gross domestic product declined to a low of 9.7 per cent in 1986-87. I would hope that the Minister at the table will take part in this debate. I think he would agree that if we are to solve Australia's current economic problems we need greatly increased investment in new industry in this country. The pattern so far is not one on which he could gain satisfaction or which points to the solution of our problems. The main area which I wish to canvass in my contribution to this debate is the enormous difficulties which have been imposed on the Australian people during the term of this Government's office. It is very hard to relate the policy approaches of the Labor Party in Opposition and the promises that it made to the various sectors of the Australian economy with what has actually happened. I wish to refer to some of the areas which impinge upon the daily life of every man, woman and child in Australia and which mark the deterioration during the term of this Government. We find, for example, that real wages are declining under this Government. The Government will point to all sorts of reasons for that but the simple reality is that wage and salary earners are receiving increases in their incomes which are less than the increase in the cost of living. That may well be-the Government will say that this is-a necessary condition for Australia in 1987. That is a very glib answer and it ignores the responsibility of the Government for achieving that economic position. We have declining real wages in circumstances where the expenses of families are rapidly increasing. Senator Button —What have you devoted half of your Question Time to in the past few years? Senator CHANEY —I am glad to see that the Leader of the Government is getting a little agitated. Well he might. The reality is that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has presided over a situation where there have been enormous difficulties for many people in Australia. Their housing interest rates have gone up, their house payments have gone up and their access to public housing has been restricted. I have made the point in the Senate before, and I am happy to make it again, that a government which came to office promising to solve the enormous housing problems which it had described as existing under the Fraser Government came to office with over 100,000 people waiting for public housing and today has a record number of over 160,000 people on the public housing lists. In other words, under this Government there are about an additional 50 per cent, another 50,000 to 60,000 Australians, who are seeking public housing and who cannot get it. They are seeking public housing because of the failures of policy of this Government. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure that you were one of the members of this place who welcomed, when you came to government, the fact that the Government threw a good deal of taxpayers' money into the public housing pool in the 1983-84 Budget and 1984-85 Budget. That greatly increased expenditure, which the Government has sharply cut back in the Budget which is before the Parliament at the moment, did not solve the public housing problem because the Government's other policies forced more people on to the public housing lists because those people were unable to afford private housing. Over the last year we saw not only record high interest rates but also 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 up to 42,000 houses short of demand. It is very easy to roll off those figures, Madam Acting Deputy President, but I am sure you will agree that there is a human dimension to those figures, that what those figures mean is that there are 42,000 families who are seeking housing and who are unable to get it. In other words, under the policies of this Government of which these Appropriation Bills are a part, because they represent part of the fiscal failure of this Government, there are 42,000 families who would like to obtain a house but who will be unable to do so. They are part of the 160,000 Australians who are waiting on the public housing lists and who are unable to get a house through that means also. Home owners are paying up to 17 per cent more of their income on mortgage repayments than they were a decade ago-again, an absolute indictment of this Government's management of the economy and a very severe impact on the living standards of the men and women of Australia. I will refer very quickly to some of the other matters which have been very much influenced by this Government and which have impacted on the living standards of Australians, and again these Appropriation Bills represent one element only of this Government's failure. When we left office in March 1983, the average rate of tax for a family on average weekly earnings was 17.5 per cent. The figure for the same family today, after the supposed tax cuts delivered by Mr Keating and by the Labor Government, is an average rate of 20.5 per cent. In other words, we have declining wages but we have an increasing share of those wages being taken by the Government in taxation. The weekly disposable income of an Australian family has been estimated to have declined by 31 per cent since the election of the Hawke Government. That is the human face of this Budget. The reality is that Australian families have seen a significant reduction of their incomes. As to what they can buy with their incomes, it is not merely taxation which has affected them; the purchase of a car has become something which is more expensive by a factor of between 30 and 50 per cent. In other words, the normal family sedan has increased in price by between 30 and 60 per cent under this Government according to the make or model. The cost of petrol, an important part of the family budget, was promised to be reduced. Madam Acting Deputy President, do you remember that the Treasurer was going to reduce the price of fuel by 3c a litre? He has not done that. In fact, he has continually increased the taxation on fuel during a period of declining world oil prices and the result has been that we have gone from an average price over the last three months of the Fraser Government of 44c a litre to 55c a litre in the last three months of 1986. The figure, of course is now even higher. By dint of increased Government taxation to support this Government's endless enthusiasm for government expenditure, we have had a massive increase in that other element of individuals' budgets. All of these areas have a massive impact on the living standards of the men and women of Australia. Health insurance is able to be afforded by a declining proportion of Australians. Again, this is an area of enormous change by the Hawke Labor Government, yet there are 100,000 Australians waiting in hospital queues. There is the need in this Budget to appropriate tens of millions of extra dollars to try to remove queues which did not previously exist. There has been a failure of the public hospital system, occasioned by the excessive burdens put on the public sector of the health care system by this Government. That is another area of failure. In regard to those Australian families that have sought to escape this area of failure by maintaining private insurance, there is a diminishing capacity to insure privately because of the sharp increase in medical insurance costs because of the policy changes of the Hawke Labor Government. These are the simple factual realities that Australian families face under the Hawke Government. More of the same is being imposed by the Appropriation Bills which we are debating at the moment. The Government has now had to move to try to rectify the situation of the most desperate in the community by adding to one of the Fraser Government's social security initiatives, the family income supplement, by calling it a new family allowance for lower income families. Roughly 30 per cent of Australian families will get relief under this Budget through supplementary payments which will be paid to individual families on low incomes to relieve their desperate situation. I make the point that there is nothing in this Budget to ease the position of the 70 per cent of Australian families who do not fit the tight income tests of the new family assistance scheme. There has been a 30 per cent deterioration in the value of the family allowance received by 70 per cent of Australian families who face increased costs of mortgage payments, petrol, the cars that they buy to put the petrol into, and so on. All of these are increased costs, yet they see a diminution in the family allowance. I find the attitude of the Government, as is evidenced by these Appropriation Bills and this Budget, towards Australian families astounding. The attitude is pathetic and wrong. The attitude has been adopted that those families which are not in real hardship do not warrant any assistance or any differentiation from the great mass of people in the community who do not have dependants. Yet the Institute of Family Studies has told the Government that a family with three children and on an income of more than $50,000 a year is no better off in terms of disposable income than a single person on average weekly earnings. I make that point because families with children and on what are seen as relatively high incomes are being penalised by this Government. For example, some of them are having their family allowance taken away. Many Australians sit back and say, `Well, that doesn't matter, they're high income earners'. The simple reality is that those families are struggling, even on an income of $50,000 a year, to maintain the standard of living of a person without dependants who has an income of about $24,000 a year. The Budget and Appropriation Bills are not just economically chaotic documents; there is a socially chaotic approach, because 70 per cent of Australians with dependants are continually being squeezed more tightly by the failure of the Government to make any allowance for them. The situation is one of declining real wages, high interest rates, costly and elusive housing, housing authorities that are unable to meet the demands of those on low incomes, queues at the hospitals, and the high cost of private insurance. I ask: what excuses can the Government offer? I sometimes hear Government senators suggest that the excuse is that the Government has concentrated its attention on the poor. I want to devote a couple of minutes to that suggestion. The simple reality is this: if one looks at the tests that were applied by Labor senators when the Fraser Government was in office, one will remember the speeches that were made continuously by people such as ex-Senator Grimes and present Government senators who were so supportive of the need to help the less well off in the community. Remember all of the attempts that were made to ram home to the Fraser Government the number of people who were living below the Henderson poverty line? The sad fact is that under the Labor Government the number of people who are living under the Henderson poverty line has increased. It has continually increased under this Government, and present estimates are that there are over two million people living below the poverty line, of whom 20 per cent are children. There are 60,000 people who are homeless or very ill-housed, with 40,000 sleeping in the open or in refuges. Twenty-eight per cent of people living below the poverty line have mortgages, and they have been further crippled by the high interest rate policies of the Hawke Government. Of course, we have seen occasional breakouts by Ministers like Brian Howe and Gerry Hand, who have been critical of the growth in poverty under the Hawke Government. But when I make my assessment of the Budget, the Appropriation Bills and the matters that we debate in this Budget session of the Parliament, I am appalled at the fact that never has a single Labor senator come out in defence of the interests that they were so keen to embrace and for which they claimed to be the champions when they were in opposition. It is as plain as the nose on my face that there is an enormous problem for many poor people in this country. I note how long it is since I heard a Labor senator come out in defence of the poor. Throughout this debate, of course, the Government's technique has been to blame the United States and, indeed, to lecture the United States on the fact that we in Australia are successful whilst the United States is the cause of our problems and is a failure. That is one of the thinnest arguments I have ever heard. Indeed, it is a very bold argument when one looks at the comparative statistics relating to Australia and the United States. It is true that if one accepts at face value the Government's Budget deficit, the Government can claim that it is outperforming the United States. The United States Budget deficit, in terms of its gross domestic product, is larger than Australia's Budget deficit. The Opposition welcomes that comparison. We think that it is very good that we have a lower deficit. But to suggest that in some way we are in a more secure position than the United States is to ignore the truth and reality. Our foreign debt is about 40 per cent of our gross domestic product. Our foreign debt is becoming increasingly difficult for us to service, given our export performance. The United States has a foreign debt which is about 13 per cent of its gross domestic product. So if one compares the two economies, Australia is about three times worse off than the United States with respect to foreign debt. Business interest rates in Australia are about 13 to 14 per cent, whilst in the United States they are somewhat below 9 per cent. Inflation in Australia is running at over 8 per cent and in America it is a little over 4 per cent. Unemployment in Australia is over 8 per cent, as against under 6 per cent in the United States. Annual wages growth in Australia is about 6 per cent-double that of the United States. When I talk about wages growth, I am not talking about growth in real wages. Real wages under the Labor Government are declining because inflation is higher than nominal wages growth. But that is part of our problem. We keep paying ourselves money, increasing wages, before we have earned the capacity to pay, thereby adding to our inflation. Our problem is about twice that of the United States in that area. In terms of purchasing power of individuals, the United States stands at the head of the queue and we are No. 9. I wonder how long Government Ministers will keep up this tirade of blame against the United States. I certainly accept that there are real difficulties which relate to the operation of the United States economy. I accept that the United States Government, like other governments in the world, does have to take remedial action. However, the suggestion by Labor Ministers that we in Australia have shown the way when we have so many bad marks against us is quite absurd. I believe that it is time that that canard was laid to rest. The fact of the matter is that our current account deficit is higher than that of the United States; it is estimated that it will be higher than that for the United States in the coming year. All of the basic economic indicators, other than that of our fiscal deficit, are really worse than those of the United States. When the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, left this chamber he was showing some irritation. I think that in part that irritation related to the fact that he does not like being reminded that under his Government there has been a deterioration in the position of many Australians, not least those who are least well off. In the few minutes that remain I turn to the positive proposals which the Opposition has consistently been putting forward. Those proposals were dealt with at greater length by my colleague Senator Stone who foreshadowed the amendment to be moved on behalf of the Opposition. We have been saying for the last two years at least that there are fundamental changes which have to be made by the Government. We say that the Government must reduce and restructure taxes. That can be done only through reducing government spending. In other words, we totally reject the sort of nonsense in which Senator Walsh indulges. We do not favour reductions of taxes without reductions of expenditure. We say that reductions in taxes are conditional upon there being reductions in government spending. We say that there must be reduced and less costly regulation of business activity. We say that there must be the restoration of law in industrial relations and a flexible labour market. We say that there has to be a rigorous control and reduction of business input costs, especially government taxes and charges. I touch very briefly on the question of industrial relations reform. There is in fact an acceptable way out of Australia's current economic difficulties. There is a way to ensure that we can get back on to a path of increased living standards. There is a way whereby we can be more generous with the poor, both here in Australia and abroad. The only way that that can be done is to increase our national productivity. Reform of the labour market is an important element in achieving that. I make very brief reference to the confrontation at Robe River. In industrial relations terms that would be seen as a very negative confrontation. It is important to note that since the reform of work practices at Robe River output has gone up by over 100 per cent. In other words, the productivity of that enterprise has increased in terms of the output per person employed by more than 100 per cent. It has more than doubled. There are other less dramatic examples. I refer to the old Repco bearing plant in Launceston where employee share ownership is one of the various reforms that have been instituted since the change in ownership. Output has gone up by about 40 per cent. Who would deny that in many industries in Australia substantial productivity gains are possible. I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that the essential task which faces this Government and which is not faced in the Appropriation Bills or in the Budget is in holding back the burdens of government but, at the same time, doing everything possible to increase the productivity of Australian enterprise and the Australian work force. It is only in that way that we will have less gloomy debates on these gloomy Bills. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.24) —I too wish to speak to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 and cognate Bills. I support the amendment which was foreshadowed by Senator Stone when he spoke in this debate. I also want to adopt the remarks of Senator Chaney, who has just finished speaking, when he put in context, as he did in some detail, the effects of this Government's policies on families in Australia. There have been wasted opportunities in the past two years. This Government has lived on borrowed money so that now the external debt represents about $25,000 for each Australian family. However, in the Budget Speech this year the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told the Parliament: The Government's policy response- to the economy- has been innovative, strong and, most of all, right. He went on to say: . . . our economic strategy is now bearing fruit. I want us to look at the fruit that in fact has been borne of this strategy. Under Labor the average unemployment rate has been 9 per cent in the time it has been in office compared with a rate of 6 per cent over the previous Liberal Government years. Of course, we should not forget that included in those figures is the very high youth unemployment. Youth unemployment is especially high in many areas of the country in which there are virtually no opportunities for young people to obtain employment, to get on with their lives, to get careers and to get some satisfaction out of being part of this community. A great deal of money has been spent on make work schemes. I refer to Priority One: Young Australia and other schemes. About $1,500m has been spent on these schemes since 1983. That amount will be almost $2 billion by the end of this year. Sometimes, of course, we hear the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) talk about the number of jobs that have been created. Of course, jobs are necessary. However, at the same time, it is very easy to talk about the jobs created and totally forget about those people who are being left behind. I refer to young people who are not able to get jobs and who do not have opportunities to get jobs and, perhaps even worse in many instances, those middle-aged people who lose their jobs and have no prospect of getting anything in the future. Interest rates remain unacceptably high. Anybody who is paying off a mortgage will know what I am talking about without the necessity of my having to go into great detail. Health care cover has just about become a joke, except of course for those people who are sick. The Medicare levy has gone up, private health insurance rates have risen and, yet, there is less and less available from Medicare for those who are sick and more and more which people have to pay themselves. People who have had members of their families who have been ill can state only too well exactly how little one gets from the health care system that is in operation now compared with what was available in the very good health service when we were in government-a system in which people were able to get health care when they needed it. We never had a waiting list of over 100,000 people wanting surgery. Of course, the greater insult in that regard is that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) refers to those waiting lists as `booking lists'. I cannot think of anyone in this country who is on a waiting list for surgery who would not prefer not to be on that waiting list. However, that is how the waiting lists are referred to; as though surgery is something that one chooses, rather than something that is necessary. There are over 160,000 families waiting for public housing. That is an all-time record. It has risen by over 60,000 in the past four years. There are many people living in caravan parks. Many people do not have accommodation at all. This is the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Not much seems to have been done really to take care of those people who have nowhere to live. Inflation has been eating away at living standards. The cost of many of the quite basic items that people need has risen. The family assistance package has been referred to already in this debate. It was promoted again only today as something of which the Australian Labor Party is particularly proud. In looking at the raw figures one might think that some families would be substantially better off with this package. However, it totally ignores the number of families in need. I refer to the number of families in my electorate who have lost their family allowance and who are now trying to make ends meet on a lower income than they had before but with higher expenses. Senator Chaney just referred to the decline in the value of real wages and the extent to which taxation has risen-from 17.5 per cent of average weekly earnings when this Government was first elected to 20.5 per cent of average weekly earnings now. When we take away the family allowance that people have we can get some idea of their situation. For those people who will get the family allowance it is nothing like what they have been led to believe. The reality is that they will be paying higher rates of taxation and they will be paying the increased costs of living, not to mention the erosion in living standards which has occurred prior to this package over the last few years. Many families now have a much lower standard of living than they had when we were in government and before Labor in fact had that responsibility. This Budget is promoted as the first for Canberra-the Australian Capital Territory's own Budget. I agree that that is necessary, and I welcome it. However, I challenge some of the Government's stated objectives, not only nationally but in relation to the Territory as well. I remind the chamber that in Canberra the Federal Parliament has sole responsibility for local government. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories (Mr John Brown) is the only person who has responsibility. He is not accountable here, of course, but he has the responsibility. There is no local government or State government. We have been told that we must pay our way and that we must pay taxes similar to those in New South Wales and other States, but there have been some intriguing increases in taxation and revenue raising in this Budget as far as we are concerned, and it is to them that I wish to refer, under the heading of challenging the priorities of this Government. We used to have various means of communicating with the Government. There was a House of Assembly. Certainly it did not have any legislative powers, but it was able to hold inquiries and communicate with the Government. The people of Canberra were able to put in submissions to the inquiries that it held and it could then make recommendations to the Government. That system, of course, has been abolished and not replaced. But other things have been abolished in this Budget. The Budget was used for this purpose under the rather cute guise of suggesting that some of these actions were saving money. They could save a few dollars, perhaps, but nothing significant. Having listened for so many years to the rhetoric of consensus and consultation, we have now come to the stage of having a dictator running the town. He was referred to as a benevolent dictator by one of the representatives of the Australian Labor Party in the ACT-perhaps he was just trying to be polite. There is not much consensus or consultation. I hear from many constituents that it is pretty difficult to get a reply from the Minister to letters and that they have asked for appointments to see him to discuss matters that they regard as important, but have not been able to get them. Other bodies have been abolished, such as the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Council. It was a council of members of this community, appointed in various ways, who were able to meet and convey views from this community to the Schools Authority on matters that are important in the development of educational policy and the way that our schools are being run. It was abolished in the Budget. I have heard from many citizens, and I have certainly heard from most parents and citizens associations, that they are displeased to have this means of communicating with the Government and of being able to say what they think about education taken away from them. The Police Advisory Committee has been abolished, as have the two health boards. They were set up only comparatively recently in the restructuring of the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority. They existed for less than 18 months. These were boards which could discuss matters that were relevant to health in the ACT as well as the views of citizens, so that the Health Authority would know something about what the people of Canberra were thinking. Another important means of communicating with Government was the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, set up in 1957. This Parliament has responsibility for the city plan of Canberra, and for making variations to that city plan and approving them. In 1957, Parliament set up a joint committee to inquire into proposals to vary the city plan of Canberra and report to the Parliament, and it is my belief that the Parliament has always accepted the recommendations of that committee and acted upon them. It was an efficient way for the Parliament to find out, for example, whether various changes to the road system of Canberra had to take place. In fact, the Joint Committee did more than that. It also conducted a number of inquiries of importance into the hospitality and tourism industries, energy, the metropolitan plan of Canberra, and into the Murrumbidgee River and the impact on it of this large community situated on the banks of that river. The Committee's inquiries into the variations of the road system also enabled the citizens of Canberra to put in submissions about the changes being made and to put in submissions that related to the precise planning that was effected by the road system at which it was looking. It was not simply a question of roads going from A to B. The Committee was able to look at why a road was being put in or taken out or altered, to examine the purpose of the proposal. By that means, the people of Canberra were able to have a say in some of the planning decisions. I believe that the Committee undertook some significant inquiries, the most recent being the section 38 development in Civic, in that area adjacent to David Jones which is now to be a large shopping centre and office complex, and the parking structures that will go across there. That inquiry enabled many people who were very concerned about the way parking has developed in Civic and the way parking has spread into suburbs of Reid, Braddon and Turner, to express their view about the lead levels as a consequence of the traffic flows that have resulted from the developments in Civic. The Committee was able to make recommendations to the National Capital Development Commission about what it felt should be done in this area. But now that Committee has gone. The Committee was initially replaced by the Infrastructure Committee of the House of Representatives. It was to look at variations to the city plan of Canberra and make recommendations to the Parliament. However, that meant that the Senate had to either rubber-stamp what came from that House of Representatives committee or set up an inquiry into the variations itself. That was impractical. The Senate moved that it should look at the city plan variations, and there is a proposal that the two Infrastructure Committees will sit together as a joint committee to look at variations to the city plan of Canberra. One might think that that goes back to what we had previously, but I suggest that it does not because the Infrastructure Committees have the prime responsibility of looking at relevant matters in the important areas of transport and communications. They will no doubt look at variations, but I suggest that they will have neither the time nor the ability to look at them in the same way as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACT. This community has lost significantly by not having this means of communicating with Government, given that the Minister is the government in Canberra. Senator Bishop referred to the 17 new taxes-one for every three months-that have been introduced since the Government came into office. However, there are quite significant revenue raising measures in the Budget that affect the ACT. They are certainly significant in the way they will affect the families involved in paying the fees. They certainly have significance to many in Canberra who are on low incomes and I think that they need to be specifically referred to, although they are not large sums compared to some of the Budget and expenditure items in these Appropriation Bills. I refer first to the Government's decision to sell the Belconnen and Fyshwick markets. The Budget Papers tell us that they are worth $2m and it is interesting to note that the stallholders at the markets have offered to buy them from the Government for that sum of money, but they have been rejected. The Government believes, in spite of what it has put in the Budget Papers, that it will receive more than $2m from the auction of these sites, and it is after the money no matter what the consequences. The reason we have these markets is that some years ago people in Canberra were not able to get fruit and vegetables at reasonable prices. A number of roadside stalls sprang up. Trucks would come particularly on Fridays and at the weekend and would sell fruit and vegetables to the people of Canberra at a price which was more competitive. As a consequence and because of the growth of these services, it was decided that it would be better to have a market where fruit and vegetables could be sold at a reasonable price, a market that was not extravagant in design and construction but which adequately served the purpose of stalls where people could go and purchase. The Fyshwick market was built first and subsequently the Belconnen market. I suggest to the Senate that they have been extremely succussful in providing competition in the area of pricing of fruit and vegetables. I believe that they have been the pace-setter for the pricing of fruit and vegetables in other shops in Canberra and that the people of Canberra have benefited as a consequence. They can buy delicatessen items, fish, meat and fruit and vegetables from a number of stalls at these markets. One needs only to go there, particularly at weekends, and see the number of people who shop there to have some idea of the benefit which is obtained. These markets are to be sold. It is true that they are to remain in existence as markets for three years, but I suggest that after that it is very likely that they will disappear. Those who own the land will want to use them for some purpose which will be more profitable and the opportunity will be lost to the people of Canberra to continue to get these vital food items at a price which is reasonable and competitive. The other interesting fund-raising measure which the Government has indulged in is charging a fee of $6 per week for pre-school children, to raise $1.02m; that is without knowing how many may be exempt from it. I understand there is a fee for pre-school children in New South Wales. That does not make it good. I think most people believe that pre-school is a very important part of a child's education, that it is part of the education system and that children ought to be encouraged to commence their education at pre-school. Pre-schools in Canberra have the location, the grounds and the teachers provided. Everything else is provided by the parents. Many of them raise a great deal and pay quite considerable amounts so that our pre-schools remain as good as they are. There is now to be an additional fee of $6 per week per child. From the questions asked at the Estimates committee we have not been able to find out how the money is to be collected, whether additional staff will be put in for that purpose, whether teachers will be expected to do it and how it will operate. I can assure the Senate that it will be a hardship for many. At the same time as this fee is being imposed on pre-school children, it looks like the Montessori pre-school will be closed. The parents want to have the three-year-old stream included, but the Commonwealth Schools Commission will not allow parents of pre-school children aged 3 to pay to have their children in the Montessori program. As everybody would know, the program for a Montessori pre-school includes children from the age of 3. The parents have not suggested that taxpayers generally pay anything towards the cost of the 3-year-olds being there. We find that the parents of other pre-school children will be charged a fee, but the parents are not allowed to pay for the 3-year-olds to attend the Montessori program. In the Telopea Park School there is a pre-school. Children from the French pre-school go there. It is substantially funded by the French Embassy. It is a significant part of our education system from the point of view of the diversity of what it can offer. Last year 72 students were enrolled at pre-school. This year the parents have been told that only 40 children can enrol. I understand that that has been amended to 60 children. What reason can possibly be advanced for cutting back the number of children attending that pre-school? I wonder whether it is to centralise and control the education system so that there can be no diversity and no opportunities for advancement offered to children to do much more than they might otherwise be able to do. There has also been an attack on the Telopea Park School in that the tutoring program for music, which parents have supported, cannot continue because it does not comply with the guidelines. What we need in our education system is something somewhat more imaginative that gives people the opportunity to do more than the bare minimum of an education system. I am talking about government schools. The other fund raising measure which has been introduced is to increase greatly the cost of the use of sports grounds, particularly for junior sports. It applies to all sports, but the impact is particularly significant for junior sports. One club which has written to me says that its costs for competition alone would be $1,656. In Queanbeyan one pays $2 to use the toilet blocks for junior sports; in Cooma one pays nothing to use the sporting grounds for junior sport; and in Yass it is $1 per registered player per annum and in Goulburn it is 50c. There is a fee in Canberra of $4.60 per ground for the morning sessions and $9.20 for the afternoon sessions. The club to which I am referring will be paying $1,656 for regular use which, with the Sunday use, would climb to $2,760. I wonder what genius dreamt that up? What do such people think the purpose of junior sport is about? Certainly, to an extent, it is to encourage those who have real talents to develop them but to a very significant extent junior sport is to give young people the opportunity to learn co-operation, teamspirit, fairness and good sportsmanship, to make friends outside the school setting and to learn to be a part of the community. Who runs junior sports? It is the parents of the young people who give up their time to do this because they appreciate the value of it and the benefit to young people. This is being attacked by these fees which are being imposed. I mentioned that we had to pay our way, and we had to pay as does New South Wales. I have just mentioned one area where we are different. It might seem very small and insignificant, but it mounts up for the families who have to keep digging into their pockets. Another area which is important relates to payroll tax. Until recently, the Australian Capital Territory rate of payroll tax has always been adjusted to keep it in line with New South Wales, but that is no longer the case. In New South Wales, the exemption level has risen to $400,000. In Canberra it is still $300,000. It is significant in that a business which might want to set up in Canberra, looking at this fact, may very well go to Queanbeyan, and not come here at all. It is a significant impost. Firms in Canberra which are paying at this rate cannot understand why they are suddenly being discriminated against and being used as an area of fund raising in the Australian Capital Territory. We need to diversify our economy. Everyone keeps talking about it. The Minister goes to conferences and talks about it. In one area such as this where it is quite significant, he will not adjust the level of payroll tax to make businesses in Canberra operate in a similar way to those in New South Wales. We are being disadvantaged. The Department of Finance recently brought in a new policy that no government accounts were to be paid under 30 days even if they could otherwise be processed and paid. At the same time, businesses in Canberra are expected to pay payroll tax and group tax by the 7th of each month or suffer severe penalties. As I said, we have a Minister who goes to conferences and makes speeches. His vision for Canberra is a casino. He has not given us any indication of the impact that that will have on the restaurant industry, on the very important club industry and on the racing industry in Canberra. The Minister wants a casino no matter what. But some of the other things that he could do in Canberra which would assist business and assist growth he does not seem to have time for. I notice that recently he paid attention to the application by the taxi industry for an increase in fares and he has attended to that. What about trading hours for Christmas so that shops can operate on the Saturdays preceding Christmas? We do not hear about that. The other day 2,000-odd people gathered in Canberra. Honourable senators might not think that that is very many, but it represented far more people than that as more than 16 organisations were present at a demonstration in Canberra where they said that they did not want a casino. The only means they have of communicating with this Minister is to go to a demonstration like that and set out their grievances. The Minister does not seem to be approachable in any other way. People want growth and development in Canberra so that we can have a wider range of opportunities for employment, but they do not see a casino as the answer. We have not had any financial impact statement from the Minister which would explain why a casino would be of such advantage. It would cut back income from some of the other areas which I mentioned earlier from which income is presently obtained-the club industry and the racing industry. It is merely circulating the same money. We were told earlier in the life of this Government that we would receive financial impact statements for the things that were important that were affected by Government decisions. The Minister should be applying himself to the question of why Canberra at one stage had the dubious distinction of having the longest delays for building permits of anywhere in the country. That is the sort of thing that needs to be tidied up so that business can operate more effectively and more efficiently in Canberra. The Minister should apply himself to looking at the payroll tax that exists in Canberra, to which I have already referred. We want an atmosphere in Canberra where small business is able to flourish. We have an ideal environment for small business. Distances are not great and for any business that wants to produce but which does not have heavy items to transport, Canberra is almost an ideal environment. It would be an ideal environment if only some of the hurdles that were placed before people were ironed out. Tourism is important. I think everybody agrees that that area must be promoted, but it is not the only area in which we want employment opportunities in Canberra in the future. The Public Service will always be important as a big employer in Canberra. It cannot employ everybody who lives in Canberra; not everybody would want to be employed in the Public Service. We need to diversify and we need to make sure that young people have the opportunity of obtaining satisfying careers. As I have indicated, my criticism of the Budget as it relates to the Australian Capital Territory concerns the fact that the Government has its priorities wrong. It is raising money from those who can least afford to be contributing it and it is not paying attention to the sometimes small details where things could be much improved and where business could do much better in Canberra if only those details were attended to. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.54) —Tonight the Senate is debating cognately the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, and Senator Stone has foreshadowed an amendment which I support. In thinking about the state of finance in Australia, I noticed, when reading the paper yesterday, that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that the figures released showed a $1.18 billion balance of payments deficit in October and that that provided further evidence of the continued improvement in Australia's trading position. However, I am inclined to agree with the Western Australian newspapers which state that it is a sign of the depth of Australia's economic woes that figures showing that the country is spending only $1.18 billion a month more than it is earning can be greeted with a sense of relief. When we see deficits continually rising like that, it makes us wonder whether Australia, as a nation, is not going down the drain financially. If we, as individuals, kept on acquiring a deficit all the time, I believe that our bank managers would soon be on our trail, asking us what we were going to do about it, or declaring that we were bankrupt. These are some of the problems that are being faced in Australia at the moment. There is probably a need for tougher policies, tighter spending on the part of the Government, and business and wage restraint. However, the matter that I want to raise in this appropriation debate is the importance of primary industry to Australia. Primary industry provides over 40 per cent of our export income and accounts directly or indirectly for one job in every four. The Budget allocation to the primary industry sector is $403m, which is down $56m from last year. So an industry which continues to provide over 40 per cent of our export income receives less than one-half of one per cent of total Budget outlays. The point to be noted is that that $403m is not all actual government assistance; transfer payments of industry levies are collected from farms. The Federal Government continues to disregard the importance of this industry sector. Its lack of emphasis on rural Australia clearly shows that it does not understand where the majority of wealth in Australia is created. I was told that one of our Australian Labor Party senators was out west just recently. I was not there, but I understand that he said that rural producers have never had it so good. I would like to think of all the days and hours that people work, from daylight to dark, seven days a week. Of course, we all know that the unions would like a 35-hour week, so I just wonder how people can say things like that about our rural producers. This Government appears to be preoccupied with technology and manufacturing. While valuable resources are being directed to these industries the ability of agriculture to reduce the nation's deficit is being ignored. More effort is desperately needed in our established primary industries. I believe that more funds should be allocated to rural industries. I suppose that, to put it another way, less money should be taken from these vital industries by cutbacks in various Labor budgets. Recently I read an article entitled `Crisis on the Farm', which asked whether there was a rural crisis, and if so, how serious it was and what were the causes. The article went on to state that there was no doubt that our perspective of the problem would depend on whether we were city or country oriented, what area we lived in and what we thought of government policy. Rural Australia is in trouble and, as far as I am concerned, very many people in the cities will also be in trouble because the cities depend to a great extent on rural industries doing well. They are the life-blood of the nation. Certainly there are very great needs in rural industries in Australia and they need our help and understanding. I wonder what would be said to be the cause of the rural crisis anyway. It could be the high interest rates, the increasing costs of farm implements, falling product prices, the exchange rate, world financial markets, poor economic policy, or the subsidies paid to farmers in Europe and elsewhere. It has been said, of course, that one of the causes could be that farmers have paid too much for land or that perhaps they have bought too much machinery. They are some of the things that are raised from time to time. But I doubt whether there is any single cause. The crisis is not unique to Australia for it affects the Western world generally. Actually, I was interested to read in one of the papers that the European Economic Community is going to consider a new plan to pay farmers not to grow anything on part of their holdings in its drive to prevent the creation of vast new food surpluses. One must remember that it was only a few years ago that grain production was more or less in line with world demand and prices for farmers in the major exporting countries were satisfactory. Output was rising and being encouraged. Today, the barns are full and that is, I suppose, why the European Community is thinking about the plan to pay farmers to grow nothing. I suppose some people may say that that is rather an odd way of dealing with the problem. But certainly, there are large quantities of grain, butter and meat in Europe for which a ready market at prices equal to their production costs cannot be found. Naturally, those excess supplies affect the markets for Australia's produce. We must realise that there are some eight million farmers in Europe and two million farmers in the United States. In Australia, there are about 170,000 farmers, which is really not so many when one considers that, in the past few years, 280,000 farmers in the United States have gone out of business. How have those events affected Australian farmers? In the first place, the prices for some products, such as wheat and barley, have fallen. Others, such as meat, have risen only slightly. The overall index of farm product prices shows that produce which sold for $100 in 1980-81 would now sell for $117. However, in the case of wheat, the figure is $94. Inputs, such as fuel and fertiliser, worth $100 in 1980-81 would now cost $159. In other words, despite some increases in production efficiency, farmers today are worse off than they were in 1980-81. The Government does not seem to take all those figures into account. Still we have rising fuel prices which, in turn, means rising costs for all rural producers. The further out one lives and works, the higher the freight charges and the higher the cost of fuel itself. The collapse in the terms of trade, as it is called, has, indeed, affected the cash flow of farmers and their ability to service their interest and capital repayments. Overall, farm debts have risen from $4,000m to $8,000m over the past five years. It is a sad fact that for more than a quarter of Australia's farmers, the gross cash income in 1986-87 did not cover their farming cash crops and so, in very many ways, there is a rural crisis. Recently I was interested to read in one of my local papers the presidential report to the Burnett district council meeting of the Queensland Grain Growers Association at Wondai. The President said: There are many measures our government could take to assist Australian farmers if it was anywhere near as supportive of our interests as are the governments of our competitors. That is one problem with which farmers in Australia are faced. Overseas, growers are subsidised to a great degree. The Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) would not take too kindly for a start to the suggestion of tax free fuel, or allowing us to buy our imported inputs at world parity prices, or giving us some relief from the burden of debts and high interest rates. They are perhaps some of the ways that people on the land could be helped in this crisis. Not only farmers but also people living in rural communities are suffering in the same way. Quite a large area of my State is facing one of the worst droughts on record. Overall, 15 per cent of Queensland is drought affected. Nine shires, five part shires and 1,700 individual properties have already been drought declared. It is no wonder that primary industries in Queensland and, indeed, in other States, are in trouble. The United Graziers Association and the grain growers have requested the Federal Government to permit a 50 per cent rebate in local government rates and charges for drought declared areas. The area around the Burdekin River in north Queensland is very badly drought affected. In fact, the Burdekin cane growers estimate this year's loss in production at $10m. It is many years since the mighty Burdekin River has flooded. My memory takes me back to years when all traffic to north Queensland was held up because the Burdekin River was in flood. One could not get over the river either by road or by rail. Cattle numbers have been reduced, some completely and others by 50 per cent. Grass growth is poor and many properties are supplementing feed. All this is costly and very time consuming. If one lives in a State where droughts like that do not occur, one may not realise the problems confronting rural Australia. The sooner action can be taken by the Federal Government to assist our primary industries, the better our chances will be that a disaster in Queensland and in some of the other States will be prevented. I regret that the recent Federal Budget did little to improve the dire situation of rural industries. In essence, the Budget means for farmers a further decline of at least one per cent in real terms for farm income. Farmers will continue to face a domestic inflation rate and interest rates twice that of their major competitors, as well as bearing additional burdens of fuel tax and other excessive government charges. As I said earlier, the Budget allocation to the primary industry sector is $403m, which is down $56m from last year. An industry which continues to provide over 40 per cent of our export income receives less than one half of one per cent of total outlays. Transfer payments of industry levies collected from the farms are included in that $403m. The Labor Government broke a promise to the wool industry by failing to continue to match industry funds for promotion. It has frozen its outlays at last year's figure, $35.4m, instead of the expected $50m. Wheat funding is now almost negligible at $11.6m, but the decrease of 40 per cent on last year's outlays is due mainly to the near completion of the Port Kembla grain terminal. The Labor Government has offered sugar growers too little, too late. It failed to act with compassion and understanding during the industry's time of greatest need. Brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign revenue from producers is down slightly, and the Government has largely ignored the beef residue testing crisis, allocating only $500,000 at this stage for increased testing in the wake of complaints from the United States of America. There is little relief for the beef industry from the $30m costs which were a result of the beef residue problem. The meat industry, along with the other export industries, will be hit with an increase in animal and plant quarantine services to 60 per cent of attributable costs from 1 March 1988. The dairy and horticultural industries will also be disadvantaged with the continuation of the unfair sales tax imposed last year on flavoured milk, fruit juice and wine. The continuation of automatically indexed fuel taxes will hurt all country people. Of course, it will hurt people everywhere throughout Australia. The current 20c per litre will rise by a further 2c this financial year. The Labor Government continues to decimate the fuel freight subsidy scheme and the further 50 per cent reduction to $8m in support this year will mean dramatically increased fuel costs for many people in outback Australia. Federal road finance, in real terms, is also down by 9 per cent and an even greater fall is projected for next year. It does not take much understanding to realise that country roads will continue to suffer disproportionately. The Budget did nothing for rural Australia and is further proof to both country people and those honourable senators in this place who represent them that this Labor Government does not understand the value of the rural sector, which earns more than 40 per cent of export income and which accounts for one job in every four in this country. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.11) —The Senate is debating the three Appropriation Bills: Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88. Therefore, in essence, honourable senators are debating the Government's Budget because the Appropriation Bills are the essence of the Budget. The Budget was brought down several weeks before the events on the stock markets, which took place commencing on 19 October and which, therefore, have in many ways rendered the Budget irrelevant, to those on this side of the Senate, and it is certainly in need of dramatic change. Even if the stock market crash had not occurred, the Opposition would have maintained, as it has since the day the Budget was brought down, that the Budget was entirely inappropriate for the time and for the dangers that we faced as a nation. As I shall outline later in my remarks, the Opposition has strong support for that view from the Government side of the chamber. I note that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is in the chamber at the moment. His remarks could not have been more pertinent when he referred to the inadequacies of the Budget, had those comments come from the Opposition. Although the Opposition will not seek to prevent the Budget being passed-that would be unthinkable-it has foreshadowed an amendment. The amendment, by Senator Stone, bears some repeating because it succinctly expresses the concern of the Opposition about not just the Government's Budget but also the whole economic strategy of the Government. For those reasons the Opposition has foreshadowed the following amendment: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that: (1) this Bill is part of a continuing pattern of failure by the Hawke Government to face up to the need for adequate and timely adjustment of the economy; (2) this failure by the Hawke Government has heightened Australia's vulnerability to changes in world economic conditions at this time of crisis on world financial markets; (3) because the Government has squandered time and resources while persistently running Australia into massive debt, our national economic options are now so narrowly limited as to largely deprive us of independent options; and (4) the Government no longer has the scope to protect jobs, to stop the prospective rise in unemployment, to stem the continuing rise in numbers of Australians living in poverty or to protect the position of families more generally; and therefore calls of the Government to revise its fiscal, labour market, taxation and other micro-economic policies with a view to providing a more appropriate economic framework to meet our current economic and social dangers''. I draw the attention of the Senate to the words `social dangers'. The Opposition is not just discussing economic matters in this debate: Budgets are often thought to be just about arithmetic and figures but they also provide the framework and structure within which our society operates under the impact of the Government. The social dangers are just as real as the economic dangers facing this country. The two cannot be separated. Last weekend the editorial in the Weekend Australian was interesting reading. It was headed: `The World we have known since 1945 is ended'. I seek leave to table the editorial of the Weekend Australian. Leave granted. Senator SHORT —I table the document. The editorial makes some pertinent points and, in essence, it states: Although the United States has brought a prosperity to the Western world, the extent of which was unimaginable last century, this is unlikely to continue next century unless its own economy is strengthened. In the past 20 years, the Pacific region has arguably gained the most from the paternalism of the United States. The article also states: The United States supplied economic prosperity and then offered to defend it. That is, to defend our region of the world and indeed the free world as a whole. The editorial then makes the point that the financial crisis of recent weeks has shown that our region of the world `can no longer presume that the United States will continue in this role or will even want to'. The editorial also states: Faced with its own economic decline, the US may one day have to renege on its commitment to defend Japan, West Germany and South Korea. The editorial then refers to the defence and balance of power implications in the region and all the related matters. No doubt, the world that we have known since 1945 has changed. At present it is in the process of very rapid change. I believe we are now on the threshold of seeing a change in the balance of economic power in the world and, therefore, other power shifts will have enormous implications for us, for our region, and for the world as a whole as we move towards the twenty-first century. It was for that reason that Senator Stone, in introducing the debate yesterday-and I shall repeat the words because they are what the debate is all about-said: It is the tragedy of this Government and of Australia under this Government that it has frittered away 4 1/2 years of office, particularly the last three years of office, without putting to right the fundamentals of our public finance and our balance of payments, and without attempting to break the growth of our international debt. Because of all those failures, the Government is now helpless in the face of economic events bearing down on us and Australia will be tossed around in the wake of those events. The reason we have a continuation of those very problems is that the economic policies pursued by the Government, including the policies that were followed in the latest Budget, seem to take no cognisance of the major fundamental changes and the major fundamental dangers that are facing us and our region of the world. In releasing his Budget this year, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) waxed absolutely euphoric about the great virtues of his Budget. The Australian media picked this up and it was conned in the most disgraceful way. Very few of the journalists managed to escape and to point out the reality of the situation; one journalist was Terry McCrann from the Melbourne Herald whose recent article, which should be compulsory reading for all of us, is headed `Sycophants of Keating delude us all'. What McCrann was saying in that article was that the Government had conned the media and, therefore, in the short term the public, into believing that we had a Budget that was appropriate for our times. It was helpful to find that not all members of Mr Keating's Government believed him. One of the major architects of the Budget, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, was not conned; he made some very pertinent comments following that Budget. For example, the week after the Budget had been released he said: I'm worried that the Budget has been oversold and it will make the public and the Government complacent and think that we can slip back into our old slothful ways and we don't have to worry any more. Senator Walsh also sounded, quite rightly, warning bells over the deep-seated problems in the economy. He pointed out that if we did not get our act together, we could well have the International Monetary Fund knocking on our door. He also hit out at the lack of what he termed political courage shown by his own Government in the social welfare area, by repeating a statement that he made at the Australian Labor Party Conference last year. He said-- Senator Walsh —I didn't say anything about social welfare. That is your prejudices. You are putting the words in my mouth. Senator SHORT —I will quote the Minister. He said: I can think of 200 programmes that are not justified on social or equity grounds, but will not be abandoned because the Government does not have the political courage to do so. Was the Minister not talking about social welfare-type programs? We on this side of the House have been waiting for the last two months for him to tell us what those 200 programs are. I look forward, in due course, to hearing what they are. A few days before the Budget, the Minister made another worthwhile statement. He said: I fear . . . that though we have been going in the right direction we have not been moving as quickly as the externally imposed circumstances demand. So there is confusion and disagreement on the Government side of the Parliament as to the appropriate economic policy to be followed. Senator Walsh has made his position clear. He does not think that the Government is going too well at all. Other very notable people in the community would agree with him. Professor Heinz Arndt from the Australian National University, said in a letter to the Australian Financial Review on 21 September, just a few days after the Budget, that the Budget reaction that had been brought about by the media was at odds with reality. He pointed out that if confidence in the economy should wane, the capital flowing into Australia would cease, that it probably would flow out, and that we would have a compounding of the enormous current account and balance of payments problem that we have. How right Professor Arndt was. A month afterwards precisely what he had feared came to pass with the stock market crash. The Director of the Centre for International Economics in Canberra and former chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and a very well respected economist, Dr Andy Stoeckel, said recently that the Australian economy was in terrible shape and faced recession. Again, how prescient that remark has proved to be. After 4 1/2 years of the Hawke Government we now have a tax burden which has increased inexorably in each of those years. As a country we now have the heaviest tax burden that we have ever had. As Senator Bishop remarked earlier this evening, over the last four years of the Hawke-Keating Government we have had no less than 17 new taxes imposed. That does not include, of course, the enormous increases in tax revenue within the whole multitude of other taxes. We have had an enormous hike in the tax burden to fund an ever-growing appetite by government for more and more government expenditure. Although, again, some members of the economic and financial media have given the Government plaudits over its last two Budgets for reining in growth in expenditure-and that is very questionable-all the Government has done in the last two years is try to pull back a little of the enormous blow-out of spending that occurred in its first two Budgets, a blow-out in spending which has left the economy weakened and much less capable of dealing with the international economic problems that are flowing over and around us at the moment than should have been the case. We have had also-and these aspects are related-an enormous interest rate burden on investor and consumer alike. We have had an enormous blow-out in our national debt-that often does not get much attention because the foreign debt problem gets the headlines-at the Federal Government level alone over the last four years of a further $25 billion. Our foreign debt has blown out since this Government came to office, in gross terms, from $35 billion to $110 billion. Even if we net that to take account of our holdings of assets overseas, the increase is still from $21m to $85m, a four-fold increase. In terms of the increase in expenditure that I was referring to, the increase in government spending has been very significantly understated because the spending financed by fees and charges is not shown in the Budget as a gross figure. Expenditure figures are netted out for that spending. Fees and charges collections, and the expenditure to match that, have grown since the last year of the Fraser Government, 1982-83, when the figure was $1.7 billion, to the estimate for this year, 1987-88 of no less than $4.1 billion. So the implication is that the real level of increase in government spending has been significantly understated. I have only a minute or so before the adjournment so I would just like to say that whilst being critical of the Government we on this side of politics do need to present our views on what should be done. We have done that consistently over the past four years that we have been in Opposition. We have said that it is essential that an environment for investment and job creation be provided and the economic imperative is for greater incentive and an increase in productivity. The only way to achieve that is to have a totally different mix of fiscal, monetary and wages policies from what this Government is following. We must reduce the level of taxation and the overall tax burden. To do that we must reduce government spending. Senator Walsh uses the terms `voodoo economics' and `Reaganomics'. We are talking about a sustainable reduction in taxation enabled by expenditure reductions. We are not talking about trickle down economics and what Senator Walsh has been saying of the Opposition's economic policy is just a pack of lies. We need a reduction in the level of interest rates. We have to tackle the wage inflexibility which has retarded our economic growth for decades. We must lower our cost structure to industry through increased competition and through decreased regulation, and we must increase our productivity. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(7.30) —I am aware of the limitations on time. I am in a hurry to get away, as is everybody else, so I will not keep the Senate very long. I read an article on page 1 of the Canberra Times today which attracted my attention. The article by Karen Harbutt is headed `Hollow-head bullets now in police use'. I quote a couple of short paragraphs from that article: All Australian Federal Police should now be carrying the ``shoot-to-stop'' hollow-headed bullets in their 38-calibre revolvers, replacing a bullet which police say was unsafe. The article continues further down: Anyone struck by the bullet will sustain greater injuries than they would have if struck by the solid-head projectile, formerly used by the AFP, because of the mushrooming effect impact has on the bullet. But police say it is because of that that the bullet is . . . safer . . . I am not arguing whether that is true. I think perhaps it is but I am aware that hollow-headed bullets, or as they are colloquially known, dumdum bullets, do cause individuals greater injury than normal bullets that might pass through one of the limbs, for example. I spoke on this matter in the Senate some time ago. I just wonder where Australian society is going. In most of the major capital cities of this nation these days we see police on point duty, on traffic duty, wandering through the cities, carrying guns. When I see this I am forced to ask the question: Is Australia a violent society and is the carrying of guns by police necessary? I further ask: Has Australia become less violent since police started openly wearing firearms in public? Has Australia become safer since police first started wearing firearms in public? Also, we have to address a couple of other questions. Has the wearing of firearms by police forces across the country encouraged greater use of firearms in our society by those who seek to break our laws? I finally ask: Where are we going when we have to see this happening in our society today? As the arming of our police forces and other forces continues, where will it all end? Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.33 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1987 No. 3. Public Service Act-Determinations 1987 Nos 79, 105-108. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 7) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 18 September 1987: Has Australia ratified International Labour Organization Convention 107 on Tribal and Indigenous Populations; if not, why not, and will the Australian Government consider doing so in 1987, the 30th Anniversary of this Convention. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia has not ratified International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 107. In recent years ILO Convention 107 on Tribal and Indigenous Populations (1957) has attracted adverse criticisms in various forums because it contains a number of outmoded concepts, especially the emphasis on integration. The ILO now considers that revision of the Convention is necessary, in particular to shift the Convention's emphasis from the objective of integration to that of respect for the identity of indigenous populations. This view is consistent with the Australian Government's policy of recognizing the fundamental right of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to retain their identity and traditional life style, where desired. Australia has not ratified the Convention because of the outmoded concepts it contains. However, we have been active in the processes developed by ILO to review the Convention. Australia played a central role at the Meeting of Experts on the Revision of Convention 107 in Geneva in September 1986. The ILO Governing Body in November 1986 decided to include the revision of the Convention on the agenda of the International Labour Conference in 1988 and 1989. The Australian Government supports the revision of the Convention and will work towards a revised text which can attract the broadest possible support. A revised Convention should be adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 1989, after which it would be open to competent national authorities to ratify. (Question No. 74) Senator Reid asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 6 October 1987: (1) Under what authority is the Interdepartmental Committee on fees and allowances for clinical fees and allowances for clinical psychologists established. (2) Are clinical psychologists salaried professionals, do they contract their services to the Commonwealth, or what other arrangements exist for the provision of their services. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Interdepartmental Committee on Fees and Allowances (IDCFA) was established in 1949 by the then Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. J. B. Chifley. The Committee makes recommendations to the Ministers for Community Services and Health, Finance and Industrial Relations on matters relating to the payment of fees and allowances to private medical, dental and allied health practitioners who render services on behalf of Commonwealth Departments and Authorities. (2) Clinical psychologists are employed by a number of Departments as salaried professionals under the Public Service Act. Private clinical psychologists also provide services on a fee for service and/or sessional basis. Sessionally engaged clinical psychologists may also be employed by a university or similar institution and work part time for Commonwealth Departments. Senator Walsh —On 8 October 1987 (Hansard, page 854), Senator Chaney asked Senator Button, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, the following question without notice: Is the Minister aware of the settlement which followed the recent protracted strike on the North West Shelf project? Does he agree that this appears to be the case of the unions using their industrial muscle to force employers to concede wage increases which are way outside the wage principles? Is the Government planning to intervene in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings expected later this week to consider the settlement, in order to ensure that the wage principles are adhered to? Will the Government push the very strong views just expressed by the Minister for Finance and ensure that only wage rises which are in accordance with the wage principles are granted? In Senator Button's reply he undertook to obtain an update from the Minister for Industrial Relations on the basis of the nature of the (North West Shelf) agreement and provide an answer as soon as possible. The Minister has provided the following response: The Government is aware that a strike on the North West Shelf construction project was settled following an agreement reached between the parties on 21 September 1987. The Government understands that as part of the settlement package, the parties would refer the agreement to the Western Australian and Federal industrial tribunals. The package was subsequently ratified by an Anomalies Conference of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC) on 16 October 1987, operative from that date. WAIRC Anomalies Conference involve representatives from the Confederation of Western Australian Industry, Australian Mines and Metals Association, Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia and the Western Australian Government's Office of Industrial Relations, in addition to the direct parties. As the package is being properly processed in the appropriate industrial tribunals, there is no need for Government intervention.