Thursday, 19 November 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind honourable senators that at 11.30 a.m. today in King's Hall the Speaker and I will be officially launching the Parliament's education kit for schools. I invite those honourable senators not involved in the business of the chamber at the time to attend the launch. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 119 citizens), Bishop (from 20 citizens) and Jones (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Numbering system. by Senator Alston (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution so that the Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future-including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and-to care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including-to prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 42 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 Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Alston (from 635 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That changes to the Defence Service Home Loans Scheme will have the effect of reducing existing benefits to Servicemen and Veterans and are therefore to be condemned. 2. That the results of a review of the scheme should be published by the Government. 3. That the Scheme should be amended to increase the amount of the loan, speed up the processing of loans, and widen the eligibility to include all Servicemen by way of recognition of their service to Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reynolds (from 1,916 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) Notes with concern the prospect of the BHP's Port Kembla steelworks being closed because of continued industrial disruption that has reduced productivity to disastrous levels far lower than existed before the company invested $800m in new plant and equipment over the last three years under the Government's steel industry plan; (b) further notes that the allegations of `union bashing' have been the only governmental responses to continued warnings from the Opposition that while the company and taxpayers have met their multi-million dollar obligations under the steel industry plan, the unions have refused to do so, as the last two annual reports of the Steel Industry Authority have testified; (c) notes that the company itself is now reported to have advised the Government that it believes the Government has not done enough to drive home to the unions involved in the recent spate of industrial disputation at the plant the message that their actions could lead to the closure of Port Kembla steelworks and that the Government must make a greater effort to bring the dissident local union cronies at Port Kembla under control; and (d) calls on the Government immediately to take appropriate action to ensure that unions meet their obligations under the Steel Industry Plan in order to prevent the closure of the steel industry in Port Kembla which is not only the lifeblood of the Illawarra region but is a major contributor to Australia's embattled balance of payments both through both import replacement and export earnings. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I seek leave to have the list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Soil Conservation Advisory Committee-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to Section 19 of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act 1985. 2. Cotton Research Council-Annual Report 1986-87-Pursuant to Sub-section 30 (5) of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 3. Assessment of the Australian Road System: 1987-Federal Bureau of Transport Economics-Report 61. 4. Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract-Final Report November 1987. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, and for related purposes. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I table the explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill relates to a decision announced in the Budget context concerning Australian Airlines' superannuation arrangements. Australian Airlines is currently the only approved authority under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme which is exempt from full cost recovery of employer contributions. This situation has been seen by other approved authorities as resulting in inequitable treatment. The Australian National Airlines Commission will be required to meet the full accruing costs in relation to those of its employees who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. The change has an effective date of 1 July 1987. From that date the Commission will therefore be treated in the same manner as all other authorities in respect of the employer costs of providing superannuation benefits to employees who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. At present, section 32E of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 exempts the Commission from the provisions of the Superannuation Acts 1922 and 1976 that require approved authorities to meet the full employer costs of benefits. The section also in effect limits the employer costs in respect of Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme members to level which applies to Australian Airlines' Ground Staff Superannuation Scheme. The amendments proposed in this Bill will continue the exemption from the relevant provisions of the Superannuation Act 1922 to make it clear that the Commission has no further liability in respect of employees whose service ceased before 1 July 1976. However, the Commission will become liable to meet the full costs accruing from 1 July 1987 in respect of benefits payable under the Superannuation Act 1976. An actuarial assessment will be made of amounts that will become payable to persons becoming beneficiaries after 30 June 1987 in respect of their service after that date. It will then be determined what fortnightly employer contributions the Commission should make to the Consolidated Revenue Fund that will provide, with an allowance for imputed interest, for those benefits. An arrangement under subsection 159(2d) of the Superannuation Act 1976 will then be entered into whereby the Commission will be required to make the necessary payments. It is estimated that the Commission's employer contributions will be increased by $4.9 million in 1987/88 as a result of the changes announced. This increased cost was taken into account in setting the ANAC's dividend for 1986/87, which is payable this financial year. An effective date of the 1 July 1987 is provided for under transitional provisions in the Bill. Action relating to the calculating of the Commission's liability and the entering into of an arrangement for payments will be regarded as having effect from that date. Payments made from 1 July 1987 under the provisions now being omitted will be treated as made under section 159 of the Superannuation Act 1976. It is also made clear that the Commission will not be required to make employer contributions in respect of a period of service before 1 July 1987. I commend the Bill to honourable senators and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: 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. Motion (by Senator Short) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides for amendments to the Flags Act 1953 which designates the familiar Blue Ensign as the Australian national flag and empowers the Governor-General to appoint, by proclamation, other flags and ensigns of Australia. The Bill is identical to that introduced into the Senate in 1984 by Senator Peter Durack. That Bill was passed by the Senate early in 1985. On transmittal to the House of Representatives, however, its progress was thwarted by the Hawke Government and it was not debated. The double dissolution of the Parliament in June 1987 removed the Bill from the House of Representatives Notice Paper. The reintroduction of the Bill is designed to rectify that situation. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent changes to Australia's national flag occurring without the prior consent of the Australian people through a referendum. The Australian national flag goes to the very heart and soul of our nationhood. It has a particular resonance in the hearts and minds of Australians-it is what helps us in having a sense of ourselves as part of the nation. We are a young nation, with few national symbols. The Hawke Government early in 1984 abandoned our national anthem, and replaced it with what until then had been a national tune, namely, Advance Australia Fair. Seventy per cent of the Australian people still do not know the words of the new anthem. The Government did not make known its intention to replace the previous anthem. There was no public discussion, and accordingly all debate was precluded. Australia's national flag is too important to the nation's spirit to allow what happened to the anthem to be repeated with the national flag without widespread debate, and public consent. National symbols provide a people with a sense of their roots, their history. They have a special meaning and significance. The degree to which national symbols gain meaning and significance among a people is partly derived from their longevity. Their place in the minds of a people evolve over time. It is the processes of history which breathe life into a nation's symbols, and it is history which provides us with a sense of direction for the future. Arbitrary replacement of Australia's national flag would seriously weaken our sense of national spirit. All the available evidence suggests that arbitrary replacement would cause widespread division and deeply felt reverberations for years to come. The Australian national flag has accumulated great meaning and significance over this century. This is clear when we observe its place in the nation's history. History In 1901, the year of Federation, the Barton Government conducted a competition to choose a national flag. 32,822 entries were submitted. The judges decided to divide the prize money of 400 pounds between 5 competitors. The statement read by the Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, on 3 September 1901 when Australia's national flag flew for the first time-from the Exhibition Building in Melbourne-includes the rationale behind the Judges' decision: . . . it was apparent (to the judges) that a Commonwealth flag, to be representative, should contain: The Union Jack on a blue or red ground; The six pointed `star' representing the six federated States of Australia, immediately under the Union Jack and pointing direct to the centre of St George's Cross, and of a size to occupy the major portion of one quarter of the flag; The Southern Cross in the flag as being indicative of sentiment of the Australian nation. In November 1901 the flag, together with another flag which incorporated the Union Jack in the top left hand corner, were submitted to King Edward VII. On 20 February 1903 the King announced his choice of the flag now known as the Australian national flag. In 1908 a minor alteration was made-a seventh point was added to the Commonwealth star to symbolise the Territory of Papua which had been recently acquired. Over time this seventh point came to represent all of the Commonwealth Territories. The National Symbol Attempts to change the flag are attempts to rid ourselves of our British heritage. It is not the star of federation to which supporters of a change to the national flag take umbrage; nor is it the Southern Cross which symbolises our geographical location. It is the Union Jack that is the target of the attack on the Australian flag, because this symbolises our British heritage. It is precisely the presence of the Union Jack, however, which symbolises the origins of our institutions that guarantee our freedoms which have been, and still are, the source of much of Australia's greatness. When we delve into our history it is evident that Australia is extremely fortunate to have been settled by the British, a nation that possessed the best legal and political institutions in the world. Indeed, at that time these institutions were the envy of other nations. It is not the origin of Australians that the Union Jack is symbolising. Rather, it is the origin of our legal, judicial and political institutions that is symbolised. British settlement brought with it our Westminster system of government which has served us so well. It has been the engine of political stability and cherished democratic freedoms. It is because of our British heritage that we are not forced to live under arbitrary and despotic rule. Equality before the law, the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence until proved guilty have been enshrined in the Australian way of life as a result of British settlement. All Australians, be they of British, European, Middle Eastern, Russian, American or Asian ancestry can feel pride in Australia's national flag. The guarantee of freedoms and rights under these political, legal and judicial institutions have been fostered and nurtured by successive generations of Australians. They have formed the basis of Australia's attraction for Australia's old and new immigrants. For those who have fled the arbitrary harshness and brutality of totalitarian and despotic regimes and those who come here to enjoy the opportunities and freedoms Australia offers, the Australian national flag is their symbol. Its symbolic significance has not been restricted to Australians of British origin. Popular acceptance of the flag gained momentum during both world wars when governments encouraged citizens to fly the flag over their homes, offices and factories. The depth of feeling for the flag is beautifully described in a passage of Mr Frank Cayley's book, Flag of Stars: The first Allied flag raised in Singapore after the Japanese surrender in 1945 was an Australian Ensign that had been made in secret by Australian prisoners of war. A small Union Jack, which had escaped discovery during the many searches made by the Japanese guards, was stretched on to the corner of some blue material `borrowed' from Japanese stores; handkerchiefs from Red Cross parcels provided the necessary white for the Commonwealth star and the stars of the southern Cross-and the flag was in readiness when news was heard by secret radio that Japanese surrender was imminent. When surrender came, the flag was raised over `X3' working camp at Bukit Panjang and later over AIF headquarters at Changi. Widespread acceptance of the national flag as our national symbol and standard has not been restricted to times of national crisis such as war. At the Olympic Games, regardless of where they have been held, Australian athletes and spectators have inevitably reached for the Australian flag to vent their pride. It is telling that at the closing ceremony of the last Olympics, Australian competitors broke ranks to circumnavigate the Los Angeles Coliseum carrying a giant Australian flag. Results of contemporary national opinion polls continue to register popular support. Most people do not want a change in their national flag. The Bill The Bill seeks to strengthen and reinforce the flag as the symbol and standard of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Government and our nation. These changes are necessary because as things stand any government can change the national flag virtually by executive fiat. That the Hawke Government has on its agenda replacement of the national flag is evident from the Labor Party's 1986 policy platform: In the context of the preparations or bicentennial celebrations, to initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian flag, national day and national anthem which will more distinctly reflect our national independence and identity. It is clear that members of the Labor Party do not understand the importance of national symbols. In 1985 the present Government provided funds for the campaign to change the national flag which went under the title of the Ausflag 88 campaign. The machinations of that campaign are instructive. They teach us two lessons. First, attempts to change the national flag will inevitably be divisive. The Ausflag saga aroused widespread controversy and heated debate culminating in the Labor Party backing down when the polls showed clearly that Australians did not want their flag replaced. Second, there is no alternative flag which can command widespread support. The Ausflag Committee itself was engaged in bitter internal wrangling and could not decide upon the winning entry. Even this small group could not settle upon a single replacement and the Committee was split in its final decision. That the present Government has done an about face on this issue is cold comfort. It is not because it understands the importance of national symbols, nor is it because it is no longer hostile to what the flag represents. It is simply a matter of pragmatism. When the opportunity arises then will be the time to strike, no doubt in a similar fashion to the technique used to replace the national anthem. A government which implements policies concerning the nation's cherished symbols solely on the basis of pragmatic and opportunistic considerations cannot be trusted. Any change to the Australian national flag without the endorsement of the people will constitute a loss in our sense of nationhood. Fortunately, the flag is prescribed by the Flags Act 1953 whereby the flag designated the `Australian national flag' can only be changed by legislation. However, the Act allows the Governor-General to `appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit'. Without consulting the people, therefore, the Government may advise the Governor-General to appoint other flags to replace the Australian national flag for specific national purposes. A different flag can be appointed as the flag flown at the Olympic Games, at the United Nations, or above government institutions. If sufficient `other flags or ensigns' were appointed the Australian national flag would be effectively replaced or undermined as the symbol of our nation. Accordingly, the Bill will effect the following changes: 1. `Other flags or ensigns' to be appointed by the Governor-General by regulation, not proclamation, so that the Parliament has an opportunity for review. 2. Prohibition of the appointment, upon the advice of the government, of `other flags or ensigns' as the standard for the Commonwealth of Australia, the government of the Commonwealth of Australia or of the Australian nation. 3. Referendum provision so that the Australian flag may not be altered or changed without a referendum on the matter. This Bill will avert any such attempts either to downgrade or replace the Australian national flag because it will ensure that any changes to the national flag must have the support of the people. Hopefully these amendments will guarantee that the flag continues to fly proudly over Australia as the symbol and standard of this country and its people. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(10.07) - I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows - BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984 to enable the implementation of transitional arrangements for the marketing of Australian produced crude oil from a regulated to a deregulated or free market. The Bill is part of a package of measures which includes amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984. The three Acts constitute the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Scheme. This scheme provides partial compensation to refiners for the cost of transport by sea or pipeline of allocated crude oil (Bass Strait crude oil purchased at Western Port in those volumes and at the import parity price determined by the Government) to their refineries for processing. The amount of compensation is based on the actual transport cost incurred by refiners in transporting their allocated oil from Western Port to their refinery. While the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act falls within the portfolio responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce, I shall also address the proposed amendment to that Act which is contained in this package of Bills. Under the existing marketing arrangements, refiners are subject to the requirements of the crude oil allocation scheme, under which they are obliged to lift over a calender year an average of 350 000 barrels a day of crude oil from Bass Strait and the total production of crude oil from other producing areas, excluding Jabiru. Each refiner is required to purchase a share of the total allocation obligations, with the share determined according to its market share of sales of specified petroleum products. Crude oil purchases are made at the prevailing import parity price for the relevant producing area. As announced on 21 June 1987 by the then Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, the Allocation Scheme will terminate on 31 December 1987 and be replaced by deregulated marketing arrangements from 1 January 1988. However it is possible that a number of refiners may not have lifted their share of 350 000 barrels per day-the 1987 target for Bass Strait crude oil-by 31 December 1987 and it is therefore necessary to implement some transition arrangements to ensure equity between all refiners. Refiners who are underlifted against their Bass Strait allocation obligations on 1 January 1988 will need to clear their underlift in 1988 before being permitted to purchase Bass Strait crude oil on the free market. This Bill provides for the continuation into 1988 of the collection of the Bass Strait coastal freight adjustment levy, at the same rate that will apply during December 1987. This levy, which is paid by producers, will only apply to liftings by refiners that have not met their allocation obligations and until such time as these obligations have been met. The Bill also provides for the Minister to set a nil rate of levy. This rate would be set after all refiners have met their liftings obligations and thus effectively terminate the scheme. Amendments to the other Bills in this package remove the liability from the producers to pay the levy on exports and free market sales after 1 January 1988, and for the disbursement of the funds in the Freight Adjustment Trust Fund that have been collected under these arrangements. It is envisaged that the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act and the other two associated Acts will be repealed in 1988, following finalisation of all outstanding payments. The Bill will have no direct financial impact on the Commonwealth. I present the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to Honourable Senators. BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The principal purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984 to enable the implementation of transitional arrangements for the marketing of Australian produced crude oil from the current Allocation Scheme to a deregulated or free market. The Bill is part of a package of measures which includes amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984. The amendments in this Bill are consequential on those to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill, the purposes of which I have previously addressed in relation to that Bill. The amendment contained in this Bill will remove the liability on the Bass Strait producers to pay the Bass Strait freight adjustment levy on all exports and free market sales of crude oil made on or after 1 January 1988. The Bill will have no direct financial impact on the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the Senate. BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT TRUST FUND AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984 to enable the implementation of transitional arrangements for the marketing of Australian produced crude oil from a regulated to a deregulated or free market. The Bill is part of a package of measures which includes amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act 1984 and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984. The amendments in this Bill are consequential to those of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill and the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Amendment Bill, the purposes of which I have previously addressed in relation to those Bills. The amendments contained in clauses 4 and 6 of this Bill, in conjunction with the proposed amendments to the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Act, provide a mechanism by which the Bass Strait producers will be deemed to have paid the levy on free market sales, including exports made on or after 1 January 1988. Clause 4 provides that where such amounts are deemed to have been collected then they are also deemed to have been paid into the Freight Adjustment Fund. The amendments contained in clause 6 of this Bill will allow disbursements from the Trust Fund to be made at the end of January 1988 to the Bass Strait producers on the basis of their exports and domestic free market sales during December 1987 and to those refiners that exported allocation sales of Bass Strait crude oil. Disbursements from the Trust Fund to refiners, on the basis of their purchases of allocation sales of Bass Strait crude oil, will be deferred until all refiners have met their 1987 Bass Strait allocation obligations. At that stage, the Minister shall set a nil rate of levy to apply to future sales of Bass Strait crude oil-which will effectively terminate the coastal freight adjustment scheme. The base period for the calculation of these disbursements from the Trust Fund to eligible refiners will be extended from 1 July 1987 to the month in which this nil levy rate is set, in accordance with clause 3, while the amounts paid to refiners will be made in accordance with the provisions of the new sections 8 and 9. Sub-clauses 6(3) and 6(4) also allow for any arrears of levy, that is amounts of levy that should have been paid in previous periods, to be paid into the Freight Adjustment Fund and for corresponding disbursements to be made to the relevant parties on the basis that would have applied if the arrears had been paid at the time the liability became due. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that no disbursements from the Freight Adjustment Fund will be made at the end of December 1987. Payments of the amounts that accrued during that month are to be made in accordance with the provisions of clause 6 as outlined above. The Bill will have no direct financial impact on the Commonwealth. I present the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to Honourable Senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Messages received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it had made amendments to the Bills as requested by the Senate. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave- read a third time. Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(10.10) —In speaking to Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No.1) 1987-88 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, I have to reflect on the priorities of this country. I say `this country' because I do not blame just this Government for the state we are in. It is the result of a succession of governments, not just this one. I come again to the issue of young people and the status of youth at the moment. This year is the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. I have already had words to say in the Senate on homelessness among young people but I will repeat some of my remarks, if just briefly. The status of young people in our society is worse now than it has ever been before. More young people are on the streets now, homeless, than there have ever been before. That is not being addressed satisfactorily by this Government or by any group in society. The other horrendous situation facing young people is youth suicide. One in seven deaths of young people between 15 and 19 years of age is a result of suicide. This figure should be pressing panic buttons throughout the community. But it seems that the matter has become a political football. Peter Shack, in the other place, proposed a national inquiry into youth suicide. For his trouble he was accused of politicising the issue. I remind the Senate that today is not a broadcast day. My raising the issue of youth suicide cannot be criticised as promoting suicide, as Peter Shack was accused of doing. For his pains of trying to raise the issue of youth suicide he was accused of promoting it by making the issue public. To address the problem of youth suicide calls for strong, united and bipartisan action. As I see it and from my experience as a youth worker, I know the figures on youth suicide are far greater than the bald statistics about young people who have deliberately attempted to take their lives. From my experience I know that a lot of drug related deaths and automobile deaths are disguised suicides. Young people are faced with profound despair. They have been marginalised, they are homeless; and they are unemployed. There have been no serious attempts to redress the problem of youth unemployment. There have been countless initiatives and the creation of lots of programs which have been nothing more than a reorganisation of current arrangements, but calling them something else. The net effect is to take unemployed young people out of the unemployment statistics and put them in other statistics about young people in courses. Too often I have seen the disillusionment and despair of young people who do these courses thinking that when they have finished they will get some employment but who find at the end of them that they have no greater chance of getting work than they had in the first place. So a concerted effort to find work for young people is needed. There is certainly no lack of ability to exploit young people financially and in other ways, and in commercials to try to sell consumer goods to them and to create the vision of a lifestyle of unlimited wealth and lots of fun. Yet in reality the prospects facing young people are quite gloomy. Not the least factor is young people's fear of nuclear war. Some have criticised the peace movement and its work in publicising the dangers of nuclear war as being responsible for some of the despair felt by young people, but I cannot see how pointing to danger can be in some way the cause of the danger. Because we point to the danger of nuclear war, that does not mean that we are creating the threat; it means that we are saying that something should be done about it. If young people have heard the message, as they have, we cannot be held responsible for the threat. Those who refuse to do anything constructive in the long term to avoid nuclear war must bear the responsibility. Homelessness, suicide, unemployment and marginalisation face young people today. They also face Aboriginal people, the original owners of this land, people who have been continually oppressed since the arrival of Europeans in this country. Aboriginal homelessness is worse now than it has been at any other time. Aboriginal deaths in custody continue relentlessly even though there is an inquiry into them at the moment. I congratulate the Government on appointing that inquiry. Unemployment amongst Aboriginal people is still horrendous. Aboriginal child mortality rates are still cause for shame. And still there has been no real effort to come to terms with the problems and to introduce concrete programs with achievable goals which will demonstrate that by the year 2000 Aboriginal people will have sovereignty, homes and an equal place in this society and that there will be a partnership between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the management of this continent. Instead of that all we have is talk of a compact. And still Aboriginal people die, still Aboriginal people are unemployed and still Aboriginal people are homeless. I turn to Australia's defence-or so-called defence-arrangements. The other day Senator MacGibbon talked about the need to project force and lamented that we could not project force in the region, meaning that we could not invade and take over some other country in the region if we wanted to. I would like to address the question of security and just what security means for ourselves and for the region. Security is more than military security. Security is more than just being safe from invasion or being in some way militarily weaker than some other nation. Security has a whole range of economic and social aspects. Security implies that there is justice. Peace without justice is impossible, and peace without security is impossible. Peace which is established through force is not security. One of the things that is militating against security is military expenditure. The other day Senator Vallentine, Senator Jenkins, Senator Sanders and I nailed an eviction notice to a door at the American Embassy to suggest that the Americans should remove themselves from Pine Gap. Senator McGauran —I do not think you were invited. Senator WOOD —We were not invited; we were deliberately not invited. We had formally written to the Ambassador, asking to meet him and present this petition to him. He wrote back in a very arrogant way and said that he knew our views and there was no point in meeting us. It is no surprise that Mr Beazley has given us the same sort of reply. So we decided to take the eviction notice to the Ambassador. It was nice to see that a friendly marine took the eviction notice from the door into the Embassy. Senator Jenkins —The Ambassador was very courteous. Senator WOOD —The Ambassador was very courteous. In his remarks to us over the barrier at the front of his place, he pointed out to us that the United States Government has been in deficit for years in order to police the world against terrorism. That is a remarkable statement for an ambassador to make. He admitted that the United States deficit is, in large part, the result of United States military spending. If we look at other places around the world, we will see that the foreign debts of most of the Third World countries are largely the result of their military spending. So not only is the United States in debt because of its military spending, but also it is exporting debt to the Third World. There is economic instability around the world as a result of debts and deficits. Our Government, with its deficit, is merely part of the trend; it has joined the trend. It has a fashionable deficit, like that of everybody else. It is only its commitment to a free market, to a deregulated financial market, that is becoming unique. While every other country is retreating into protectionism, our fashionable Treasurer (Mr Keating) is continuing to keep our doors open to financial and other exploitation. Military spending is responsible for a great deal of the economic instability facing the world today. Unfortunately, if we look at both sides of the Parliament, the only level of economic vision we can find is a real estate salesman level of economics-a pre-occupation with taxation and income. There is no sense of how economics is not the economics that is practised in the world; economics is power. The Bonds, the Holmes a Courts, Conzinc Riotinto and all the rest do not practice the sort of real estate salesman economics that our Treasurer and Senator Stone practice. That sort of economics is put together by academics and is grasped by real estate agents and used car salesmen. I do not denigrate the work that real estate agents and car salesmen do-they perform a valuable service-but the sorts of economics that are used to run a used car agency, a real estate agency or a farm for that matter are not the economics used to effect global change. Senator McGauran —Lay off the farmers. Senator WOOD —I compliment the farmers on the work they have done. It is the farmers who feed us; it is the farmers who have created a large part of the exports, so I am not knocking farmers. Farmers are workers like anybody else. The problem is that the large multinational corporations which are responsible for the economic direction of this Government and other governments have interests other than profitability. They are interested in survival and growth. A short term for a multinational corporation might be 10 years. So it might be in the interests of a large corporation to take a cut in its profitability for a while, to encourage smaller and less robust economic entities to go to the wall so that in the long term they get the advantage. That is power politics; that is not economics. Large corporations are quite happy to use bribery as a tool of their economic policy-witness the Japanese situation and the bribing of Prime Ministers and others. This is not the economics that Senator Stone and Senator Walsh argue about at length and very dryly in this place. It is politics and it is corruption. So economics is not a science; economics is political decision-making. We can look at the parlous state of many economies around the world, at Third World debt, at our debt and at the United States deficit which results from an attempt to gain power and to maintain it. The way it is protected is through nuclear war fighting strategies. Probably the nub of my message today is that our Government should get out of thenuclear war fighting strategies of other countries. Senator Vallentine moved an amendment to the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech. Certainly a lot of heat, if not light, was generated in the debate that followed in this place. We were told that our suggestion that the United States is planning for a limited nuclear engagement was crazy. We were told that everybody knows that once a nuclear war started it would be the end for all of us and that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union wanted that to occur. In fact, something quite different is occurring in nuclear strategy planning, and it has been for some time. The Western nations have moved away from the MAD doctrine - the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. The fundamental assumption of the MAD doctrine is that a nation's nuclear arsenal must provide a credible deterrent against attack by the other state. But just what is a credible deterrent? It is the achievement of overall superiority. The problem is how one decides who has overall superiority, especially considering that the Government of the United States for the last 15 years and more has lied to its own people and its allies. Every year, around US Budget time, we hear about yet another Soviet threat - it is going to be ahead in the number of bombers, in the number of short range missiles or in space research. These theories have all been postulated by the United States military to justify its own expansionism. Senator Hill — What about long range missiles? Senator WOOD — That is true of long range missiles as well. There is not one area of military and nuclear capability in which the Soviet Union is ahead of the United States. Senator Robert Ray — It certainly has more tanks. Senator WOOD — This question concerns its nuclear capability. Of course, when we do the Soviet Union versus the United States mathematics we do not take into account the military budgets of Great Britain, France and other countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). One of the areas in which the Soviet Union is ahead of the United States is in the number of soldiers it has deployed outside its own border - some 115,000 of those being in Afghanistan. The other side of that statistic is that the United States has soldiers in more places than the Soviet Union, so those comparative statistics are sometimes not terribly useful. As Senator Robert Ray has pointed out, for example, the Soviet Union has more tanks. But in global strategic terms, the US has always had the edge. The US now has the edge in the NUTS doctrine, in nuclear utilisation target selection. I think that it was probably a fairly whimsical person who put that acronym together to show that we have transcended MAD and now have become NUTS, but that is what has happened. The United States and the Western powers have moved to a situation of deliberate planning for the use of nuclear weapons. The US has placed more emphasis than the Soviets on a NUTS strategy and a first strike capability generally, and that has been so for more than a decade. In 1982 McNamara stated that within four to five years the United States would be ahead in its ability to wage a limited nuclear engagement. The whole point of NUTS is to win a first strike, which is to strike first and wipe out the other side's ability to fight back. In that sense, one's command structure and war fighting structure survive and one sustains less damage than one's counterpart. That is the thinking of a large number of the military in the United States and that is the direction in which its nuclear development has gone. Smaller and more accurate missiles, such as the MX, are designed for silo sized targets. We have moved away from holding cities as hostage. Soviet missiles are still fairly city size in their accuracy, in terms of what they are capable of targeting; whereas Western missile systems are now-- Senator Hill —That is not correct. The latest Soviet ballistic missiles are highly accurate. Senator WOOD —I am quite happy to give my sources to the honourable senator to show that the United States is far ahead of the Soviet Union in terms of the accuracy of its nuclear weapons. The point is not whether the United States is ahead or the Soviet Union is ahead. The fundamental and important point is that that is the direction in which nuclear strategies are heading. Senator Hill —You would move away from mass destruction surely. Senator WOOD —I am against mass destruction. Is the honourable senator suggesting that any sort of nuclear exchange will not lead to mass destruction? I suggest it is that thinking that is at large in the Pentagon. Being able to target more accurately does not mean reducing the size of the explosions one sends across, but that one can direct more accurately one's weapons of destruction. The problem is that once it starts, it does not stop. In that sense, the fundamentals of the MAD doctrine still apply, because once it starts, it does not stop. The United States has said often that it would not baulk at being the first to use a limited nuclear strike in Europe. It has threatened that, should the Soviets move outside of their borders in Europe, it would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons in Europe. Senator Hill —It has not said that. Senator WOOD —It has said that. I am quite happy to provide the evidence of that. The point of it all-- Senator Hill —The point of it all is that you are not putting equal pressure on the Soviet Union as you are seeking to put on the US. Senator WOOD —We do put equal pressure on the Soviet Union. Senator Hill —I have not heard a word of it today. Senator WOOD —The reason the honourable senator has not heard a word about the Soviet Union at the moment, and I did mention Afghanistan, is that- - Senator Hill —Yes, but you did not even say that Soviet troops ought to get out of Afghanistan. Senator WOOD —I think that Soviet troops should get out of Afghanistan. I think that the Soviets believe that too. I think that the Soviets should get out of Afghanistan and that the United States should leave Nicaragua alone. Nicaragua has a democratically elected government. The thrust of all of this is that the United States is pushing the direction of the nuclear race into one where it thinks that a nuclear war is thinkable and not unthinkable and where people will begin to think that a limited nuclear engagement is preferable to a full nuclear engagement, when the only proper course is total and absolute disarmament. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.40) —In this debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88 and cognate Bills most of my colleagues have spoken of the Government's failure in economic management. I endorse what they have said and endorse, in particular, our proposed amendment, which calls on the Government to revise its fiscal, labour market, taxation and other microeconomic policies with a view to providing Australia with a more appropriate economic framework to meet the current economic dangers. What I want to speak about today would appear to be a consequence of that failure of the Government in economic management coupled with what I would suggest is a lack of long term vision or resolve to take domestically difficult decisions. In relation to the Appropriation Bills I want to deal with this Government's foreign aid record and intentions. I want to direct some specific comments to that part of the aid program relating to the Philippines. We are part of a wider world community and there are those, many not far from our shores, who are not as well off as we are and who deserve our attention and support. Therefore, an aid program is usually-I make no excuse for it-based on humanitarian grounds. I guess the real test for humanity occurs when things start to become a little tight at home. I suggest that the program need not be based on humanitarian grounds alone but also can be based on pragmatic, self-interest grounds. I suggest that foreign aid can legitimately be considered an investment in our own security. In those terms, when we look at the appropriations and the attitude of this Government, we see that there is justification for real concern. It is fascinating that this Government, which has massacred the Australian aid vote and its reputation as an aid donor internationally, nevertheless accepts the rationale which I have just put. When one looks at the 1986 supplementary Budget Paper on foreign aid one finds that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) stated: Australia's foreign policy and bona fides were enhanced by our status as an aid donor. He then went on to explain that owing to the need for budgetary restraint foreign aid for 1986-87 was being reduced by $70m compared with aid for the previous year. The effect was to reduce aid in real terms to its lowest level in 20 years. When we look at the Third World we see that there is no more sure path than that leading from economic deprivation to political instability. In order to preserve our security and our way of life we expend, as we know, a great deal on the need to defend Australia but a much lesser sum on the prevention of the circumstances that might lead to that threat or the need for defence. By that I mean that the poverty and the failure of the very modest economic aspirations of our neighbours can create the environment from which further trouble can develop. Economic poverty renders the neighbour either vulnerable from within or vulnerable to pressures and influences from without. I guess that in relation to the Philippines both circumstances apply. In other words, I am saying that unfortunately this Government has said very publicly, for domestic political reasons, that charity begins at home. I suggest that as a result of so short-sighted an attitude, it fails the true leadership responsibility given it by the Australian people. Unfortunately, the picture gets worse. As a result of the 1987 May mini-Budget, Australia's foreign aid budget was cut by a further $20m. This will affect overseas student charges and bilateral and multilateral aid programs in 1987-88. The current level of official development assistance is only 0.36 per cent of gross national product (GNP), a drop in real terms of 3.4 per cent from the previous year. I remind the Senate that the target figure which is set by the United Nations and to which this Government claims it still directs its mind is 0.7 per cent. So Australia's level of assistance has been reduced to nearly half of the target figure. We have witnessed a real reduction of 20 per cent since 1984. It is interesting to note that of all the areas of government spending, foreign aid appears to have been subjected to the toughest cuts. This area has been made to bear a heavier share of the burden that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so often talks about. I believe that this is a major indictment of the Government and should be recognised as such by the literally hundreds of thousands of supporters of non-governmental aid agencies who work tirelessly in this field to help those who are not as well off as we are. Certainly, on the figures, this Government should be condemned. I want to put the self-interest argument which I mentioned in the context of the Philippines. Political stability in the Philippines is vitally important for Australia. Its position in the Association of South East Asian Nations, its geographical location on the major access route to Japan, its critical role as host to major United States bases in the wider Western alliance, all remind us of the importance of the Philippines to us. Yet, as we know, the Philippines remains vulnerable and its democratic government remains fragile. So much of that vulnerability results from economic deprivation that is caused by so many factors-from internal exploitation by the former Government and authorities through to the international price collapse of the Philippines' principal commodities. Whatever the cause, I am arguing that it remains in Australia's best interests to support Mrs Aquino and her Government in their attempts to overcome the economic deprivation because the very survival of that Government depends on the achievement of that goal. After more than a 13 per cent decline in GNP over 2 1/2 years, the Philippines achieved a rise in GNP of 5.53 per cent for the period June 1986 to June 1987. This improvement resulted mainly from a more vigorous industrial sector which expanded by nearly 10 per cent in that period. Despite this slight rallying of the economy, formidable economic problems continue to plague the Aquino Government. Lack of opportunity in the rural areas, where about 60 per cent of the people live on incomes below the poverty line, has obviously created a situation of uncertainty for the Government. Unemployment and underemployment affect almost 50 per cent of the work force. Filipinos witnessed a steady decline in their real incomes for five years before the slight turnaround that I mentioned a moment ago. The $28.6 billion foreign debt will, unfortunately, siphon off for debt service nearly 35 per cent of this year's expected earnings from the export of goods and services. Further, the more recent problems experienced by the Philippines as a result of the political destabilisation of the August attempted coup have had an adverse effect on investment and could affect anticipated future export growth. Continual labour unrest and illegal strikes have added to the current difficulties, all of which obviously contribute little to getting the economy back on its feet. I am arguing that it is in Australia's interest to help the Philippine economy get back on its feet. I readily accept we will not ever be a key player in that regard. I guess we experienced that when the Australian Government pledged to the Philippines Government that it would actively support international co-operation in rescheduling the Philippines' foreign debt in 1986, but in the end it found that there was no role for it to play in that eventual rescheduling. Unfortunately, the Australian Government's position to influence such decisions is very limited and that relates to the very small contributions that we are now giving to institutions such as the World Bank. We remain strong on rhetoric, but we are low on clout. Accepting that we will never be a key player, there is, nevertheless, an unfortunate tendency to take it one step further and say that because we will not be a key player it enables us to excuse ourselves from playing a role within our capacities. I would suggest that that excuse is unjustified. I was pleased that the Australian Government sent an aid mission to the Philippines in April 1986 with the purpose of looking at what areas aid should be directed. The report of that mission identified a number of areas. I will, very briefly, bring some areas to the Senate's attention. They are higher education, science, vocational and technical training-really all areas of training were found to be in need of support-selected aspects of agriculture and rural development; food security, particularly post-harvest handling and storage, which is something that we find is consistent with so many Third World countries. One needs only to remind oneself of the cost in Africa because of the lack of handling and storage facilities for grain. There are selected aspects of health, population, water supply and sanitation; selected aspects of energy; regional and provincial planning for development; and small and medium enterprise development. Those findings seem to be largely in accord with the findings also made by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in its report last year on Australian-Philippine relations. The test now is to assess how Australia is achieving progress in contributing to such areas. Although, regrettably, the information upon which to make that assessment tends to be more difficult to find than hens' teeth, on what I have been able to find it would appear that we are not going too well at all in our contribution. Mr Hayden outlined the strategy that he intended to adopt based on that aid report I have mentioned and he did so in a speech to the Queensland branch of the Australian Institute of International Affairs on 28 March 1986 and he repeated it in this Parliament on 12 and 13 March of that year. He referred to the following goals and guidelines. He said the first was to provide an input into the development of trade between the Philippines and Australia. This would appear to me to be the first area of failure because on any objective assessment this Government has done little to redress the imbalance of trade between Australia and the Philippines. I remind honourable senators that Australian exports to the Philippines were valued at over $200m in 1985-86, whilst we imported from the Philippines in the same period only $123m, little more than half of what we exported. This imbalance in bilateral trade has been described by the Department of Trade as a perennial irritant and there is no doubt about that. A few months ago the then Trade Secretary, Mr Conception, came to Australia with proposals seeking a preferential tariff reduction for his country because of its unique problems on a limited time basis. Senator Crichton-Browne —What country is that? Senator HILL —The Philippines. It would seem that his proposals, put in the best interests of his country-if honourable senators accept my argument, they were also in the best interests of this country-were dismissed. The Australian Government was to provide an extension of a revolving trade credit facility of $50m which was to have expired on 15 March 1986. From my research this also never eventuated. I suppose the most recent comments on the subject came from the Philippine Agricultural Minister, Mr Carlos Dominguez, who issued a number of sharply angled comments on his return to Manila after a visit to Australia in recent times in an attempt to redress this trade imbalance. Regrettably it seems that he received little support from the Australian Government in what I would argue is in the best interests of the Australian Government to pursue. He pushed for increased importation by Australia of Philippine coconut oil, coffee and cocoa, garments, tuna and prawns, but this Government does not seem to have taken any action that would facilitate that very worthwhile objective. The second area that Mr Hayden referred to where he would be ensuring that his Government achieved something in the best interests of the Philippines was a continuation and acceleration of existing projects. It would seem that there has been a continuation of the major projects to completion, such as the Zamboanga project and the near completion of the Samar project, but there is no evidence at all of any acceleration of these projects or any other projects in the best interests of the Philippines and, therefore, the Government has failed to live up to and achieve the goal that it set in that regard. Mr Hayden also spoke of the Government's intention to provide increased education assistance particularly through training in Australia. I need hardly remind the Senate that two areas in which the Government has reduced funding have been training support and student subsidies. Overall, overseas student subsidies have dropped from $98.6m in 1984-85 to $85.2m in 1987-88, while training support dropped from $5.9m in 1985-86 to $5.2m in 1987-88. In the case of the Philippines, training assistance dropped from $1.7m in 1985-86 to $1.5m in 1986-87. The overseas student subsidy fell from $624,000 in 1985-86 to $596,000 in 1986-87. So the Government has blatantly failed in that stated objective which Mr Hayden put to the Parliament in relation to increased education assistance through training. The fourth point that he made in stating the Australian Government's intention to help the Philippines was that there would be studies to lay the foundation for longer term expansion which he said will compose, in the main, projects directed at helping poor, rural and urban groups and promoting equitable economic development. I have said that to try to find information on what is happening in relation to studies is almost impossible, but on what I have been able to get to date there is very little evidence of either success or significant contribution in this area. The fifth point Mr Hayden made was a possible meeting of requests from the Government of the Philippines for the provision of balance of payments by providing support in key sectors, such as energy. This is an area in which Australia can obviously provide support, particularly in the provision of coal which would not only be materially beneficial to this country but would also significantly help the Philippines in overcoming or reducing its balance of payments problem. But again it appears that nothing has eventuated. This Government is strong on rhetoric, but when it comes to action to put the rhetoric into effect it is regrettably failing once again. Mr Hayden also referred to Australian assistance in aid co-ordination. He said that Australia had offered a venue for meetings of the consultative group on aid to the Philippines. This is another area that, on my research, would appear not to have been pursued. I will give credit to the Government for having met one of its promises. In 1986 Mr Hayden said, on visiting the Philippines, that we would increase our aid by 50 per cent, from the 1985-86 figure of $17m to $25m in 1986-87. This the Government has done. But I fear for the future because the increase in aid was couched in terms such that it depended on the economic circumstances of Australia. As I think I have demonstrated, this Government has been very ready to use the economic difficulties that we face in Australia to justify reductions in aid. As I understand it, on the indicative planning figures that are available it would appear that the Government is looking towards a downturn in the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. So it has built up the aid figure to $35m for 1988-89 but I am told that the estimate for the following year is that it will be reduced to $28m and, for the year following that, a further reduction to some $13m is likely. If this occurs, not only will it be detrimental for the Philippines but also, on my argument, it will be detrimental to the interests of this country. The needs of the Aquino Government are as vital now as they were when Mrs Aquino came to government, and arguably they are even more critical because time is running out. In summary, I urge the Australian Government, not only for humanitarian reasons but also in the interests of Australia, to keep up our aid contribution and our support for the Philippines, at least in real terms. I urge the Government also to test the application of that aid against the very reasonable objectives that were set out in the aid review. I urge the Government to provide leadership, which it has failed to do to date, to rectify the trade balance that we have with the Philippines, and to provide more public information in order that those interested in this matter might more constructively be able to monitor progress and provide advice. As Cardinal Sin of the Philippines reminded us in this very building only a few weeks ago, many Filipinos put their lives on the line for the chance to live under a system of democratic freedom which we so cherish in this country. I would suggest that they deserve our support. A stable, democratic Philippines is very much in the best interests of Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.03) —In speaking on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 I wish to place on the record my comments about the Federal Government's 1987-88 Budget. I wish to look at the deficit figure and I will then turn to the revenue and outlay figures which make it up. I also intend to compare the Budget that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Government have presented to us with the present state and needs of the Australian economy as I see them. The Treasurer has been acclaimed for delivering to Australia a virtually balanced Budget. According to his assessment the Budget deficit will be only $27m this year. Brian Frith of the Australian said: On balance, it really does exceed all expectations. Frith, like many other journalists, applauded what he termed `a zero deficit'. If that were the truth of the matter, let me say unequivocally that, while I consider it to be decidedly less than the Government ought to have achieved, I would congratulate the Government for being so bold thus far. Of course, the Budget deficit is the result of fudges and rubbery figures. These fudges totally undermine the Government's claim that the Budget is balanced. Perhaps superficially the most obvious and glaring fraud in the Budget is that the Commonwealth plans to sell $1,000m worth of assets and to deduct the money that it receives from the amount it claims to be spending. This Commonwealth Government goes out and spends $79,146m, sells $1 billion worth of assets and then uses the money. It then comes back to the people of Australia and says that it has outlaid only $78,146m. It simply takes off $1 billion from the outlays and says that it has not outlaid that money-but, of course, it has. It is precisely the same as a family spending $20,000 in a year, selling the family car for $5,000 and trying to pretend that it has spent only $15,000. It is absolute nonsense. I do not care what the Treasurer says about whether it is acceptable accounting for governments-and this Government has double standards by any measure-because it is certainly not acceptable and no person could be expected to operate in such a fashion. Honourable senators could imagine what a bank manager would say if one took those balance sheets into a bank seeking an overdraft. It is no wonder that our credit ratings have now been downgraded by the two major credit agencies. Likewise, the Commonwealth cannot sell assets to finance public consumption. On 26 November 1985 Senator Peter Walsh, when referring to the South Australian election, said in this place: Mr Olsen says that he will fund his tax cuts by selling assets. That is another way of saying that he will liquidate assets to fund current expenditure. Senator Walsh went on to say: We all know where that road leads. If one keeps going down that road for long enough, one finishes up insolvent. If we substitute `current expenditure' for the words `tax cuts', that warning applies precisely to the Commonwealth and the Government of which Senator Walsh is a Minister. It can be seen already that the deficit is not $27m, as is claimed, but on that arithmetic alone it is at least $1,027m. But there is more. The Commonwealth Government has also fudged a profit figure from the Reserve Bank of Australia. Last year the Government received a large profit windfall from the Reserve Bank which came predominantly from currency transactions during the period when the Australian dollar was particularly volatile. On page 354 of Budget Paper No. 1 we find the statement that the profits reflected a substantial increase in realised gains from the sale of foreign currency. Budget Paper No. 1 states that the profits of the Reserve Bank: . . . can vary substantially from year to year, depending on the current state of monetary policy and market factors, particularly movements in the interest rate and the exchange rate. By way of comparison, in 1982-83 the Reserve Bank's profit was $663m; in 1983-84 its profit was $746m. Last year it was an extraordinary $2,934m. As I have said, the profit has been due, of course, to currency movements. It is acknowledged in the Budget Papers themselves as being subject to large variations. One has to ask: What should an honest and prudent government include as expected profit figures when drawing up its Budget? The profit for the Reserve Bank this year will be almost $3,200m, which is a further and substantial increase on that which it achieved last year. It is an increase of slightly more than 9 per cent on last year's figure. Either that figure will not be realised or the Government is impliedly telling us that it expects the Australian dollar to devalue even further, even more substantially, than it has in the past. Certainly on the recent performance of the dollar we could be forgiven for thinking that this was the Government's intention. However, if Reserve Bank profits fall to something more like their historic levels we could add at least another $1,000m on to the deficit for this year. Clearly, the claimed $27m deficit is wrong. It is unsoundly based on the use of money from assets sales and it depends upon substantial profits from the Reserve Bank in the unpredictable area of foreign exchange transactions. It will be no surprise to people familiar with this Government that it has relied more heavily on increasing the taxation it collects than on pruning its own expenditure. Taxation revenue is expected to rise again this year by 8.5 per cent. Of course, the Government again will rely on taxation by stealth or on increases through bracket creep as a means of increasing the income tax take. I have a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library which indicates the number of people who will cross into higher tax brackets over the next three years, on the assumption that the income tax scales do not change-that seems highly unlikely in the present economic circumstances-and that average weekly earnings increase at 6.9 per cent, which is the rate over the period of the Hawke Government. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- BRACKET CREEP: 1986-87 TO 1989-90 Estimated number of new entries to bracket Bracket $p.a. Year 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 Total over three years 12 601-19 500... 185,884 161,487 167,678 515,049 19501-35 000... 359,529 294,342 280,484 934,355 35 001 plus... 211,475 167,509 238,929 619,913 Note: Based on 1984-85 taxable incomes. Incomes inflated by 12.7% to 1986-87, and by 6.9% per annum for each subsequent year. Average annual increase in A.W.E. since March Quarter 1983 is 6.9%. Calculations do not allow for growth in the Labour Force since 1984-85. Assumes no changes to tax scales after 1 July 1987. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. The table shows that if there are no scale changes more than two million people who are already paying tax will cross into a higher bracket. This does not include the people currently below the threshold who will be compelled to pay tax for the first time. In 1987-88 alone, almost three-quarters of a million people will cross over into higher tax brackets, with a consequent reduction in the real value of their take home pay. This is how the Treasurer will find some of the revenue he needs to fund this Budget. It will come off the backs of the ordinary Australian workers. Recognising these facts, it really rubs salt into the wound that, after the Budget, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) revealed in a moment of rare, frank honesty that there are something like 200 areas where expenditure reductions could have occurred but this Government did not have the political or intestinal fortitude to take the appropriate, necessary, in fact, imperative, action. There are other matters about the revenues which I wish to discuss. These are the capital gains tax, interest rates and the fringe benefits tax. In the last Budget, receipts generally were $910m in total greater than expected. Tax receipts from non-pay as you earn income earners were $982m higher than estimated. I hazard a guess as to where a large part of that money might have come from. Until recently, as almost every citizen knows, the stock exchange has been very much on an upward trend. The all ordinaries index, between June 1986 and June 1987, rose from 1,180 to 1,765, a rise of something like one-third. It would not surprise me if a significant amount of the increased revenue the Government has received has been through capital gains taxes levied on successful share speculation. That tax on share speculation is the same tax which has already been levied. As we all know, the Australian stock exchange has recently taken a dramatic fall. A very lucrative source of capital gains tax revenue has been stopped dead in its tracks. One might expect a prudent government to have assumed that the market would not keep rising and the Government might reasonably have been expected to be cautious with its revenue estimates from that source. Yet, with the exception of withholding tax, there is not one category of income taxation in which the Government estimates a rise of less than 6.5 per cent. In the classification under which capital gains earners could fall, the Government is budgeting for more than a 10 per cent increase. With the fall in the share market, the same capital gains simply are not there to be made. In fact, the Government is likely to have people seeking deductions for the losses they have made in the recent spectacular fall of the share market. Government estimates of revenue from capital gains must now be considered to be very rubbery, to say the least. The Treasurer has also acknowledged in a statement in the Commonwealth Record of June and July this year that there has been an exceptionally large increase in the number of provisional taxpayers, reflecting, I imagine, a large increase in interest earnings. We have been told that there will be an interest rate fall. People who pay provisional tax are estimated in the same Budget figure as capital gains earners where, as I have already said, an increase is expected. I cannot tell what the future will hold but it seems to me that the Treasurer has banked on increased revenue from areas prone to fluctuation. His figures are looking shakier by the minute. As was predicted, the fringe benefits tax has proven to be a major impost on business. The Government raked in $535m from the fringe benefits tax, which was $210m above and beyond that which the Government expected and budgeted for. My opposition to that form of taxation is well known. Now is not the time to canvass it extensively. I simply seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two tables from Appendix 3 of the Budget Papers, which will reveal which areas the fringe benefits tax is hitting the most and how much tax is being paid. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1: FRINGE BENEFITS TAX BY TYPE OF BENEFIT Type of Benefit No. of Taxpayers No. of Employees (b) Tax Payable ($m) Per cent of Total (a) Motor Vehicles ... 88 416 433 170 247.3 46.2 Low Interest loans ... 4 205 168 600 87.3 16.3 Expense Payment ... 12 877 n.a. 58.8 11.0 Housing ... 8 017 105 650 49.6 9.3 Board ... 1 723 36 560 8.5 1.6 Living-Away-From Home allowances ... 701 21 750 8.4 1.6 Airline Transport ... 441 37 630 3.4 0.6 Property (Goods) ... 747 32 190 6.0 1.1 Debt Waiver ... 190 3 300 5.8 1.1 Entertainment ... 1 342 n.a. 3.7 0.7 Other Benefits ... 4 678 n.a. 23.6 4.4 Not allocated (a) ... 10 200 n.a. 32.8 6.1 TOTAL ... 105 653 n.a. 535.2 100.0 (a) Includes those returns where information by type of benefit was not provided and estimate of number of cases where annual return data has not yet been processed. (b) For motor vehicle and housing fringe benefits, figures given are for number of vehicles and number of dwellings respectively. All figures are estimates based on the tax paid for each type of benefit, as shown in the next column, and the average tax payable per `employee' obtained from returns with all the necessary information. Table 2: FRINGE BENEFITS TAX BY AMOUNT OF TAX Tax Liability No. of Taxpayers Tax Payable %$m % $1-$99... 3 677 3.5 0.2 0.0 $100-$249... 8 673 8.2 1.5 0.3 $250-$499... 15 095 14.3 5.6 1.0 $500-$749... 12 512 11.8 7.8 1.5 $750-$999... 10 077 9.5 8.8 1.6 $1000-$1999... 21 268 20.1 30.1 5.6 1$2000-$2999... 8 381 7.9 20.4 3.8 $3000-$3999... 4 170 3.9 14.4 2.7 $4000-$4999... 2 621 2.5 11.7 2.2 $5000-$9999... 4 964 4.7 34.2 6.4 $10000-$19999... 2 473 2.3 34.3 6.4 $20000-$49999... 1 662 1.6 50.3 9.4 $50000-$99999... 528 0.5 36.9 6.9 $100000-$499999... 461 0.4 93.3 17.4 $500000-$999999... 50 . . 35.7 6.7 $1m and over... 41 . . 129.0 24.1 Not allocated (a)... 9 000 8.5 21.0 3.9 TOTAL... 105 653 100.0 535.2 100.0 (a) Includes an estimate of number of cases where annual return data has not been processed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. I also note that the Treasurer finally has woken up to what the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have been telling him about negative gearing from the time he proposed outlawing it. After driving rents through the roof he has now been forced into a humiliating and inevitable backdown. He has again allowed people to offset against other income any losses they make on properties. He has now restored the position of people who own houses to the same position they were in before and the same position as any other business. It is a shame that he did not earlier take the good advice of the coalition and save a great deal of pain, anguish and financial distress to people caught up in his rather absurd and bizarre scheme. On the outlay side, I have already mentioned the most glaring fraud; that is, that the Commonwealth has simply deducted from the figures for outlays the money it expects to receive from asset sales. This, of course, is nonsense. True outlays, as I said earlier, are $79,146m, not $78,146m. Rather than growing by 4.3 per cent, as stated in the Budget, they are growing by more than 5 per cent. It is worth closely examining how this allegedly tough Government goes about pruning back its expenditure. A major component of Commonwealth expenditure is transfers to State and local governments. I am not to be taken as suggesting that State and local governments do not have to share their part of the burden of fiscal restraint. I simply want to contrast the standards this allegedly tough Treasurer of the Commonwealth Government sets for himself and what he expects of others. Let us look at outlays by the Commonwealth Government, which are within what might normally be described as discretionary spending powers such as in the welfare, community services, economic services and administration areas and then net out interest payments, which might be regarded as fixed payments, and transfers to other governments. We find the Government's spending has increased by 9 per cent-which is a real increase. The increase in transfers to other governments is 3 per cent-which, in real terms, is a fall. Thus, and not for the first time, the Treasurer is caught applying one law for himself and another law or impost for others. This is made all the worse when we remember that Senator Walsh says that there are an incredible 200 areas where Commonwealth spending could have been reduced but this Government simply did not have the political courage to make the appropriate and necessary cuts. Another aspect of Federal Government outlays which does not rate a mention as often as it should is how the money is being spent. Even a deficit Budget, which this Budget is, can often, in some circumstances and some respects, be justified if the spending is occurring on capital works. Presumably, in the future they will return some benefits to the community. If we are building roads, bridges or similar facilities and infrastructure we might, at least in the long term, enhance our economic prospects. Sadly, these things take a long term vision and this Government is hooked completely on its public image and it considers these matters as expendable: they do not register quickly in the opinion polls, they do not flow into popular community appeal, so they are dismissed out of hand. I turn to the table indicating outlays of capital and current consumption nature. There is a 6.9 per cent increase in current outlays and an 11.7 per cent fall in capital outlays. The total capital outlays by the Commonwealth are expected to decline by 20 per cent in real terms. This is to a large extent the result of reductions in State Loan Council borrowings. This in turn has reduced the State capital works programs. Of the $1,000m cut from the States in the May Loan Council meeting, $751m was cut from capital spending. Capital grants to the States have fallen over the last five years both in absolute terms and as a proportion of the total money the Commonwealth allocates to the States. I am fully aware of the interest rate effect on a gung ho approach to capital spending and the effect of a bloated public sector borrowing requirement but, if the Government believes it should spend the money, it would serve the long term interests of this country if it gave priority to capital rather than recurrent spending. Of course, in my view there ought to be a significant reduction in both, but if this Budget is predicated on not reducing outlays, clearly the emphasis in the long term interests of the viability and profitability of this country ought to be on cuts in recurrent and not capital expenditure. The final part of my speech is directed to assessing how well the Budget meets the needs of the economy generally. I remind the Senate that 7.7 per cent of the work force is unemployed. There are 596,300 people unable to find work under this Government. More than one in five people between the ages of 15 and 19 years are out of work. Twenty per cent of today's youth are unable to find work and the average length of time that an unemployed person spent out of work in the last 12 months under this Government was 47 weeks. By way of contrast, in 1982-83, the last financial year in which the coalition was in government, the equivalent period was about 32 weeks. So there has been a dramatic increase under this Government. As they are average figures, by definition they must mean that many people now are spending many years out of work. This Government clearly recognises the link between wage costs and unemployment levels. On page 23 of Budget Paper No. 1 it says: The relative buoyancy of employment growth seems to owe a good deal to the factor substitution flowing from the now sustained fall in the relative cost of labour. In other words, if labour costs go down employers will substitute labour for capital equipment. What this means is that if labour does not price itself out of the market employers will have the scope to employ more people. Despite this, the Government plans a 1.5 per cent increase in the first tier wage adjustment and another 4 per cent increase across the community in wage rates. There is also the continuing spectre of the inevitable superannuation claims. Rather than taking a firm line on wage costs, the Government caves in for the sake of its mates in the trade unions. The unemployed, who are not so powerful and who do not have a union or the clout of the unions, are left to fend as best they can. I do not wish to be taken as saying that it is all the fault of the workers; clearly it is not. Estimates of labour on-costs such as fringe benefits tax, workers compensation, superannuation and payroll tax, to name just a few, are part of the costs on which an employer bases employment decisions but they are not part of the take home pay for the employee. On-costs in the last 12 months have been estimated to be somewhere between 20 per cent and 40 per cent-in some cases 50 per cent-of the total cost of employing labour. Of course, it is possible for labour costs to employers to rise without employees actually having an increase in their take home pay. That is exactly what has happened. Over the last three years the total cost of employing people has risen faster than the employees' wages, indicating a very significant increase in on-costs. Labour costs are one of the factors which contribute to the cost of our goods and in turn their competitiveness on world markets. Ultimately they affect our horrendous current account deficit. Total costs of employing people rose by 6.3 per cent in Australia in the last financial year while the equivalent cost for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) rose by only 4.4 per cent. Clearly, this undermines any beneficial effects from the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Our competitiveness is undermined by our general level of inflation, which is about 2 1/2 times the OECD average. It is infinitely greater than that of Japan, where prices are actually falling. It is about 13 times greater than that of West Germany, which has an inconsequential rate of 0.7 per cent. Inflated prices for our goods simply reduce our exports and make it inevitable that our balance of payments will continue to deteriorate. That is in turn causing an increase on our mountain of foreign debt, our gross foreign debt already being $110 billion and climbing. To put this into some kind of perspective, it would, for instance, take us the equivalent of 50 times the value of last year's wheat exports or more than 50 times last year's iron ore exports to pay this debt. It would take about 35 times the value of the wheat crop to pay off just the increase in foreign debt during the period of the Hawke Government. I now turn very briefly to living standards and tax savings. Last year real household disposable income fell again, by 1.2 per cent. So living standards continued to fall. They were dropping because, although labour costs to employers were rising beyond tolerable levels, an increasing proportion is going in on-costs and taxation and not finding its way, as I said previously, into the pockets of the employees. Once it does, it is then attacked by the nation's highest taxing, most avaricious Treasurer. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library which shows the increasing tax take from a family with two dependent children from the time this Government came to office projected forward assuming there is no change to the tax rates and with the increase in annual earnings continuing at 6.9 per cent. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DISPOSABLE INCOME, ONE INCOME FAMILY WITH TWO DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND EARNINGS EQUAL TO AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS: JULY 1983 TO JULY 1990 Year Sept. Qtr. Average Weekly Earnings (a) Net Tax (b) Net Tax less Family Allowance (c) $p.w. $p.w. % of AWE $p.w. % of AWE 1983 ... 349.70 58.70 16.8 46.00 13.2 1987 ... 465.00 89.60 19.3 76.90 16.5 1988 ... 497.10 102.40 20.6 89.70 18.0 1989 ... 531.40 116.10 21.8 103.40 19.5 1990 ... 568.00 130.80 23.0 118.00 20.8 (a) September Quarter A.W.E. 1987 estimated by inflating the September Quarter 1986 value of A.W.E. by the annual movement in A.W.E. 1984-85 to 1985-86. Subsequent values estimated by assuming a 6.9% p.a. increase in A.W.E. The annual average increase in A.W.E. since the March Quarter 1983 has been 6.9% p.a. (b) Rounded to nearest 10c. Excludes Medicare Levy and assumes a dependent spouse rebate of $1030 p.a. (c) Assumes Family Allowance payments of $664 p.a. Rounded to nearest 10c. NOTE: Assumes no change to tax scales after 1 July 1987. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. Removing family allowance, the tax take will climb from 13.2 per cent of average weekly earnings to 20.8 per cent, a rise in tax of more than $70 per week. Set any family income package against that and see how the bottom line comes out. With the remainder, a family has to try to keep up with inflation, pay off a car, pay off a house and raise children. When examining the costs families face, it is important to note a recent survey conducted by economic analysts Peter Bennett and Associates for the Australian Retailers Association. It was found that government taxes and charges had increased relatively more than the prices of food and clothing or the consumer price index figure. In Perth, for example, since 1981, transport fares and electricity have increased by 59.6 per cent and 56.7 per cent respectively while food and clothing have increased by 42.7 per cent and 44.3 per cent respectively. Increased taxes and high inflation in turn affect a family's ability to save. The proportion of household income which is being put aside for savings has fallen for four years in a row under this Government. Every year for the last four years, the capacity of people to save has significantly deteriorated. Of course, without these savings, we simply cannot invest and create new wealth, unless we borrow abroad which, as we have seen recently, significantly increases our foreign debt. In closing, let me say that in my view this Budget has done very little to put Australia on a firmer footing. The deficit figure is a fraud to be used for the Government's selfish political purposes. The Government has cut capital spending and transfers to other governments rather than seriously taking a knife to its own bloated spending. It has, as is usual and inevit-able, relied upon increasing taxation. In turn, this increases pressures on already struggling families, making their lives more difficult, and reduces savings for investment. Pressures are created, of course, for wage rises in a labour market which is awash in a sea of unemployment, and further fuel is added to our already roaring inflation rate. Together, they do very little to stop our rising foreign debt. This failure increasingly imperils our future. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(11.31) —This is the third term of the Hawke socialist Government, so I presume that it has placed the economy in as satisfactory a position as it wants. This is all very well for a socialist government that is rapidly becoming fascist because of the association of big government, big unions and big business, but the conservative side of politics sees the economy as being in an unholy mess. Senator Stone has foreshadowed an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88. The amendment, which is in four parts, points out the deficiencies in the Government's economic management. The first part points to one path of salvation that we could follow. That is the part to which I wish to turn my attention. Senator Stone's amendment wants to enable Australia to become more productive. I have a great fear for our prosperity and the prosperity of our productive industries because of economic mismanagement by the Government. Our industries and companies are certainly suffering from the depredations of a profligate government, plus the debasement of our currency and all the other on-costs that have been mentioned in this debate. I wish to draw attention to a new use that is being made by the Government of a network of unrepresentative organisations which have benefited from Government patronage and support and which are actively promoting their own political interests. The Government is using the results of their efforts. I have a list of 20 organisations and it includes the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Conservation Foundation. I seek leave to have this short list incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Australian Council of Social Service Council of Social Service Health Issues Centre Australian Consumers' Association Australian Conservation Foundation Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia National Women's Health Association National Aboriginal & Islanders' Health Organisation Collective of Self Help Groups Australian Council of Rehabilitation of the Disabled Australian Council of the Aging Disabled Persons' International Youth Affairs Council of Australia Human Rights Commission Legal Aid Commission Constitutional Commission Multicultural & Consumer Affairs Departments. Senator SHEIL —I thank the Senate. One of the important areas that I want to touch on is company registration. I know there is now a big move to simplify the legislation covering companies and to have a national register. Everybody is having a problem deciding which companies should be on a national register and which should be on a State register. I wish to promote the continuation of State registration for companies, simply on the ground that it will give them a better opportunity to operate without constraints. During the great health debate, the only thing that saved Australia from nationalisation of health care was the fact that all the doctors were registered in the States; they were not registered nationally. Therefore, the Federal Government could not bring them all under its wing. The same applies to company registration. The longer they remain registered in the States, the less likely they are to suffer from the depredations of a big Federal government. The companies that would be brought under the national wing, of course, would be the bigger companies-the companies that trade interstate, the companies that trade overseas, and others. I give them this word of warning: keep out of national registration and stick to State registration. If we allow companies to have only national registration, that will lead us further down the track towards the fascist state to which I referred earlier. I recognise that company law has become complex, largely because of high taxation and, of course, the assaults of certain organisations-and I include trade unions in that group-and this has led to the moves to have national registration. I add that if we had a single rate of tax at 25 per cent, a lot of the problems would disappear. Management has been slow to respond to the challenge from these organisations and has only recently started to fight back. Over the years the manipulation of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has had a detrimental effect on our companies and industries. One cannot altogether blame the trade unions for that because, in order to bring the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission into operation, a dispute had to be created; so the unions had to create disputes to get action. That situation should have been rectified long before now. I recognise that there have been bad management practices over the years, and even recently. Honourable senators will remember that in the last few weeks the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd has been exposed as having bad management practices in regard to employment. These bad management practices are usually seen in old, established and constipated enterprises. They are rarely seen in the new, dynamic and active businesses, where management and labour are teaming up and working together enthusiastically to produce their product. Apart from the high and complicated taxes, the actions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, bad management and bad union practices-I include in bad union practices disputes up to and including the Mudginberri, Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd., plumbers and gasfitters, and Peko-Wallsend Ltd disputes-there is now being added the advent of this network of legislation which is threatening to tie up industry. Gulliver was tied up by the Lilliputians because he was a dangerous giant. That tied him up so that he was ineffectual, but when they untied him he was, of course, greatly beneficial to their people. I do not want to stress the politicising of the bureaucracy that has gone on, Aboriginal land administration which has tied up industry, selective export policies such as the uranium policy, the heritage listing that is going on, or unbalanced environmental policies. The new imposts that have eventuated are industrial democracy-or, as it has been called, employee participation-the national superannuation, affirmative action and equal employment opportunity (EEO). They all sound very good. Senator Reynolds —Do you agree with them? Senator SHEIL —We are looking for good outcomes. The Minister is asking whether I agree. I do agree with good outcomes, but industrial democracy is hardly off the ground. It has been included in a few pieces of legislation. It was included in the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Bill, but I do not think I have seen it anywhere else. We will have to watch its progress. Magazines that are sponsored by the Government, promoting industrial democracy, are sent to my office all the time. I am nervous of this because it tends to allow employees to take over the role of management without having to buy the shares. The same applies to national superannuation. It is just on the drawing boards; it has not got off the ground. But affirmative action and equal opportunity have got off the ground and have been in operation throughout all government departments for a couple of years. We are able to assess some of the results. Under the equal employment opportunity rules, departments have to put in a report on their activities every year. In recent Estimates committee investigations we were able to assess some of it values. EEO, as it is now known, has been put into several Bills, a couple of which are pending. Shortly a meat Bill will come into the Senate followed by a wheat Bill. Industries need that legislation and are prepared to accept it without too close an examination of its EEO provisions. The Commonwealth says that these provisions will have no effect on Commonwealth income or expenditure and that everything looks hunky-dory. In fact it sounds great. EEO sounds very enlightened, very progressive and very difficult to argue against, particularly when one looks at its aims and objectives. I will read them; they are taken from the Public Service Board's 1985-86 annual report. Of course, the Public Service Board has been disbanded since this report was made. The aims and objectives of EEO are: To ensure measures are adopted by departments which enable women and members of designated groups (Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, people of non-English speaking backgrounds and people with disabilities) to compete for promotion and transfer and pursue careers in the service as effectively as other people; To ensure measures are taken by departments to eliminate all forms or unjustified discrimination within the service against the above groups . . . The word `unjustified' is the operative word and I query who decides what is unjustified. I continue with the aims and objectives of EEO: To ensure procedures are adopted for appointment, transfer and promotion which preclude discrimination on the grounds of political affiliation, race, colour, ethnic origin, social origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, marital status, pregnancy, age or physical or mental disability. Honourable senators will note that merit is not mentioned once although it was a matter of considerable debate. I also quote from the explanatory memorandum of the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 which is pending before the Senate: . . . in particular the definitions of an equal employment opportunity program relate to a program designed to ensure that appropriate action is taken by the Board with respect to employment, to both eliminate discrimination against and promote equal opportunity for, women, Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders, migrants and their children, persons who are physically or mentally disabled and any other class of persons prescribed by the Public Service Act 1922. As I have said, EEO programs have been implemented in government departments for at least the last two years and we are now in a position to assess some of the results. I point out some of the fears we had with the introduction of EEO. One was that quotas or numbers of people would replace targets when employing people, that administration costs would increase, that positive discrimination or affirmative action would apply, that the genuine, red-blooded all-Australian men and women would be discriminated against and that it would create disharmony in the work force. Finally, we were very concerned that merit should be the operative principle by which EEO worked. I can remember romancing over the niceties of the definitions of what the words `target', `goal', `quota', `affirmative action' and `positive discrimination' meant. Just for clarification I have looked up the definitions-they are short-of the words `quota', `target' and `goal' from the Macquarie Dictionary, the Collins Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary. I quote them to honourable senators so that they can see the semantic argument we have got ourselves into. The Macquarie definition of the word `quota' is `a proportional part or share of a total which is due from, or is due or belongs to, a particular district, area, person etc. A proportional part or share of a fixed total amount or quantity' or `the number of persons of a particular group allowed to immigrate to a country, join an institution etc'. The Collins Dictionary describes the word `quota' as `a prescribed number or quantity, as of items to be manufactured, imported or exported, immigrants admitted to a country, or students admitted to a college'. The Oxford Dictionary defines `quota' as `a total number or amount required or permitted'. The Macquarie Dictionary's definition of the word `target' is `a goal to be reached'; the Collins Dictionary defines it as `a fixed goal or objective'; and the Oxford Dictionary describes it as `objective or result aimed at'. The Macquarie Dictionary defines the word `goal' as `that towards which effort is directed; an aim, or an end'; the Collins Dictionary describes it as `the aim or object to which an endeavour is directed' and the Oxford Dictionary describes it as `object of effort, destination'. The people who are trying to implement the EEO program have said that they are aiming at targets, not goals or quotas. However, when one analyses the situation one finds that it is all about numbers and that the words `target', `goal' and `quota' are almost interchangeable. Historically, the term `affirmative action' was introduced during the administration of John F. Kennedy and it meant that the effects of any legislation on minority groups in the United States of America had to be taken into account when implementing such legislation. That was most appropriate for America because it had many minority groups, such as Eskimos, Red Indians, Latinos, Hispanics, Hawaiian Islanders and Japanese. It had many minority groups and it was appropriate that the effects of legislation on these various minority groups should be taken into account. The population mix in the United States is entirely different from that of Australia at the moment. For example, by no means could women in the United States be considered a minority group. Admittedly, there would be women in minority groups but, as a whole, women could not be considered a minority. Above all, affirmative action did not mean that legislation had to be passed in favour of the minority groups; it was merely a matter of estimating what would happen and trying to ameliorate any adverse effects. The affirmative action lobby in Australia took the Kennedy concept and turned it upside down so that minority groups became disadvantaged groups in which women were included. Under EEO women are the major group to which attention has been turned. Instead of taking into account the effects of legislation on minority groups, it has been changed so that there has to be positive discrimination in favour of disadvantaged groups and women. So we can now look at and analyse the effects of the implementation of EEO policies in Australia today. I refer to the Hansard record of the Estimates Committee D hearing on 29 October 1987 on page D172. I asked the Department of Veterans' Affairs: You are not working towards a quota, are you? Mr Taylor-We have set some indicators and some targets through our consultative process with the unions. We do not call them quotas, we call them targets. Senator SHEIL —Could you tell me what the targets are? Mr Taylor-They are in numerical terms and they relate to the various levels. They are spread over the next two years and are based on anticipated vacancies that might arise at particular levels. Our target is to increase the SES by two over the next two years and we have set similar targets for other levels. For example, in the clerical structure, we have set a target to increase the number of class 10-11 posts by 40 over the next two years. For class 8-9 level the target is 60; for class 6-7 level the target is 150 and for the class 4-5 level it is 200. So far we have only been as specific as that in the clerical areas. We have some difficulty getting to that stage in the hospitals because of the diversity of classifications and the complexities of attempting to do so, but we are working towards targets right across the organisation, That is just for women. Other categories have to be accommodated by this equal employment opportunity program, such as Aboriginals and Islanders, people with disabilities both physical and mental, migrants and their children and people who have difficulty with English and so on. Here is another quotation: Senator GILES —Could we now hear about the women's unit? Mr Letts-Women's issues for the Department are handled by a unit in the secretariat section of the Department. Three people in it are directly concerned with women's issues, of whom two are women. The unit is headed by a woman. An example of the things they are involved with is the Budget booklet which is put out each year in relation to women's issues. It is co-ordinated by the Office of the Status of Women. Veterans' Affairs has a place within that. The booklet is prepared by the women's unit in the secretariat section. You probably have read that the Government has decided to provide treatment for those ex-service women . . . And so it goes on. I use that quotation to point out that there are quotas, numbers and goals. One of the issues about which we are concerned is costs, and the Government keeps stressing that there is very little cost involved in this. When one considers that there are equal opportunity cells scattered throughout all the Federal Government departments, one realises that there must be considerable costs. I have found out that the EEO program has a network of SHCOs, or sexual harassment contact officers, throughout the departments. There is a national consultative council which meets four times a year, usually in Sydney or Melbourne, and that involves travel costs. Data banks are being formed. That is a trigger term for me. The one being formed at the moment is the sex data bank. It would be intriguing to find out what is in that. Something called PAPAS has been invented-the personnel and pay administration system. That is another computer being loaded up. If people were afraid about the information stored in the identity card system, they should see what will be stored on PAPAS for all Commonwealth public servants. It will be an enormous record of personal details, which will be available, as far as I can see, without any privacy provisions. Further costs are caused by monitoring the system. Monitoring officers check progress. That process is different from evaluation and is a whole separate part of the EEO provisions. Check sheets for ongoing activities are produced every three months. There is a monthly report on problems, activities and issues. Pamphlets on entitlements have to be produced and circulated to people-for example, pamphlets on maternity have to be circulated to any woman who falls pregnant. On top of that there is evaluation, collation and distribution of the reports. One of the big problems at the moment is how to assess non-women. Only a bureaucrat could think of a word like that. I presume that I am one of them. Another problem is the identification and concentration of target group numbers, and there again we have the quotas rearing their ugly head. The programs have to be updated after every 12-month report. I have a copy of the annual EEO report of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and, for the interest of honourable senators, I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Senator SHEIL —I table the document. Honourable senators want to see how detailed the report is, and it might be of some use. That is a list of the sorts of costs involved in running equal opportunity programs within departments, and now it is coming out into legislation and being pushed into the community generally. I understand that certain big organisations, such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, have voluntarily decided to institute EEO programs, thinking that they are enlightened in doing so. I think that it is obvious from what I have said so far that EEO involves positive discrimination and works to the detriment of healthy Australian men and women because it means that fewer jobs are available for them. The EEO cells currently concentrate on replacing people who leave the work force. A committee decides who will replace the person leaving, and EEO principles are used in that process. Obviously, more and more of these groups will be employed and fewer and fewer positions will be available to healthy men and women. Another of the considerations that worried us was disharmony in the work force. I have made inquiries and even spoken to employees in departments where these policies are in place to find out whether there is disharmony in the work force. There is, but a lot of it is covert because people feel that they should not complain. For example, they find it difficult working with deaf people or people whose physical disabilities are such that they cannot stack a file of paper. I have employed handicapped people myself-I went through a period of doing this sort of thing-and I know that they have their own frustrations and they can exhibit rebound irritability, which can cause trouble at the work place. When people with disabilities have jobs, they tend to want to have the whole job organised around their disabilities and to change the whole system to suit them. That is happening where EEO policies are being implemented now. For example, we have all had experience of rush hour at the airport where men and women are accepting luggage and checking people on to planes. The women just cannot work as hard and as fast as the men, so everybody queues up at the men's desks so that they can get on the plane quicker. So the women do not have so much work to do, but they get the same amount of pay. That creates disharmony. Many of the problems are small, such as repeating instructions for deaf people, but they create irritability and there can also be this rebound irritability from those with disabilities. I would not want anybody to think that I do not have charity in my heart and that I do not want to help. For 30 years, I have been an employer, mainly of women, in a hospital. I had another business where I had mainly men working for me but I found that they were no good and had to replace them with women, because the job was more suitable for women. The Government has an enormous conflict here between its policies and the costs that industry already has. It is now being inflicted with a whole lot of other unnecessary on-costs. As time has gone on and we have grown up, things have changed. My father was one of a family of three brothers and three sisters. The three sisters stayed at home while the brothers went to university, but all their children, whether boys or girls, have been given a university education. The effluxion of time has taken care of a lot of this, without having any organisation legitimised by law. The Government has a conflict because it is asking us to export, to compete, to be leaner and harder and all these things, while putting lead in our saddle bags so that industry can hardly raise a trot. I support the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Stone. I sincerely hope that somebody will heed the words that those unrepresentative organisations which are benefiting from the Government and are now being used by the Government to actively promote its own ends should somehow be taken off the backs of our industry. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(12.01) —As I rise to speak to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2), I feel like the last batsman going in to bat at the end of an innings. Most of what can be said has already been said. However, I was very happy to see that the names of a few more honourable senators were added to the speakers list before the Minister speaks in reply. As we debate the three Bills, it is timely to reflect on where we are going. The Hawke-Keating Government has failed continually to face up to the real problems and issues and the need for adequate and timely adjustment. Why is Australia in the situation it faces? After all, Australia has many natural resources, fertile soil, minerals and products of the sea and, above all, willing and able, healthy people. One of the reasons is that for far too long Australia has relied on its primary industries to keep up with the rest of the world. I include minerals and energy in my interpretation of primary industries. In reflecting on what has gone on in Australia, I have taken a 15-year cycle dating back to approximately 1973. There are various cycles-daily, weekly, 28-day, yearly and so on-but I have chosen a 15-year cycle. In 1973 we were hit with spiralling oil prices caused by the oil crisis. We overcame that crisis, but it was not the only disaster that hit us in 1973. The oil crisis set many other things in motion. When the wheat crop was planted in 1973 we expected an average return of $50 a tonne. By the time it was harvested, we received $104 a tonne. That was the beginning of a prosperous era. Lately, our wheat crop has been going through a downturn, but yesterday's Australian Financial Review showed some optimism. It stated: In January the listed price for Australian Standard White wheat was $US105 a tonne . . . and has risen to $US117. That has occurred, while plantings are down. So we can see that there is some bright area around the corner. In 1973, an academic at the University of Western Australia, Dr Schapper, who is a reader in agricultural economics, told us all to wind up our wheat growing operations and plant trees or something like that. One can see what has happened since then. A result of the world oil crisis in 1973 was to make synthetics more expensive and, therefore, wool returned to its rightful place on the market. In 1971, when the then Liberal Government was trying to get a wool commission going, we were told by another academic-unfortunately, I cannot remember his name-that wool had had it; it was a thing of the past and we should forget about it. We can see for ourselves what has happened since then. The Australian Wool Corporation did come into being and that is probably the only thing for which I give the Whitlam Government credit. In 1982 we saw the beginning of the present gold boom. Since that year, production, in dollar value terms, has increased fivefold. There are continuing finds. Again, I quote from yesterday's Australian Financial Review: Broken Hill Metals NL has discovered more gold at its Hopes Hill . . . in the Yilgarn goldfields . . . while at Hopes Hill a 27 metre interval was discovered that averaged 17 g/t- that is, 17 grams a tonne. That is a find of some significance. That is just one of a large number of small shows in Western Australia and throughout Australia and it is estimated that it will produce 70,000 ounces a year, worth $49m. The price of wool rose sharply this year. Wool is about to regain its position as Australia's biggest commodity export earner-passing coal. The lower dollar value has allowed us to procrastinate on facing up to the day of reckoning-the day that the pigeons will come home to roost. Primary industry income, which makes up 85.5 per cent of Australia's income, has insulated us from the realities. The Government has been spending to keep in favour with its supporters. Its own Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has sounded repeated warnings that have not been heeded. He has told us about the Argentinean road. He sounded various warnings to the Labor Lawyers Conference in Perth. He can see these things. He can see them because, like me, he has been there and has done that. To a certain extent, before he became a senator, he risked his own dollar. Senator McKiernan can grin as much as he likes. Senator McKiernan —That is enough of the hero worship. Senator PANIZZA —I do not mind giving credit where credit is due, although I am unable to do so very often. That is why Senator Walsh can see these things. I do not know why the Government has not heeded what he has said. The result of this excessive spending to keep in favour is a record national debt of $105 billion-I repeat: $105 billion. With all the production we have now, we can repay only the interest. Anyone can see that we are slipping down the ladder and cannot keep up with our competitors. Where has the manufacturing industry been in this endeavour to get us out of the mire? The manufacturing industry has been hamstrung by union demands for more wages, better conditions and shorter hours. The industry's productivity cannot sustain those demands, which are far above those made in other countries. I shall give Senator McKiernan a typical example of productivity which occurred last week. As honourable senators probably know, I am endeavouring to build a regional office in the Western Australian country. I found that as no such office was already available, the only solution was to build one. Having got the project going I had to journey to Perth for a load of bricks. That order had been placed well beforehand and was documented with order numbers, et cetera. I arrived at the gate of the brickworks at 9 o'clock and gave the order number and my name. I had not been heard of, but that was quite okay with me. However, I was told that there was no such order. After spending an hour on and off the phone trying to locate the builder in order to ascertain to whom he gave the building order, I established that he had given it to X. When X was hauled to the front counter he said, `Yes, I took that message but I forgot to put it in the book'. Instead of loading up with bricks at 9 o'clock, I loaded up at 12 o'clock. That is the sort of attitude to productivity that one encounters. Senator McKiernan —What brickworks was that? Senator PANIZZA —I do not want to harm anyone's reputation by mentioning it here. Senator McKiernan —Oh! Senator PANIZZA —All right, I will tell the honourable senator. It was the Midland Brick Co. Pty Ltd. I ask whether that satisfies the honourable senator? Senator McKiernan —Yes. Senator PANIZZA —I know that that is music to the honourable senator's ears. It was the Midland Brick Company. Senator McKiernan —You can see why we need a new one. Senator PANIZZA —No, I cannot. In these hard times the Government has supported a first tier wage rise of, I understand, $7 a week. It has also supported the second tier wage rise of $4 a week. Senator McKiernan —Four per cent. Senator PANIZZA —Right. Australia is attempting to keep up a standard which we cannot afford. We are doing this by ever increased spending. The young expect to start off where their parents left off. This morning I heard Senator Wood speak of how disadvantaged the youth of Australia is today. I know that there are some disadvantaged youth today. I know that there are some very disadvantaged young people. Unfortunately, we are not all in the position of having good parents. However, I maintain that the majority of young people are well looked after. These people must accept their position in life until they are in a position to do something about it and to improve their circumstances. I am criticising not only the youth of this country but also the adults. These people also expect to have the sort of living standard of some other people in the country, for example, people who are on lemonade wages such as ourselves in here or on big solicitors' or doctors' wages. Once again, I think that they should accept their position until they can work their way out of it. Once upon a time, when I was young, if a family got a car it was regarded as well off. Now it seems that everyone expects not one car but two cars. Now it has got to the stage where every family must have a four-wheel drive-mainly used to destroy our parks and beaches, et cetera. There is no greater reason for this than that everyone else has such a vehicle. I suppose that Senator McKiernan did not know that sometimes I am an environmentalist at heart. More and more money is owed on the plastic cards. On 31 December 1986 we owed $1,492 for every man, woman and child. That did not include the amount owed for housing. I understand the debt is now around $2,000. The stock market crash has shown what can really happen. If the situation gets any worse we could find ourselves in total depression, thus affecting the sale of our export commodities. That would be a total disaster. Even our primary industries, about which I have been speaking, would not carry us out of that situation. I will quote from the Budget Speech presented in the Senate this year by the Minister for Finance. He said: Mr President, I have described tonight how Australia is successfully responding to the most adverse external economic difficulty we have faced since the Great Depression nearly 60 years ago. That statement was made before the stock market crash. If we want to take into consideration the stock market crash, I think we must go back 160 years to find a worse situation. Australia has to get back to work. It has been done before. It was done pre-war and post-war. It was done during the Great Depression and after. Above all, Australians must start saving money. Australia has a big unemployment problem-8 per cent. However, a lot of able-bodied people can be employed, although such employment may not be at their doorstep. I know that many people are unemployed because of no fault of their own. I refer here especially to people over 45 years who have a wealth of experience. I have been an employer for most of my life. I have always prided myself on the fact that behind my stern face I have a heart of stone. However, even I can see that there are problems and that we have to work to get rid of them. There are far too many unemployed people in urban areas who would rather remain unemployed than take jobs in inland areas which remain unfilled. Of course, this is not an across the board situation, but nevertheless it exists. I mention, for example, jobs in agriculture and mining. Australian farmers are the most efficient in the world. Figures show that our productivity per head in agriculture is 2 1/2 times that of Great Britain, over three times that of Germany, 1 1/2 times that of the United States and 6 1/2 times that of Japan. Australian miners also are efficient. They are 1.67 times more efficient than miners in Britain, 2.4 more than Germany and 1.29 more than Japan. While I am on the subject of mining, and in case I move past this point in my notes, I would like to express my great disappointment at the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe), who is one of two people lately who have called for the reintroduction of the gold tax. As I said in my maiden speech, if people spent time in the gold areas, especially those of Western Australia, in order to see what gold is doing for the economy, they would not countenance the idea of imposing another gold tax, especially at this time when it is providing so much foreign income and employment. Senator Messner —It is the second biggest export now, is it not? Senator PANIZZA —Yes, that is right. I thank Senator Messner. Manufacturing industry could take a look at the efficiency of these mining and agricultural industries. Also, if the unions and the Government agreed, wages policy for young people who are still in the learning process should be looked at. I think that it is far better to take a bit less for a short while in order to finish up with a lot more in the long run. Can any honourable senator tell me why it is that loader drivers, who work in what is regarded as a semi-skilled occupation and in air conditioned comfort, can earn in excess of $1,000 per week on mining sites? As everyone knows, that is in excess of what back benchers in this place earn. I can tell honourable senators why it is that such drivers earn so much: the jobs cannot be filled. Probably the job of a loader driver could be done by three men at $330 a week. Instead, people appear to be more content to remain unemployed in order to stay close to the beaches. High unemployment, in Western Australia at least, seems to be in the best beach areas of Margaret River and Broome. High non-employment is in the goldfields. Just lately in local government we advertised for a shire clerk. This was for a position 375 kilometres from the city and for a salary of $45,000 per annum. There were no applications. All facilities were provided. The only thing that we have not got up there is the beaches. Australians have too much time off. That probably includes those of us in this chamber. Australian workers are paid for the 57 days they do not work each year, while American workers are still on 19 days. The Swiss have got their own set-up. I understand the referendum that the Swiss want has already been mentioned in this chamber. We have to get back to work until things get better. I will refer briefly to work practices and then I will refer to management practices. Work practices is nothing other than two people and, in some cases, three people getting paid to do one job. From the employer side, management practices is an excuse to give in to keep things moving. Some managers give in at all costs. Australia must tighten its belt. If we have not got it, we should not spend it. This takes us back to the handbag economics system which is quoted fairly often by Wilson Tuckey but practised by myself. In essence, if it is not in the bag we should not spend it. It might make some people aghast to know that I run a farm that crops 15,000 acres and runs 15,000 sheep and I do not have a written budget; it is all mainly in my head. I believe in having the money in the bag before one spends it. We must return to thrift and honesty. People must do a day's work for a day's pay. Honesty cuts across a lot of facets of life. If we are honest we do not steal someone else's wife or steal someone's car, but if we take wages without earning them or if we employ people without paying them adequately we are stealing and that is dishonest. As our efficiency figures show, the work ethic has not been completely lost in the areas of mining and agriculture; it has only been misplaced. Australia has got to get up and go, but the Government has got to give it the lead and take tough decisions. After all, the election is behind the Government. So far I have mainly spoken about doom and gloom. We have to recognise the facts. If we recognise the facts and get on with the job at hand, the doom and gloom will disappear. I will use the example of an alcoholic belonging to Alcoholics Anonymous. Fortunately, I have never been an alcoholic. I rue the day when I cannot drink at all. I understand the biggest problem with alcoholics is recognising that they are alcoholics. Similarly, the biggest problem with Australia is recognising that we are in strife. The sooner we recognise and accept that we are in strife the sooner we can move. We have to be reliable suppliers. Let me refer to the waterfront. I understand the waterfront of Fremantle has the highest penalty loading on ships in the Western world. We rate the same as the Arabian Gulf and that is in a war zone. In other words, ship owners require a high premium because of the doubt as to when they will get the ships back. We have to do something about that. We have to get efficiency back on the waterfront. I will not bore the Senate with figures that were quoted yesterday about the New South Wales waterfront, but the workers are loading 17,000 tonnes per employee. In America, with the same equipment, the figure is 100,000 tonnes. Of course, the Americans do things their own way. A simple example that was used and put in front of the McColl Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport was that in New South Wales the conveyors were shut down every smoko. With all the employees around these conveyors it was a simple method to stagger the morning and afternoon tea breaks and let the conveyors flow. I understand that has been done. The failure of the Hawke Government is shown in our vulnerability to sudden change in world economic conditions at this time of crisis. The Government has squandered time and resources and has run Australia into massive debts. As I have already explained, Australia is in debt by $105 billion. All we can afford to pay is the interest. The Government must move to prevent further disaster. I support Senator Stone's foreshadowed amendment. I know that it has been repeated by every speaker who has risen in this debate. I apologise, but I have to repeat it again. If honourable senators on the other side of the chamber are frightened I will bore them to tears, I will stress the main part, which reads: . . . 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 . . . I have given the Senate all the reasons, as have other speakers, why we are at a crisis point. We can only point them out, but it is up to the Government to take heed because as Premier Burke says in Western Australia time and again, not all the bright ideas come from the Government side. I do not think all the bright ideas come from the Government side in this chamber. I ask the Government to take that on board. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.26) —I would like to concentrate my remarks on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 to those areas that come within my brief on disarmament and social justice. There are three areas that I wish to concentrate on, starting with the decision to allocate 9.5 per cent of the Budget outlay to defence, which, in turn, represents almost 3 per cent of gross domestic product. There will always be members of our society who believe that the Government should give defence a higher priority when it comes to Budget allocations. It is ironical that the people who urge greater defence spending are also those who call for lower government spending. I do not understand how they would purchase multi-billion dollar battle fleets complete with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines along with giving pay increases to the armed services and bringing back conscription. When I consider the cutbacks in the Budget in the last year which have obviously affected the underprivileged more than the affluent in Australia along with cuts in overseas aid, which have affected the poorer nations of the world, I feel more strongly than ever that the one area where we could obviously meet people's real security needs is by reducing defence expenditure. In doing so we would be following the example of countries such as China and Peru which have also reduced their defence expenditure this past year to give priority to domestic needs. That is a welcome note of sanity in a world where everyone seems bent on escalating the global arms race and making us all more insecure than ever. As an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 September pointed out, global military expenditure in the International Year of Peace reached $US900 billion. Those who argue that nuclear weapons and the United States bases in Australia have maintained world peace for 40 years need to remember that 35 million people have been killed in wars since 1945, as many people as died during that war, and that today some 40 wars are being waged around the world. However, I do not accept that it is not simply a question of further paring the current defence outlay. I am suggesting that only a fundamentally different approach to defence could allow for the cuts I am recommending. As a Quaker and a pacifist I have always said that my personal preference is for a system of national defence based on social non-violence. But that prophetic position has to be tempered by political realism. In arguing for a strategy of transarmament I speak today for a system of non-offensive defence, or defensive defence, that would still allow for substantial reductions. This would have to be coupled with a new approach to strengthening international security and peacekeeping mechanisms and alternative forms of conflict resolution. I would like to recommend to honourable senators the United Nations Association of Australia initiative entitled `The Bilateral Peace Treaties Proposal'. I seek leave to table this document, which has been put out by the United Nations. Leave granted. Senator VALLENTINE —I table the document. The United Nations bilateral peace treaties proposal is an area where the Government could be spending a lot of energy. It would not cost very many dollars but a lot of energy would be needed to create a climate of peaceful attitudes between Australia and all other countries which are members of the United Nations. I quote briefly from the document, which states: Australia is in a unique position to make a significant contribution to world peace by offering to each nation-state in the world a Bilateral Peace Treaty containing just two proposals: 1. We will settle all disputes between us by negotiation or other peaceful means. 2. We will never be the first to resort to force, violence or war. Such bilateral peace treaties would go a long way towards creating a climate of peace and negotiation between all countries. Presumably other countries would be encouraged to follow Australia's lead in this regard. I note that in the last few years a large part of defence expenditure has gone on covering depreciation of the dollar with respect to overseas capital equipment purchases. A quarter of last year's defence budget was committed to ongoing equipment purchases, with around 85 per cent of the total overseas imports of capital equipment coming from the United States of America. I gather that Australia now comes second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of having such a high percentage of defence imports from the United States. Without needing to remind honourable senators of the way in which the Reagan Administration treats Australia on other matters, such as trade, I seriously question the need to buy such sophisticated and expensive equipment from the United States, in particular the $35m allocated to each FA18 tactical fighter. That program involves a total price of $4,411m. A strategy of non-offensive defence would place much more emphasis on equipment that we could make in Australia, which would suit our own defence needs, instead of buying expensive guided missile frigates as well as the FA18s whose main role is to lock us into United States strategic needs in the region and not be concerned with the defence of Australia. It is particularly foolish to depend so heavily on the United States, not only when it undercuts our economy by trading its surplus wheat to our alleged common enemy at reduced prices, but also when it refuses to buy more than a trifle of defence equipment from Australia in return. It is significant that people in the farming community traditionally associated with the conservative side of politics are now also beginning to question the value of the United States alliance. I note, too, the article that appeared in the Australian Financial Review magazine last month on our new submarines which made the point that somewhere between $500m and $1 billion could have been saved if the capability for espionage activities performed on behalf of the Americans were dropped. The article stated that the Royal Australian Navy has had to confront the fact that the United States finds far more use in our having conventional submarines than nuclear submarines, provided they have the range to get to the Soviet bases in the northern Pacific and stay on silent patrol there. I would very much appreciate hearing from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) what Australian submarines patrolling in the north-west Pacific have to do with the defence of Australia and why Australian taxpayers should subsidise dangerously provocative activities of this kind. For example, of what relevance to Australia's defence is the chasing of United States nuclear submarines off the coast of Hawaii in joint exercises conducted there last year, which cost the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars, but which were conducted well outside our area of strategic interest as defined by the defence White Paper. Another area where we could save a great deal is the totally unnecessary move of the Royal Australian Navy from Sydney Harbour to Jervis Bay, a move that will ultimately cost more than $1 billion. The Navy does not want to go, and Navy families do not want to go as there is little prospect of jobs in the area, so there could be more resignations if the move goes ahead. The locals do not want the expansion of current facilities in what is a very beautiful area, the fragile ecology of which would be irreparably damaged by the massive intrusion planned by the Department of Defence. In fact, the only people who do seem to want the move are a handful of bureaucrats in the Department of Defence. Although I think the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and the defence White Paper were steps in the right direction, apart from their continued involvement in, and commitment to, the ANZUS nuclear alliance, I believe that the community debate must cover wider security needs. The Dibb report was not meant to go beyond its brief, so it is up to parliamentarians and the citizens of Australia, who have to pay for all this military equipment, to ask some very fundamental questions about what constitutes security in the nuclear age. This is especially so in an area to the north of which a regional arms race is grossly distorting economic priorities. This is occurring in both Indo-China and some Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) states. In Indo-China, Vietnam boasts the fifth largest army in the world and, in some ASEAN states, military expenditure increased by a massive 159 per cent between 1974 and 1983. Thailand's expenditure increased by 145 per cent, as did expenditure in Singapore. I would rather see a reduction in expenditure on expensive items like the FA18s which, on current estimates, will cost this country $4.4 billion, and an increase in measures which would contribute far more to both national and international security, such as more training of our diplomats in negotiating skills and conflict resolution, along with an increase in language training. For the cost of one FA18 the Government would be able to develop the Peace Research Centre at the Australian National University and establish other such research centres around the country, developing more effective models of international conflict resolution and national security rather than increased investment in more lethal military hardware, the end result of which is to kill people if a perceived need arises. What baffles me about those who would spend more on defence and invest in aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines is why they think this will make Australia more secure. If we invest in this equipment, other countries in our region will feel the need to arm themselves even further as well. This could result in a rapidly developing arms race, which is hardly guaranteed to make anyone feel more secure. Security in our region ought to be seen more in economic terms than in military terms, so I find it appalling that the Government has seen fit to reduce overseas aid to 0.36 per cent of gross national product (GNP), the lowest figure for 21 years. This is likely to take us below the forthcoming 1987 average for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and ranks us with countries notorious for their meanness, like the United States, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Japan. I remember the original Australian Labor Party (ALP) promise to allocate 0.7 per cent of GNP to overseas aid and the ALP Conference decision in Hobart which aspired to a goal of 0.55 per cent by 1990. I note that it is now about half of the original goal of 0.7 per cent, though the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden) rationalises the latest cuts by saying that the figure is still above the current average of 0.35 per cent for OECD states. The state of our economy is no real excuse, given that other countries with unhealthy economies, for example, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, have passed the 0.7 per cent mark. As I observed just now, real security in our region means economic security, not military security, particularly for the island states of the Pacific. It does not make sense to increase military aid and cut economic aid, or to tell the Japanese to provide aid because the United States and Australia can no longer afford it. Aid is not an automatic outflow from Australia; around 80 per cent of it comes back to this country in the form of orders for goods or services or international consultancies. Our farmers benefit from the extensive food aid program and honourable senators can see how much this is worth if they read Budget-related Paper No. 4. Australia has taken an up-front position in support of the frontline states in southern Africa, yet we have reduced our aid to those countries when they most desperately need it, particularly Mozambique. Nearer home, both India and Bangladesh are currently suffering from food shortages due to cyclones. Our economy looks positively healthy compared to their economy and the economies of many of our neighbours. In 1983 Australia ranked thirteenth in the world out of 142 countries in terms of per capita GNP income and eighth in economic social standing-that is, where the three factors of GNP per capita, education and health are combined. I am firmly convinced that if Australia were to make regional security its priority instead of its present commitment to an offensive nuclear alliance for which ANZUS now stands, we could not only redirect what money we have, but substantially cut the defence budget and allocate resources to the poorer sections of the Australian community as well as overseas. I raise these issues not only because I want to question our priorities in government expenditure but also because I think we need to rethink our whole notion of security; that is, security for whom, and how do we achieve it? I am glad that the Government has pledged to eradicate child poverty by 1990 though I note with some alarm that in the Governor-General's Speech the revised statement read: . . . by 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty. I note that child poverty overall has increased since the Labor Government came to office in 1983, as Senator Coulter reminded honourable senators in his superb first speech on 21 September. Considering again the concept of security, particularly with reference to sole parent families, I also note the speech by Julian Disney of the Australian Council of Social Service at the national Labor Lawyers Conference on 19 September, in which he said: The number of people living below the Henderson poverty line, which is the most widely used measure in Australia, has more than doubled since the mid 70's and is now in excess of two million. This year, 1987, is also the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, identifying again another group of disadvantaged people whose concept of security is more likely to be economic than military. I am not surprised that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is holding a national inquiry into homeless children-announced on 22 September in Sydney-as I have seen so many articles about homelessness among young people, especially in the big cities. According to the 1984 Department of Housing and Construction study of homelessness and inadequate housing there are approximately 40,000 Australians who live out of doors or in refuges. The study also showed that there are 700,000 Australian households living below the poverty line after paying rent or mortgage costs, a figure confirmed by a study by the social welfare research unit attached to Sydney University. The latter research also shows that housing-related poverty has almost doubled in the last decade, rising from 6.6 per cent in 1972-73 to 11.1 per cent in 1981-82. Any genuine study of housing policies designed to lead to adequate housing for all in Australia must face the fact that more than two million citizens are inadequately housed. As we approach the somewhat embarrassing Bicentenary, which should be used as a soul-searching exercise about our past and our future, we should be re-evaluating our current goals and aspirations and, I believe, setting some new directions for this country. Until we acknowledge formally, as a nation, Aboriginal people's prior claim to this land, we will neither have, nor deserve, harmony in the Australian community. It has taken the tragic deaths of 67 Aboriginal men and women in custody over recent years to finally focus the attention of the nation on the appalling rate of Aboriginal incarceration-symptomatic of grave problems facing our indigenous people. However, the issues cannot be treated as Aboriginal problems, but as problems to be shared by all of us. It is a national disgrace, which diminishes us all, that Aboriginal people who lived proudly, with dignity and in harmony with this harsh environment for 30,000 years or more before the arrival of Europeans have suffered so gravely and that most of them continue to suffer appalling degradation. The Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody will reveal some very unpleasant aspects of relationships between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in this country. We need to know the worst, particularly in the bicentenary year, in the hope that community attitudes towards our Aboriginal brothers and sisters will change so that non-Aboriginal Australians will feel moved to grant self-determination to Aboriginal people-to listen to their voices. How outrageous it is that on the eve of the Bicentenary, and on the eve of World Expo 88 in Brisbane, Don Neal, Minister for Corrective Services in Queensland, has seen fit to re-open the black hole at Boggo Road prison in case of Aboriginal protests. Maybe these underground cells would not be used only for Aboriginal troublemakers. But for whomever they are intended, they are not fit for human habitation. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would be justified in prosecuting anyone keeping animals under such conditions. Where is the compassion in our society? It is sadly lacking in that case, and in many cases relating to Aboriginal people. Maybe the Minister for Corrective Services needs to be reminded that the use of such cells would contravene article 10 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, and article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which have been ratified by Australia. It would also place Queensland in contravention of article 21 of the Minimum Standard Guidelines for Australian Prisons. Although this is a State matter for the Queensland Government to decide, that Government must be persuaded by concerted action from concerned citizens around the country that such behaviour is unacceptable on moral and humanitarian grounds. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The Senate will now proceed with the debate on matters of public interest. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.45) —I wish to make certain remarks about a report which was circulated in this Parliament some time ago and on which a number of people missed the opportunity of making a contribution. I refer to the Constitutional Commission's Advisory Committee on Executive Government. It struck me when reading that report that in most of the areas of the Constitution that were examined, the Committee actually recommended no change to current practice. This is from a body which was actually set up by a government which seeks to radically alter the Constitution and it attests, I believe, to the integrity of the Chairman of the Executive Government Advisory Committee, Sir Zelman Cowen, and of some of his colleagues. I was pleased to see that the Committee recommended no move towards republicanism and admitted that the form of the constitutional monarchy which this country has is the finest around. I was also pleased to note that the committee supported the Westminster system, stating that it be retained. I think it is sobering to look at the two countries that have actually dismantled or are dismantling the Westminster practice; I refer to South Africa and Zimbabwe. South Africa, of course, has polarised even the more radical tensions in that country and the second dismantling, of course, is swiftly leading to an entrenched one-party Marxist state in Zimbabwe. The Executive Government booklet also refers favourably to the appointment of Assistant Ministers and recommends an added provision to the Constitution to allow such appointments. I think it is a pity that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did not wait until this report came out before recommending that the Governor-General appoint the current dual ministerial system. We saw recently just how quickly this sort of half-baked proposal can become unstuck when a so-called senior Minister in this place, Senator Evans, and his so-called junior, Mr Duncan, contradicted each other in the Parliament. The fact remains that the Prime Minister must realise that both Senator Evans and Mr Duncan have a sworn responsibility for the whole of the Department of Transport and Communications and in law, regardless of any administrative arrangements, both men are responsible for all aspects of the portfolios that they represent. I turn now to the Committee's discussion about the power of the Senate to reject Supply. This is naturally a very sensitive issue in this place and I recommend all honourable senators and others interested in such things to read the proposal suggested to the 1978 Constitutional Convention by Sir Charles Court, which the Committee outlines on page 26. Sir Charles suggests that as an alternative to removing the power of the Senate to block supply a double dissolution should be held if the Senate rejects or fails to pass the Supply Bill within 30 days. Now the last occasion on which the Senate failed to pass Supply led to a general election. The result of that election totally vindicated the actions of the coalition in this chamber. This power should not be removed as the Committee has recommended. I believe that Sir Charles Court's proposal has some merit which deserves further consideration. One thing that has disappointed me is that this Executive Government booklet fails to examine what I believe to be the most serious threat to parliamentary democracy, as we are concerned. This is the steady encroachment of the Executive. Under governments of all political colours, the Prime Minister and the Ministers have reduced the role of the private member or the senator. All too often in this place, and also in the House of Representatives, Question Time has degenerated. I think yesterday was a typical case. On one hand, Government members are provided with dorothy dix questions and allow Ministers to comment on some aspects of policy, or at least they tell a Minister that they are going to ask a question on a particular topic. In fact, yesterday I was chastised for not telling a Minister beforehand of a question in relation to a skin cancer topic having regard to the fact that this week is skin cancer week; I should have referred the matter earlier to a Senate Estimates committee, or I should have at least told him about it and, in any event, he had no brief. I find that totally inappropriate in a week which is skin cancer week. On the other hand, I believe that the Ministry tends to be defensive about all questions that come from the Opposition, even those genuinely trying to get some information. Very rarely are private senator's or private member's Bills even committed to any sort of debate, although on some occasions the object of the Bill may be worthy. I should imagine that Senator Vallentine would be supporting me on this score. I believe that the serious results of the Executive's increasing grip on Parliament merits some examination and I would have thought that the Executive Government Committee could have examined this aspect. As another illustration, I refer to the decimation of the Public Accounts Committee. We talk about the need to maintain the independence of Parliament, and how important that is, but the staff of that Committee was reduced, without reference to that Committee, without reference to the Opposition, and without reference to the Deputy Chairman of that Committee. The resources were suddenly taken away, from 15 down to five, and they are expected to carry out their previous tasks. This is what I referred to as the steady encroachment by the Executive. The Executive provides the resources to the Committee, and if the committees of the Parliament are starved of their resources, they are not going to operate in a fair and independent way. Perhaps it is the independence of that Committee that the Government has most to fear, because in the new range of committees that it is setting up, most of the references are going to be given by Ministers to the committees. The Constitutional Commission was established by the Government despite the opposition of the coalition and many academics and jurors. This report shows that there is a lot of time wasted and expense incurred for no real gain other than a self-indulgent critique of the Australian Constitution, as is obvious by the very few and flimsy recommendations the Committee eventually made and its begrudging acceptance that most of the present constitutional provisions seem to work. The Government continually reminds us of the economic state that Australia is in; at the same time it funded a costly inquiry which really has achieved very little. I believe the money could have been better spent elsewhere. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.52) —Mr Deputy President, in March of this year a Queensland student made application for independent status under Austudy on the basis of homelessness. The student claimed that due to a breakdown in her relationship with her father she was unable to live at home. Various declarations were tendered to support the application. In July the Department of Employment, Education and Training ruled that the student was not eligible to receive Austudy at the independent rate. My first comment in this case is on the Department's inordinate delay in arriving at this decision. In August, the student approached me asking that I support her request for a reassessment of this decision. After informing myself of the relevant facts I considered that her request for a reassessment deserved my full support. I therefore wrote to the Department of Employment, Education and Training and argued that her academic ability would be severely limited if she was forced to live at home with her father. I requested that the matter be given urgent consideration, taking into account the special circumstances of the case. If the Department did treat the matter as urgent it would apparently take forever to make a decision on a matter regarded as not urgent. It was not until early November that I received a response dated 30 October from the Department. It is worth noting that the Department could not even be bothered to send me a personal reply. Officers of that Department apparently considered it acceptable to send a copy of a reply that they sent to one of my colleagues. While the Department may consider this to be acceptable, I do not. The departmental officer who signed the letter expressed his concern that the homelessness provision should not be abused and that only genuinely needy cases be approved. It was claimed that for this reason the Department is required to: Administer the homelessness provisions in accordance with strict guidelines and to approve independence only where sufficient evidence has been furnished. The evidence presented by the student to support her reasons for leaving home was found to be not of `substantial nature'. According to the Department applicants must establish that the nature of family conflict is: exceptional rather than the expected types of friction occurring in many families where students have not become independent of their families because of tertiary studies. As the student could not provide any additional information to support her request for reconsideration and as she had been forced for financial reasons to return to live in the family home, her application on the ground of homelessness was deemed to have lapsed. I am not satisfied that in this case justice was done. Those who knew this student were of the opinion that she should not have been forced to live at home. Her doctor confirmed that such a living arrangement would have a detrimental effect on her mental well being. Furthermore, the application was rejected despite strongly supportive evidence from the Department's social worker in Brisbane. Is the homelessness provision of any use if, as in this instance, smug central bureaucrats with snug homes to return to each evening are able to overrule the decisions, of well-informed local officers? While the Department claims to be concerned about the difficulties faced by the many young people in this situation, it does not seem willing to act on these concerns. It would appear that in an attempt to prevent the possible abuse of the system, some highly deserving applicants are being severely disadvantaged. It is my belief that the student to whom I am referring was such an applicant and that she should have had every right to be considered favourably. The departmental officers in Canberra who rejected her plight deserve severe condemnation. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(12.57) —I wish to speak for a few minutes today about an issue which is emerging as one of national importance. It involves the three areas that I have been elected to represent-peace, social justice and the environment. I am concerned about the Rudall River National Park area in Western Australia. It is located approximately 500 kilometres south-east of Port Hedland in the eastern Pilbara region. Following the recommendations of the Australian Academy of Science in 1963 and the Western Australia Conservation Through Reserves Committee in 1974, it was gazetted as a national park in April 1977. The Conservation Through Reserves Committee cited the need for the unique habitats in the Little Sandy, Great Sandy and Gibson deserts to be represented in a system of reserves. The gazettal of the Rudall River National Park was therefore a major step in the conservation of desert ecosystems, particularly as it is the only national park in Australia that encompasses an entire seasonal river system in the arid zone. This system, dry except during rare cyclonic activity, is the remains of a vast inland swamp, part of a verdant rainforest from some 200 years ago. A range of vegetation groups is represented and all are dependent on the intermittent occurrence of water. Regeneration after disturbance is therefore tied to good falls of rain. In addition, the area is extremely vulnerable to the removal of ground cover, because of wind erosion and erosion caused by sporadic intense rainfall. In addition to the Conservation Through Reserves Committee and the Academy of Science's recognition of Rudall River as an area of outstanding conservation significance, it is included on the register of the National Estate, a further measure of the park's importance to the natural heritage of this country. The assessments of these expert committees stand in direct contrast to myths propagated by the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr David Parker, that Rudall River was gazetted for purely political reasons by the previous State Government. But it is surely one that warms the hearts of CRA Ltd executives. It is clear that CRA and the mining industry in Western Australia have a strong advocate in Mr Parker. The question is: who is standing up for the natural and cultural heritage values of the park itself on behalf of the people of Australia? The public first became aware of mining related activities in and around Rudall River National Park following the appearance of an article in the Australian Financial Review on 4 December 1985. The article led to further investigation by the Australian Conservation Foundation which indicated that exploration was being carried out inside the park boundary. In Western Australia mineral explorations and mining are permitted in national parks, because the Mines Act overrides the National Park Act. The current controversy over the State Government's mining and national parks policy review, better known as the Bailey report, was somewhat of a farce, in that the option of not allowing mining at all in these special areas was not considered. In addition to Rudall River's natural conservation values there is another aspect to this area's history and significance. Although archaeological investigation in the Rudall River region is still in progress, preliminary indications suggest that Aborigines have been living in the Great Sandy and Gibson deserts for well over 10,000 years. Much of our knowledge of the region comes from the Western Desert people who were removed only three decades ago and who in recent years have been moving back to their traditional country. Survival in such an arid environment requires very careful attention to seasonal fluctuations and ecological diversity. The Rudall River and the chain of salt lakes were crucial economic registers in this round of daily and seasonal life, and figure prominently in the social and cultural geography of Western Desert religious belief. Dreaming tracks, the paths of mythological ancestors, criss-cross the region, and ceremonial life revolved around periodic gatherings of large numbers of people when conditions warranted. Today, these water resources are still the lifeblood of Western Desert people who have moved back to their own country inside of Rudall River National Park, to the communities of Punmu, Pangurr and recently Kalkan Kalkan. Because the Western Australian Government refuses to recognise Aboriginal rights to traditional land, neither community has the security of tenure upon which the provision of essential services can be guaranteed. Despite the neglect shown them, however, Western Desert people have made the decision to remain in their own country. Taken off their land as recently as 30 years ago and now having returned under the most arduous of conditions, with little government support, the communities face the legendary power of a multinational company exploring for and wishing to mine uranium. So, in addition to the destruction that this and other mining companies pose for the Rudall River ecosystem, they also threaten the social welfare of people who have gone to extraordinary lengths to reassert their cultural integrity and vitality. Continued mining exploration may result in driving the Aboriginal people from their homeland and the first degazettal of a national park to clear the way for deadly uranium mining. In view of the Western Australian Government's flagrant disregard of the natural and cultural values of Rudall River National Park, it is imperative that the Western Desert people know whether this Commonwealth Government supports the disgraceful neglect shown by the Labor Government of Western Australia. It is also imperative for the rest of the people of Australia to know whether this National Park is going to set the precedent for other parks around the country which multinational development companies happen to earmark for development. Last week the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM) met in Perth to discuss conservation needs and issues of national importance. I have not discovered whether they had anything particular to say about this situation developing at Rudall River. But it is the responsibility of the Federal Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) to reconfirm the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers endorsement of the international definition of national parks as large areas, free from destructive activities, which the highest authority in the land is committed to uphold. Clearly, there is a federal government responsibility involved here. It is most important that people right around the country are aware of David Parker's stated aim to change the Australian Labor Party's three mines policy relating to uranium mining. This policy, which was instituted when the go-ahead was given to Roxby Downs mine, was intended to be a phasing out policy. Now that the Nabarlek mine is nearing the end of its productive life, there is a danger that instead of phasing out, we will be faced with a substitution policy if David Parker has his way. It should be noted by members of Labor Party branches that lobbying is under way in preparation for next year's ALP conference either to include Rudall River as the third uranium mine or to overturn the three mines policy altogether to allow further uranium mines to be opened up. The close connection between CRA and the State Government and the Western Australian Minister's obvious support for the concept of uranium mining are very worrying factors. But when the Western Australian Minister derides the current three mines policy, he does have a point in claiming that it is illogical. Indeed, how can some uranium mines be okay and others not? Of course, I have come to a different conclusion from the Western Australian Minister because I am opposed to uranium mining under any circumstances and that is in connection with uranium being the primary resource material from which nuclear weapons are made; as such, uranium mining is totally indefensible, in my opinion. The Rudall River exploration leases which have been handed out by the Western Australian Government pave the way for uranium mining. A huge row is building on this issue, aptly described in the Times on Sunday earlier this year as a triple headed monster-uranium mining, on Aboriginal land and in a national park. There will be concerted action by peace groups, social justice groups and environment groups to make sure that that does not come to pass. Sitting suspended from 1.06 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Richardson is absent from the chamber for Question Time today as he is holding a series of meetings in northern Queensland concerning World Heritage listing. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Richardson in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to Senator Ray. The PRESIDENT —I have to advise honourable senators that catering services were withdrawn today between 12 noon and 2 p.m. The catering staff have taken industrial action in relation to a claim for a 4 per cent second tier wage increase. The matter was considered by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on Thursday, 12 November 1987. At that time the Commission advised that the productivity and efficiency items identified to date were insufficient to warrant a 4 per cent increase and that further work would be required before the Commission would be satisfied. The Commission set a further hearing date of 1 December 1987. Since last Thursday, the Joint House Department and the Department of Industrial Relations have been conducting further negotiations with the union. These negotiations will continue and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will be notified of the industrial action. I sincerely regret the disruption caused to senators, members and other users of the catering services. Senator LEWIS —I remind the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce that a little over two weeks ago in this Senate, supported by Senator Michael Baume and Senator Parer, I urged the Government to take action to end union sabotage of the steel industry plan. Whilst the Minister was not able to be present on that day, is he aware that the only response from the Government's second stringers in that debate-namely, Senators Collins and Childs-was to accuse the Opposition of a union bashing exercise and to try to shift most of the blame for the disastrous drop in productivity on to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP)? Is it true, as widely reported today, that BHP has warned the Government that it would consider closing down its Port Kembla operations and not invest any more money in the steel industry unless there is a dramatic reduction of industrial disputation? Does the Minister now agree that the Port Kembla unions are sabotaging the steel industry plan and that there is an urgent need for the Government to end this sabotage. I ask: What does the Government intend to do about this matter? Senator BUTTON —There have been a number of discussions between the Government and BHP. It made a presentation to the Caucus industry committee the other night, I have had discussions with it and it has had discussions with my Department. These discussions have covered the prospects of the steel industry both overseas and in Australia and the implications for the operations of BHP's plants. There was no mention in those discussions of the closure of plants such as Port Kembla if the industrial relations situation did not improve. I want to come back to that. There was, however, discussion of the prospects for further investment in an unstable industrial relations environment, which is a different issue. There have been problems at Port Kembla, of course, associated with the commissioning of new plant-that is a well known fact-and from industrial disputes earlier this year. The urgency debate which Senator Lewis proposed a few weeks ago, as he said, in my absence, related essentially to the revelations in the Steel Industry Authority report about industrial relations problems and commissioning problems in the earlier part of this year. That is to say, there was a retrospective view from which Senator Lewis invited us to draw, I understand, certain conclusions about the future. In my view there are reasons for optimism in spite of what has appeared in today's newspapers. The level of industrial disputation has dropped significantly since the middle of this year and productivity across BHP's three integrated steelworks is currently approaching the record levels which were being achieved in 1986. There has been a series of meetings between BHP and unions, including a meeting on 28 October convened by the Steel Industry Authority. Those meetings have made progress in negotiations on dispute settling procedures, particularly at plant level. It should also be noted that those meetings have perhaps more importantly set the scene for an industry agreement to be achieved next year which will hopefully be a basis for industrial relations harmony in the post-steel plan period after 1988. I personally remain confident, given an improvement in BHP's steel returns, a supportive industrial relations environment and success in achieving much needed productivity gains, that the company over time will look to an expansion of capacity with resultant new job opportunities. With regard to what appeared in this morning's Press-I think I have answered the substance of Senator Lewis's question-let me say I sometimes doubt the wisdom of carrying on industrial relations policy in the newspapers. I think industrial relations matters are very much like a marriage. If one has an argument with one's wife, one does not normally carry it on in the columns of the Melbourne Herald. There is much to be said for the same-- Senator Walters —When the taxpayers pay it is a bit different. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walters should listen instead of interjecting. There is much to be said for the same sort of conduct in matters of industrial relations because, after all, the fortunes of employees and employers in an industrial enterprise are intimately bound together for better or for worse. It is their decision collectively as to whether it will be better or worse. As to the last part of the question, `What is the Government going to do about it?', just as I do not favour the carrying on of disputes of this kind in the newspapers, I make the simple point that it is again like a marriage: essentially, it is for the parties to sort it out themselves. Senator LEWIS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean the Government does not intend to do anything about it? Senator BUTTON —If I answered yes to that question Senator Lewis would go away elated. No doubt he would put out a Press release stating that the Government is not doing anything about this important problem. Senator Lewis —That is just what you said in the last sentence of your answer. You read it in Hansard. Senator BUTTON —Well, why did Senator Lewis ask a supplementary question if I gave that answer in my last answer? Did he just want to hear his own voice? I gave Senator Lewis a lengthy answer; he ought to be satisfied. In the course of that answer I said that the Steel Industry Authority had convened a meeting on 28 October between the unions and BHP to discuss the industrial relations situation and to try to reach an agreement for next year. That is, if you like, a Government intervention, but the Government will take it no further than that. Senator DEVLIN —Is the Minister for Home Affairs aware that in this chamber yesterday afternoon unfounded and superficial aspersions were cast on the impartiality of the electoral redistribution system by Senator Julian McGauran? Can the Minister assure the Senate, and in particular Senator McGauran, that the redistribution procedures established by the Government are entirely fair and impartial? Senator ROBERT RAY —I would be delighted to tell the Senate in answer to Senator Devlin's question that those procedures are fair. Of course, this question arises from time to time. This is the third time in five weeks this old chestnut has been raised. It is pleasing to me because it reflects a loser's mentality in the Opposition. It is the sort of thing that the Australian Labor Party would have done in the 1950s and 1960s: whinge about the electoral system, say `we was robbed' and then go on to do nothing more. I welcome the comment from that point of view. The specific allegation was that the seat of Burke was gerrymandered. Prior to the 1984 election and prior to the redistribution, the seat of Burke was a 64.5 per cent Labor seat. After the election, the figure was 52.9 per cent. What a brilliant job we apparently did there, carving into our majority by 12 per cent! I also point out, in relation to the Australian Labor Party submission to the commissioners, both in regard to Burke and the whole of northern Melbourne, that the commissioners very conveniently ignored every suggestion we made and drew boundaries that were not akin to our suggestion or, indeed, that of the Liberal Party of Australia. I also note that there are always re-hearings at which time political parties can object to the boundaries. I did a little checking and found that the National Party of Australia-Senator McGauran was not a member at that stage, so it probably lacked a bit of intellectual power-failed to object to those Burke boundaries in 1984. I would have thought that if there was some allegation of a gerrymander, the National Party in Victoria would have objected to those boundaries. If Senator McGauran wants to pursue electoral reform and an interest in fair boundaries, I draw his attention to the honourable senator sitting next to him. He might like to have a conversation with Senator Boswell about the Queensland boundaries. The size of the western-northern zone is 46.3 per cent that of the south-eastern zone. Maybe Senator McGauran would like to take that up with his National Party colleague and give him the benefit of his expertise in that regard. The National Party has never had a particularly good history in terms of electoral boundaries. It stood over the Menzies Government in the 1960s. At one stage, during the 1966 election, there were seats of 29,000 and others of 140,000, in Melbourne simply because the National Party tried to protect itself from the attack of the electorate and tried to maintain as many seats as it could. In regard to the current state of seats, there is only one seat Australia-wide that is outside the 10 per cent variation within a State. I do not think there has ever been an occasion, at a second election after a redistribution, when the boundaries have been so impeccably fair. Also, I think Senator McGuaran is still a Melbourne city councillor-I see that he is nodding his head-representing the central business district, where there are 1,500 residents. The Labor wards in the Melbourne City Council have 6,000 to 7,000 residents. West, Hotham and Park wards have 7,000 resident voters. I presume that he no longer gets the $2,000 honorarium for that position. I hope he does not, because that would be an office of profit under the Crown. I hope he has given up that role in the council. I hope that in future he will vote for a fair redistribution of the Melbourne City Council boundaries. Then, next time he faces election to that body, he will probably have to convince 6,000 or 7,000 residents to vote for him, rather than 1,500. Senator CHANEY —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and follows the question asked by Senator Lewis today and a question asked by Senator Lewis on 4 November on the same subject. On 4 November, the Minister referred to discussions between the Steel Industry Authority, steel producers and the unions which, at that time, he was optimistic would produce negotiated agreements on work force reductions and improved industrial relations. In view of the reported warnings to the Government from senior officers of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) this week-these were referred to by Senator Lewis today-that the company would stop investing in the industry unless unions were brought under control, I ask: Is the Minister saying today that the talks have met his expectations? In particular, I ask: Has the Authority obtained union agreement to abandon industrial action in opposition to further work force reductions? What is the Government's position on BHP's proposed voluntary reductions in the steel industry work force-voluntary reductions which are allowed under the terms of the steel industry plan? Senator BUTTON —Let us get the facts right. Senator Chaney referred to a reported warning to the Government. In answer to Senator Lewis I said that no such warning was given to the Government, and that the matter was being carried on in the columns of the Press. I do not want to prejudice in any way a process of ongoing discussions about industrial relations in the steel industry. It would be premature for me to say that the discussions have met with my expectations or hopes, or otherwise. I think somebody once said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will have to wait until those discussions have gone a little further down the track before we can give an answer on that point. In regard to the last part of the question, about whether there is an understanding within the Government of negotiations regarding reductions in the work force, and that those reductions should be accomplished either by attrition or voluntary retirement, that is the Government's position and understanding, and will remain so for the duration of the steel plan. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the Minister's desire not to interfere with a process of negotiation, but can he tell the Senate what amount of taxpayers' money this Government has provided by way of bounty or any other subsidy to the steel industry under the steel plan? Will he confirm that that was done in the expectation that there would be a rationalisation of the industry, with the agreed co-operation of the trade union movement? Is not the Government under an obligation, in these circumstances, to take more than a passive bystander role and to seek to ensure that the terms of the steel industry plan are met by all parties, including the trade unions? Senator BUTTON —The steel industry plan is not, and never was, a legally binding or contractual document. It was based on expressions of intent and goodwill by the various parties. I cannot tell Senator Chaney precisely what amount of money has been invested by the Government in the steel industry plan, but it is less than half the anticipated amount. I will obtain the details in respect of that part of the answer in due course and provide them to Senator Chaney. There was an understanding within the steel industry plan that there would be some rationalisation of the industry, but the circumstances have changed in a variety of ways since that understanding was reached in 1983. Senator Stone —The need for it has got greater. Senator BUTTON —No, that is not correct, Senator. It is probably a good interjection, but it is not a valid comment. The Government is not involved in the detail of rationalisation at various plants. For example, at Whyalla, which is one of the major steel centres, there has been a significant decline in the production of railway lines for export because of changes that have occurred in export markets. All of these things will affect any rationalisation process. The Government has constantly sought the co-operation of the unions and the company in terms of the plan. That co-operation has occurred between 1983 and the first quarter of 1987. I do not know why the Opposition is getting so excited about a breakdown in those arrangements which, I must say, worked very well until the first quarter of 1987. Senator Chaney —Last year's report on the steel plan suggested major problems. Senator BUTTON —None of these things is without problems and attendant difficulties. I know it is a long time since Senator Chaney was in government, but he ought to remember that. On the whole, the plan has made good progress. I very much regret what has happened, and I have said so in the Senate, in terms of both commissioning problems-that is, the breakdown in the introduction of new plant, for which I think the company assumes responsibility-and associated industrial relations problems. I have said some fairly firm things about the industrial relations situation. We are now indulging in a sort of retrospective exercise. Senator Chaney —My question relates to next year. Senator BUTTON —It was not a very clear question to me. Certainly, co-operation would be expected from the unions, the company and the Government, as has been accorded in the past. Senator COLSTON —Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories confirm that corporal punishment will no longer be used in Australian Capital Territory government schools from the beginning of the 1988 school year? If so, have school administrators been advised of this new policy? Will the Government now consider issuing an ordinance to prevent the use of corporal punishment in all schools in the Australian Capital Territory, both government and non-government? Senator ROBERT RAY —The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has decided that corporal punishment will not be allowed in government schools in 1988. School administrators will be informed of the new policy in due course and in time for implementation in the new school year. The answer to the second part of Senator Colston's question is that the Minister is considering the preparation of an ordinance to prevent the use of corporal punishment in both government and non-government schools. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Will he confirm a report in yesterday's Melbourne Herald that the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust (SFIT), which administers the superannuation of some 320,000 Commonwealth Government employees, has lost about $500m in the stock market collapse? Can the Minister provide details of how much money was lost in the stock market crash by other Commonwealth Government authorities and business enterprises? Can he say what the effect of these losses is likely to be? Finally, what proportion of the investments held by Commonwealth Government authorities and public enterprises is held in the shares of foreign companies? Senator WALSH —I have a note about this matter, including some specific figures. The Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust had a portfolio of shares valued at $4.3 billion in June. I do not know what the present figure would be but, obviously, it would be a good deal lower than that figure. Of that amount 23 per cent was invested in Australian shares and 8 per cent was invested overseas, that is, just over $1 billion and $362m respectively. The Superannuation Fund Investment Trust, in common with almost, if not all, superannuation funds, would have had significant paper losses over the last few weeks. It is almost certainly in the position in which its exit benefit rate will have to be reduced. I may be able to say something a little more definitive about that matter shortly. However, I am advised that the SFIT's exposure to the share market is low compared with that of most other superannuation funds whose weightings vary from about 40 per cent to 70 per cent as against just over 30 per cent for the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. I do not know the situation regarding other Commonwealth Government authorities. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any other Commonwealth Government authority that would be likely to have shares in some other company, but I will see whether any information is available on that matter. Senator DEVEREUX —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the transcript issued yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in which he rebuked the Liberal Party of Australia President, John Elliott, for his comments made the previous day in Adelaide to the effect that Australia's exchange rate against the United States dollar should be targeted at 61c or 62c? Is the economic lesson given to Mr Elliott by Mr Howard on that occasion an accurate assessment of why he was foolish to speak in the way he did? Senator WALSH —I have seen the transcript and I think it is worth quoting a section of it. The transcript states what Mr Howard said yesterday morning in what has come to be known as the doorstop interview. In reply to a question about Mr Elliott's statement, he said: Well my view and the view of the Liberal Party is that there should be a float. There's a role for the Reserve Bank, smoothing an interventionary role but I have never made it a practice and I never will, of nominating a particular level for the dollar. I have always made the point that allowing the dollar to go into a free fall is not a quick-fix for our economic problems. There are costs involved in the dollar going down. Higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher debt. Therefore, I don't make it a practice, nor does the Liberal Party, of nominating at a particular level. Later in the interview he said that he had recently talked to Mr Elliott. Essentially I agree with the points that Mr Howard made. However, I do not accept that Mr Howard's motives were as pure as he would like to have us believe. Prior to the 1983 election the then Minister for Foreign Affairs-he is presently the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party-tried to talk down the dollar and to get a run on the currency. More recently Mr Peacock has been at it again as have Mr Howard and Senator Stone from time to time. They have all made public statements. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister has clearly made a thoroughly objectionable allegation as to the motivation of three members of parliament and what they were doing. I insist on a withdrawal. Suggesting that the members were seeking to promote a run on the currency is, in my view, a highly disorderly statement and should be withdrawn with respect to all three people mentioned. The PRESIDENT —It could be seen as a personal reflection on the members concerned. I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —Very well, I withdraw the reflection, Mr President. However, it is a fact that the three people whom I have named-Senator Stone, Mr Howard and Mr Peacock-and a number of others even less important than any of those three people have made statements, the effect of which is likely to be as I have stated. Mr President, in deference to your ruling, I will not comment on their motives. The real message which Mr Howard was trying to get through to Mr Elliott is that if one is trying to talk the dollar down, one cannot be that brazen about it. One has to hide one's intentions a little more effectively than Mr Elliott did. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer to comments made yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and on which he elaborated last night during an Australian Broadcasting Corporation television interview that murder `in defence of basic rights, or to try to get a free society' could be justified. I ask: Does the Minister share Mr Hayden's views? If so, can he inform the Senate of the circumstances which he considers would justify the murder of one human being by another? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not normally in the habit of quoting the Pope but the Holy See in its instruction on Christian freedom and liberation of 5 April 1986 defended the right of the oppressed to revolt and, as a last resort, to use armed struggle to put an end to an obvious prolonged tyranny. What else is armed struggle but the commission, on a systematic scale, of murder, if one chooses to put it in those terms? Similarly, the third preambulate paragraph of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to the need to protect human rights if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression. Many similar statements can, of course, be quoted. The Australian Government has a long established policy of supporting a peaceful solution to the problem of apartheid. As a matter of principle, the Australian Government cannot condone the use of violence in any form. Because of the emotion that the practice quite understandably generates, the Government cannot condone, in any circumstances, the phenomenon of necklacing which featured so large in the sanctimonious rhetoric we heard yesterday from members of Senator Stone's Party and the Opposition generally. This practice, amongst others, is an example of the inhumanity which the apartheid system has inevitably engendered among South Africans. It would not occur in a South Africa where black aspirations could be pursued by peaceful, legitimate means, the very means that are denied to them. It is not the only abuse occurring in South Africa and it is more than matched by the harsh repression of black South Africans by the South African Government. In view of the South African Government's refusal to change its policies fundamentally and in view of the violence meted out to those who actively oppose those policies, the Australian Government understands, and has said so consistently-not just yesterday and not just in the United Nations a day or two ago by Ambassador Woolcott-how some South Africans, in reaction to this violence, have felt compelled to resort to violence themselves. As a matter of principle, the Australian Government cannot condone the resort to violence and force. We have made that clear to black nationalist leaders such as Oliver Tambo. However, we will not condemn them for doing so, and that is the context in which Mr Hayden made his remarks. Senator STONE —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question as a result of the Minister's response. Will the Minister distinguish between the concept of armed struggle-a term on which he dwelt, referring to a papal annunciation-on the one hand and the actions of individuals, such as the necklacing of persons, usually of blacks by other blacks, on the other? Will he distinguish between the concept of armed struggle on the one hand and, on the other, the placing of bombs in shopping centres resulting in the murder of totally innocent civilians? Will the Minister bring his intellect to bear upon distinctions of that kind? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not propose to engage in the sorts of pontifications on this subject with which Senator Stone used to prop up the bar at the National Press Club every Friday night for years in previous incarnations, although that might be more congenial to his approach to this subject of high seriousness. These are questions of high seriousness and I refuse to trivialise them in the way that Senator Stone has. Senator WOOD —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of the report on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio on 12 October 1987 concerning American foreign policy in the Philippines which claimed that the Americans are considering moving their military bases to Australia? Have any officers of the Minister's Department been aware of this consideration, which affects Australia's interests? In the light of the Defence Minister's recent assertion that American South East Asian bases are essential for Australian security, can the Minister say which American military functions are being mooted for possible relocation in Australia? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am aware of the report referred to, which consisted of no more than a speculative comment by an American journalist about the future of the facilities in the Philippines. The United States has not made any approach to the Australian Government concerning the relocation of those facilities. With regard to the United States military facilities in the Philippines, the United States objective is to achieve a successful outcome to the forthcoming negotiations with the Philippines Government, resulting in a continued United States military presence there beyond 1991. Mr Beazley's remarks in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur this week confirm the Australian Government's view of the important contribution made to regional security by these facilities. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of an article in the Bulletin of 27 October 1987 which, in some detail, examines the income and expenses of a Dr Y who laments the hours that he works for what he regards as the meagre net pre-tax income of $36,900? I ask the Minister whether he has any information that might shed any light on the productivity of Dr Y. If so, can he indicate what would be the effect on the Australian economy if all workers had a similar level of productivity to that of Dr Y? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article, published in the Bulletin about a month ago, and I think I should quote a couple of extracts from it. It purports to quote a Dr Y as saying: What I have to put up with is a `something for nothing' mentality in which people troop into my surgery, toss their Medicare card down and expect instantaneous service. Doctors these days are regarded very much as the servants of the people. . . It's amazing the rubbish that I have to put up with from all sorts of bludgers, whingers and hypochondriacs. He then claimed that he worked a 48-hour week and earned, on average, $1,025 a week, out of which he had to pay expenses of $570. As he put it, he earned $21.35 an hour. The article went on to purport to give the details of the costs that this doctor incurred in his surgery, such as the purchase of magazines and periodicals. I do not think that I need to go into all of that detail. The 10 November issue of the Bulletin contained a letter to the editor from a Dr Alan Skapinker. He said: I was interested to read Dr Y's practice statistics (``The Crisis in the Surgery'', B, October 27, 1987). His gross income is $1025 per week. The Medicare rebate for a standard consultation is $15 and he therefore averages 68.3 consultations per week (presuming that he bulk-bills). The average standard consultation lasts for 15-20 minutes. According to his calculations, he must be working for only 17-20 hours per week. This would leave Dr Y plenty of time to do his own cleaning and laundry, adding an additional $6600 to his income. He would also have plenty of time to get a job in a busier practice for at least one day per week, earning him an estimated $10,000 per annum. This would raise his income to $53,500 per annum and he will probably still have time to play golf one day during the week. I do not think that there is any need to say any more about Dr Y and his alleged hard work and moderate remuneration. But if Dr Y's working hours were to be adopted by the work force in general, the effect would be a fall of close to 50 per cent in national product and national income. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Gareth Evans. I refer the Minister to the matter that I raised in Question Time yesterday, namely, whether the construction of the Aviation Central Training College will go ahead in Canberra, and the Minister's answer that he was `not up to date with the latest developments'. Has the Minister now been brought up to date with the latest developments and, in particular, in view of media reports yesterday and today that the Government is considering relocating the college to Launceston, can the Minister specifically advise whether he has received advice from his Department to the effect that Launceston would be an unsuitable alternative location for the college? Can the Minister advise the Senate how much has already been expended on the project, and when will he be able to give an unequivocal assurance that the Aviation College will proceed in Canberra as announced and planned? Senator GARETH EVANS —The training of air traffic controllers is essential for the safe and efficient operation of the airways system and the construction of the proposed Central Training College will involve the expenditure of several million dollars of public funds. Very little of that money-I am not sure how much-has so far been expended; there has just been the initial planning. I will check to find out for Senator Reid. However, substantial expenditure is proposed for this facility. Complex issues are involved in this matter, so it is entirely appropriate that Mr Duncan, the new Minister who has been handling operational aviation matters on my behalf, should fully examine these matters, as he has, to ensure that the proposed actions constitute the best possible course. That examination in which he has been engaged has required a short delay in the final consideration of tenders for the proposed siting of the college at Watson High School. I stress that no decision has been taken to alter the proposed siting of the college at Watson High. It is correct that the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology, based in Launceston, has proposed to the Government that it undertake air traffic control training, suggesting that this would achieve significant cost savings for the Government. The Government sees itself as clearly obliged to evaluate the proposal as part of the project as a whole. I am certainly extremely conscious, as is my colleague, of the need to avoid any unnecessary delay in the project. I certainly expect that the examination of the issues that are involved can be concluded very expeditiously and I would anticipate an announcement being made in this respect next month. Senator FOREMAN —The Minister for Justice will be aware of comments on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM this morning in which Mr Zdenkowski called on the Federal Government to oppose the reopening of the `black hole' at Boggo Road prison in Brisbane. Can the Minister inform the Senate what the Federal Government is doing to ensure a minimum standard of conditions for prisoners in Australian gaols? Senator TATE —I did hear Mr Zdenkowski's comments on today's AM program. Indeed, I almost choked on my cup of tea because the last thing I want from Mr Zdenkowski is advice on this matter. Usually the last thing I get from Mr Zdenkowski is advice on matters to do with prisons and sentencing. Mr Zdenkowski preceded his comments calling on the Federal Government to oppose the reopening of the Boggo Road black hole, as it has been called, by saying: . . . the time has come when I think that prisons are on a political agenda . . . The Federal Government put the matters of prisons and sentencing on Mr Zdenkowski's agenda on 23 July 1984 when he was appointed as commissioner for the Australian Law Reform Commission to produce a report on this very topic. Three years and four months later Mr Zdenkowski is still travelling around the Commonwealth having hearings on his discussion papers without any report in the hands of the Federal Government. He has asked for an extension well into next year, having already got an extension, in order to complete his report. By the way, he receives something like $70,000 a year. In the terms of reference that were given to Mr Zdenkowski some 3 1/2 years ago it was put to him, amongst other things-I think that, initially, this reference was given by Senator Peter Durack and led to an interim report being produced by the Law Reform Commission many years ago-that he should take into account that such laws and proposals as he recommends are consistent with articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is essential that, if the Federal Government is to have any role in the conditions that might be put in place in Australian prisons, lock-ups and other places of custody, we have to use the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or some such instrument, because, clearly, State gaols are within State jurisdiction rather than Federal jurisdiction. Moving to the whole question of the so-called black hole at Boggo Road, one simply need go no further than the Courier-Mail editorial of yesterday. In an excellent editorial the newspaper, having asked what justification there was for reopening punishment cells that are barbaric in the extreme, described them in this way: The cells are not merely places of solitary confinement; they are places where the hapless prisoners are deprived of normal sensory stimulation. In short, they don't know whether it is night or day, hot or cold. The same kind of cells were used during the Korean War on United Nations prisoners as a method of extracting information. Does Mr Neal- the relevant Minister in Queensland- really want Queensland to be seen in that company? It appears that Mr Neal and the Queensland Cabinet are happy to see Queensland in that company. Clearly, the Federal Government, and I think most Australians, are filled with revulsion at the thought that that might be the case. As I have said, it is probably at odds with our international obligations. It is for that reason that the Federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is taking up the question of that prison in Brisbane. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has received a complaint which has triggered its consideration of the conformity of the black hole with Australia's international obligations under articles 7 and 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Whether the Commission needed that complaint or whether it would have taken up the matter of its own notion, I am not sure. Nevertheless, a complaint has been received. In addition, my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gerry Hand, has had discussions with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with a view to it undertaking such an investigation. I know, from my discussions this morning with Mr Brian Burdekin, the Human Rights Commissioner, and informally with Mr Justice Marcus Einfeld at the Alan Missen Memorial Dinner last night, that the Commission will get its investigation under way. I hope that it will not come to an exercise of the Commission's powers of investigation. I would think that, even on a crude political judgment which might appeal to the Queensland Cabinet, a decision could be taken not to proceed with the decision to reopen the Boggo Road gaol facility. Senator PATTERSON —Can the Minister for Finance advise the Senate when the decision to issue the Australian Tax File Number Advice Card was made and when the Australian Taxation Office issued the first of those cards? To whom are they issued? What is the estimated cost of the production and issuing of the cards? What plans, if any, does the Government have to extend the use of this card to other departments? Senator WALSH —Senator Patterson asked about six sub-questions and I do not know the answers. However, I will get them as soon as possible. Senator AULICH —I ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an article in yesterday's Melbourne Herald entitled `Democracy at work: how to get a politician's ear for $1000'. One wonders how much the other parts would cost! I refer to the article covering the attempts by the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party of Australia to raise money through a special persons special privileges donation scheme. I ask: Is any such money raised subject to Commonwealth disclosure under the Commonwealth Electoral Act? If not, what action does the Government propose to take to extend legislation to such donations? Senator ROBERT RAY —I did notice in yesterday's Herald a reference to an American fund raising-style campaign which offers access to information and members of parliament in return for money. I was almost tempted to join myself because then I would probably find out which areas of Government expenditure the Opposition proposes to cut. I may also discover when the communications policy promised before the last election but never delivered by Mr Beale will arrive. Indeed, we might even receive the costing of the Liberal Party's education policy which Mr Shack refused to release before the election. Apparently there are six categories of this scheme. If a person joins the candidates forum it costs $25 and to join the members forum-that is, the Victorian lower House members forum-it costs $50. For the upper House in Victoria one has to pay the grand sum of $100 and, for the House of Representatives forum, $250. I am sure that everyone in this chamber will cheer when I say that it costs $500 to join the senators forum. Here at last, Mr President, we have due recognition for this chamber. We are no longer the K Mart of Australian politics. All I can say is: it is a lot of money but, just think, one could pay $500 and meet Senator Lewis, Senator Short, Senator Alston, Senator Patterson and Senator Hamer, who is not with us today. The final category is the Cabinet forum, which costs $1,000 to join. I do not know exactly what is involved there because there is not a Liberal Cabinet on the mainland of Australia. I assume that it is $1,000 because one would have to pay the air fare to Tasmania. The Liberal Party has lost 14 mainland elections in a row. Maybe people are just paying their $1,000 in the hope that the odds will finally turn around. I also read in the article that most of the funds will go to the State campaign fund for the Liberal Party and, therefore, would be in no way disclosable under Commonwealth legislation. Further, if any of that money were used in the Liberal Party maintenance fund for its general administrative operations, again it would not be disclosable. If any of the money were used for Federal election purposes, only those donations over $1,000 would be disclosable. So for those individuals who donate $1,000 to the Cabinet Fund, and if any of that money were diverted to Federal expenditure, it would, therefore, come under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I do not see any need to take any substantial Commonwealth action in this regard. I do not think that those forums will be much better than those that existed in the forums of, say, fourth or third century Rome. Senator BOSWELL —I address my question to Senator Gareth Evans. I note his reply to a question by Senator Stone in which he condoned violence under extreme provocation. In light of that answer, does he believe that Senator Richardson deserved the treatment he received in Ravenshoe when he tried to take 750 people's jobs and 3,000 people's jobs indirecty by closing down the north Queensland timber industry? The PRESIDENT —I do not know which portfolio representation this question comes under, but I call Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —Just to clarify the record for Senator Boswell, I did not say that the Government condoned violence. I said that we did not condemn it in the context of the extreme provocation to which people may be put in the context of South Africa-the oppression, the violence, the rape, the torture and the detention; all the horrors of that particular environment. If Senator Boswell is prepared to trivialise the particular provocation that he sees his residents of north Queensland as being subjected to by making comparison with the horrors of South Africa, then I am afraid that Senator Boswell, for all the quickness of feet he has so uncharacteristically shown in asking that question, does not really deserve our respect. Senator POWELL —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories to the Committee of Inquiry into Folklife in Australia, established in March 1986 by the former Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment. I ask the Minister: Firstly, has the Committee delivered its report to the Minister and, if so, when was the report delivered; secondly, when will the report be tabled in the Parliament; and, thirdly, can the Minister give an indication as to when the Government is likely to make a response to the Committee's findings? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am informed by a document I have here that the report has been delivered to the Minister. The report presently is in the hands of the Australian Government Publishing Service. It is a major document recommending a range of measures for safeguarding Australia's heritage of folklife. Unfortunately, there have been substantial delays in the production of the report. Because of these production delays it will not be available for tabling this session-I add, that is if we finish on 18 December. However, I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in this particular report. I understand that the report will now be available for release early next year. It will be tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The Department is looking at the recommendations in the report. Once the report has been tabled, the Government will respond formally to these recommendations, once there has been adequate opportunity for public comment. Senator SHORT —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer the Minister to the admission earlier this week by his colleague the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, that he had given a verbal nod to a company owned by Mr Bob Rogers in respect of a contract to provide the theatre in the Australian pavilion at World Expo 88 and that Mr Rogers would be entitled to compensation following the subsequent decision by the Minister not to sign the contract. I also refer to the statement by the Prime Minister that `no contract has been entered into'. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Administrative Services is responsible for the determination of the Government's purchasing policies and for the production of an official Commonwealth purchasing manual. If so, did Minister Brown contravene the Government's tendering and contracting policies and processes by conveying to Mr Rogers in discussions the clear expectation that he would be awarded the contract? If compensation is paid to Mr Rogers in respect of a contract it is claimed he did not have, what is the legal basis for such payment and how does the Government propose to prevent the successful pursuit of compensation claims under similar circumstances in the future? Senator ROBERT RAY —Responsibility for the award of a contract for a theatrical production within the Australian pavilion at World Expo 88 originally rested with the former Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. However, the Department of Administrative Services became involved in February 1987 when the Government decided to call fresh tenders which were to be evaluated by a committee under the chairmanship of the Department of Administrative Services. Five Australian companies plus an American company owned by Mr Bob Rogers were invited on 25 February 1987 to bid for the contract. Bids closed on 9 March 1987. The committee issued reports on 21 March 1987 and 4 April 1987 recommending the award of a contract to AAV Australia, which I think is located in Moorabbin. The Government accepted the recommendation on 13 April 1987. Throughout the tendering and evaluation processes between 25 February and 13 April 1987, Mr Rogers was in no different position from that of any of the other tenderers. Senator Short asked a series of other questions, some of which relate, I think, to events prior to the time at which the Department of Administrative Services became involved. Firstly, I think he asked some questions concerning the legal basis. I cannot give a legal opinion here. Not only am I not qualified to do that but, as I have said on many occasions, I would not want to lessen my reputation around the place by pretending to be a lawyer. I am sorry to see that Senator Button is not looking pleased. Therefore, I cannot help the honourable senator in that respect. Senator Short also asked questions as to how this contract relates to the manual on tendering, if I heard him correctly. That is a fairly extensive document. I do not know it word by word. I will take that part of the honourable senator's question on notice. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, led by Mr Hishanov. On behalf of all senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and trust that their stay is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator COLLINS —My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, is in two parts. The first part relates in particular to the death of Bernard McGrath in police cells in Kalgoorlie. The second part of the question relates to deaths in custody generally. Bernard McGrath was found in a police cell, apparently on his knees, slumped against a door with a towel around his neck attached to the door. In respect of the fact that the Kalgoorlie police initially released a statement saying that there were no suspicious circumstances attached to the death and in light of a Special Broadcasting Service interview with an alleged witness to a homicide who was waiting to make a voluntary statement at an office of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, will the Minister advise the Senate-if he is aware-whether the Kalgoorlie police interrogated any of the nine short term prisoners in respect of a possible homicide before they were released? Senator TATE —As I understand it, Bernard McGrath was picked up on Saturday, 14 November, at about 11.30 p.m. whilst playing pool. He was picked up on a warrant issued by the Community Services Department over his non-completion of a community work order. He had been ordered to do 100 hours of community work over a wilful damage charge but had completed only 50 hours. He was not affected by alcohol when arrested. The body of Bernard McGrath was discovered by another prisoner about 5.30 a.m. on 15 November. Western Australian police originally stated that there were no suspicious circumstances and that the death appeared to be a suicide. Twenty-four hours later Chief Superintendent Ron Kjellgren said that more investigation was needed into some aspects of McGrath's death. Late on Wednesday Western Australian police declared the matter a homicide and the Criminal Investigation Branch took over investigation. As I understand it, nine prisoners were in the Kalgoorlie cells on the night of the death. The cell doors were open to the exercise yard and adjoining shower and toilet. All prisoners had access to McGrath. Most of the prisoners were in for being drunk and disorderly. The morning following the death, all prisoners were released without questioning. On the face of it, it is an extraordinary dereliction that not one of the prisoners was asked one question in relation to the death that had occurred in that cell. No doubt the matter is subject to coronial inquiry. I guess an inquest is being prepared for. I have no more to say by way of assessment or analysis. That is my understanding of the facts. Senator Collins also asked a general question concerning the Federal Government's possible role in relation to Aboriginals being held in custody, or some other form of detention. The fact is that I reported to the Senate about a meeting of police and corrective services Ministers in Melbourne on 10 September. That meeting had been held, I thought, with a very good spirit and sense of purpose and had produced a draft summary of those practices and procedures that ought to be put in place in regard to the detaining and remanding in custody of Aboriginals around Australia. I had expressed my hope at that meeting that consultation would take place. Indeed, that was an undertaking given by the Ministers present-that such extensive and rigorous consultation would take place among the Ministers, Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal legal services within their own jurisdictions to enable us to go to the meeting tomorrow week in Hobart of the Australian Police Ministers Council and to resolve on a code of practices and procedures that ought to be put in place in regard to the holding of Aboriginals in custody. When I went to a meeting of the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service last Thursday night, 12 November, I was dismayed to be told-and after going around the table, this was the judgment I made-by the national representatives that this consultation had not taken place in any of the State or Territory jurisdictions of people who had been present at the meeting on 10 September in Melbourne. To say that I was dismayed and disappointed at that lack of consultation would be an understatement. The consultation did not take place as promised and this has led to the situation where I do not believe that the meeting to be held next Friday in Hobart can be expected to resolve on a code of practices and procedures. The spate of four deaths in the past week indicates the tragic dimensions of failure to address this problem expeditiously. Unless it is grappled with with a sense of urgency, which apparently is lacking at the moment in State and Territory jurisdictions, we all share a premonition that this tragedy will continue and spates of deaths, as have occurred in the past week alone, might well recur again. I believe that consultation with Aboriginal communities and their legal services is an essential precondition to give any authenticity or credibility to any code of practices and procedures that might be enunciated by police and corrective services Ministers. Until that consultation does take place, I believe we are greatly disadvantaged as police and corrective service Ministers in grappling with this problem with the urgency which it deserves. Senator McGAURAN —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to comments made by the member for the Victorian seat of Burke, Mr O'Keefe, at an Australian Labor Party branch meeting in Castlemaine and to subsequent media reports. Mr O'Keefe said he was pressing the Prime Minister for the removal of the tax exemption on income derived from gold mining. In light of the nature of Mr O'Keefe's seat of Burke, which has as many as a dozen gold mining companies and borders the traditional gold mining towns of Ballarat and Bendigo, and given Mr O'Keefe's prominent position on the Prime Minister's rural task force, is the industry to believe that the pre-election commitment by the Government not to remove the income tax exemption to the gold mining industry is now under review? Can the Minister assure the industry that Mr O'Keefe's pressure on the Prime Minister will be dismissed in favour of maintaining the tax exemption? Senator WALSH —I am not properly familiar with Mr O'Keefe's views on that matter, nor does he have any obligation to give them to me. If he has spoken to the Prime Minister, I will see what the Prime Minister has to say about it. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday at Question Time, Senator Vallentine asked me a question which I think I can best summarise by saying that it related to development work by a laser company in Australia and the strategic defence initiative (SDI) program. I was unable to give an answer yesterday. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The United States Department of Energy is responsible for, among other things, the production of United States nuclear weapons. The United States Strategic Defence Initiative Organisation (SDIO) is responsible for the SDI program and the United States Department of Energy acts as SDIO's agent for some aspects of the SDI project. The Australian Government does not monitor the extent to which private firms and organisations are seeking to become involved in the SDI program, nor are private bodies required to make the Government aware of their involvement or intended involvement. The Government would be faced with considerable practical difficulties were it to attempt to impede the export to the United States of innovative high technology developments by Australian industry which might, at some future time, have a possible role in the program. I am informed that the Australian laser in question would have a power output less by several orders of magnitude than would be needed for an operational SDI system should the United States decide to deploy one. In my reply to Senator Chaney on the same issue in October of last year, I reiterated the Government position. Private sector involvement in SDI is a matter for commercial judgment. But the Government has made it clear that it does not endorse SDI and will not enter into an umbrella agreement with the United States Government to establish ground rules for any Australian participation in SDI funded research. Senator BUTTON —Also at Question Time yesterday, Senator Panizza asked me a question about tariffs on diesel injection pumps and turbo chargers. I have obtained an answer which is somewhat longer than might be gripping for those members of the Senate who do not have a specialist interest in diesel injection pumps. I seek leave for the answer to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer reads as follows- Importers of replacement parts used for diesel injection pumps and turbo chargers not manufactured in Australia will continue to have the opportunity to import their goods at 2% duty irrespective of the proposed tariff changes referred to by the honourable Senator. This will be possible subjet to the normal provisions of the tariff concession system administered by the Australian Customs Service. As from 1 January 1988, the Australian Tariff will be based on the harmonized commodity description and coding system which has also been adopted by most major trading nations to standardise their commodity descriptions and tariff codes and thus simplify the administration requirements of international trade. In adopting the hamonized tariff, Australia is obliged to adhere to all the internationally agreed tariff items while maintaining those Australian items necessary for industry policy reasons. Under the current tariff structure most parts for diesel injection pumps and turbochargers are classified to the same tariff item as the complete goods and therefore pay the same rates of customs duty. However, under the harmonized tariff the rules for the classification of parts for such goods will change. Parts will fall to new items in the tariff and will not be classified to the same item as the complete goods as is presently the case. Therefore, diesel injection pump and turbocharger parts, currently dutiable at the 2 per cent rate applying to the complete goods, are being amalgamated into new items with parts for other pumps mainly dutiable at 25 per cent. In determining the rates of duty to be applied to these amalgamated items, regard had to be given to the protective rates of duty applying to the Australian industry involved in the area, since many of the parts falling to the amalgamated items are manufactured in Australia. As a result the industry protective rate was the rate considered to be appropriate. Senator TATE —Yesterday Senator Watson asked me a question concerning the treatment of pre-malignant keratoses. The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Despite Senator Watson's attempts to claim the contrary, the cost of the treatment of pre-malignant keratoses, potentially cancerous skin lesions, is still covered by Medicare benefits. The difference since 1 August is that the specific items for the removal of warts and keratoses have been deleted from the Medicare schedule because of concern about the rapid increase in the utilisation of these services which could not be justified on either demographic or health grounds. Indeed, over the last two financial years the increase in utilisation of these items totalled 45 per cent. Now, just like many other minor services, the removal of warts and keratoses, including sunspots, are covered by Medicare fees and rebates for consultations, either at the general practitioner or specialist rate, which provides adequate and appropriate remuneration. Sunspots and warts are not skin cancers, but in some cases should be removed as a preventive measure. Their removal was originally a time consuming and difficult task performed mainly by specialists. The fees were originally structured on this basis and, as with many other professional procedures, a consultation fee could not be charged. With the advent of liquid nitrogen removal and wart killing paints, three-quarters of these procedures are now being performed rapidly and painlessly by general practitioners in their surgeries. The changes announced deal with particular concern that, because they were not permitted to charge for both the consultation and the removal procedure during the one visit, medical practitioners were asking patients to return so that they could claim for both items when in fact very often the removals could have been performed during the initial consultation. Thus the changes have eliminated scope for overservicing, while ensuring that medical practitioners are appropriately compensated through Medicare consultations for the cost of providing the service. I should also stress that the items for the removal of skin cancers remain in place as the Government recognises the need for separate procedures to cover these services. As well, officers of the Department of Community Services and Health have, since the deletion of these items, met with representatives of the medical profession, including surgeons, dermatologists, obstetricians and gynaecologists. The Department is reviewing the special case that has been argued for anal and genital warts to be covered in the benefits schedule, as they usually require hospital admission and removal under anaesthetic. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REYNOLDS —Yesterday, Senator MacGibbon asked me a question about the business migration program. I have the following answer for him: The figures for principal business migration applicants, spouses and accompanying minor children are as follows: 1982-83, 1,079; 1983-84, 1,472; 1984-85, 1,561; 1985-86, 1,649; and 1986-87, 3,535. According to a preliminary survey, the figure for the first quarter of 1987-88 will be 1,456. It should be noted that the various policy changes, particularly in 1983, to some extent may have distorted the 1983-84 and 1984-85 statistics; that is, some arrivals in this two-year period comprise a component of the previous policy. The major safeguard in ensuring that business migration program migrants do not repatriate their moneys lies in good selection. As part of the recent upgrading and streamlining of the business migration program announced by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, the Government is taking the opportunity to implement measures to monitor the business activities of business migrants. The accreditation of qualified business migration consultants to assess applications and provide post-arrival services will further these objectives. In the meantime the Government has a general safeguard over the integrity of the immigration program through its re-entry policy. The policy is designed to ensure genuine settlement in Australia, but is flexible enough to allow newly arrived migrants to travel to settle family affairs and engage in business activity. Persons who have been issued a residents visa and have travelled to Australia by the date specified on the visa may leave and return to Australia on any number of occasions within three years of that date, provided he or she has been physically present in Australia as a resident for a total of two out of the three years prior to the application for a re-entry visa. The Government does not wish to inhibit business initiatives or intervene in the business affairs of some Australian residents solely on the grounds that they are recent arrivals. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Under the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 three major functions are identified for the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. The first of these functions is important-that is, that the Committee is to make recommendations to the Minister with respect to: priorities and strategies for activities by the Commonwealth relating to soil conservation; On page 4 of the report the Committee, in supporting the national soil conservation program, said: Fragmentation of effort in the past has limited an effective attack on land degradation problems. It is important that the Commonwealth, under the national soil conservation program, takes the lead in the co-ordination of programs and the promotion of community awareness programs so that the first goal of the national soil conservation program is met. That goal is that `all lands in Australia be used within their capability'. The Soil Conservation Advisory Committee also states that in attempting to establish how best the Commonwealth could contribute in the future `a significant step towards this end was the preparation, by the Committee, of a draft strategy for Commonwealth involvement in soil conservation'. I welcome the draft national soil conservation strategy, which, to my consternation, was released somewhat quietly on 6 November. I found out about the release of that document by accident only yesterday when a rural journalist was speaking with me. That release took place only two days after I moved an urgency motion in this chamber which was supported by all parties. From inquiries I made yesterday after establishing that this draft had been released, I discovered that none of the senators' offices that I had contacted had received this draft. Very few offices of what I would consider to be interested departments and very few academics around Australia had received it either. I make that comment because the document states that any comments, which are invited, should be directed in writing by 15 December. That is far too short a time-frame for comments on something as important as a national soil conservation strategy. I would suggest that half of Australia's farmers are involved in some kind of harvest program at this stage of the year. Academics who might be interested are probably involved in winding up the year's activities, if not marking papers and, in the case of the rest of the community, we are fast approaching the silly season-perhaps the silliest of all seasons in this place. So I have called upon the Minister for Resources, Mr Peter Morris, to extend the time for public comments until at least March next year. I commend the very first point in the draft which states that `Australia's soils are a finite resource.' This is a very important fact which needs to be drawn to everybody's attention. The strategy draft goes on to state that `soils are formed slowly and must, therefore, be regarded as non-renewable.' I think we all need to take this point to heart and to think about it when we are making comments and suggestions in the soil conservation area. While looking at this Advisory Committee report and the issue generally of soil conservation, I would like to comment on the recent restructuring of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy. There has been a consequent amalgamation of the former Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Bureau of Resource Economics into the new Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics. I think it is reasonable to suggest that the national soil conservation strategy, which has been brought out by the Advisory Committee, in the light of that restructuring, could become part of a more integrated approach, perhaps through the new amalgamated bureau, to incorporating land, water, environmental considerations and management practices in much the same way as the new Murray-Darling Basin Commission will now do in respect of that area. The Government has accepted that the narrow, single issue approach to these problems in the River Murray area has failed. The Australian Democrats believe that the Government should also consider a more holistic approach in the area of soil degradation. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.16) —I welcome the 1986-87 annual report of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee. The program under which this report is brought forward, as a result of the Soil Conservation (Financial Assistance) Act 1985, has its genesis going back to the program initiated in 1983 which, in turn, was very much the successor to the national soil conservation program introduced by the Fraser Liberal Government in 1980. It is a little difficult to analyse some of the issues in soil conservation without also relating them to the success, over a number of years, of the national tree program, which again goes back to a Fraser Government initiative in 1982. We see from this annual report that since 1983 a considerable amount of attention has been paid to the problem of soil conservation in a more formal fashion than has been the case for many years. Since the introduction of the program in 1983 with the budgetary allocation of some $6m which is provided this year, there has been an expenditure in the order of $21m. It is perhaps interesting to note that that is slightly less than the money which the Government has put aside for the national rainforest conservation program in the course of the last year and a half and perhaps it is an indication of the relative importance which the Government has given to soil conservation issues as compared with the more politically attractive areas of rainforest conservation. Without in any sense trying to say that rainforest conservation is not a subject of immediate national importance, it is perhaps unfortunate that, when $22m can be found for that in the fairly short term, only $21m has been found for what is a far more serious problem going back over the life of this program. If one goes back and looks at the report which was presented in April 1978 by the Research Directorate of the then Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development entitled Basis for Soil Conservation Policy in Australia, one can see that the study which was undertaken between 1975 and 1977 indicated that about 52 per cent of the land in use in Australia needed some form of treatment for land or vegetation degradation. It is true to say, for instance, that each centimetre of soil lost can reduce crop yields by up to 20 per cent. In Western Australia alone in recent years, more than $100m worth of production per annum has been lost as a result of the loss of 2,500 hectares per annum through salt and other forms of land degradation. It is probably not possible to make a calculation of the extent of productive loss and the impact, in terms not only of loss of soil but also of increasing salinity and degradation, throughout the whole community. The Senate had an excellent debate on 4 November this year on a motion initiated by Senator Powell, dealing with this very important question. It is interesting that the major national projects dealt with in this report-the acidification of soils, the measurement of run-off and soils loss, the modelling techniques to be used for measuring and evaluating this problem, the economics of soil conservation and the revision of farming systems related to the protection of Australia's soils-will all make a major contribution to redressing this problem. I am happy to indicate that the Opposition has sought to give the very highest priority to this problem in the re-evaluation of its environment policy. This is probably the major single problem affecting Australia's environment. It needs to be dealt with on a national level and with a great deal more expenditure of public funds than has been the case in the past. I am glad to see that the limited resources made available at the moment to the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee appear to have been well used. We look forward to an expanded report in the next year given the slight increase in funds available in this Budget. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(3.21) —I support what Senator Puplick has just said regarding the annual report of the Soil Conservation Advisory Committee, especially what he said about the amount of money that has been allocated to the rainforest area. That is all very admirable but that amount of money is not being put into soil conservation which, of course, is also very valuable. It is a productive resource, not a resource from which all of the productivity can be taken away, as in the case of rainforests. I take the liberty of mentioning that the Committee's report states: The National Soil Conservation Program . . . is directed at all sectors of the community with an interest in, and a concern for, land management. Everyone in the community must become more aware of that. There is a peer group pressure situation, and if more people have an awareness of soil conservation we will be able to look after this very precious resource, the soil, much better. The part of the report that strikes me as being very important comes under the heading `States' Component Projects': In New South Wales, the first of a series of group catchment schemes funded by the NSCP has been completed. This is a wonderful achievement. I happen to be the chairman of the Yarraman catchment group in the north-west of New South Wales. We got together a group of landholders for a common purpose-to conserve the soil for future generations. That catchment also affected the railway lines and roads through the area, and the purity of the water received by the towns and villages further downstream. Without putting too fine a point on it, we spend a lot of time talking about the `greenie' movement but a lot of the time we should be thinking of the `brownie' movement because brown is the colour of the water that flows down to the sea and takes away our life blood, the soil. If we allow that to continue, in the future we will not have any of that productive resource. I commend the report, and I commend what previous speakers have said about it. If this country and this Government do not wake up very quickly and decide to spend money on this most vital resource, in the future everyone will damn us for neglecting it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(3.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to emphasise the importance of roads to all Australians. Some of us, particularly politicians, regularly use planes. Perhaps we do not get on the roads as often as people say we ought to. I know that that happens in my electorate at times. People sometimes say that if their member were on the roads a little more often they might have better roads. Many people use trains as a means of transport around the cities, but with the extensive use of cars we all want and need good roads. Having worked in the Main Roads Department for 14 years before I got married I can speak with a lot of authority on this report on the assessment of the Australian road system. Senator Button —It is only a few years ago. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I thank Senator Button. It is only a few years ago-but we will not count them up. I ended up working for the Main Roads Commissioner. Councils were always wanting more money for roads, and the story is still the same. In conjunction with this Federal Bureau of Transport Economics report on the assessment of the Australian road system for 1987 a report by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities called the Australian Roads Outlook Report is being released this week. That report, as I understand it, has certainly made a point of the fact that the roads are aging-a bit like some of us, I suppose. The population of Australia is also aging. Fifty-five per cent of roads are already more than 20 years old. The amount of heavy road freight traffic is growing rapidly. Some 77 per cent of all freight goes by road these days, despite the train services available. Over 80 per cent of all travellers throughout Australia use roads. That is sometimes hard to believe when one gets into an aeroplane and sees how many people are travelling that way. But that is the fact. It is quite correct. The commitment to the preservation of existing roads has to double. The unfortunate thing is that the level of funds being provided by the Federal Government is falling. The Cameron Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants, which is mentioned on page 59 of this report, is of very great significance to the road situation at the present time. If the Cameron principles were applied to all Federal road funding, Queensland's share would be cut from 21 per cent to 16 per cent, which would mean a loss of $34m per annum at the present funding level. Of course, that would be devastating. We should remember that roads support the industries that generate our nation's wealth. Road funding should support industries generating this wealth and our export earnings. The tourism industry, particularly in Queensland, needs better roads for tourists. We need road infrastructure where major resorts are developed and general road infrastructure where cities, such as Cairns or those on the Gold Coast, grow from tourism. I suppose that there are many other examples. New gold mines are being served by deficient roads that need attention. There is inadequate road infrastructure in the coalfields and an inability to haul road trains carrying cattle in the far outback. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would know of the very narrow roads in the far outback. As a result, road trains find it hard to travel on them. We need money. We really need to think about this for a little longer than the five minutes we are given to speak about these reports. This is a very comprehensive and long report and one I recommend to all honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report brought down this morning is very important. Not all senators have had the opportunity of going through it in detail. A number of matters in it throw great doubt on earlier statements by Ministers and the Government in this place and in the House of Representatives concerning the progress and the procedures adopted concerning the letting of the contract to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd. Senator Michael Baume —Grossly improper. Senator MESSNER —As Senator Baume has mentioned, a number of matters require further examination. I suppose we should be grateful that the Senate Standing Committee on Infrastructure currently has an inquiry before it into the whole question of how the contract came to be let to Amann. I understand that Committee is examining the events and circumstances surrounding this contract. Let me point to just a few things that come out of the report-they virtually leap out at a reader-which indicate that the Government has a lot more to answer for than it has yet admitted in respect of this report. Firstly, let me quote from the findings set down by Mr Menzies on page 70 of the report where he refers, firstly, to the period available to the Department of Transport for processing tenders being `unduly compressed and this processing had to be carried out in too short a period.' Many of us have been saying that for a long time. The question unanswered is why the procedures were compressed into such a short time frame. Senator Durack —Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Senator MESSNER —The Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) has now arrived in the chamber. Perhaps he can tell us. We certainly need to have more answers on that point. In paragraph (5) on page 71 of the report certain facts are referred to which called for particularly rigorous examination of Amann's capacity, financial and otherwise, and competence to perform the duties for the full life of the contract. Mr Menzies goes on later in the report to point out that that did not happen and that all the signs went up in such a clear way but the Government apparently ignored them and did not examine those points via its various officials working on this project. Later there is a reference to the fact that the Director of Supply and Services in the relevant section of the Department of Transport and Communications, who was a member of the Tender Acceptance Committee, was asked to carry out such an investigation and indeed the Director reported the result of his investigation to be satisfactory. However, when questions were asked about the reasons for the failure the Government could not ascertain those things because of the absence of the Director on sick leave. So nobody could obtain answers because the Government was not prepared to delve further into the matter. Senator Button —It sounded a pretty good idea. Senator MESSNER —At least it raises the question as to how it came to be so convenient at the time that sick leave was available. Mr Menzies goes on to say: If Amann's costings had been competently investigated, the result would have been to cast considerable doubt on Amann's financial and administrative competence. That is a damning statement. The report contains other statements-there is not much time left-but I make the point that these statements lead us to conclude that many questions are yet to be answered. Quite clearly, answers given in this place and in other places need further examination and for that reason I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.35) —I join in expressing my concern about this matter not only in terms of the findings in this report but also because of some other matters which were not dealt with. I would like to stress that the conclusions of the Review of Tender Procedures for the Coastwatch Contract report are greatly damning of the incompetence within the Department of Transport and Communications, particularly after it became evident in mid-January 1987 to the Tender Assessment Committee-that is, the body comprising representatives of interested departments charged with assessing tenders-that there were some problems. A quick, surface, incompetent examination was then made with the result that this report now finds that the investigation `failed to bring to notice errors and other deficiencies in the financial statement submitted in support of this tender'. The conclusion is: If Amann's costings had been competently investigated, the result would have been to cast considerable doubt on Amann's financial and administrative competence. This, together with other facts, `would have raised grave doubts as to whether Amann had the necessary competence, capacity and capability to undertake the contract and as to the reliability of the price offered'. That goes to the crux of the matter. What concerns me is not only those issues-and I have not time to discuss much more of them-but also an extraordinary exchange that took place in April of this year at a Senate Estimates committee after it had become evident in January that there were some problems. Perhaps other senators will take up other parts of that inquiry back in April. The section I want to deal with is the extraordinary exchange that took place between Senator Gietzelt and me over one additional question and that is whether or not the granting of this tender to Amann Aviation Ltd involved the unnecessary expenditure of funds overseas at a time when we were entering-and we are still in it-a very serious balance of payments problem which has now developed into perhaps an even greater crisis. The reality is that there was no consideration by this Government of the balance of payments implications of awarding this contract to Amann. Yet the existing operators, as I understood the situation, had put in a tender which would not have involved much, if any, expenditure of Australia's foreign reserves. The arrogance of the Government in this matter is clearly evident from Senator Gietzelt's response. He was at that stage a Minister and the arrogance of his response in denying, in effect, my right to ask questions on this matter was, I believe, disgraceful. I would have hoped that when we are looking at tender procedures-as this inquiry did-and making recommendations, one of the requirements would be that the balance of payment implications of such contracts involving the supply of imported equipment should be taken into account. Clearly they were not in this instance, because I asked specifically about it and the clear burden of the responses I got was that no one had cared whether or not this contract unnecessarily involved the importation of millions of dollars worth of aircraft or whether in fact this could have been done by aircraft already in Australia. Not only was there no inquiry about this factor; there was a determined attempt by Senator Gietzelt to prevent the matter being discussed. I refer the Senate to the transcript of Senate Estimates Committee E of 9 April 1987, pages E67 and E68, which reads as follows: Senator MICHAEL BAUME —What will be the final, all-up cost of importing these aircraft? Dr Kay-I cannot give you that figure. That is a commercial transaction on the part of the contractor. . . . . Senator MICHAEL BAUME —. . . Were any balance of payments implications taken into consideration when awarding this contract? It seems a reasonable question in the circumstances. Senator GIETZELT —It is not a question you can ask an officer of the Department; it is not his responsibility. His responsibility to the Government is to ensure that the tender meets the requirements of the tender document and also that it is the lowest tender and can fulfil its obligations to Government policy. Of course, it could not do that and it was not. But why is a balance of payments implication not an obligation to Government policy? Heaven knows. Only Senator Gietzelt and the Government could tell us that. I have no idea. Then, when I asked-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under Sessional Orders the time for the debate has now expired. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Knowles: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Puplick: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.43) —The Senate is continuing the debate on the 1986-87 annual report of the Steel Industry Authority. This report was raised today, during Question Time. I point out that on 3 November this year I discussed at length the sorry state of the Steel Industry Authority, as revealed in this annual report. Notwithstanding the massive investments by the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) in the steel industry, as it was required to do under the steel plan, and notwithstanding the massive contribution by the taxpayers of Australia pursuant to the Government's actions under the steel plan, little appears to have changed since 1984. The report reveals that productivity is appalling. Productivity at Port Kembla was 229 tonnes per employee per year in the six months ending 30 June 1987. That productivity level is less than the level of productivity at the start of the plan, four years ago. That level of productivity is less than one-third the reported level of 800 tonnes per person per year currently being achieved in the United States of America. Yet the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, in answer to a question which I put to him today, said that in effect, the Government is not prepared to do anything about the attitude and the activities of the unions in this matter. There are plenty of things that the Government could do. In particular, the Government could bring the union movement into line and make it legally responsible for the arrangements that it enters into. One of the great problems is the current dispute within the union for control of the union. The branch of the union at Port Kembla, on the south coast, is, in fact, under the control of a militant person who is not prepared to follow any of the suggestions, let alone the directions, which might come from his head office. The result is chaos in the BHP steelworks at Port Kembla, the company being held to ransom, and the union, in effect, sabotaging the massive investment which this nation-to say nothing of the shareholders of BHP-has in the steel industry of our country. Reductions in the work force have to take place. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, and the Minister, Senator Button, have acknowledged that they will have to take place. The branch of the union at Port Kembla has said, `We will not allow those reductions to take place'. It is prepared to hold the industry to ransom in order to prevent those reductions in the work force, notwithstanding that that was one of the crucial factors of the steel plan. The point I wish to make in the very brief time that is allowed to us to debate this matter is that this is a clear indication that the Government's sectoral plans are not able to be delivered. This Government enters into deals. It is a case of big government, big unions and big business. It is entering into these tripartite agreements in order to try to protect the work force, but the unions will not deliver what they are required to deliver under the plans and, accordingly, the plans fail. That has happened to the steel industry plan. It is happening in some ways to the automotive plan, notwithstanding the massive production. The Government must find another way of dealing with the trade union movement in Australia. It is continually giving in to trade union demands and, in particular, trade union demands at the upper level by people like Crean and Kelty, who, in fact, are unable to deliver at the shop floor level. The Government has to find some other way of dealing with them other than simply caving in to their demands. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.47) —The appalling thing about today's reports that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) steelworks at Port Kembla could close down because of continuing industrial unrest is not simply that that industrial unrest has continued in defiance of the steel industry plan to which the Government has allocated $100m by way of bounty-that is, taxpayers' money-on the basis of undertakings from steel workers, or that the company has spent $800m of shareholders' funds on an undertaking from the unions that they would behave responsibly; that is bad enough. The most serious point is that the Government has shown no will whatsoever to require the unions to keep their part of this tripartite bargain. It is not as if something has suddenly blown up. The Government knew about this months ago. I quote what Senator Button said in March this year. Of course, he did nothing, but this is what he said: I agree entirely that it is an absurd dispute- referring to industrial disputes at Port Kembla; I agree it is an absurd dispute-- that it is a threat to Australia's reputation as a supplier of raw materials and manufactured goods, and that it is at odds with the best endeavours that this country should be making in industrial relations. That was said in March. What did this Minister do about it? Exactly nothing. In May it was reported that the BHP steelworks at Port Kembla had been forced to withdraw from valuable export markets in the Philippines, Korea, the United States, China and New Zealand because of the crippling industrial campaign by south coast unions, described by the New South Wales Industrial Commissioner, Justice William Fisher, as `industrial anarchy'. What did this dynamic Minister, who is supposed to be in charge of the steel industry plan, do about it? Absolutely nothing. As a result, there is the prospect that the steelworks could be closed. In May, the Sydney Morning Herald editorial read: . . . Senator Button, the architect of the steel plan, spelled all this out to deaf ears some days ago. Wollongong, he said, could not afford the `luxury' of returning to the days when industrial disputation forced BHP to be unprofitable and countries like China to refuse long-term contracts because it was unsure of supply. The warning was ignored in favour of the old tactics of relying on industrial muscle rather than reason and research. Of course, what did Senator Button do? He, with extraordinary enthusiasm and at great personal risk to every unionist, wagged his little finger at them. Nothing was done. We now have a situation in which BHP has been forced to abandon, hopefully only for the time being, its plans to replace its No. 4 blast furnace. Something like $200m worth of investment has already been cancelled in Wollongong because of industrial disruption, but this Government is continuing to do nothing. Why will not this Minister do something about the matter? During the Senate Estimates committee hearings I asked what sanctions were available to the Minister. He said that there were none. Without being unfair and abbreviating his response, he did not think it was appropriate that any sanctions that could be imposed on a union which rats on a deal such as this one should be available to a government. The third part of this deal, which involved multi-millions of dollars of taxpayers' and shareholders' money, was co- operation from the trade union movement, co-operation which had been denied. The Minister can come into this place and say, `That is just all too bad. There is nothing I can do about it'. He waves his finger, speaks, but does nothing. This situation is an absolute disgrace. The Steel Industry Authority annual report we are debating today reveals the extent of that disaster. It warns of the threat to this industry as a whole. We are now seeing, from what is happening this week in BHP discussions, that the threats outlined by the Steel Industry Authority, the risks of the industry being shattered, are not just idle threats. Unfortunately, they now have every prospect of coming to fruition. Senator PARER(Queensland)(3.51) —I rise to speak briefly on the Steel Industry Authority and the steel plan. Let me state at the outset, as I did previously when I spoke on this matter, that there is nothing wrong inherently with the steel plan. It is a good plan, but it is like a tripod. One leg of the tripod is Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd which, of course, has maximum financial exposure of something over $800m. I believe that this figure is heading towards $1.2 billion. The second leg of the tripod is the Government, which has a commitment of the order of $100m of taxpayers' money. The third leg of the tripod is the unions, which have a commitment that they will go through the proper process before they do anything that will put the jobs of their members in jeopardy. In any tripod situation, if one leg fails the whole thing comes cascading down and that is what has happened in this case. I was absolutely appalled during Question Time at the off-handed way in which the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, who was the author of this plan-and I have said it is inherently a good plan-answered questions that were asked by Senator Lewis and Senator Chaney. He was more inclined to sit on his hands and do nothing. If my memory is correct, he said in answer to one of those questions that the Steel Industry Authority had called a meeting in October and that he did not intend to do much else about the matter. He also said that the record had been pretty good, so why get too fussed. Let us look very quickly at that record. In the six months to June 1984 alone something like 62,950 man hours were lost. In six months to December 1984 56,000 man hours were lost; in the six months to June 1985 56,000; in the six months to December 1985 45,000; in the six months to June 1986 166,000; and in the six months to December 1986 67,000. In the six months to June 1987 a record 359,000 man hours were lost. Senator Button considers that a pretty good industrial record. The industry was on its knees and very serious decisions had to be made as to whether it would even continue in Australia. For many reasons, not least the strategic reason, we need a steel industry in Australia. So every effort had to be made by the three parties involved to do something about the matter. What I found appalling was the fact that Senator Button said that he intended to do nothing else and that there was no role for the Government. At no time did he indicate why this industrial disputation occurred. Noises were made about better communications between management and the workers. The reason massive industrial disputation occurred in June had nothing to do with any industrial matter. It was simply that the South Coast Labour Council of New South Wales was on strike because it opposed changes to workers compensation by the New South Wales Labor Government. So, for straight political reasons a militant union leadership is doing its damnedest to torpedo what I have mentioned a number of times is a first class plan. It is interesting to note comments made by the Caucus industry committee chairman, Mr Stephen Martin, whose electorate covers this area. He must have tried to cover up the position with tongue in cheek because he would be very much aware of the real situation. All he could say was that the company had spoken-he was not prepared to do it himself-of the appalling industrial relations record in the year to 31 June but that there had been a significant improvement since then. I am not sure what a `significant improvement' is. Something like 60,000 man hours being lost in a quarter does not seem to be a recipe for improvement. Senator Button also said that this matter should not be aired publicly. I have not heard anything more ridiculous in my life. What on earth are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to keep it hidden under wraps like all of the other restrictive work practices? These matters must be aired publicly so the public knows where its money is being spent and whether it is being spent wisely. I cannot understand Senator Button's position on the matter because, after all, the Labor Government in this place is the political arm of the trade union movement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.56) —The Steel Industry Authority's 1986-87 annual report is the latest of a series of reports which have indicated very serious trouble with the Government's steel industry plan. This report warrants careful consideration by the Senate as the plan and the industry are of great importance to Australia. In announcing the plan in December 1983, Senator Ryan, on behalf of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, said that the plan is seen by the Government, the industry and the union movement as being essential to reverse the decline in the industry's fortunes and that it represents a new approach to industry policy in Australia. The fact that we have not seen over the last two years a reversal of decline but a return to decline is a matter of very great concern to the Opposition and we challenge the approach to industry policy which has been adopted by the present Government and the Minister, Senator Button. In a statement of 8 December the Government says that the plan has been developed as a co-operative effort involving undertakings from all parties with an interest in the development of the industry, including the steel producers, the steel unions and the Commonwealth Government. The statement goes on to say that the plan seeks to overcome the underlying problems confronting the industry and its success will depend upon the various undertakings being adhered to. One of the undertakings which was entered into by the trade union movement was adherence to dispute settling procedures. Quite clearly, union adherence to the plan has been seriously at fault not just in recent months but also over a period of some years. The Minister has shown an extraordinary incapacity to come to grips with the problems which have been emerging over this time and a great unwillingness to address himself to these matters in this chamber, although from time to time he has allowed himself to criticise union activity. I remind the Senate that the Steel Industry Authority annual report for 1985-86 stated: If this pattern of industrial disputation continues, it does not augur well for the success of the industry over the remainder of the Plan and, consequently, for the longer-term security of employment. It ill becomes the Minister to say that all of these matters should be dealt with confidentially, quietly and that he does not want to comment, when the Steel Industry Authority reported on the year 1985-86 in those terms. A dramatic worsening of the situation is portrayed in the 1986-87 annual report which we are now debating. It also sits ill in the Minister's mouth to be seeking to excuse the emerging failure of the steel plan on the admitted difficulties that have occurred with respect to some of the new capital investment. I want to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that while Senator Button has been careful to draw attention to the difficulties with respect to capital investment, that matter is specifically dealt within the report that the Steel Industry Authority has put before us. On page 3, the report says: While recognising the significance of capital investment to the long-term viability of the domestic steel industry, it is the management of the industry's labour resources that is of the greatest immediate concern to the Authority. Why should that be the greatest area of concern? It is straightforward, and clear from the evidence in the report. There has been a 100 per cent increase in industrial disputes over the previous year, when the previous year was already regarded as a situation that warranted the concern of the Steel Industry Authority. The problem is clearly centred on Port Kembla, and a major national interest is being put at risk by a minority of trade unionists who are not prepared to join their fellow workmates in establishing the security that this industry requires. I hope that there will be another opportunity to debate this report. The Government's refusal to face up to its responsibilities in industrial relations is being made quite apparent. I, for one, am sick of the claims being made by the Government that it has a special relationship with the trade unions, a special relationship that is certainly not reflected in any capacity of the Government to deal with this significant problem. Senator Stone —The Government is on its knees to the unions. Senator CHANEY —As Senator Stone points out, the special relationship is that the Government is on its knees to the trade union group, and that seems to me to be a fair assessment of the situation. Australia is suffering here. The steel industry, which is so fundamentally important to Australia, is being put at risk by irresponsible trade union action. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 5 November, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.03) —At an earlier time we were discussing this report-- Senator Gareth Evans —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Senator Messner spoke for five minutes earlier today on this subject. I do not want to inhibit his freedom of speech and ability to wax lyrical on this subject, but I do not think that he is entitled to have another go. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no substance to the point of order. The matter was adjourned earlier to be considered under General Business. It is now General Business, and Senator Messner is entitled to speak again. Senator MESSNER —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I hope that that will not come out of my time. Senator Gareth Evans —I rise on a further point of order. Senator Messner did not seek leave to continue his remarks. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What happens under the system, which is in a sessional order that I think you are the author of, Senator Evans, is that if a matter is adjourned under consideration of Government Papers, it comes up again under General Business and senators may speak again, regardless of what has happened before. It was properly put on the General Business section of the Notice Paper. Senator Gareth Evans —I apologise to the Chair and to Senator Messner. Senator MESSNER —I hope that all that did not come out of my time, either. This report is sprinkled with various statements, a few of which I shall quote to give the flavour of the report. The findings include such statements as: Officers concerned in assessing the tenders appeared to have proceeded under a basic misconception. Here is another beauty: . . . a full and competent evaluation of matters other than technical compliance of tenders does not appear to have been undertaken. Here is another: Senior management of the D.O.T. did not exercise sufficient supervision of the matter. Another is: . . . confusion between D.O.T. and D.O.A. as to the role of the representatives of the latter Department on the T.A.C.- that is, the Tender Acceptance Committee. We go on with many such references in the findings of the inquiry by Mr Menzies, which leads one only to the conclusion that the Government has an absolute shambles on its hands in this regard. Perhaps the most important statement of all appears in the body of the report, on page 10. Here, Mr Menzies, among other things, when talking about financial matters and managerial questions in the relevant Departments and questioning the capacity and competence of the tenderer to undertake the process, says: Recognised risk analysis techniques are available, but in the ultimate, it falls to the decision maker to decide what is an acceptable risk to the Commonwealth. It seems to me that that opens the very matter that we have been seeking to pursue in the Senate and the House of Representatives over several months, and that is that, in the end, it is the Minister who is responsible for the decision as to whether any contract of this kind should be granted. That matter is plainly before us now, and the report highlights it. Let us leave aside that most important point and turn to the Press statement made by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) today as he put this report into the Senate. In the second paragraph on page 2 of the statement he says: The report does not recognise disciplinary action against any staff. However, relevant staff, including senior managers, will be counselled concerning the deficiencies noted in the report, and appropriate training will be arranged. This comes after having read to the Senate several of the bald statements from the report made by Mr Menzies which clearly call into question the competence and capacity of the members of the staff of the department concerned with this matter. Now the Minister seeks to say, `All we need do with these chaps, who have made a gross mistake, is give them some kind of training and counselling'. I think that that is absurd. Clearly, issues need to be examined by the Minister and he needs to take the matter a great deal more seriously than his Press statement would indicate. Surely, given the need for basic competence and financial capacity on the part of people putting in tenders, there is a greater need for financial examinations and/or other action to be taken by the Minister. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.08) —When I was speaking about this earlier, I mentioned that in the Estimates committee hearings Senator Gietzelt had tried to stop public servants responding on the matter of whether or not the balance of payments considerations should have been an element in consideration of this tender. When Senator Gietzelt intervened and said it was not a matter for the public servant, I asked Senator Gietzelt, as the Minister, the following question: Were any balance of payments implications taken into account by the Government in the granting of this contract? Senator Gietzelt replied: I am not aware of any, and I do not think it was necessary to do so. I then asked: Is it possible, within the need for confidentiality, for the Senate to be given an indication of the balance of payments costs of the decision to award this contract, which involves the purchase of totally new equipment from overseas at a time when our balance of payments is in crisis? Senator Gietzelt replied in a particularly arrogant way by saying: I will refer that question to the Minister, but my advice to him would be not to respond. The Senate will not be surprised to hear that I have had no reply. I went on to ask: Would any of the other tenderers have been obliged to purchase new equipment, new aircraft from overseas to fulfil the contract? Dr Kay replied: I really cannot answer that. The tender required that they nominate aircraft, and they do that by tail number. No check on any of the other tenderers was done to determine whether they would need to buy aircraft in Australia or overseas. Senator Vanstone, who took a prominent role in this matter and who should be congratulated on her cross-examination of the public servants involved back in April, then asked: Do I understand, from what you have said and without taking time to search through the tender, that there is no `buy Australian' requirement for any proportion of equipment to be purchased in the tender? Dr Kay replied: That is my understanding. It seems absolutely incredible that this Government, which takes empty postures about the need for people to do what they can to assist Australia in this time of trade crisis, did not even have the administrative procedures available to consider whether or not it was ludicrous to accept a tender which involved the total purchase of new equipment from overseas. There was no interdepartmental discussion and no concern. The Minister in charge of the Senate Estimates committee debate did what he could to block discussion of that issue in the committee. He did what he could to ensure that no response came to me from the Minister in the other place because he said that he would advise him to that effect. That is an absolute disgrace, but it is in keeping with this Government's arrogant approach to the whole tender process, to the whole Amann Aviation Ltd scandal. Let us recognise that the meetings were held in April. In mid-January 1987, the report reveals, it was apparent to the Government that Amann had little relevant experience in the aviation industry. The report states: while he had plans for a future organization to work under the contract, he had no organization in place other than a family partnership; and had no aircraft suitable for operation under the contract. The report concludes: These facts called for at least a particularly rigorous examination of Amann's capacity, financial and otherwise, and competence to perform the contract for its full life. The report also makes the point that the Department and the Government should have been put on alert that Amann's stated profit of one to 2 per cent on turnover at the end of the project-I might say that that was a very thin margin-should have indicated a need for particularly close scrutiny to assess quality and reliability of the proposed service. Yet no skilled financial examination was undertaken by the Department. The report outlines how ludicrous it was that no skilled inquiry took place and that no one was asked to undertake such a task. The investigation failed to bring to notice errors and other deficiencies in the financial statements submitted in support of the tender. I believe it is a disgrace that this Government quite happily presided over this matter when there was a total failure by the officers in charge of the Department involved to act appropriately, and although the Minister was aware of the concerns in mid-January 1987, which are revealed in the report, he took no action. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(4.13) —I move: That the Senate is of the opinion 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 disease, 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 pipe work 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 meet stringent standards with regard to CFC containment; and (f) any other steps designed to prevent the release of CFCs to the atmosphere be taken. This motion addresses what I believe is one of the most important problems ever to face mankind. It is a very large and general problem to do with the progressive deterioration of the global environment, including the loss of species, the loss of diversity of experience and the permanent-I repeat, permanent-fouling of the human nest with pollutants that the natural environment simply cannot handle. The problem originates in an attitude which has characteristically developed among European-derived societies, including our own Australian society, and it is an attitude which treats all non-self items, whether they be animals, plants or other people, as objects for exploitation. I would contrast that attitude fundamentally with that of most indigenous people, including the Australian Aboriginal people, who have adopted a more animist and celebratory approach to the natural environment. It is one which, in the year leading up to the Bicentenary, we would do well to adopt. The European exploitative approach has been strongly buttressed in the last two centuries, and particularly in the last half-century, by an economic model which ignores the limits of the natural world-the ability of the natural world to provide the resources which our industrial society demands and the ability of the natural world to cope with the increasing level of pollution which the industrial society is heaping on it. This economic model teaches that endless economic growth is both desirable and sustainable. This is the economic model which is espoused by both the Labor Government and the Opposition parties. As I have shown elsewhere, this type of economy is neither desirable nor sustainable. It is this which makes the Australian Democrats separate from all other political parties in this place. The human economy is a subset of the global ecology, and the former-the human economy-can expand only at the expense of the latter. That is something which this and previous governments have failed to recognise. The one thing that growth of gross national product measures accurately is increasing damage to the natural environment. The Australian Democrats espouse a sustainable steady-state economic model. The growth which the pro-growth parties are attempting is exponential. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that damage to the global atmosphere, which we are discussing this afternoon, is escalating rapidly and its consequences will persist for many years, even after effective remedial action has been taken. A reality easy to lose sight of, especially in the hurly-burly of political life, is that, from a biological point of view, homo sapiens is a very young animal indeed. We probably separated from our last common ancestor as little as six million years ago and in that time we have gone through about 240,000 generations. We went through those generations before the agricultural revolution, which was nearly 10,000 years or approximately 400 generations ago. Some of us on this planet have lived an industrial lifestyle for about eight generations. A few people arrogantly assume that this tiny fragment of our human history is the normal human state and can be extrapolated into the distant future. Cosmologists indicate that the human animal may have a further 500 million years life left on this planet provided that it does not continue to foul its nest and that we look after its environment. This we are not doing and we must change our practices pretty damned quickly. We are changing the environment at a prodigious rate and nowhere is that more apparent than in the atmosphere. The rate of atmospheric change is more rapid than at any period in the earth's long history. Going back 10,000 million years, long before humankind ever appeared on the face of the planet, we see that the atmosphere is now changing more rapidly than at any stage in that long period, and it has been caused by human industrial developments. The burning of fossil fuel returns carbon to the atmosphere at an incredible rate. It is returning this carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide was removed from the primitive and reducing early atmosphere when primitive plants had evolved to the stage of developing photosynthesis-that is, the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to fix the carbon into living tissues and to return the oxygen to the atmosphere using sunlight as the energy source. Some of this fixed carbon became locked away in fossil deposits of coal and oil. Each year we return to the atmosphere an amount of carbon, as carbon dioxide, which took nature about one million years to lay down as coal or oil deposits. Last year the Department of Resources and Energy, under the then Minister, Senator Evans, published 10 small volumes on energy policy in which the words `carbon dioxide' appeared once. Such is the level of ignorance and disregard for environmental constraints of this Labor Government, which pushes its economic policy of pressing for more and more economic growth. Carbon dioxide is the principal but not the only gas leading to what has been called the greenhouse effect. In 40 to 50 years greenhouse warming will lead to a rise in global temperature of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees centigrade, with major changes in the pattern of weather, agriculture and food production. It is expected that sea levels will rise by about one metre, with a loss of many, possibly most, urban beaches in Australian cities and the flooding of many low lying areas. These are not wild and unsubstantiated claims. They have been made by the International Council of Scientific Unions, the World Meteorological Office, the United Nations Environment Program and the United States Environment Protection Agency. Of course, the sea level rise will not stop there, even if by then we have learned not to mess with the atmosphere-the atmosphere in which we all evolved and to which all terrestrial plants and animals are adapted. The system will take quite a lot longer to come into equilibrium with that temperature rise. That equilibrium in fact will correspond to a sea level rise of between five metres and seven metres-much higher than now-and, of course, will lead to the flooding of most of the major cities of the world, including those of Australia. These changes and the further changes which I will shortly describe, will occur within the lifetime of our children and our grandchildren; that is within the lifetime of people whom we will know and whom we will cherish. It is within our lifetimes. However, as a society it appears that we pay no heed to those things we are now doing and which are bringing these incredibly rapid changes about. It is important to set the context for this afternoon's debate. Industrial practice is bringing about unprecedented and rapid change to the global atmosphere in many ways, and through a number of processes which are intimately interwoven through the texture of our industrial society. Damage to the ozone layer, with consequent increase in short wave ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth's surface, happens just to be the most imminently threatening and therefore is the aspect which this motion seeks to tackle. However, honourable senators must remember that these ozone and ultraviolet changes are going on against a background of accelerating other changes which are equally disturbing, but perhaps over a longer time frame. As I have indicated already, ozone, or 03, did not always provide a shield against lethal short wave ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Indeed, in the primitive earth there was probably a reducing atmosphere which was very rich in gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Oxygen probably appeared in abundance in the earth's atmosphere only as a consequence of photosynthesis. Only after the ozone shield was in place could extensive colonisation of the land by plants and animals take place. Those who support the Gaia concept see this photosynthesis oxygen ozone ultraviolet protection sequence as one of the biosphere's self-protective homeostatic mechanisms. It is that mechanism which we are very rapidly destroying. Ozone is the principal protection against short wave ultraviolet B and ultraviolet C, which are lethal to terrestrial life. Reduction in ozone differentially increases the shorter wave ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth. It is this short wave ultraviolet radiation which is the most damaging to living cells. Proteins and DNA are the two essential building blocks of all living things-proteins, in their functioning as enzymes and DNA as the material which carries the genetic message from one generation to the next. Both these chemicals absorb ultraviolet radiation in the short wave band region. Proteins absorb it at about 280 nanometres and DNA absorbs it at 260 nanometres. Of course, these are the wave lengths which are most damaging to these substances which are vital to living tissues. A 10 per cent reduction in stratospheric ozone will cause a 20 per cent increase in ultraviolet at less than 304 nanometres, a 250 per cent increase in ultraviolet below 290 nanometres and a 500 per cent increase in ultraviolet below 287 nanometres-precisely in the area in which most damage will occur. Therefore, there is a preferential and enormous enhancement of the lethal ultraviolet which reaches the earth's surface. The most careful and the most recent estimates, published only a few months ago in the journal Science, indicate that there has been a reduction of between one per cent and 3 per cent in the earth's ozone layer in the last 10 years. Ozone is not evenly distributed throughout the earth's atmosphere. The changes also will not be uniformly distributed. Ninety per cent of the ozone occurs in the stratosphere with a maximum concentration at about 25 kilometres above the surface of the earth. Changes brought about by freons or the chlorofluorocarbons released will be greatest at high latitude and least at the equator. Over the last decade ozone levels in the Antarctic in the spring time have decreased by as much as 50 per cent. Direct human health effects resulting from increased ultraviolet B are increased skin cancers and cataracts and damage to the immune system and its responses. It is estimated that for every one per cent shift in ultraviolet B exposure there will be a 2 per cent increase in skin cancers. In Question Time this afternoon we heard that there has been a substantial increase necessary in the treatment of skin cancers in Australia. However, the indirect effects on humans through damage to the biosphere generally are likely to be far more serious than these. Many plants are damaged by increases in ultraviolet B. These effects are not uniform so that in a crop of useful plants one might find that the useful plants are more extensively damaged, for instance, than the weeds. I ask honourable senators to remember that these changes are not going on by themselves but against substantial other changes which are generally known under the rubric of the greenhouse effect. Agriculture is likely to be seriously disrupted. Reliable computer modelling shows that marginal agriculture-that is descriptive of most agriculture in Australia-is likely to be most severely affected. Agricultural practices in some areas will require total change. However, beyond that many of the microscopic life forms which form the base of the aquatic food chain, in lakes, rivers and oceans, spend part of their juvenile life cycle in the top millimetre or so of water where they are exposed to intense ultraviolet radiation, to which they are exquisitely sensitive. Already there are quite high naturally occurring death rates among the small phytoplankton and zooplankton in the oceans. It is thought that quite small increases in ultraviolet B could substantially reduce the population of this critical part of ocean life. The human population obtains something like 100 million tonnes of high quality protein each year from the ocean. This source of food is jeopardised by freon-caused ozone depletion. Concern about atmospheric ozone began in 1974 when Dr Sherwood Rowland and Dr Mario Molina, chemists from the University of California at Irvine, posed the question: What is happening to the tons of freons being released into the atmosphere? Freons or chlorofluorocarbons, also called CFCs, were first synthesised in 1928 by chemists from the General Motors company searching for a less toxic and non-flammable refrigerant gas. It is interesting that it took from 1928 until 1974 before anybody posed the question as to whether these substances were dangerous to the environment. That says something about the way our society regards the human environment as a sink for pollutants. Since 1928 freons have come into general use, principally as refrigerant gases in refrigerators and air conditioners. However from the 1950s they found increasing use as pressure pack propellants and expanding gases in the manufacture of plastic foams such as polystyrene and polyurethane foams. More recently a new freon, freon 113, has been used extensively as a solvent in the electronics industry, particularly for cleaning microchips. Drs Rowland and Molina realised that the CFCs were gases that were both very stable and not water soluble. They simply asked the question: `Where the hell are they going?' They argued that, as they could not find any sink for them, their concentration in the lower atmosphere must be increasing and that therefore they would slowly rise through the atmosphere into the stratosphere, where the intense ultraviolet light would photodegrade them, releasing atomic chlorine. They realised immediately that this atomic chlorine would catalyse the conversion of ozone to oxygen. This reaction has since been identified and is now well characterised. It is a truly catalytic reaction in that one atom of chlorine is able to destroy many thousands of molecules of ozone until it is washed out of the atmosphere as hydrochloric acid. I think, as honourable senators will realise, the amount of moisture in the atmosphere at an altitude of 25 kilometres is very small and that is why these substances persist for a very long time. This initially theoretical prediction that the stratosphere provided the only sink for the freons and that their breakdown in the stratosphere would result in ozone destruction was made in 1974 in an article in Nature and to a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Rowland and Molina even then predicted that, if nothing was done to restrict the use of freons within 10 years, ozone destruction would continue throughout much of the twenty-first century. Although strongly resisted by the freon manufacturers, notably Du Pont, the theoretical prediction was confirmed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Food and Drug Administration, the United States National Academy of Science and the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration. A ban on the use of freons as aerosol propellants was imposed by the United States in 1978. Intense research was then begun into what was happening to ozone world-wide. Only Sweden, Canada and Norway joined the United States in legislating to restrict the releases of freons from pressure packs. From that time in Australia reliance has been placed on a voluntary withdrawal of freons from pressure packs, but by 1985 25 per cent of pressure packs still contained freon propellants. Pressure packs containing CFCs are, even now, widely available in Australian shops and Australia is responsible for adding 2,000 tonnes of CFCs to the atmosphere from pressure packs each year. Since 1974, understanding of the chemistry of ozone interaction with atmospheric pollutants has grown, as has the understanding of global air circulation and climate. The incorporation of new knowledge into computer models has caused predictions of the rate, extent and distribution of ozone depletions to vary widely. It is now known that a number of other pollutant gases participate in the ozone balance, but, in general, the observed ozone depletion has considerably exceeded that which computer models predicted. For instance, the Antarctic ozone hole was not predicted nor satisfactorily explained until quite recently. It takes about five years for CFCs released at the surface of the earth to rise through the atmosphere into the stratosphere, where they begin to catalyse ozone depletion. Ozone reductions seen so far are therefore the result of activities of all freons released up to five years ago-1982. We are yet to see the result of the freons which have been released in the last five years. They have not yet got to the stratosphere. But that is not the only lag in this system. Freons 11 and 12, the two freons in most common use, have residence times in the stratosphere of between 75 and 150 years. For this reason, freezing freon production or even modest reductions in production will make no significant change to this situation and it will continue to worsen at least until the end of the twenty-first century. Indeed, John Hoffman of the United States EPA has shown that to hold ozone damage constant-that is, that there be no more damage beyond that already caused-global release of freons would have to be cut by 85 per cent immediately and then held at or below this new level. Against this calculation the recent decisions at Montreal are seen to be far too little too late. Hoffman points out that there is an element of irreversibility about the processes which have already been set in train. He says: Irreversibility is important because if one cannot go backwards, momentum threatens to take one forever beyond the point one wishes to go. Let me say several other things about the Montreal agreement. Some may argue that in absolute amounts Australia's use of CFCs is not large and, therefore, what we do is not so very important. I believe this is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, Australia's per capita use of CFCs is five times the world average. Therefore, each Australian contributes five times as much to ozone damage as the average world citizen. In this global problem we must behave as responsible global citizens. Secondly, the Montreal agreement recommends certain reductions but does not suggest how these reductions may be brought about. My motion shows how these and greater reductions may be achieved. Moreover, the Montreal treaty is in danger of falling apart on this very point. Thirdly, the technical changes suggested in my motion are relatively simple. Mastery of them by Australia could provide a technology which could be exported. There are examples of other polluting industries being controlled by legislative requirements to recycle pollutants becoming even more efficient with lowering of prices and improvements in overall production. Fourthly, as a member of the human tribe and one with an advanced industrial economy, I believe we have a responsibility to use our position to act as a model for those nations not so well endowed. Turning specifically to the motion, I point out that again there is no inconsistency between what I am proposing and the Montreal treaty. It simply provides a mechanism for achieving not only the reduction sought by the treaty, but the much greater reductions in freon release which, clearly, must be quickly brought about. Moreover, it seeks to address the real problem, which is not freon manufacture but freon release. When freon is contained it causes no problems. Finally, it does not demand substantial changes in technology with associated long lead times. If alternative refrigerant gases are to be used, then substantial redesign of refrigeration units is likely to be required and this is not likely to be done in the time available. However, one must agree that in the longer term it is clearly desirable that freons be phased out altogether. Paragraph 1 of my motion quite simply asks the Government to legislate to ban the use of freons in pressure packs. As already explained, this was done some years ago in the United States, Canada, Sweden and Norway, and those countries do not seem to have been severely inhibited industrially or economically by this action. Compared with the damage which freons are causing, the claim for continued use of pressure packs is trivial and without any real force. Alternative methods of application of those substances which are now applied by pressure packs are readily available. I point out again that this would save some 2,000 tonnes of freons going into the atmosphere each year, which is about a quarter of one per cent of world release. The other parts of the motion relate to the use of freons in situations where they could well be confined. At present if a refrigerator or an airconditioner leaks and requires replacement of the freon gas, the technician who carries out that work simply comes along, bleeds the remaining freon to atmosphere, checks the unit for leaks and then attaches a unit containing a measured amount of freon and regases the refrigerator. It is relatively simple that refrigerators and airconditioners be equipped with flanged and threaded joints so that when some gas has been lost it is possible to pump the remaining gas out, to condense that gas and, if required, to redistil it to separate any oil or water which may be mixed with it, and return it so that it can be recycled, and that freon never gets to the atmosphere at all. That is certainly possible with both refrigerators and air-conditioners. I have had advice from people who work in this industry, both at the practical level and at the manufacturing level, and I have been informed that these suggestions are both practical and simple and would not present any great difficulty in terms of tooling up. The use of CFCs as foam expanders is something which has been increasing in recent years. In most cases-in the manufacturer of things such as foam surfboards, plates, and cups-it would be relatively simple to carry out these operations in closed systems. After the foam has expanded, the gas can be simply pumped out with a vacuum pump and the freon can be condensed and recycled into the system. As I have already indicated, it may well be that by doing that these industries will become more competitive, more economic and far more efficient. One area which causes some considerable concern relates to motor vehicle air conditioners. These units are notable for the number of times they leak freons into the atmosphere. Indeed, as long ago as 1976, the United States National Academy of Science suggested that it may be necessary to phase out of existence altogether the use of car air conditioners. However, I have been told that there are car air conditioners on the market which are sealed units not subject to such leaking. I have suggested, therefore, under paragraph 5, that there be a requirement that air conditioners in motor vehicles be made to meet stringent standards. Those stringent standards would relate to the ability of those units to hold their gas and not leak every few months. For those reasons I have moved the motion which is standing in my name and I commend it to the Senate as a way of extending practically the terms of the recently concluded Montreal treaty. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.42) —The Senate has before it an opportunity to discuss a very significant matter regarding the protection of the earth and, in particular, the question of the protection of the earth's atmosphere. The earth is surrounded by an atmosphere which consists principally of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and water vapour and a small quantity of carbon dioxide and trace amounts of ozone, carbon monoxide and methane. The importance of a small concentration of ozone in the upper levels of the earth's atmosphere lies in its ability to absorb ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The ozone, therefore, provides the earth with an effective shield and influences the thermal structure of the stratosphere. The majority of ozone is located in the stratosphere-that is to say, a region of the atmosphere lying between 10 and 50 kilometres above the surface of the earth. The concentration of ozone in that part of the atmosphere never reaches more than one-thousandth of one per cent and is determined by a balance between photochemical processes that produce it and other processes which destroy it. It is one of the processes of the destruction of that ozone layer in the earth's atmosphere that is the subject of today's debate. As Senator Coulter has pointed out, the principal pollutant which causes the breakdown of the ozone in the earth's atmosphere is the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); in particular, two of those chlorofluorocarbons, namely, trichlorofluoromethane and dischlorodifluoromethane, commonly known as CFC11 and CFC12. The principal uses of these substances are to be found as propellants and solvents used in aerosol sprays, fluids in refrigeration and airconditioning equipment, foam blowing agents in plastic foam production and solvents used mainly in the electronics industry. The characteristics of the chlorofluorocarbons which have caused their use to be promoted are that they are of low toxicity, they are non-flammable, they have the ability to produce a fine spray, they have a very low odour, they are flexible in their formulations and they are relatively stable in storage. The whole issue of the management of the earth's atmosphere is an extremely difficult one. Senator Coulter has mentioned a couple of things today, including the Gaia hypothesis and the greenhouse theory. The Gaia hypothesis generally commends itself to my understanding of the earth's environmental dynamics. The greenhouse theory is an interesting one for colleagues in the Australian Democrats to raise since the primary cause of the warming of the earth's atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels. It is very interesting that that party, which makes such a great deal about the non-use or prohibition of nuclear energy-the alternative to which, of course, is the continued use of fossil fuels to produce our energy-should at the same time have so much to say about this subject. It is a mark of the general inconsistency of the approach taken to these issues by the Australian Democrats that allows them, on the one hand, to demand that we do something about the greenhouse effect and, on the other hand, to be so savage in their attacks upon the nuclear power industry, the consequence of which is to cause greater burning of fossil fuels and, therefore, a greater concentration of the greenhouse effect. It is not that the greenhouse effect is without its critics. If one looks at the article by Broecker in the 9 July 1987 edition of Nature, one can see that a number of criticisms are raised. In particular, the evidence which he brings forward indicates that the changes in the earth's climate may be sudden rather than gradual. Therefore, some of the assumptions about the greenhouse effect may not be as sustainable as they were once thought to be. Indeed, this process of seeing changes in the environment and in nature as a more sudden rather than more gradual approach is not confined to discussions of atmospheric physics or atmospheric management. People will undoubtedly be aware that the theory of punctuated evolution put forward by Mayr, and more recently advanced by Gould, deals with the question of whether changes in the evolutionary processes are more rapid than we have been led to believe. It is interesting that even in today's Australian newspaper there is an article under the heading `Greenhouse theory challenged', from which I quote in part: The popularly accepted `greenhouse effect' climatic scenario, which predicts dramatic global changes for the earth, has been challenged by an Australian academic. The article goes on to detail the work done by Dr Edward Bryant at the University of Wollongong, recently published in the Australian Geographer, which claims that the changes which are taking place in the atmosphere are natural rather than man made. The article continues: But Dr Bryant says his analysis of world sea level records reveal that, in many places, sea levels actually have fallen. And in areas where levels have risen, there are usually explanations. For example, Dr Bryant says the sea level on one side of Japan's coast has risen by 24mm a year and on the other side it has fallen by 6mm. The explanation is that mountain building is in process deep in the earth's crust. I do not want to go on at length about Dr Bryant's work, but I simply say that the assumption that all these things are caused by man's impact upon the atmosphere is not something which can simply be asserted without a clear analysis of the evidence which needs to be put forward to sustain that hypothesis. Yesterday I spoke to the motion to take note of certain treaty instruments which were before the Senate, including the provision which indicated Australia's adherence to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. It is certainly true that, since Rowland and Molina first discussed this phenomenon in 1974, this subject has been given an increasing degree of attention. The work that Rowland and Molina pioneered eventually led to the conclusion, under the auspices of the United Nations environment program, of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone layer. I quote from that convention which provides in Article 2, sub-paragraph (b), that treaty parties should: Adopt appropriate legislative or administrative measures and co-operate in harmonising appropriate policies to control, limit, reduce or prevent human activities under their jurisdiction or control should it be found that these activities have or are likely to have adverse effects resulting from modification or likely modification of the ozone layer. The steps which were taken subsequent to the adoption of the Vienna Convention led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol of 1987, to which I wish to come in a couple of minutes. As I said, measurements of the earth's ozone levels have produced a great deal of very startling information. World ozone levels are estimated, for instance, to have dropped by between 3 and 7 per cent in the past several decades. It has been drawn to our attention that every one per cent drop in the level of the earth's ozone layer is likely to lead to a 2 per cent increase in non-melanoma skin cancers. As I pointed out in my speech yesterday, Australia has probably the world's worst record as far as skin cancers are concerned. In an article by Farmer and his colleagues, which appeared in the 10 September 1987 edition of the journal Nature, and entitled `Stratospheric trace gases in the spring 1986 Antarctic atmosphere', again we can see this matter discusses at some considerable length. It has been asserted that the measurements recently taken of ozone layers over the Antarctic are now the lowest they have ever been under any types of conditions. A great deal of very interesting work is being done in terms of the history of the earth's atmosphere. For instance, the other day on the Science Show it was reported that experiments in the United States have been undertaken using the bubbles of air trapped in amber, which is millions of years old. It has the capacity to release that air, within a vacuum, to allow us to measure the concentration of oxygen which may have been in the earth's atmosphere many millions of years ago. The data obtained from those experiments suggests that the proportion of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined over several million years from something in the order of 33 per cent to a general level of 21 per cent these days. The exact nature of that over a prolonged period, which one measures from such things as bubbles of air trapped in amber or from ice cores taken from the Antarctic, has not entirely been satisfactorily analysed and explained. Nevertheless, these concerns to which I have referred led to the adoption in Montreal of a protocol relating to the Vienna Convention. That Montreal Protocol provided in part for early action to limit the consumption of CFCs in each participating country to last year's level and to achieve a reduction of 20 per cent in 1993-94 and a further 30 per cent reduction in 1998-99. So the consumption of halons will be frozen at 1986 levels, within several years. In the Governor-General's speech opening this Parliament the Government mentioned the fact that it was its intention to proceed to ratification and take action arising from its adherence to the Montreal Protocol. It is interesting to note that the countries that have already indicated that they are signatories to the Montreal Protocol include the United States, all members of the European Community-except Greece and Spain-and countries generally of the industrialised world. The industry about which we are talking is very important in the economic sense. The value of CFC production is estimated to be in the order of $US2 billion a year; so we are not talking about a small industry but one of some significance. It is important to understand that Australia has not been laggard in its approach to this problem. In 1983, the Australian Environment Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) produced a report entitled Environmental Health and Economic Implications of the Use of Chlorofluorocarbons as Aerosol Propellants and Possible Substitutes. It drew attention to a number of facts which are worth putting on the record. The first is that the release of chlorofluorocarbons from aerosols in Australia has already been reduced by approximately 35 per cent from the peak year of 1974. It is also important to note that the areas in which there tend to be the highest concentration of the use of chlorofluorocarbons in Australia include the personal care area; that is, such things as hair sprays, colognes, perfumes, deodorants and insect sprays. So when Senator Coulter comments on the excessive use of chlorofluorocarbons, saying that somehow we are responsible for five times the amount of world per capita discharge of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere, that is a slightly disingenuous comment taken on its own without considering, for instance, that if one were measuring the use of insect repellents in Sweden or Finland, compared with the use in Australia, it would hardly be surprising for there to be a greater discharge of those products in Australia. I forebear from commenting on the relative contribution arising from the use of perfumes and deodorants. I simply say that these figures, taken in a purely raw form, tend to be somewhat misleading. It is certainly true that two-thirds of the CFC discharges in Australia are the result of aerosol use. I am a person who tries to read the labels on products which I buy in the supermarket. I pay attention to those which have chlorofluorocarbons in them, as distinct from those which use hydrocarbon as an alternative propellant. The fact is that the hydrocarbon products tend to be the generic brands put out in Woolworths and Target and places where I usually shop. Senator McKiernan —You don't go to Target, do you? Senator PUPLICK —I certainly do. That perhaps is an added inducement. Senator Collins —A house brand deodorant? Senator PUPLICK —No, I go there not for hair spray and deodorant, but for starch for my shirts and all the other things to which I have to pay attention. Senator McKiernan —Do you do your own ironing as well? Senator PUPLICK —Absolutely. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator will get back to the debate. Senator PUPLICK —I am being assaulted by Senator McKiernan on the basis that I happen to be single and have to pay attention to such things as who irons my shirts. Senator Burns —Some good woman is missing out. Senator PUPLICK —I do not concede that I am missing out. I just said I happen to be single. The other matter which I think is of particular relevance in Australia clearly is that the hole in the earth's ozone layer has been detected particularly over the Antarctic. It does appear that that hole is moving northwards and spreading towards the Equator. From a purely geographic and meteorological point of view, Australia is likely to be particularly at risk. In South Australia an attempt has been made to pioneer some legislation. In April this year a Bill was put before the South Australian Parliament to ban the sale and manufacture in South Australia of aerosol containers containing chlorofluorocarbons. That came under attack by the Association of Fluorocarbon Consumers and Manufacturers and various vested interests concerned to see that that legislation did not pass. I have no sympathy with the attempt to prevent that legislation when the matter is capable of being considered within a legislative framework. After all, the use of CFCs and aerosols has been banned in the United States, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Action has been taken in a number of other countries to achieve very significant reductions in the use of CFCs. The level of their use has also been regulated quite substantially in Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland. A number of companies have already sought to discharge their responsibilities voluntarily. In my speech yesterday I mentioned the McDonalds Corporation. I am a great frequenter of McDonalds establishments. McDonalds has taken positive steps by announcing that it will change from the foam packaging of its fast foods to a material that is not suspected of damaging the earth's ozone layer, a process which occurs as the packaging decays. I understand that whilst that has not yet been put into action in Australia it has nevertheless been adopted as a strategy by the Australian subsidiary of the McDonalds Corporation. We do face a significant difficulty in dealing with Senator Coulter's motion. For good and proper reasons we were not aware until this morning that this motion was to be the matter for debate in General Business today. As a result, it has simply not been possible for this matter to be considered by the Opposition parties. I have not had the opportunity, as the shadow Minister for the environment, to take the policy recommendations contained within this motion to my shadow Cabinet colleagues or to my Party room. I have no doubt that Government members find themselves in exactly the same position. This motion, by being specific, by requiring, for instance, in sub-paragraph (a) of the motion before us that the use of CFCs be no longer allowed in any pressure pack preparation, requires us to consider some of the significant consequences of adopting it as a matter of public policy. It may well be that that is the correct stand to take. It may well be that after consideration the Government and Opposition parties would be prepared to take that policy decision. What we are not prepared to do is take it on the run this afternoon. Therefore, I make an appeal to Senator Coulter that if he is serious about this matter-I accept that he is-he should not seek to press this matter to a vote this afternoon because in those circumstances, and for that reason only, the Opposition would not be able to vote for the motion. He should allow the debate to be adjourned and to be resumed after I have had an opportunity to raise this matter with the Opposition parties, and after Senator Richardson has had an opportunity to raise the matter in Caucus or in Cabinet for the matter to be determined. Then, hopefully, we would be able to get a unanimous resolution of the Senate dealing with an issue which we all accept to be of great significance. Whether the Australian Democrats insist upon a vote on this motion will be a test not so much of the bona fides of the Opposition and the Government on this matter but a test of the bona fides of the Australian Democrats. Whilst they can get seven people together and make a decision fairly quickly within their party structure, it is not possible for the major parties to address such matters within the sort of time frame which has been put to us. Therefore, I hope that in the interests of getting this matter resolved in not a tripartisan way, as I was going to say, but by taking a multipartisan approach, Senator Coulter will allow the debate to be adjourned after Senator Collins has concluded his remarks and enable us to come back to it at some stage after the Government and Opposition parties have had an opportunity to discuss the precise terms of Senator Coulter's motion. Nevertheless, I say that the underlying principle of the motion has our support. The issue is important and deserves to be aired, I suppose I should say, in parliamentary debate. It deserves to be discussed. I do not think any honourable senator would have any difficulty in saying that it is a matter on which urgent action needs to be taken. When the Government proceeds to the ratification of the Montreal Protocol, having already announced its adherence to the original Vienna Convention, we will be able to discuss this matter. If Senator Coulter-I believe this is his intention-brings forward a Bill for us to debate in precise terms, we will then be able to address the matter more specifically. Therefore, I conclude my remarks by explaining why, if the vote is taken, we will vote in the way in which I have indicated. The whole tenor of my speech I think makes it perfectly clear that the Opposition is concerned about the issue raised and we would be happy to support action after we have had an opportunity to consider the precise terms of the motion before us. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(5.06) —I thank Senator Coulter for bringing this matter of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, before the Senate. Indeed, it is timely that he has done so. As Senator Puplick has already said, we on this side of the House find ourselves in precisely the same position as he does in that we have had very little notice of this matter. Our Party has an extremely democratic way of dealing with issues of substance and importance such as this, but we have not had the time to consider, as we should consider, the very detailed implications of the motion currently before the Senate. I understand-I have obviously sought advice on this-that it is Senator Coulter's intention to proceed to a vote. Should that be the case, very regretfully and for precisely the same reasons as Senator Puplick has just enunciated and which I have just supported, we will be forced for those reasons only, to vote against it. There is one other matter that I wish to discuss. I have some good news for Senator Coulter in this regard and in respect of the detail of the motion as well, which I will cover shortly. Senator Coulter will be pleased to know-and I am sure he does know-that the Government's response to this has been prompt, as already outlined by Senator Puplick when he mentioned the reference to this in the Governor-General's Speech, and the progress the Government has made, particularly this year, has been considerable. I will recount some of that shortly. I hope that both Senator Puplick and Senator Coulter will forgive me if I refer to the subject of this debate as CFCs rather than go through an extraordinarily tongue-tying exercise which is designed purely and simply to impress other members of this chamber. Senator Puplick —It seems to have worked. Senator COLLINS —I will not get into it myself. The reason that CFCs have become so widely used, as Senator Puplick has already said, is that until we discovered the extremely bad effects that CFCs appear to be having on the ozone layer-and it was a British scientist, Joe Farmer, who discovered the hole in the ozone layer-they appeared to be a highly desirable agent to use, for all of the reasons that Senator Puplick enumerated. They are not toxic and they are not flammable; they are highly desirable for use as propellants in a spray can as they have the ability to produce a fine spray and so on. As Senator Coulter is aware, some of the substitutes which are currently around which could feasibly replace CFCs do suffer from the highly undesirable property of being flammable. Indeed, if agents such as this were used in products such as hair sprays and so on the problems of CFCs in the ozone layer and cigarette smoking would be simultaneously solved in that the user would self-immolate upon using the products. Australia has not only an international responsibility in dealing with this matter but also a very particular regional and national concern because, again as Senator Puplick has said, we have the highest rate of skin cancers in the world. When those cancers become malignant melanomas, as they unfortunately can, they become fatal. The problem of cancers and the difficulty with the greenhouse effect that has already been mentioned make this problem a serious one. The facts are that scientific studies indicate that continued growth in the emissions of these products-indeed, it is not just CFCs that are the criminals; there are other agents as well that are a problem-depletes the small amounts of ozone gas that are present in the earth's stratosphere which, of course, reduces the ability of the stratosphere to filter out ultraviolet (UV) radiation. There is, of course, strong evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to ultraviolet radiation and the occurrence of skin cancer in all its various forms. Indeed, the Government is concentrating at the moment on national campaigns on trying to alert the public to the great difficulties and dangers of skin cancer. In an era when a great deal of attention is paid to personal appearance, when a palely loitering expression is no longer considered to be fashionable and tans are in to the point where people become besotted about obtaining a tan, people overlook the fact that they could be killing themselves in the process. As I said before, in this respect the Australian population is particularly at risk-probably not simply because of our geographic location, but because of our outdoor lifestyle, our concentration on beaches, and so on, we have the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. Ultraviolet radiation has other health effects-for example, the induction of cataracts in the eye and effects on the body's immune system. Indeed, some very interesting research-and, I guess, some potentially scary research-is being done on the effects of ultraviolet radiation on the body's immune system, so the problem is not simply one of skin cancer. The increased exposure of the Earth to harmful UV radiation would also affect the growth of plants and organisms living near the surface of water. The radiation is also destructive of some man-made materials, such as plastics and paint. Of course, that is far less of a problem. Within the last 10 years or so there has been increasing scientific concern that a class of chemicals, referred to already as CFCs, when released to the atmosphere cause a depletion of the ozone layer of the earth. However, as I have already mentioned, another class of chemicals, the halon group, is also implicated. CFCs and halons are extremely stable chemicals which, of course, is one of their desirable properties. Once released to the atmosphere, they remain virtually unchanged for up to a century. Over time, they drift up to the stratosphere, where they play a part in complex chemical reactions which result-and I think this is generally accepted now-in destruction of the ozone molecules in the stratosphere. A recent meeting of the world's top scientists in the field predicted that continued growth in emissions of the ozone depleting gases would produce a reduction of ozone of about 10 per cent within 60 years, with this depletion accelerating. To contain emissions of gases throughout the world at current levels would limit ozone depletion to perhaps 2 per cent, but the extent of damage to the ozone layer would vary significantly according to latitude and season. Mention has been made, of course, of the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, to which Australia is a party. Senator Coulter has already mentioned that there is some controversy about the meeting that determined the Protocol; indeed, that is so. I would like to quote from a statement made recently by a scientist who is pre-eminent in his field-the British scientist, Joe Farmer, who was responsible for discovering the hole in the ozone layer. With regard to the Montreal decision, he said: Basically, we're just putting in the substance which the atmosphere doesn't like, and if we have any sense we ought to stop. And we ought to stop as quickly as possible. One of the dreadful things about this is that people seem to think that capping CFC production at current levels is to be cautious. It's not, it's to proceed along the motorway in the fog at the same old speed. Any cautious man should turn round. I think it is reasonable to say that there is no difference of opinion between Senator Puplick, Senator Coulter or me that this is the situation. One of the difficulties, of course, is that-and I have no problems in asserting it-the Montreal Protocol was determined on the very best scientific evidence available in the world. One of the problems that I point out in passing is that in any measures the Australian Government takes-Senator Coulter has already referred to the relatively small role that Australia plays in the worldwide emission or release of this group of chemicals-we are very much tied in, of necessity, to what is happening internationally, which is why it is so important that Australia continues to pursue what I and, indeed, the Government, consider to be the responsible course, which is pursuing international protocols and treaties. That is what the Government is doing, with some considerable success. Under the guidance of the United Nations environment program an international treaty, to which I have already referred, known as the Vienna Convention for Protection of the Ozone Layer, was concluded in 1985. The Convention provides a general framework for action by countries but does not set down specific control strategies. I will speak about that shortly, because, as Senator Coulter obviously knows, although the Montreal Protocol to the Convention lays down the standards, it does not indicate in any detail how the countries will achieve those levels of reduction. Australia became a party to the Vienna Convention in September. In recent months the Vienna Convention has been highlighted in regard to the Protocol, which was finalised at the conference in Montreal on 14 to 16 September. The Protocol provides for a freeze on emissions of certain halons at 1986 levels, the freeze coming into effect in 1992; a freeze on the use of certain CFCs at 1986 levels; the freeze probably coming into effect in 1989-90; a 20 per cent cutback in the use of CFCs as from 1993-94; and a possible further cutback by 30 per cent-that is, a total reduction of 50 per cent on the 1986 level-as from 1998-99. It might be useful for honourable senators if I were to quote one section of the Protocol. I certainly will not quote any more than that, because it is lengthy. If honourable senators wish to refer to the relevant section, article 2 of the Protocol contains the guidelines laid down. Section one reads: 1. Each Party shall ensure that for the twelve-month period commencing on the first day of the seventh month following the date of the entry into force of this Protocol, and in each twelve-month period thereafter, its calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Group 1 of Annex A does not exceed its calculated level of consumption in 1986. By the end of the same period, each Party producing one or more of these substances shall ensure that its calculated level of production of the substances does not exceed its calculated level of production in 1986, except that such level may have increased by no more than ten per cent based on the 1986 level. Such increase shall be permitted only so as to satisfy the basic domestic needs of the Parties operating under Article 5 and for the purposes of industrial rationalization between Parties. The Protocol then goes through various stages, laying out the percentage reductions in the use of CFCs that I have described. The Commonwealth Government has already consulted extensively with interested parties to the Protocol, particularly industry, the conservation movement and the various States in Australia, in preparation for becoming a party to the Protocol. Indeed, as the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) has stated, it is the intention of the Government to give very early consideration to becoming a signatory. I have some good news for the honourable senator in this regard. There has been considerable progress in the voluntary response of industry to the problem. I will cite some figures which seem to be at variance with the figures from another document cited earlier by Senator Puplick. The figures concern the use of CFCs in Australia by tonnage. The annual figure for aerosols for 1974 was 13,000 tonnes. I refer particularly to aerosols which, I think everyone agrees, and Senator Coulter has certainly said, is the obvious measure that has to be taken very quickly. The 1985 usage rate-I understand it has pegged out at this rate-is 4,000 tonnes. That represents a very considerable reduction indeed and it is clearly a response by industry which would be prompted as much by commercial realities as environmental realities. Industry is aware that government must continue to move even more firmly to ensure that the damage to the ozone layer is contained and that no further damage is done. On 18 September 1987 the Minister issued a Press release in respect of the Montreal Protocol. The final paragraph of the Minister's Press release stated: `The Commonwealth Government will make a formal decision as soon as possible on becoming party to the protocol', Senator Richardson said, `giving particular consideration to the need for legislation'. There would be further consultation with State Governments and industry. Both of the previous speakers in this debate have covered the technical matters in detail-particularly Senator Coulter because, obviously, we are debating his motion; he owed us that much and he has delivered it. Therefore, there is no need for me to waste the time of the Senate any further in going over those matters again. To sum up, there is no question but that the Government attaches great importance to the protection of the ozone layer, particularly insofar as it screens out the effects of harmful ultraviolet radiation. As I have said, Australia is already a party to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. A protocol to this Convention, which was finalised in Montreal in September, specifies controls on emissions of chemicals known to deplete ozone levels. The Government supports the protocol. As I have said, the Minister has already given a commitment that the Government will give early consideration to Australia becoming a signatory to that protocol. Once this happens, Australia will be required initially to freeze consumption of CFCs to 1986 levels, and then successfully to halve the levels by 1988-89. These limits reflect the current international scientific consensus on action needed to protect the ozone layer. However, if it is determined that further reductions are needed to protect the ozone layer, the Government will look at implementing those reductions. Senator Richardson is quite forthright in his view that if the Government, by aggressive action in this regard, can exceed the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, it will do so. For the benefit of Senator Coulter, I say that it is intended that legislation be introduced. I understand it is the intention of the Minister at this stage to try to get it in place during the autumn sittings of this Parliament in order to implement the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. I think I have indicated only too clearly that the Government supports-and has supported in all of the actions it has taken, particularly over the last 12 months-the sentiments expressed in the motion as it is currently drafted. There are concerns about simply moving unilaterally in the manner suggested by Senator Coulter. The difficulty is that it would be impossible to move effectively without full consultation. Indeed, if consultation were carried out in that manner, I am sure that the Government would have the full co-operation of Australian industry in this regard. I do not think even Senator Coulter would suggest that a coercive role by the Government, considering the very impressive strides that the industry has made voluntarily over the last 10 years, is the way to go. If at all possible the way to go is to get the co-operation of industry rather than to force it into taking action. Not only is it the intention of the Minister to proceed at the earliest possible stage to get approval for legislation that can be introduced in the next few months-hopefully it will be introduced in the autumn sittings-but next week he will convene a major conference of all of the representatives of the Australian industries which use CFCs and will be affected by such legislation. It is clear from what I have said that the strong sentiment of this Government is to support the text of the motion. However, the Government does not believe that it is appropriate simply to move unilaterally in this direction at this time because, as I have said before-I do not imagine that Senator Coulter would be in possession of the information-it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation at the earliest possible moment. Plans are already in place for a major meeting of all of the relevant industry groups which will be convened next week by the Minister to discuss this matter. I join Senator Puplick in asking Senator Coulter, even at this late stage, to consider adjourning the debate rather than proceeding to a vote. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.26) —I rise in this debate because I consider this matter to be one of the most significant issues that have ever been before the Senate. It is certainly the most significant issue that has been before it this session. I rise with some consternation because, given that this debate is a very important one-both speakers of the Opposition and the Government agree-and in spite of the time available to debate this matter, the Opposition and the Government were able to come up with only one speaker each and both of those speakers have complained that they had insufficient time to prepare for the debate before us today. That is quite amazing, since this matter has been on notice since 1974 at least with the Molina and Rowland suggestion that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) might be a problem in regard to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. Certainly one would imagine that this issue, particularly in recent times, ought to be at the very top of our agenda. In September this year the Minister for the Environment and the Arts (Senator Richardson) announced the agreement reached on international controls. He noted that the Government was giving particular consideration to the need for legislation. I do not think the revelations that Senator Collins has just made are quite as fresh as he imagines they are. Certainly the Government has given notice of its concern and we welcome that. However, we do not believe that this motion is at odds with the Government's moves in terms of the international protocol or with moves it proposes to make. I am sure honourable senators realise that a notice of motion moved in the Senate is an expression of opinion by the Senate. If in raising awareness and in moving public opinion, business opinion, business attitudes, and industry attitudes, an opinion of the Senate is not considered to be an important part of that process, I am not quite sure what we are all doing here. The Australian Democrats believe that it is important from time to time that an expression of opinion by the Senate, particularly if it is an expression of some unanimity, has a very positive influence, particularly on these sorts of issues, issues on which public opinion is moving and about which the Senate can make a positive contribution. As I have said, it is not intended that this motion should cut across any of the moves which are being made. What this motion does is bring forward options which are available when addressing this major issue. We should be very grateful that we now have in the Senate someone of Senator Coulter's standing and expertise in this area. It is quite clear that we need to look at a range of options, that it will not be sufficient to take just one or two measures. From the Press release of the Minister in relation to the international accord I note that the protocol gives industry time to take steps to reduce emissions of ozone depleting substances and to bring into use alternative gases or new technologies. Importantly, it also provides for revision of the specified control actions in the light of further developments of scientific knowledge. It seems to me that the motion brings forward suggestions that are not of high technological intricacy. The first point of the motion talks about the banning of pressure packs. This is something which, as Senator Coulter has already said, was done in the United States as far back as 1978, and it has been done in a number of other comparable countries. It should not be something beyond Australia's power to do now. However, the proposal raised in the second point of the motion, to fit refrigerators and airconditioners with pipework so designed that CFCs can be removed, condensed and recycled, is of such enormous practicality and simplicity that it should be happening. As I understand it, when refrigeration was a much newer phenomenon in our society, such a process was followed. I cannot help thinking that, as our throw-away society has developed over the past few decades, we have been throwing away our whole future by the throwing away of these gases. If it is possible to recycle them in any way, I cannot see why they should not be. Other parts of the motion, particularly paragraphs (c) and (d), show what can be achieved by way of recycling. Recycling in industrial processes generally, not just in this area, is a very firm policy of the Australian Democrats. We have a good record in other areas of recycling. The Government of Senator Coulter's State has a fine record in this regard. If we take anything from this debate, it should be a renewed enthusiasm for recycling in many areas, particularly in this one where we are dealing with substances which, as has been clearly outlined in the debate already, are of enormous danger to us, to our environment and to our future. A couple of months ago, when the `Access Age' column in the Age newspaper was opened up to children, I read a small comment which I thought demonstrated the wisdom of the young. I cannot quote directly, but the point made by the child contributor, I think aged about 12, was that cigarettes are too cheap and sunburn creams are too expensive and that there should be a swapping around of the prices. Even young people are concerned and understand the nature of this problem and other problems. That was an interesting and wise suggestion. As I have already said, the United States banned the use of CFCs in pressure packs as far back as 1978. But we know that, despite that ban, CFCs have continued to accumulate. Aerosol use had dropped by half by 1983, but non-aerosol use climbed by almost as much and releases remained constant. It is obvious that we need to go beyond that first suggestion, but Australia should make that move at the very least. I have often spoken in the chamber about other bans-in particular about dieldrin and DDT-that Australia has not introduced following action by other similar countries. It is time that we became a little more progressive than we are with such exercises. Senator Collins said that we are a small country making a small contribution, and sometimes we use that as an excuse not to do anything. We should take the example of New Zealand on nuclear issues. It is small, but it has chosen to set an example, and Australia should do that far more often. In this case, even if banning a few pressure packs seems to be a small contribution, it is still a significant one. If we are talking about developing our exports and industries, surely, if we can come up with technologies in recycling, that would be to our economic advantage. Senator Puplick seemed to think that there was some conflict in the Australian Democrats expressing enormous concern on this issue. He seemed to think that we did not have too strong an argument because of our attitude to the burning of fossil fuels, which is a major problem, and our record as a party that has rejected nuclear fuels. If you will excuse the metaphor in a debate such as this, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would say that that is getting out of the frying pan and into the fire. The nuclear option as opposed to the ozone depletion option could scarcely be seen as anything other than that. We need energy conservation and options in respect of renewable energy resources. The Australian Democrats have always taken a strong stand on this. Recently, in Time magazine, there was a comprehensive article on the issue that we are debating today. I was interested, speaking about Democrat policies, to note a strong point made in that article that a major step in combating severe effects of the diminution of the ozone layer is to protect our tropical rainforests, because deep green foliage absorbs solar radiation, as does the blue sea, and that is buying us some time. Again, `interconnectiveness' in the policy areas have brought us to this motion before us today. We must reflect, often and deeply, on what this means to us. As senators have said in the debate, we already have a high rate of cancer in Australia. When anti-cancer week comes along, we dig deep in our pockets to help scientific and medical research. In this debate, we are saying that research into the recycling of CFCs would be a major contribution in the battle against cancer. We should not forget this `interconnectiveness'. I am not sure how much the Anti-Cancer Council gives to such research, but we must understand that that is important. As the rural spokesman for the Democrats, I have been concerned about our resources base in Australia and in particular our agricultural resource base. The debate in which we are engaged seems to pale into insignificance when we imagine what will happen to the agricultural areas of the world if this practice continues. It has only to continue at a very minimal rate for our fears to be realised. In a sense, we have already gone too far. We will have dust bowls and climatic changes which will be dramatic, and we shall be looking at much more destructive issues than those which we have been discussing in Australia recently. It is disappointing that, on an issue as important and critical as this, neither the Opposition nor the Government can see that the intention of this motion is to push the issue further, be constructive and provide an incentive to government, industry and the community, to take positive actions on this most horrific issue. It is one about which, to give them credit, both the Opposition and the Government are concerned. It is just unfortunate that they are not prepared to support this motion. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.40) —in reply-I am disappointed that, although the importance of this issue was first raised in 1974 and, as has been pointed out, four nations moved to ban the use of freons in pressure packs as early as 1978, and although the Opposition and the Government recognise the importance of this issue, they have not decided where they stand. I reiterate what Senator Powell has just said-that is, this motion calls on the Government to do certain things; it is not a piece of legislation. I would have thought that the Government and the Opposition, given their expressed good intention, could have supported the motion. I can state now that I intend to bring forward a Bill, which I hope will be ready for introduction in this session, which will set out essentially the same points. I give the Government and the Opposition notice that they will have a month or so to consider the points. I hope that they will then be in a position to say precisely whether they support them or not. I was rather surprised to hear Senator Collins say that the Government was pursuing this issue with some vigour and, in support of that, that it was going ahead and would give effect to the Montreal agreements. We have already recognised that the Montreal agreements were too little too late. Clearly, the world needs to move beyond that. I see no reason why Australia should simply rest on its laurels in saying that, in supporting those agreements, it is doing a good thing, because quite clearly it is not. Senator Collins said that any cautious man would turn around, given the evidence that is now before us. Senator Collins —No, I did not. Senator COULTER —Senator Collins was quoting. Senator Collins —They weren't my words. I was quoting someone else. Senator COULTER —Senator Collins was quoting someone very approvingly. I was pleased to hear him say that. He said also that those nations meeting in Montreal had the best scientific advice. I do not doubt that the best scientific advice was available, but what comes out of such international agreements is based on far more than simply the scientific advice. It also looks at the political reality of the situation. The political reality in Montreal was that certain nations-notably, the United Kingdom, to some extent West Germany and even to some extent the United States-were not particularly happy with the advice they were getting from their scientific advisers. What came out was not simply a result of the best scientific advice; it was a result of the best scientific advice having been diluted by those who had other items on the agenda. Even the best scientific advice is being proved wrong and has been proved significantly wrong over the years. I wish to quote a short piece which came from a combined United Nations environment program-United States Environmental Protection Agency conference in June 1986. A paper presented to that conference by Stordal and Isaksen stated: . . . if the relevant trace gases grow at recent levels, global average ozone depletion by 2030 would be 6.5%. The reduction would be greater at high latitudes reaching 16% at latitude 60 degrees in springtime. Even with constant CFC emissions the global average depletion would reach 2% by 2030 but be 8% in high latitudes. It is a matter of record that the ozone depletion has already reached about 2 per cent and, over the Antarctic, 50 per cent. The best scientific advice has been showing consistently that every estimate of the damage has subsequently proved to be a gross underestimate. The situation is much more serious than scientific modelling of the atmosphere has led us to believe. Senator Collins also mentioned McDonalds and laid some stress on the desirability of getting private industry to do the job. Senator Collins —That was Senator Puplick. Senator COULTER —I thought that Senator Collins also picked that up. He certainly mentioned that he hoped one could rely substantially on private industry to get the work done. I agree that it was Senator Puplick who specifically mentioned McDonalds. I saw a news item several weeks ago which said that McDonalds in the United States intended to use a hydrocarbon gas as the expanding gas for the small containers that it uses for hamburgers and so on. I would have thought that legislating for such a requirement would have put McDonalds in an advantageous position vis-a-vis its competitors and that McDonalds would not be concerned in any way about such legislation and, in fact, would welcome it. One of the peculiar things is that many people who seem to want to rely on conscience do not recognise that those who have a conscience in a competitive industrial society-we are told all the time that that is the sort of society in which we live-are put at a competitive disadvantage. What the legislation should be doing all the time is giving an advantage to those who express a conscience. If McDonalds has chosen to move in this direction we should be backing it up by legislating and mandating for that sort of material to be made in that way. Senator Puplick made several other points. Initially, he seemed to be trying to cast some doubt on the recognised scientific evidence which I have put before the Senate in relation to the greenhouse effect. He referred repeatedly to the greenhouse theory. The fact of the matter is that we know that the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere at the start of the industrial era was 270 parts per million. It is now about 340 parts per million and is rising by about half a per cent a year. If one does the calculations-they are not very difficult to do-it becomes clear that that carbon is coming from the burning of fossil fuel. There is no doubt about the origins of the greenhouse effect in relation to carbon dioxide. To attempt simply to disparage concerns in that way by saying that some people raise doubts about it does not do Senator Puplick any justice at all. I simply make the point that if homo sapien have evolved in an atmosphere of about 270 parts per million of carbon dioxide and about 21 per cent of oxygen, and if we significantly alter those percentages, in believing that we can in some way do better with a different composition in the atmosphere, we do so at our peril. I now turn to Senator Puplick's claim that the oxygen levels measured in bubbles in amber which were measured at 33 per cent are now 21 per cent and, therefore, somehow or other the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere has fallen. That is an absolute nonsense. I ask Senator Puplick to reflect just for a moment on where that extra oxygen would have gone. There would have had to have been an enormously different level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which we know was not present. Senator Puplick attempted to mount an argument about my point that Australia is using five times as much freon as the world average, on a per capita basis. He attempted to disparage my point by saying that we may need to use more insect repellents than those who live in Sweden. Sweden suffers from a very severe mosquito problem in the summer. It is probably far worse than in many parts of Australia. However, leaving that matter aside, Senator Puplick seems to be ignoring the fact that there are plenty of other propellants available if one chooses to use sprays as an insect control. The figure of five times which I cited is, of course, a very good measure of the extent to which individual Australians are responsible for the damage being done to the ozone layer. It is a measure of our responsibility to do something about it. The point I would like to pick up in a little more detail relates to the rather outrageous claim made by Senator Puplick in regard to the Australian Democrats' attitude to nuclear energy. I am rather surprised that Senator Puplick made that claim because in many other respects he shows a certain amount of erudition in debating these issues. I am surprised that he simply seems to have gone totally off the rails in regard to this issue. In relation to the expressed concern about a decline in energy supplies, and this is the context in which nuclear energy is normally considered, it would seem to me to be absolutely clear to anybody who looks at the situation for even a moment that the need for energy lies in the area of liquid fuels for transport. That is the area in which there is a pressing and imminent need for substitution. Nuclear energy can make no contribution to that energy need whatsoever. That is the first point. The issue of nuclear energy versus other forms of energy does not address the essential problem of energy supply. I am disappointed that Senator Puplick is not here to hear this next point. One of the other gases which bears greatly upon the greenhouse effect and the increase in global temperature, and also damage to the ozone layer, is nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is being released from fossil fuels, certainly, but one of its other principal sources results from the clear felling of tropical rainforests. The decay of the nitrogen-containing components over these vast areas is putting huge amounts of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, as a result of denitrifying bacteria. Although it is a one-off phenomenon, it is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxide also is a gas which depletes the ozone layer and which has a residence time in the stratosphere similar to that of the freons, of around 100 years. Incidentally, the concentration of nitrous oxide is increasing in the atmosphere at about 0.6 per cent per year, which is faster than the rate of carbon dioxide increase. That brings me to the third point in relation to Senator Puplick's outrageous claim about our anti-nuclear stance. I am surprised that he does not know that only half the greenhouse effect arises from carbon dioxide. A number of other gases are contributing to the greenhouse phenomenon. These include not only nitrous oxide, which I have just mentioned, but also methane, which is increasing at 1.1 per cent per year; the freons, which are increasing at 5 per cent and 7 per cent for freon 11 and freon 12 respectively; water vapour; and ozone itself, which is of course a greenhouse gas. I mentioned that fact because although one might think that the ozone is decreasing the significant phenomenon here is that ozone in the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, is actually increasing. It is that which is helping to blanket the earth and which is adding to the greenhouse effect. Therefore simply taking the carbon component out of the greenhouse gases does not solve the greenhouse problem; it is far more complicated than that. Finally in relation to nuclear energy, if Senator Puplick had read the sixth United Kingdom report on environmental pollution, which goes under the name of the Flowers report, he would have found that that committee, when investigating these questions, came to the conclusion that the advent of and movement into nuclear energy would in fact increase the demand for fossil fuel and not decrease it. This comes about for a number of reasons. For example, the large capital cost of nuclear power stations means that one has to accumulate capital to go down the nuclear road. This means an industrial, economic base which is using large amounts of fossil fuel. It also means that the demand for nuclear energy for more electricity is predicated very largely on the use of that electricity in factories. Of course, that brings us back to the issue of how we get the resources out of the ground, how we smelt them, how we transport them to the factories and process them and how we transport the products away. All those processes are dependent on the use of fossil fuels. For all these reasons the Flowers committee came to the conclusion that the advent of nuclear energy would in fact increase the use of fossil fuels, so the position which the Democrats take in opposing both those industrial processes which increase greenhouse gases and nuclear energy is perfectly consistent. Senator Puplick made a point in relation to legislation in South Australia. He said that the Democrats in South Australia had attempted to introduce legislation which had been severely criticised by industry. Of course, one of the reasons for attempting to use the Federal area for legislation of this sort is that it avoids the necessity for lengthy and delaying consultation between the States and the Federal Government through such organisations as the Australian Environment Council. That process would be tedious and would involve the long delay of decisions. It would result in the final decision being that decision most acceptable to the least caring State. I believe that section 51 (xx) of the Constitution, referring to corporation powers, would allow the Commonwealth to go forward with the sort of legislation that I am here proposing, to achieve that in short order and to achieve significant reductions in the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere while still having the advantage of their use. As I have pointed out, the technological changes in refrigerators, air conditioners and the like which would be consequent upon using different gases would be considerable. I do not believe that such changes can be made in the sort of time frame that the Montreal Protocol on the Vienna Convention suggests. In conclusion, I repeat that I am disappointed that with such an important issue as this and its long history, as we are now 13 years down the track from Rowland and Molina's initial concern-concern which was taken up quite quickly by the United States National Academy of Science and a number of very significant bodies-neither the Government nor the Opposition sees fit to support the motion today. However, the Australian Democrats certainly intend to proceed and to bring this matter to a vote. Question put: That the motion (Senator Coulter's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 43 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Wood, W. R. Alston, R. K. R. Hamer, D. J.Archer, B. R. Hill, R.Aulich, T. Jones, G. N.Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C.Beahan, M. E. Lewis, A. W. R.Bishop, B. K. McGauran, J, J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M.Burns, B. R. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Childs, B. K. Puplick, C. J. G.Coates, J. Reynolds, M. E.Collins, R. L. Schacht, C. C.Colston, M. A. Sheil, G.Cook, P. F. S. Short, J. R.Cooney, B. Sibraa, K. W.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Devereux, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Devlin, R. Vanstone, A. E.Evans, Gareth Walters, M. S.Foreman, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, consideration of General Business pursuant to sessional order be not further proceeded with this day. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(6.06) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I table a revised explanatory memorandum to the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) and seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- BROADCASTING AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1987 The last year has seen unprecedented change in Australia's media. We have witnessed a substantial restructuring of commercial television, radio and print ownership, the development of truly national commercial television networks, the beginning of the introduction of new commercial television and FM radio services to country audiences too long deprived of the services available in the major cities, and the continuing expansion of public radio and the two national broadcasters, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service. These events mark this as a dynamic and exciting period for an industry which plays so central a role in our society, our culture, our economy, and our politics. Some of the changes have been prompted by economic imperatives in domestic and international markets. Many, however, are directly attributable to the Government's policy initiatives, particularly the major legislative packages introduced by my predecessor, Michael Duffy, and passed by this Parliament in the last sittings. In pursuing these initiatives, this Government has shown itself sensitive to the changing commercial, technical and social environment in which the various media operate, and prepared to adapt policy to suit new circumstances. But it has not been afraid to itself motivate change in the directions it believes appropriate to serve the needs and interests of Australians. This Bill represents a further significant step in the Government's reform of the media industry in this country. It provides for the introduction of an establishment fee payable on the grant of new commercial radio licences, and for a prohibition on the transfer of control of a commercial licence within two years of its initial grant. The associated Licence Fees Bills, which will receive their second readings following this speech, will provide for a fee to be payable on conversion of a non-metropolitan commercial radio licence from broadcasting on an AM frequency to a higher quality FM frequency following the grant of a new licence in the service area in question. These Bills also provide for increases in the licence fees paid by commercial broadcasters. Some of these decisions were announced in the Budget. As a package, these Bills are designed to ensure that the revenue from the commercial use of those parts of the radio frequency spectrum available for broadcasting better reflects their true commercial value. We are seeking to ensure that the interests of all Australians in deriving a reasonable return from the exploitation of a public resource, the airwaves, are more equitably balanced against the legitimate commercial interests of those licensed to provide commercial radio services. This economic reform will be achieved while preserving the place of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the licensing process. The Tribunal will continue to select the successful applicant for a new licence on the grounds of relative suitability so that competition for the new licence will be based only on the quality of services proposed by the applicants. The prohibition on quick disposal of a new licence will enhance the integrity of the licensing process. Establishment Fee In the Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that a tender system would apply to the grant of new commercial licences, with the licences being awarded to the highest bidding applicant whom the Tribunal determined to be suitable to hold the proposed licence. The Government decided not to proceed with that approach. I had discussions with a wide range of groups and individuals from the public and the broadcasting industry, many of whom have expressed concern about the effect of a tender system on a licensing process founded upon very significant questions of public interest. The Government also reassessed likely revenue gains from the tender system in the light of necessary adjustments to the machinery of the scheme that have emerged during the consultation process, and the likely impact of recent stock market developments. On balance, the Government decided that the gains in economic efficiency from a licensing process which allowed the market to determine the value of new broadcasting licences are outweighed by the desirability of retaining a process where applicants for new licences compete only through the quality of the service they will provide. Application In doing so, we decided that the new establishment fee should only cover commercial radio licences at this stage. The method of calculating the new fee for radio licences would not be as readily applicable to other forms of licence as was the tender system. In particular, since the Government has no immediate plans to call applications for new commercial television licences it would be inappropriate for any decision on the most appropriate way to allocate any such licences to be made at this stage. The new fee will apply to all markets where new licences are being granted under the Government's regional commercial FM radio planning program including those for Geelong, Shepparton, Gosford and the Gold Coast, for which applications have already been called but the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is still some way from making decisions on the successful applicants. This is essential to ensure equitable treatment of all new licensees and markets receiving licences under the Government's new planning program. The fee will not apply to the grant of the new Newcastle licence, where the Tribunal has already made a decision on the most suitable applicant but that decision has been successfully challenged in the Federal Court and is currently being reconsidered. The Tribunal has an existing discretion to permit the lodgment of further submissions if this is necessary for applicants for licences already called to reflect the new arrangements in their proposed services. Calculation of Fee In most markets where a new commercial service is currently proposed, the new licensee will be placed in direct competition with an existing solus operator with substantially the same service area. In these situations, the new licensee will be charged the incumbent licensee's gross earnings for licence fee purposes assessed in the most recent accounting period before the issue of the notice inviting applications for the new licence. Thus a new licensee in the Gold Coast could be expected to pay about $4m and a new licensee in Gosford about $3m. If there is more than one incumbent licensee with substantially the same service area as the proposed new licence, the fee will be the average of their earnings. Thus a third licensee in Hobart, were a licence to be invited today, would pay about $1.6m. The establishment fee is twice the fee which will be charged to the incumbent if it requests conversion from an AM to an FM frequency, under the new arrangements provided for in the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. The higher fee for the new licensee reflects the fact that the new licensee is acquiring a new right to broadcast in addition to the new FM frequency. The incumbent is only supplementing an existing right to broadcast with a new FM frequency. Where the new licence is being introduced in an area which is not substantially the same as the service area of an existing commercial radio licence, the fee will be calculated in one of two ways. Where more than 70 per cent of the population of the proposed service area at the most recent census is already served by at least one commercial radio service, the fee will be the gross earnings of that existing licence, or those existing licences, in the proposed service area in the most recent accounting period. The earnings of the existing licence or licences in the proposed service area will be assumed to bear the same proportion to the total earnings of the existing licensee(s) as does the population of the relevant part of the proposed service area to the total population served by the existing licensee(s). Thus, in the case of Ipswich, where a new licence is to be invited shortly, the fee will be based on the gross earnings of the existing Brisbane licensees to the extent that they were earned within the service area of the proposed Ipswich service. On this basis the new Ipswich licensee could be expected to pay about $1.8m. Where less than 70 per cent of the population of the proposed service area is currently served by at least one commercial radio service, a fee calculated in this way is likely to understate the true value of the new licence. In these circumstances, the fee will be set at $15 per head of population in the proposed service area. This reflects the per capita earnings of regional commercial radio licensees in 1985-86, the most recent year for which data is available. These three different methods of calculating the fee are intended to employ the most useful data which is available for particular markets. Where there is already a licensee operating within substantially the same service area, that licensee's revenue will be the best guide to the revenue a competitor could expect. Where there is no direct competition but other overlapping licensees who have been broadcasting to most of the proposed new market, the revenue of these licensees will be the best guide. Where a substantial proportion of the proposed market currently is not served by commercial radio, the earnings of other licensees in similar service areas provides the most helpful reference point. If the fee is not paid within 60 days of the Tribunal's decision or within 30 days of the final resolution of any legal proceedings arising out of the Tribunal's decision, the Tribunal will treat the most suitable applicant as having withdrawn his or her application, and re-open its inquiry to determine the next most suitable applicant. The 60-day period gives the successful applicant 32 days after the deadline for lodging of applications for review of the Tribunal's decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Similarly where legal proceedings are commenced, the successful applicant will have 30 days after the deadlines for the lodgment of appeals from decisions in those proceedings. If there is no next most suitable applicant, the Minister will be empowered to extend the time for payment and charge a late payment fee similar to that applying to late payments of existing licence fees, and to re-invite applications for the proposed licence if the fee is not paid within the extended time. Alternatively, the Minister may immediately re-invite applications. Prohibition on Re-Transfer The recent change in control of the company which had been granted the third Perth commercial licence before the new service went to air highlighted a significant shortcoming in the existing licensing process. In deciding to preserve that process, the Government has also decided that its integrity will be enhanced by imposing a prohibition on the transfer of control of a licence within two years of its initial grant. The prohibition on retransfer will operate by preventing the Tribunal approving a transfer of a licence within two years of its grant, and making void any transaction within two years of the initial grant which the Tribunal finds to constitute a transfer of control of the licence. The provision refers to `provisional approval' which implies that a transaction may be approved for the purposes of the two-year rule, but subsequently be disapproved because it constitutes a breach of other rules such as cross-media or total numbers of licences. Transactions need not be share transactions but only `transactions in respect of shares'. Thus other forms of transaction which give rise to beneficial interests in shares will also be subject to the prohibition. The provision is intended to give the Tribunal a broad discretion to prevent any transfer of control within two years of a commercial licence grant. The sanction of making any offending transaction void is different from the Tribunal's existing sanctions for breaches of the ownership and control of rules. The existing sanctions of fining contravening licensee once the Tribunal finds a breach to have occurred, apply only after a six-month period of grace during which the contravention can be remedied. The only way a purchaser within two years of a licence grant could `remedy' the situation would be to re-sell to the original vendor or re-sell to another purchaser. The former would amount to the Tribunal compelling a commercial purchase, while the latter would cause a still further transfer of control contrary to the basic policy. The Tribunal will have a discretion to approve a transaction otherwise contrary to the prohibition where it finds that, by reason of exceptional circumstances such as death or bankruptcy, the transaction would be in the public interest. Where the Tribunal is satisfied that, although circumstances such as death or bankruptcy exist, the transaction is not in the public interest, it may still refuse approval. Financial Implications The Bill has no direct financial implications. While it covers procedural aspects and the method of calculating the establishment fee for new commercial radio licences, the related Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 makes the amendment to the new Radio Licence Fees Act which formally creates the obligation to pay the fee. The Bill will create some additional work for the Tribunal through monitoring the prohibition on transfer of control of a new licence. Commercial Radio Ownership The amendments made by this Bill are part of an overall reform not only of the current arrangements under which broadcasting licensees pay revenue to the Commonwealth, but of the whole commercial radio industry. A new scheme which will affect the financial capacity of applicants and their rights once granted a licence, is inextricably linked to other structural aspects of the industry. The changes to the existing ownership and control rules in the radio industry, which I announced on 28 October, are closely related to the financial and other reforms introduced in this package of legislation. Together, they will ensure maximum diversity of ownership of all media consistent with quality services and a more reasonable public return from the commercial use of a public resource. Most importantly, they are an important part of this Government's commitment to the quick introduction of the best possible new broadcasting services to all Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. RADIO LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 This Bill is part of a package of Budget measures aimed at reforming the current arrangements under which broadcasting licensees pay revenue to the Commonwealth. The related Bills are the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987. This Bill requires successful applicants for new commercial radio licences to pay an establishment fee which will be set out in the notice inviting applications for the licences. The procedural aspects of this fee and the method of calculating it will be incorporated into the Broadcasting Act, and are described in my second reading Speech for the related Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987. Only the formal provision imposing the obligation to pay the amount so calculated is included in this Bill. Other provisions of this Bill require the payment of a fee on conversion of a commercial radio licence from broadcasting on an AM frequency to broadcasting on a higher quality FM frequency, and provide for increases in licence fees. Conversion Fee While there was initially considerable scepticism about the prospects for FM broadcasting in Australia, the success of the commercial FM radio licences granted in the metropolitan cities in 1980 has led to considerable pressure on the Government to allow existing AM licences to convert to FM. The Government previously has indicated that it is prepared to consider conversion, at this stage in limited circumstances. It has been decided that conversion will be considered where an existing solus AM operator is facing competition from one of the new FM services being introduced under the Government's Regional Commercial FM Radio Planning Program. In such circumstances, the incumbent's isolation on the AM band could be a serious commercial disadvantage. In any case, there seems to be no reason to deny conversion to those who desire it-provided certain conditions are met. The Bill makes the fee payable on conversion from AM to FM of a non-metropolitan commercial radio licence where the Minister has issued a notice under section 82 of the Broadcasting Act inviting applications for a new commercial radio licence serving substantially the same service area. The fee does not apply to conversion in other circumstances at this stage since the Government has not yet settled its policy. The conversion fee will apply to all markets where new licences are being granted under the Government's regional commercial FM radio planning program including those for Geelong, Shepparton, Gosford and the Gold Coast for which applications have already been called, but where the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is still some way from making decisions on the successful applicants. This is essential to ensure equitable treatment of all new licensees and markets receiving licences under the Government's new planning program. The following conditions will have to apply before I consider conversion. Firstly, FM frequencies and sites will have to be available, given the requirements of other planned broadcasting services. Secondly, there will have to be direct competition between the converting service and the new service. This will require the incumbent service area to be substantially the same as that of the proposed new licensee. Thirdly, there will have to be no loss of service to people who formerly received the AM service, reflecting the different transmission characteristics of AM and FM signals. These amendments thus do not give any licensee a right to convert. The decision on conversion and its timing remains one for me as the Minister, to be made in accordance with my general powers under the Broadcasting Act to plan the development of broadcasting services in Australia. I would propose to convert the incumbent licensee at a time as near as practicable to the date on which the new licensee will commence transmission. No converted service will be able to commence before the commencement of the new service in the area. If there are limited FM frequencies, the new rather than the converting service will have priority. The new fee also does not oblige anyone to request conversion if they meet the Government's criteria but would prefer to stay on an AM frequency. The fee will be calculated as 50 per cent of the incumbent licensee's gross earnings for licence fee purposes assessed in the most recent accounting period before the issue of the notice inviting applications for the new licence. This is half the fee which will be charged to the new licensee, reflecting the fact that the new licensee is acquiring a new right to broadcast in addition to the new FM frequency. The incumbent is only supplementing an existing right to broadcast with a new FM frequency. Payment of the fee will be required before the technical conditions of the licence warrant are varied to authorise use of the new FM frequency. Licence Fee Increases Commercial radio licensees currently pay licence fees assessed as a proportion of their gross earnings each year. The fee scale is progressive with rates increasing from 3.5 per cent on gross earnings of $5m to a maximum of 5.5 per cent on gross earnings of $11.8m and above. The Bill introduces new rates for larger stations ranging from 4.4 per cent on gross earnings of $6m, 5.3 per cent on gross earnings of $7m, 6.2 per cent on gross earnings of $10m, to a maximum of 6.5 per cent on gross earnings of $12.7m and above. The new fee scale will apply to all payments of fees due on or after 1 January 1988. The scale was last increased in 1983. Financial Impact Establishment and Conversion Fee Successful applicants for new licences to be granted in this financial year are expected to pay around $11m under the establishment fee scheme. Incumbent regional commercial licensees converting are expected to pay around $5.5m under the conversion fee scheme. The precise financial implications in future years will depend on progress with the planning timetable and Tribunal inquiries. As explained earlier, the amounts paid by converting licensees will always be half those paid by the corresponding new licensees. Licence Fee Increases These measures are expected to raise $1.0m in the current financial year, $1.2m in 1988-89 and $1.3m in 1989-90. Total revenue from radio licence fees is estimated at $11.7m in 1987-88, an increase of 31.2 per cent on 1986-87. Most of the increase reflects assumed increases in stations' earnings. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TELEVISION LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1987 This Bill is part of a package of Budget measures aimed at reforming the current arrangements under which broadcasting licensees pay revenue to the Commonwealth. The related Bills are the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 and the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. Commercial television licensees currently pay licence fees assessed as a proportion of their gross earnings each year. The fee scale is progressive, with rates increasing from 3.5 per cent on gross earnings of $5m to a maximum of 8 per cent on gross earnings of $48m and above. This Bill amends the fee scale for licensees currently paying that maximum rate of 8 per cent. The new scale will continue to apply a fee of 8 per cent on gross earnings of $48m, but will increase to 8.8 per cent on earnings of $75m and to a maximum of 9 per cent on earnings of $100m or more. The new scale will apply to all payments of fees due on or after 1 January 1988. They are only expected to effect major metropolitan licenses during the current Forward Estimates period. Increases have not been applied at lower levels of gross earnings since to do so would place further financial obligations on regional licensees currently planning major capital expenditure programs for equalisation. Assessments of financial viability of licensees under equalisation, which formed an important part of the planning process, were based on the existing fee scale. The fee scale was last increased in 1983. Financial Impact These measures are expected to raise $4.8m in the current financial year, $5.7m in 1988-89 and $6.4m in 1989-90. Total revenue from television licence fees is estimated at $79.5m in 1987-88 an increase of 17.1 per cent on 1986-87. Most of the increase reflects assumed increases in stations' earnings. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(6.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill before the Senate makes a number of changes to the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act to take account of changes to the Social Security Act introduced in the Budget and the May Economic Statement. Two of the three changes in this Bill are consequential amendments to the Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. All three changes relate to the operation of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The first change inserts in the Health Insurance Act a set amount of allowable income in respect of each eligible dependent child to be included in the income test for the Health Care Card for disadvantaged families. This obviates the need to refer to the Social Security Act to determine the appropriate amount. The second change will enable persons receiving a job search allowance to receive free or concessional pharmaceutical benefit items. The third change will temporarily restore eligibility for free pharmaceutical benefit items to certain former Class A widow pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries who lost their pension or benefit as a result of recent changes to Social Security legislation. The Health Insurance Act specifies the income test for the health care card, which allows disadvantaged persons to qualify for concessional pharmaceutical benefits. To be declared as disadvantaged a person's allowable income must be less than an amount determined under the income test provisions of the Act. In determining this amount the Health Insurance Act currently refers to the level of additional benefit payable to each dependent child. With the implementation of the Government's family package there will be different rates of additional benefit for dependent children, depending on their age. A technical amendment is therefore required to make it clear that existing entitlements to the health care card will be retained. The Bill would therefore amend the Health Insurance Act to substitute a dollar amount of $34 per week for each dependent child in lieu of the current formula based on the additional benefit for children. The amount has been chosen to maintain the current level of additional income for children under the income test for the health care card. The Bill allows for subsequent increases in this amount by regulation. There are considerable advantages, in terms of administrative efficiency and ease of understanding, in retaining an income test based on a single amount allowable per child, rather than introduce an income test defined on the basis of differential amounts according to the age of dependent children. Clause 8 of the Bill in part relates to the job search allowance for 16- to 17-year-olds. The allowance, to come into effect from 1 January 1988, necessitates amending the National Health Act to include those persons in its definition of pensioner and concessional beneficiary. The amendment enables recipients of a job search allowance to receive prescription pharmaceuticals at the concessional rate of $2.50 while medically fit to search for work and at not charge when the recipient is sick and unable to seek work. These provisions would effectively leave unchanged the pharmaceutical entitlements available to people aged 16 and 17 who currently qualify for unemployment or sickness benefits. A further amendment to the National Health Act will restore, until the end of 1988, eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards and thus free pharmaceutical benefits for those persons whose entitlement to Class A widows pension or supporting parents benefit ceased, between 1 September 1987 and 31 December 1987, as a result of changes announced in the May Economic Statement restricting such payments to those with children under 16. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(Minister for Local Government) (6.09)-I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to adjust for cost movements the grants available to government and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the Participation and Equity Program for 1987. The Bill provides new schedules for 1987 showing the allocation of funds to the States and the Northern Territory, and to the education sectors. The cost adjustments proposed are in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost adjustment for this program. They are consistent with adjustments being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and State Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the Senate today. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $109 000 in 1987. Total provision for the Participation and Equity Program is $45 928 000 in 1987. STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The main purposes of this Bill are to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1984 to implement decisions in the recent Budget on Commonwealth programs for schools in 1988 and to supplement for cost increases grants already appropriated for schools programs. There are detailed appropriations in the Bill for specific purpose and capital programs for government and non-government schools in each State and the Northern Territory. The Principal Act already contains the per capita grants under the general recurrent program for government and non-government schools for the period 1985-88. This comprehensive long-term program continues to provide authorities with stability and security in the planning of school operations. Most programs are being maintained at the same real level as in 1987 while a few will increase in real terms. The General Recurrent Grants Program will increase by an estimated 4.8 per cent in real terms to $1339m. The per capita amount for the new arrivals element of the English as a Second Language Program has been doubled and the Special Education Program will receive an additional $0.7 million in 1988 for the support services element. Funding of the Participation and Equity Program and Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program will not continue beyond the end of 1987 in accordance with the period set for those programs. The Bill also provides for the full implementation of block grant funding arrangements under the non-government schools element of the Capital Grants Program. The legislation was amended earlier this year to provide for the approval of block grant authorities. These amendments will enable capital grants for non government schools in 1988 and subsequent years to be allocated as a block grant for distribution by approved block grant authorities. Block grant arrangements, by providing greater involvement by school authorities in the delivery of the Capital Grants Program, offer an enhanced capacity for the achievement of Commonwealth objectives. The Government is not, however, forcing schools to join block grant authorities. Non-government schools which do not wish to participate in block funding arrangements will be able to compete for funds from a national pool in a similar way to existing arrangements. There are also several amendments of a minor nature. Firstly benefits under the English as a Second Language Program and Ethnic Schools Program are being restricted to students having permanent resident status. Established administrative practice has restricted benefits in that way but an amendment is required to put beyond doubt the authority for doing so. Secondly, an amendment provides for the inclusion in the Act of a definition of a ``full fee paying private overseas secondary student'' that had been made by Regulation. Definition by Regulation was an interim arrangement pending full incorporation in the Act. The financial impact of this Bill will be to appropriate an estimated $1739m for 1988 programs and an additional $9m for 1987 programs. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) BILL 1987 On 22 September 1987 the Minister for Employment, Education and Training released the Guidelines to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for 1988. The Commission responded with detailed recommendations in its Report ``Higher Education Recommendations for 1988'' which has already been tabled. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987 has been prepared following consideration of the Commission's recommendations. It also gives effect to the Government's budget decisions on Commonwealth assistance for TAFE in 1988. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative basis for the distribution of Commonwealth funds for tertiary education in the States and the Northern Territory for 1988. A total of $2708.1 million will be legislated for. As the Minister explained to the House when he delivered his statement on higher education on 22 September, the Government is treating 1988 as a year outside the normal funding process. This deferment of the next funding triennium will enable the Government to reassess the overall direction of higher education policy, and to develop new funding programs to take effect from the beginning of the 1989 academic year. The Bill provides $2423.8 million for the higher education sector for 1988. This represents an increase of 2.0% in real terms on the previous year. The allocation of additional resources reflects the Government's resolve to increase participation, particularly among young people, and to make the higher education system more responsive to the needs of the national economy. The Government has accepted the Commission's recommendations on the detailed allocation of student places and financial resources with one exception. The Commission had recommended that planning funds be provided in 1988 for the proposed relocation of the Sydney college of the Arts and the rationalisation of facilities at the Western Australian College of Advanced Education and University of Western Australia. However, this recommendation made no provision for a firm forward commitment of funds against these projects. The Government agrees that these projects should proceed and they will be supported with the future Commonwealth capital programs. In these circumstances, the $500,000 ``planning'' funds recommended by CTEC will not be required and will be used to support a student residence project at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education, which is important for future student growth. Key features of the allocation of higher education funds for 1988 are: An additional 23 million in general recurrent grants to fund an extra 3500 to 4000 intakes for school leavers; An increase in capital grants of $12 million to allow for the continuation of 35 projects and the commencement of 13 new major works projects; An additional $3 million in equipment grants; The redirection of $5 million from general recurrent grants to universities to fund an expansion of Special Research Centres and Key Centres of Teaching and Research as well as targeted research activities in the advanced education sector; Unallocated amounts totalling $42.7 million for equity projects, superannuation and the Special Assistance Scheme for students to be distributed after further advice from CTEC. In arriving at its funding decisions for 1988 the Government has been conscious also of the need for effective forward planning of physical facilities to support expected future growth in enrolments. Accordingly, since the Budget, it has examined further the likely capital needs of higher education over the next few years, and decided that the higher level of capital funding approved for 1988 should be maintained into 1989 and 1990. This measure will not only add significantly to the funds available for new capital projects in 1989 and 1990, but should also assist institutions in the longer-term planning of their future capital programs. Subject to appropriate agreements with the States concerned, the two projects deferred from the 1988 capital program recommended by CTEC will have first call upon the additional capital funds to be made available in 1989. Further commitments against these funds will be made during 1988 following completion of the Government's Policy Discussion Paper on Higher Education and the satisfactory resolution of the issues raised in the Paper. The Bill also provides $284.3 million for expenditure on TAFE programs. As announced in ``Skills for Australia'', the Government believes that considerable restructuring of Commonwealth grants for TAFE is required to meet a number of objectives, including: Further increases in vocational education and training and an expansion of total training capacity; Improvements in the relevance of TAFE provision; Productivity improvements and efficiency gains in the use of existing resources; Greater industry involvement in TAFE; An enhancement of the labour market prospects of the unemployed and other disadvantaged groups, especially among the young. Under new funding arrangements set out in this Bill to apply from 1 January 1988 the Government will continue to place a strong emphasis on the national development of TAFE, through both an Infrastructure and a General Recurrent Program. The existing Capital Grants, Special Equipment and Minor Works and Equipment for Traineeships Programs will be combined into a single TAFE Infrastructure program. An amount of $174.8 million is provided for this purpose in 1988. The existing Fees Reimbursement and Designated Purpose Recurrent Grants are largely replaced by a General Recurrent Program which will be subject to resource agreements with the States covering: A commitment to pursue improvements in productivity in 1988; Agreed target growth rates in designated courses of high priority to meet skill shortages, equity objectives, or of strategic importance to future economic development; Changes in administrative arrangements to enable TAFE colleges to retain revenues from entrepreneurial effort. An amount of $103.1 million is provided under this program in 1988. Achievements against program objectives will be subject to regular monitoring and evaluation. The level of funds to be provided to the States for TAFE in 1989 and future years under the General Recurrent Program will be dependent on achievements in 1988 particularly in relation to productivity. Three existing special purpose programs for which funds are currently available under the Designated Grants program are to be maintained: Grants for advanced English language courses for migrants will continue to be administered by the Commonwealth, as will the allowance paid to participants in such courses; Grants for adult literacy and for non-government adult education will be maintained and rolled in with funding to be allocated under the National Language Policy for adult literacy purposes. A total of $6.4 million is provided for these programs in 1988. The processes of allocating these grants will be reviewed during the year. The Bill also provides for continuing Commonwealth assistance to non-government business colleges. This Bill gives effect to the Government's decision to permit a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees in higher education and TAFE from 1988. Higher education institutions will be able to seek the Minister's approval to charge fees for specialised postgraduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Government's decisions have been taken in response to requests from sections of the higher education community itself, and there will be no compulsion on institutions to charge fees for these courses. The revenue raised by this measure will be retained by the institutions concerned, and the Commonwealth will not reduce its grants on account of revenue generated from fees. Institutions will also be able to exempt certain students or categories of student from payment of fees. Similarly the relaxation of the TAFE fees prohibition is not intended to affect the great majority of TAFE courses which involve the initial acquisition of skills by young people. It is intended to apply to courses undertaken for the purpose of upgrading skills and income by students well established in employment. The aim of this new provision is to provide a further basis for industry and individual contributions without threat to the public financing of TAFE. The Government will not reduce the level of the General Recurrent Grant on account of any fees revenue generated under these arrangements. Incorporated in the Bill are the changes made to the Higher Education Administration Charge which were announced in the Budget. The categories of needy students exempt from the charge have been extended. These further exemptions cover almost 9000 students, which will bring to around 139,000 or 35% the number of students who will be exempt from, or reimbursed for, the charge in 1988. The Bill has been tightened to make students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. In its latest report CTEC has reiterated its views on a number of topical issues in higher education, including those publicised in its recent press release on portfolio advisory arrangements and structures. The Government's position on these issues was set out in the Minister's statement of 15 October 1987 announcing the findings of the Task Force chaired by Mr Charles Halton. As foreshadowed at that time, an extensive process of consultation is now under way with interested parties, and the Minister expects to announce final decisions on the new advisory framework towards the end of the year. The Government welcomes the very positive reaction to its proposals to date, and notes that the views expressed in the CTEC report are sharply at odds with majority opinion. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 to adjust for cost movements in tertiary education grants to the States and the Northern Territory. The Principal Act provides grants to the States and the Northern Territory for tertiary institutions for the 1985-87 triennium. The Bill will adjust recurrent grants from preliminary end March 1987 prices for university academic salaries and actual and March 1987 cost levels for the advanced education and TAFE sectors to the end of June quarter 1987 prices in accordance with the Government's agreed procedures to make retrospective adjustments for cost variations. The total amount of supplementation to be provided by this Bill is $3.0 million, made up of increases of $4.1 million in grants for universities and intersectoral purposes in higher education, offset by reductions totalling $1.1 million in grants for advanced education and TAFE. The latter reductions result from the final non-salaries index for 1987 being lower than the preliminary index used when the relevant grants were last supplemented. The Bill also accommodates changes necessary to transfer responsibility for administration of the Act from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to the Department of Employment, Education and Training. I commend the Bill to the Senate. STUDENT ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 seeks to amend the Student Assistance Act 1973 which is the legislative basis for the provision of student assistance under AUSTUDY and for the grant of post-graduate awards. The proposed amendment to section 10 of the Act relates to the range of institutions at which courses are approved for AUSTUDY. Approved institutions currently include secondary schools, TAFE colleges, colleges of advanced education, universities and a limited number of tertiary institutions in the private sector providing courses funded by the Commonwealth. These private tertiary institutions mainly comprise denominational teacher-training colleges and certain business colleges. The Bill responds to a decision of the Federal Court in Darwin earlier this year, in the O. Gipalis and NT Attorney-General v. Karen Schnierer case, which established that students attending the University College of the Northern Territory could be regarded, for AUSTUDY purposes, as undertaking study at the University of Queensland-by virtue of an agreement between the two institutions under which the University, for a fee, allows the College to teach the University's courses. The amendment is needed because the wide interpretation the Court has given to section 10 opens the way to a range of wholly private institutions-including private universities, academies of Dance and Art, cooking schools, Chiropractic colleges, receptionist and beauty colleges and non-approved business colleges-to gain access to AUSTUDY contractually, by-passing Ministerial screening. The decision also enables those private-sector institutions that have gained AUSTUDY approval for certain of their courses to expand their AUSTUDY offering. Section 10 allows the Minister discretion to approve or revoke approval of courses. The proposed amendment will allow a further discretion to determine that particular institutions in the private sector are not appropriate institutions for AUSTUDY purposes. The discretion would be exercised where institutions that have made contractual arrangements seek AUSTUDY approval of a course. It is not intended that this discretion should be exercised so as to deny AUSTUDY to students who currently benefit under contractual arrangements. Students at the University College of the Northern Territory will not be affected. An amendment is being sought to the Student Assistance Regulations to classify the College as a `university' for the purposes of the Act, thus allowing the College equal standing with universities in the States, and the right to seek AUSTUDY approval of any course that it may wish to offer independent of the University of Queensland. Where teaching arrangements are shared between public-funded and private institutions, it will continue to be possible for the courses concerned to be considered for AUSTUDY assistance. Non-government secondary schools will not be affected, since those that currently have State or Territory teaching certification are, and will continue to be, approved for AUSTUDY in their own right. As the law now stands, an ever-increasing flow of AUSTUDY funds into private-sector tertiary institutions must be expected. Although the financial implications for the Commonwealth are not at this stage quantifiable, they will become significant. The proposed amendment is needed to restore to the Commonwealth the right to determine those institutions where AUSTUDY should be provided and to maintain existing AUSTUDY policy that limits the provision of AUSTUDY to students undertaking courses that are wholly or substantially funded from public sources, whether Commonwealth, State or Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate. MARITIME COLLEGE AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Maritime College Act 1978 to enable the College to operate on an equal footing with institutions in the States consequent upon the proposed changes under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. This Bill will enable the Maritime College to apply for a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees for specialised postgraduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Bill will also permit the introduction of changes to the Higher Education Administration Charge. From 1988 the categories of students exempt from the charge will be extended and students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced will be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. I commend this Bill to the Senate. CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 to enable the College to operate on an equal footing with institutions in the States consequent upon the proposed changes under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. This Bill will enable the Canberra College of Advanced Education to apply for a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees for specialised postgraduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Bill will also permit the introduction of changes to the Higher Education Administration Charge. From 1988 the categories of student exempt from the charge will be extended and students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced will be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. I commend this Bill to the Senate. AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL 1987 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 to enable the University to operate on an equal footing with institutions in the States consequent upon the proposed changes under the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. This Bill will enable the Australian National University to apply for a limited relaxation of the prohibition on fees for specialised postgraduate award courses catering for students already in employment who are seeking to upgrade their vocational skills and income. The Bill will also permit the introduction of changes to the Higher Education Administration Charge. From 1988 the categories of students exempt from the charge will be extended and students withdrawing from a course after teaching has commenced will be liable for the charge. In line with the Government's commitment not to increase the charge beyond the effects of inflation the charge will rise from $250 to $263 in 1988. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on references not disposed of by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence during the Thirty-fourth Parliament, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-I move: That the report be adopted. When the Senate passed the motion establishing the legislative and general purpose standing committees on 22 September last, several matters which had been referred to the former Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and which had not been disposed of before the dissolution of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, were referred to the new Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. One of those matters was a reference given the Committee on 3 May 1984, on Australia's relations with Papua New Guinea, with particular reference to: firstly, Australia's contribution to the economic development of Papua New Guinea; and, secondly, the significance of Papua New Guinea within Australia's regional defence responsibilities. The reference was a response to the report of the Jackson Committee to review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, the Irian Jaya situation and, indirectly, law and order in Papua New Guinea. These issues were then receiving considerable Press coverage in Australia. After the 1984 elections, the Committee decided to continue with the reference, though active consideration was deferred pending completion of the examination of the Jackson report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Senate Committee also took into account that it had considered the significance of Papua New Guinea within Australia's regional defence responsibilities in its October 1984 report entitled Australia's defence Co-operation with its Neighbours in the Asian-Pacific region. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence presented its examination of the Jackson report on Australia's overseas aid program in May 1985. Chapter 5 of the Joint Committee's report discusses Australia's contribution to the economic development of Papua New Guinea. The Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has considered the events since May 1984, when the reference on papua New Guinea was given to the former Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and the fact that the subject of the reference has been substantially dealt with in the two reports from the Senate and Joint Committees which I have mentioned. The Senate Committee, therefore, proposes to take no further action on the reference. We have also considered another reference not disposed of by the former Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-namely, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). This reference was given on 26 March 1985. One public hearing was held on this matter, and I table the transcript of evidence today. The Committee has noted that a new Director-General of UNESCO has been appointed and we propose to take no further action on the reference. The former Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence tabled its first report on Land Acquisition in New South Wales by the Australian Army on 30 May 1986. This report fulfilled the requirements of clauses (1) and (2) of terms of reference given on 9 October 1985. The third clause of the terms of reference was: To investigate the adequacy and appropriateness of current procedures in protecting the rights of individual landholders and communities in areas where acquisition is contemplated, in providing for fair and prompt cooperation, and in providing for appeal procedures. Consideration of clause (3) of the terms of reference was deferred because the legal basis for the Commonwealth's authority to acquire land, the Land Acquisitions Act 1955, was in the process of being amended following the publication of Law Reform Commission report No. 14, entitled Lands Acquisition and Compensation. Clause (3) of the terms of reference pertains to matters of a legal and constitutional nature. Any action which may be required would appear to fall within the area of responsibility of another standing committee, and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade does not propose to take further action on this reference. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(6.15) —As I was saying before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, the Queensland Government's affirmation of the reopening of the underground Boggo Road prison cells will lead to inhumane and degrading treatment in store for troublemakers during World Expo 88. The Queensland Government must be made aware that Australia is watching with disgust and, with Expo and the Bicentenary close at hand, so will the world be watching. It is my hope that a reappraisal of attitudes will take place in this country next year. Instead of giving ourselves a big party we should be opening our hearts to the disadvantaged members of our community. There are plenty of individuals and groups who do not generally share a sense of well-being in this very affluent country. Those honourable senators who were privileged to hear Justice Einfeld deliver the first Alan Missen Memorial Lecture last night will understand that very many violations of human rights are taking place in our communities under our very noses right now. His speech, delivered to the parliamentary Amnesty International group, will be circulated to all members and senators. I commend it to all. It was the finest speech I have heard in this Parliament House. It was a heartfelt plea for compassion and justice. A large part of the problem is our consumer orientation in this country. We are a society based on satisfaction of material needs. We need to look beyond material concerns and attend to our spiritual welfare also. This means considering all people everywhere as our brothers and sisters and sharing our resources with them. It is only the creative power of love and non-violence which can transform our society. We must stop exploiting people and the environment in quest of the almighty dollar. The recent fluctuations of the international stock market show just how fickle can be our faith in finances. Part of the reason for the current recession is the huge United States spending on weapons. As Chris Gregory pointed out in the Canberra Times last Saturday, this problem was identified by United States Treasury Secretary, John Connolly, as early as 1971. He said: I find it an impressive fact, and a depressing fact, that the persistent underlying balance of payments deficit which causes such concern is more than covered, year in and year out, by our net military expenditures abroad, over and above amounts received for foreign military purchases in the United States. . . We spend 9 per cent of our gross national product on defence-nearly five billion dollars of that overseas. The staggering increase in United States military expenditure is one factor that appears to have been overlooked by analysts commenting on the recent Wall Street-led stock market crash. My comments are backed up by research published by the Council on Economic Priorities-an impartial public service research organisation based in the United States. In its publication entitled Military Expansion and Economic Decline, the Council makes the point that United States military expenditure is largely responsible for the massive deficit the United States faces. Its research links the higher military expenditure to poorer economic performance and argues that, despite what some analysts say, military expenditure is far from the most effective way to create employment. The Reagan Administration's military build-up is the largest in America's peacetime history. The United States should take some tips from Japan, which has succeeded in keeping its deficit down partly through keeping defence spending down. The United States could lead the way and reduce its current budget deficit, which stands at $148 billion, by reducing military expenditure. There have been many revelations in the past about wasteful Pentagon defence procurement practices which result from the fact that defence supplies do not have to follow the usual tendering practices. This leads to highly inflated defence purchase prices. However, all nations that keep us on the brink of war through increasing military build-up, and not just the United States, need to look at non-military means of achieving security. A diversion of resources from the military would go an enormous way towards meeting the challenges of unemployment and poverty and reducing national deficits. We must stop feeding the arms race and start feeding people. Australia can have a vital role to play in the necessary attitudinal changes towards that humanitarian goal. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(6.21) —We have had presented to this nation an excellent Budget which was lauded by the media as both surprising and satisfactory, a Budget about which most Australians could feel satisfied and look to the future with growing confidence. The criticisms from those on the other side must be examined and judged within the framework of their performance in government compared with the record of the Australian Labor Party Government. For that purpose, I will concentrate on a particular aspect of the Budget-industrial relations and its effect on productivity and related matters. If one looks at the laws brought in by the Liberal-National Party Government prior to the election of a Labor government in 1983, one finds bodies such as the Industrial Relations Bureau forced penalties and archaic laws upon workers. Matters pursued in this way through the industrial courts were counter-productive and led to the loss of many man hours. Senator Sheil made some remarks this afternoon in which he indicated his feelings. He talked with some concern about strikes. The National-Liberal Party-I am sorry that I put that the wrong way around as one Party is more senior than the other-has no concern about strikes in Poland. It thinks it is all right if people strike against authority in Poland. But if people in Australia strike for better wages and conditions they are considered to be very bad. If the doctors go on strike and put people's lives at risk, where other workers put only profits at risk, it considers that that is a moral action. Senator Sheil made the point that he was nervous about industrial democracy. I hope that the quotations that I will make a little later in my speech will put his mind at ease. He also spoke about the undesirability of occupational superannuation funds. I must point out that such funds have grown on the basis of the understanding of the trade union movement that in years down the track it will be almost impos- sible, if not impossible, for any government to provide the sorts of retirement salaries that will be needed. Also, we have to take into account that those funds provide investment in productive and useful commodity industries. All of the people who are trustees of those funds have a responsibility in law to maximise returns to their members. I believe it is important that people should be convinced that it is desirable that those funds invest in productive and useful commodity industries. Senator Panizza indicated some concern about work practices. His interpretation of the meaning of work practices was a situation in which two people on the job carry out the tasks normally done by one person. I must assure him that that is not the meaning. Work practices are the way certain tasks are carried out. Historically, they are rooted in old-fashioned attitudes put into place by employers. I suppose we could go back as far as the guilds which trained people who paid for that service. Those people acquired skills and knowledge. Workers have gone along with these practices which are based on past technological requirements and which certainly have given job security. The honourable senator also mentioned that management wanted only to get in and get the job done, as though people in the work force and the community do not have similar views. They do, but with certain qualifications as to what the result may mean to them. I assure him that workers and trade unionists have the same view about productivity. I was pleased to hear Senator Panizza say that there should be government intervention. I agree wholeheartedly. He was right on the spot when he made that point. The Australian Labor Party, in its time in office, and even prior to coming to government, has been creative and has worked towards increasing productivity in the interests of the community. It has done so on the basis of seeking assistance from the trade union movement. It reached an agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the form of the prices and incomes accord. It did so out of its concern for the community which, as I have said before in this place, comprises many people in the trade union movement. The Government also has concern for the future of this country and all its citizens. The accord and the co-operation between unions and the Government go to a number of matters such as education, industrial development, trade, foreign affairs and affirmative action. Of course, the community is concerned about industry development, and correctly so, because if we do not develop industry which has the ability to create wealth, all those other things that draw on the wealth of this country will draw from a very empty bucket. I can make the statements which I have made and suggest that everyone should accept them. But in support of what I am saying I will quote from a book called Structured Chaos, with articles from Richard Blandy, Peter Dawkins, Kenneth Gannicott, Peter Kain, Wolfgang Kasper and Roy Kriegler. There are a number of interesting quotes in that book. Let me remind honourable senators that none of these people is radical, left wing or a socialist trade union official. The book quotes the following from Peters and Waterman, 1983, page 238: . . . Treat people as adults. Treat them as partners; treat them with dignity; treat them with respect. Treat them-not capital spending and automation-as the primary source of productivity gains. These are fundamental lessons learned from the excellent companies research . . . Again, the book quotes Richard Nelson, 1981, page 1036, where he argues: The social system of work sets norms, enforces them, and resists pressures or commands from management that are inconsistent with those norms . . . How workers feel about their job, about fellow workers, about management, and about the organisation, may be more important in influencing productivity than is the particular way they are instructed to do their work, the formal organisational structure, or even financial incentives . . . These things appear to be forgotten by a lot of people when they argue about productivity and the role of people in it. Rather, they seem to want to talk more about costs in terms of wages and conditions that have been won by workers at the work place. The book quotes Rosow, 1979, page 29, where he says: Ask any businessman what the key factors are in productivity. The answer without exception is: capital, technology and manpower. That is what they say. Their actions, however, reveal their true concerns: capital and technology, period. Manpower drops out of the equation . . . Catch a businessman in an unguarded moment and enquire what-if anything-he plans to do about productivity growth. If he mentions seeking increased co-operation from his workforce, you have found a pearl-bearing oyster . . . The role of labour in productivity growth is so fundamental, so obvious, that managers stare right past it. I think it is important that these quotes go into the Hansard because they show that people who have given a lot of thought to this matter are concerned about workers as people. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator BURNS —I will use a further quote from the same publication to demonstrate my argument. Structured Chaos states: As a result of their research, Burt and Masters (1974) drew up the following unflattering profile of Australian middle management: Dependent on government; insular; lacking in boldness and initiative; dependent on overseas sources for capital, ideas and techniques; reasonably but not highly educated; masculine in fact and outlook; conservative; fearful of radicalism in economics and politics; egalitarian both socially and at the work place; practical and pragmatic; opportunists rather than planners, non-intellectual-some are anti-intellectual; interested in leisure, social activity and family; critical of politicians and the holders of formal authority; versatile; materialistic; non-aggressive; manipulative in managerial style; low in Machiavellian characteristics. I do not think they have changed very much. Those people who had expressed those views about the way in which industrial relations worked and the participants also quoted Ralph Willis, who, as everybody in this chamber knows and understands, is a very fine Minister in a progressive Government. He had this to say: For Australia to achieve sustained economic recovery and growth it is critical that the consensus and co-operation being developed at the national level be given practical expression at the work place. Industrial democracy and employee participation have come to mean many things to many people. The essence of the issue is simply about employees at all levels in an organisation having greater influence and involvement in their work. Every employee has a right to a high quality of work life and to contribute to the effective operation of the organisation . . . Those quotes show the clear difference in understanding of people who come from different areas in the political spectrum about the way in which we should operate. The Government developed Austrade so that it is now organisationally involved in seeking markets overseas and in seeking to help people in terms of managerial skill or to make up for the lack of it or to compensate for inadequacies. This is part of industrial development. The Government has put forward and has had accepted enthusiastically the heavy engineering package and the steel industry package, which has seen the production of steel go from 150 tonnes per man a year to 260 tonnes. There has been a massive reduction in employees in the clothing and footwear industry but the industry has been put on a proper basis and it will give some security of employment to those people who are still in the industry and to some extent will make it more competitive. The car industry package is another example of the involvement of the Government in industry in a meaningful and constructive way. The unions' role in this is criticised by many people but those people who criticise the unions' role are those who do not understand its intention or the way in which the unions go about carrying out those intentions. Any trade union official who did not understand this and did not want to see the most jobs possible in the community to reduce and eliminate unemployment would be quite wrong and should be criticised by all. But trade union officials understand this. That is their position. After all, the unions cannot operate without membership. The unions came into being as a result of the needs of the working class of this country and other countries because the workers were being exploited. They were not being considered as people but only as part of the productive process. Of course, at one stage unions were defensive but now they are very aggressive in looking at their educative role. At seminars people discuss issues, and explanations are given by people from all walks of life about the current needs for developing production and the creation of wealth that this country needs. The unions debate the way in which these matters can be dealt with at federal union conferences where the maximum amount of democracy is involved, unlike the National-Liberal Party position. All the Opposition wants to do is rubbish people who do not agree with its philosophy. I turn to the question of job training. For many many years the trade unions have sought a better method of job training. Those who have looked after the skilled areas have never said, for instance, that apprenticeships are sacrosanct, that the way in which we trained people for work over many years has to continue. They have looked at new roles. Currently in Victoria some work is being done in relation to this in terms of looking at a person's whole working life. One may be trained in certain areas, be creative and give service to the community in that particular role but then later on, using some of those skills, move into other areas where they can be of even more importance in terms of a career path for those people. No longer do we consider that if one has a particular calling that one follows as a young person to 25, 30 and 40 years of age one is stuck with that. People have other capacities to offer: they have other creativities that reside within them. The trade union movement is anxious to promote this with the various courses and various methods of training and education-through university-for industry as well as for life. They are concerned that there be the best possible opportunities which in turn will enrich the person and also enrich the community. There might be a situation in which these things occur but the economy might be declining. Ralph Willis addressed the Employers Federation of New South Wales and he pointed out the success of the Government in terms of advancing in regard to the economy. He talked about a 10 per cent decline in real unit labour costs which are statistically proven and a 7 per cent decline in the real value of wages. I think that is a fairly good contribution for the trade unions to have made. After all, Professor Blandy, when he spoke in Adelaide the other day to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry, Technology and Science of which I am a member, made the point that wage costs or labour costs are not the only problem. In fact, they are much less a problem in terms of the importance of other matters in relation to the availability of finance and the way in which work is organised. He says in the book from which I have just quoted that it is not so much a question of wages overhang, but production underhang. He talks about the failed ability of employers to organise industry in such a way that it benefits the whole community. Ralph Willis's point is well made and, of course, the Government and the trade union movement are looking at those things very much on the basis of consensus. I think it behoves people in the community who do not know very much about the way in which the trade unions and certain employer organisations operate and the importance of people in the process of production to be circumspect about these matters. If they want to make a contribution to the debate they should refer to the positive things that can be achieved. They should remark on, for instance, the gains that have been made and the changes in attitude that have taken place. We heard Senator Panizza talk about work practices. Indeed, trade unions have pointed out many cases of work practices which are wasteful and need to be changed. But they will not put out their hands to be handcuffed and say, `Whatever the employers want to do with us they can'. They are not prepared to give away their rights with the goal of the reorganisation of industry if the only objective is massive profits regardless of the unemployment that may result, regardless of the fact that the wealth that may be created cannot be distributed among the people in the community. Industrial democracy, which is not understood by many honourable senators opposite, is important. It means that people will begin to understand the way in which industries or particular enterprises go about producing a product or a service. They will begin to look at the enhancement of that product and that service. Of course, the Labor Government has been very constructive in that area. It has enabled people to receive a 150 per cent rebate on investment in research and development. That is something that the Liberal-National Party certainly did not allow. That has been welcomed by those people in industry who have enough intelligence to know where their interests lie. The trade union movement and this Government have been able to go forward constructively and co-operatively, having in mind the interests of the whole community. I commend the Government for that. I intend to work for a future in which we can create additional wealth and redistribute that wealth among those people in the community who have every right to expect their share of it. I will not be negative, as are people on the other side. They want only to be critical of a slight increase in wages, when in fact real wages have fallen, as I have already demonstrated. I commend the Government for all of the measures that are contained in the Budget. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.12) —I support the amendment to the motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88 which has been foreshadowed by my colleague Senator Stone in the following terms: 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 project 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 amendment certainly covers the way the Opposition parties feel about this Government's Budget which, less than a week after it was brought down, was transformed by Senator Walsh's attack on it. The nonsense peddled by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and accepted by sycophantic journalists was that it was a balanced Budget, that it was an attempt to reduce the deficit and that it was a whole lot of things that it clearly was not. It is a Budget with an estimated deficit of about $2.5 billion. For how many years has this Government produced disastrous Budgets? Senator Boswell —Too many years. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague Senator Boswell says, for far too many years. Australia is currently in an economic crisis. This is no longer being denied by the Government. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), despite his constant attempts to push up this Government's performance, said last Saturday night at the Australian Export Awards: The current account deficit is still unsustainably high and our overseas debt continues to mount. . . . . The balance of payments constraint dominates our economic choices . . . Of course it does. It did so before the stock market crash, but the stock market crash and the weaker Australian dollar have resulted in the Government finally facing the fundamental reality that members of the Liberal and National parties have been pointing to since early 1984; namely, that Australia is an over-borrowed country living beyond its means, in an increasingly harsh world. When this Government came to office it criticised the Liberal Party for the deficit of 1982-83. We have to wear that deficit. With hindsight, clearly the Liberal-National Party Government of 1982 adopted a wrong Budget policy. There were excuses; there were explanations. Let us not forget that the world was in a state of recession, Australia was facing a very serious drought and there were major economic problems. In order to overcome those problems, the Liberal-National Party Government primed the economy, which is the standard economic solution to crises of such a nature. Nevertheless, by the time the March 1983 election was held, following which this Government came to office, it was clear that that policy had gone too far and that there was a desperate need to withdraw from a deficit Budget situation. Now, with hindsight, everyone is on that bandwagon. But by the time this Government came to office in 1983, a number of Liberal-National Party members of parliament pointed that out to the new Government, but it did not do anything about it. Instead, this Government immediately pumped up spending with two expansionary Budgets. The Budgets of 1983 and 1984, instead of being contractionary Budgets, were expansionary Budgets. Senator Walsh has now admitted that this was a mistake. I quote from a speech made by Senator Walsh on Friday, 7 August 1987 to the Conference on Australian Monetary Policy Post-Campbell delivered in Baxter, Victoria: On 23 March 1983, in my first speech as a member of the Labor Government, I said this, `The state of our overseas current account is, like the impending domestic (Budget) deficit, one of the most serious problems facing the new Government. Senator Walsh now acknowledges that as early as March 1983 he recognised the problem. In his speech of 7 August this year he continued: I look back on that- meaning he looks back on that statement- with mixed feelings: satisfaction at having identified the nation's major problem; disappointment at having paid too little attention to it over the next 2 years. As I said, too little attention was paid over the next two years. That is what we said. In speech after speech in this place following the Government's first Budget, we tried to point out that the Government was taking the wrong path. I see that Senator Robert Ray thinks that that is a joke, but that is the truth of the matter. We were constantly attacking the Government by saying, `You've gone down the wrong path'. The Whitlam Government, when it came to office in 1972-73, immediately went down the wrong path-an expansionary path. The time was not right for an expansionary Budget. This Labor Government went down the wrong path and we warned it that it had gone down the wrong path. All it could think of doing was criticising the Fraser Government for the Budget deficit that it had introduced the previous year. We acknowledge that in the circumstances, and with the benefit of hindsight, that may have been the wrong thing to do. This Government had an opportunity to correct the matter but it did not do anything about it even though Senator Walsh acknowledges that he recognised what the situation was in 1983. Senator Walsh, in his speech to which I have referred, enters what he calls `several pleas in mitigation'. I do not accept those pleas in mitigation any more than he will accept my pleas in mitigation of the Fraser Government's deficit Budget of 1982-83. The truth of the situation is that when this Government came to office it criticised the Liberal Party for the deficit of 1982-83-as I have said we have to wear that-but this Government immediately pumped up spending with two expansionary Budgets. During 1985 and 1986 it simply turned away from making the tough decisions that it should have been making. It can turn away no longer. As a result of the stock market crash around the world the Government now has to face the reality that we have been talking about for the past four years. This Government criticises the United States of America for not getting down its deficit and I agree with that criticism. I also criticise the United States for not getting down its deficit. But that cap certainly fits Australia. The current account deficit of this Government is $11.5 billion-4 per cent of gross domestic product. The net foreign debt of Australia is 32 per cent of gross domestic product. So the criticism of the United States for not getting down its deficit applies similarly to Australia. It is now time for Australia to get down its deficit. Mr Hayden, in his Sir Edward Dunlop Oration on Monday, 16 November, talked down the economy when he stated: . . . they threaten once again to plunge the world economy into another Dark Age of protectionism. That was Mr Hayden, not some Liberal or National Party senator or member, talking down the economy. We reject any suggestions that it is the Opposition which is attempting to talk down the economy. Mr Hayden is finally saying to the people of Australia, `Look out. We are in trouble'. Senator Walsh said this immediately after Mr Keating brought down the Budget, in his now well-known `the IMF is knocking at the door' speech. He put it quite correctly when he said: . . . a country which has a high level of foreign debt and a continuing large current account deficit is a country which has few options. Senator Boswell —Was he talking the dollar down? Senator LEWIS —Senator Walsh was talking the Budget down because he knew that the nonsense euphoria in the media about a so-called balanced Budget would create expectations in the community which this Government could not deliver. Senator Walsh rightly recognised that the Government could not deliver and that the Budget would not deliver. He thought, `My God! I have to stop this' so he made that speech. He certainly stopped it because at last some of the more intelligent journalists in the gallery said, `Perhaps we had better look at the Budget. Perhaps Mr Keating has been conning us again as he has on so many other occasions'. What Senator Walsh said about this country having few options was said before the stock market crash. That is why I say that this Government has no options left and there is serious doubt about whether the Budget projections and the business goals can be met. In Senator Walsh's speech, to which I referred earlier, made on 7 August to the Conference on Australian Monetary Policy Post-Campbell, in Baxter, Victoria, as part of his plea in mitigation of what this Government's economic policy had been, he said: In mid 1985 that progress- he claimed that progress had been made in a number of economic factors under this Government- was halted and in some cases reversed by the collapse of export prices . . . Honourable senators will recall that from mid-1985 onwards Senator Walsh started to talk about the downturn in the terms of trade. This poor Hawke-Keating Government was facing a terrible situation because there was a downturn in the terms of trade. It was creating great problems for the nation; it was creating great problems for Senator Walsh. But what is the truth? I do not deny that there was a very substantial downturn in the terms of trade. I have calculated from the recent Industries Assistance Commission report, which provides the figures, that over the period mid-1985 until early this year there was a downturn of about 18 per cent in the terms of trade. That is a very substantial downturn. What Senator Walsh has never admitted or been prepared to acknowledge is that from 1974 until 1978-in other words, this commenced under the Whitlam Government and the Fraser Government was lumbered with it for over two years of its government-the Fraser Government was also lumbered with a massive downturn in the terms of trade which was 22.7 per cent. Under the Fraser Government the downturn in the terms of trade was nearly 5 per cent greater than that suffered by the Labor Government and Senator Walsh has repeatedly attempted to excuse the Labor Government for its pathetic efforts to revitalise the economy of this nation. Senator Walsh also claimed in his speech on 7 August that the collapse of export prices had precipitated a major depreciation of the Australian dollar, a blowout in the current account deficit, higher inflation, interest rates and unemployment. Real wages and per capita consumption fell further. In other words, this all followed as a result of a downturn in the terms of trade. Glory be! This is not the first time that this has happened in Australia. The terms of trade in Australia have repeatedly turned against us for something like 20-odd years. There was a much greater turndown in the terms of trade under the Fraser Government but no excuses were offered by the Labor side of politics for the Fraser Government's problems. We were expected to, and we did, overcome them during the terms of the Fraser Government. Yet Senator Walsh repeatedly uses this argument as some sort of excuse or explanation for this Government's pathetic performance. This is not a time for pessimism; it is not a time for a negative response: it is a time for rebuilding this country on better foundations, foundations that can better weather future financial storms. This is a window of opportunity which this Government must not allow to close. This is a window of opportunity when industry might be prepared to take the actions which it needs to take, when managers might realise that if they are to succeed in this time of crisis they will have to work in close co-operation with their work force. They will have to combine with their work force to achieve a profit ratio which is acceptable to their shareholders, which is worth while in this community and which their bankers and creditors will allow them to get away with and will not send them to the wall. This is a time when this country must rely a great deal on managers facing up to their responsibilities and obligations. On the other hand, it is also a time when the work force of this nation must face up to the need to overcome some of the ridiculous work practices which this country has adopted during good times, when employers and companies have been able to pay wages and salaries and offer terms and conditions that are far beyond those which this country can afford to pay at this time of crisis, so well described by Mr Hayden. Our rising foreign debt places us in a Third World category, as it requires more than a third of Australia's export earnings merely to service our national debt commitment, and a low dollar value is no solution. Mr Keating, from time to time, is inclined to make speeches implying that, in some way or another, the low value of the Australian dollar is some sort of marvellous economic solution which has come to his mind and which he has so cleverly introduced. Glory be! If that is a solution, then those South American countries whose currencies are practically worthless would have found a solution long ago to the problem that they face and we face. The low value of the dollar is no solution. It simply makes it harder for the country to meet the interest on our debt, let alone reduce our debt. If this Government is prepared to sell our land and buildings in Japan, instead of offsetting some part of our deficit those moneys should be used to reduce our large foreign debt. But no, the Government was claiming that this was going to be a balanced Budget by using such capital revenue for annual expenditure. Of course a low dollar value is no solution to our problems. The fundamental difficulty that Australia faces is how on earth we shall overcome the problem of a dollar as low as it is against the American currency. We can only be grateful that the American economy is in such difficulties that the value of the American dollar is falling, and we have been able to hang on to its coat tails. In comparison with the trade weighted index, the Australian dollar has fallen disastrously. One has only to compare the value of our dollar with the yen, the pound or the mark to see the extent of that disaster. One of the things that worries me about this Labor Government is not simply the comparison with South American countries and the value of our dollar. I remind the Chamber that those South American countries are full of excesses of wealth and poverty. In South America, the way to become wealthy is to be very friendly with the government and to have some in at the top. That is the way to get one's wealth in those South American countries-and is it not precisely what is happening in this country under a Federal Labor Government and four State Labor governments? The way that people are able to survive their economic problems in this country is to have mates in high places, and preferably in high political places. The way to become wealthy under this Labor Government is clearly to be associated with certain senior members of the Government. I will not name them because I can see that a senator on the Government benches will leap to his feet and say that I ought not to malign the Prime Minister in such a way. However, in this country, it is obvious that the way to become wealthy is to have an in with certain people who are at the top of their governments, both State and Federal. That seems to be the way that the Labor Party, in 1987, under Mr Hawke, Mr Burke, formerly under Mr Wran and now Mr Unsworth, and Bannon in South Australia wants to take it. Senator Knowles —And Cain. Senator LEWIS —I had forgotten about the Victorian fellow. He is so hopeless and uninteresting that one would not remember him at all. I turn now to work practices. As I said before, we are facing a window of opportunity which we may never face again. Now is the time for us to overcome some of the problems in the work force. I refer to the failure by certain craft unions to accept multi-skilling and broadband skills. I refer to restrictive work practices, and to featherbedding, which is endemic in shipping, transportation, mining, education and the public sector. They are all disincentives to investment and international competitiveness. It is essential that we take this opportunity to get the general environment right. If the environment is right, there will be no need for industry-specific programs. The right general environment will release dormant energies. The desire to make profits is still there-that is the driving force which releases energies. This is the time to do that. We should open the window of opportunity to enable us to restructure the work force and do away with restrictive work practices, and perhaps, in effect, to deregulate the labour market. I hope that the managers of our companies can put that opportunity for change in effect, because it will be up to them. When I say that it is a window of opportunity which must not be missed, I refer to the window of opportunity that the Government had in relation to the tax summit. That was an opportunity to restructure our taxes in accordance with option A, but all we ended up with were the nasties in option C. The Labor Government allowed that window of opportunity to remain closed. I congratulate it on creating the window in the first place, but I condemn it for allowing it to remain closed. We may never again get the opportunity to restructure our taxes. One has only to look at the problems created during the last election campaign by attempts to talk about restructuring our taxes to see what a disaster it was that Mr Keating, Mr Hawke, Mr Crean and Mr Kelty overcame the sensible suggestions being made at the time of the tax summit to adopt option A. If we open this window of opportunity, it will mean that all Australians, either individually or in organised groups, will not be able so readily to run to government to obtain some remedy or preferment. That will certainly be a major restructuring of this nation, because we will have changed the attitudes of Australians so that they no longer believe that governments can provide some milch cow of taxpayers' funds to solve their problems. To achieve the necessary economic climate, the Hawke Government must change direction and provide the right economic climate for foreign investment, preferably in industry. It should certainly not be attempting to block it off as Mr Keating has done in order to help Mr Unsworth in the next New South Wales election. We need a lower, more simple and durable tax regime, and one that encourages investment rather than consumption. We need a more flexible microeconomic environment and a flexible labour market. We need proposals like the second-tier wages proposal. The first-tier proposal was a nonsense. The Liberal Party is not opposed to wage increases, but the Labor Party constantly permits unnecessary wage rises. Senator McKiernan —What a load of rubbish. Senator LEWIS —Senator McKiernan may laugh and joke, but I was talking to a technical expert in the computer industry the other day and he said to me, ``Why don't I get paid as much as my mate who is a plumber?'' That is a fundamental question which Senator McKiernan's side of politics will not face up to. That is the fundamental problem of the centralised wage system which this Government continues to push. We need a more competitive and open environment for industry, with less government intervention. We need greater technology applied in a more commercial vein. We need improved efficiency in the transport and communications industries. I see that Senator Button has come into the chamber. I bet that he will not have the courage to deny that we need to improve our efficiency in the transport and communications industries; at least I would hope so. I would be terribly surprised if he approved of our transport and communications industries in their present form. We certainly need reductions in government regulations. I find it fascinating that this Government set up the Business Regulation Review Unit but gave it so few staff and resources that the Unit simply says, `We just cannot keep up with the current crop of regulations which this Government is pouring out, let alone apply our mind to some of the other regulations'. I see that my time has just about expired. I repeat: to achieve this necessary economic climate, the Government needs to implement a more competitive, flexible and responsive system. We need to look at our education system and cost structures and we need to stop pussyfooting around. We have before us a window of opportunity, the likes of which we may never get again. I ask the Government to apply its mind as to how it can take advantage of that opportunity and move immediately-not next year, in a few months time or at the end of 1988 after the Bicentenary, but now-to do something which will benefit this nation and enable us to survive the current crisis which was so clearly pointed out by Mr Hayden in his Sir Edward Dunlop oration. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.42) —I am delighted to follow Senator Lewis in this debate. I am upset that his speech tonight was not broadcast because he gave a display-a vision splendid-of what commerce and industry will be like when he is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I know that people in the small business community, the manufacturing industry and all the other industries would have been very encouraged to hear Senator Lewis's contribution tonight. He outlined where Australia should go and is not going at the moment. No doubt Senator Lewis will get his chance to fill a ministerial position in the very near future. The debate on the Appropriation Bills gives the Senate a chance to discuss this nation's economy. Under any criteria, one would have to agree that this nation, under the present Government, is in dire straits. We have a foreign debt of $110 billion and a current account deficit of $1.3 billion, which the Government cannot get under control. I note that Senator Button is leaving the chamber. I know that he is embarrassed about these figures and does not like them to be repeated in the Senate. We have an inflation rate of 9 per cent, which is three times that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. We have a dollar that has fallen by 10 per cent in the past two months and we have lost our AAA credit rating. It is no wonder Senator Button runs out of this chamber in disgrace. As No. 3 in the Government, he has to bear some responsibility for this Government's poor performance. Australia is in a crisis situation. If it were not for our agriculture and mining paving the way and earning 75 per cent of our foreign exchange-our primary industry accounts for 60 per cent of our export earnings-we would be in even greater dire straits, if that is possible. Senator Stone, the Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate, often says in the Senate that the Government is sitting on its hands with its mind in neutral doing nothing. Unfortunately, I think that Senator Stone is being a little kind to the Government, because I do not believe that the Government is doing nothing; it is absolutely torpedoing our industries. It is destroying this nation's primary industries. It does not mind giving a bit of a hand to the steel industry, which is controlled by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the car industry-with a gentle shove from the ACTU-the coal industry or any other industry that employs ACTU unionists. The Government bends over backwards to help. That would not be so bad if the Government did not have two standards-one for the ACTU and one for primary industry. We are in desperate times and we must work our way out of that situation. We should have a plan-an overall strategy. Tonight Senator Austin Lewis put down a strategy, which I welcome. But, unfortunately, we have two years to go before Senator Lewis becomes Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. We have to work with what we have. Like most plans, this one should be simple. I shall name three things that the Government should do to balance our current account deficit which, as I have said, is out of control: firstly, it should try to create every job that it is possible to create; secondly, it should earn as many export dollars as possible; and, thirdly, it should cut down imports as much as possible. On those three points the Government has failed Australia many times. It will never be able to get its economic house in order until it is prepared to face those three simple tests. Let us look at what has happened in my State of Queensland. Shelburne Bay has been destroyed, sacrificed on the altar of the greenie vote. Eighty jobs, providing millions of dollars of export currency, have been wiped for a few lousy votes in Melbourne and Sydney. Senator Reynolds cannot deny that. She should do what Senator Button did and run out of this chamber in shame. If anybody should be defending north Queensland it is Senator Reynolds. She is the senator and Minister for north Queensland. While her Government is prepared to destroy jobs, opportunities and wealth creating export dollars, she sits there with a bland smile on her face and the economic future of Australia goes down the gurgler. Shelburne Bay has been torpedoed, but if there is one thing that has been absolutely sabotaged it is the World Heritage listing between Cooktown and Townsville with the loss of a $33m a year industry and the destruction of 3,000 jobs. Senator Reynolds —Rubbish! Senator BOSWELL —It is not rubbish, Senator. Senator Reynolds is not prepared to stand up for north Queensland. If she had any decency at all she would stand up and disown the whole World Heritage planning. It might put her on the back bench for a term, but at least she would be representing the constituents who elected her and showing a rare display of honesty. However, she has sold out the people of north Queensland for a cosy front bench position. I do not want to turn this debate into a personal attack on Senator Reynolds because I am not the type of person who would set out to destroy a senator such as Senator Reynolds. But I can tell Senator Reynolds that the people of north Queensland are bitterly disappointed at her lack of action and representation. I know that a great many senators on this side of the House such as Senator Bjelke-Petersen and most other National Party of Australia senators and many Liberal Party of Australia senators have been up to north Queensland, visited the rainforest area and studied the situation at first hand. I do not know of any honourable senator opposite, except Senator Richardson, who has gone up into the rainforests. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —Look at the trouble he got into. Senator BOSWELL —Yes, look at the trouble he got into. I would like to point out to Senator Richardson, although he is not here at the moment, that in Question Time today I asked Senator Evans whether he condoned violence. He said that under extreme provocation he did. I say to honourable senators that if someone took their jobs and their livelihoods and destroyed the value of their houses and their town that would be extreme provocation. I do not condone what Senator Richardson copped. However, I can understand the frustration of the people of north Queensland when they see their way of life being destroyed to appease a few voters in the metropolitan areas of Melbourne and Sydney. One of the most effective advertisements in the last election campaign was not an advertisement by the Labor Party, the National Party or the Liberal Party, but one that featured the sound of a chainsaw roaring in the forest with a tree crashing down and a voice coming over saying `Vote for the trees'. That vote was interpreted as a vote for the Australian Labor Party. People were sucked in because they do not understand what is happening in north Queensland. They do not understand that there are 877,000 hectares up there stretching from Cooktown to Townsville, some 450 square kilometres. Some 53 per cent of that is locked up in forestry reserves, never to be touched; 23 per cent is locked up in national parks, never to be touched; 5 per cent is personal property and freehold property; and 18 per cent is to be logged. That is 18 per cent of 877,000 hectares. That 18 per cent of 877,000 hectares can sustain an industry that will directly provide 750 timber jobs. Actually, I tell a lie, that is not correct. I have the latest list of figures that came through to me today. It cites the actual number of people employed in the timber industry. That list shows that at present in the sawmill and plymill section of the industry, including administrative, sales and service personnel, 635 people are employed. Logging and hauling employs 80 people and there are some 50 people employed in marketing and in the Department of Forestry. The total employment therefore is 763. There are also 3,000 spin off jobs provided as a result of the timber industry. That will be destroyed. For what reason? It is for completely dishonest reasons that this Government will sacrifice on the altar of expediency those 3,000 jobs and a $33m industry. I come back to my earlier point. I said that we have to create every possible job that we can in Australia. We have to reduce unemployment. We have to reduce our pay-outs on social services by providing real and lasting jobs. What do we do? I should say, `What does this Government do?' because I disassociate myself from the Government completely. We wipe out 3,000 jobs in north Queensland. We destroy an industry worth $33m. We destroy the towns, the councils, the homes and the livelihoods of people who are proud workers in the forestry industry. I refer to fourth generation workers. They are proud of the way they earn a living. What do we say? We say that we are going to provide jobs in the tourist industry. I tell Senator Reynolds that these people do not want to work in the tourist industry. They are proud bush men. They do not want to be carrying drinks for wealthy Japanese or American tourists. They want to do what they have been born and bred to do. They want to live the life they have been brought up to live. They get absolutely no assistance from this Government at all. Let me say why I believe that this Government is being dishonest. Firstly it goes out and does a market survey. It finds that conservation is an issue. It then finds how it is going to win a lousy two per cent of the vote. It has no ethics and no morals, just the desire to win at all costs. It says, `We will not worry about the future. Let someone else worry about the future when we are in power'. Senator Reynolds —When will that be? Senator BOSWELL —I can tell Senator Reynolds that it will not be long before we are in power if her Government governs this nation with regard only to pure expediency and the raw ambition to stay in power at any cost without worrying about Australia's future or the jobs of north Queenslanders. It will not be long. The Government can be expedient for a little while, but it will certainly catch up with it in the end. The dishonesty that Senator Reynolds's Government has exhibited in regard to the World Heritage listing has to be seen to be believed. In the Estimates Committee hearings I was told that eight consultants had been employed at a cost of $300,000. However, the Government has got only one report. Senator Richardson said at the Estimates Committee hearing that the Government had spent $300,000 on consultants and had only one report completed. I ask honourable senators to guess who that report came from. Senator McGauran —Who? Senator BOSWELL —Honourable senators will not believe this but it comes from Dr Keto. Who is Dr Keto? She is the president of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland. She was paid $13,000 to make a report. Dr Keto's occupation is that of a biochemist. What she would know about rainforests we could write on the back of a threepenny stamp, and still have room left. She would not know one thing about rainforests, except that she has an overwhelming desire, that has become a personal ambition, to save the rainforests. She has no qualifications. The other seven people to whom the Government paid the remainder of the $300,000 have not put in a report as yet. Despite this, the Government has drawn up the indicative boundaries of the proposed park and determined the number of jobs that will be lost. Although the Government has made a decision that it is going to list this great area of 877,000 hectares it has done so without listening to the seven consultants to whom it paid $300,000 to bring down reports. I suggest to the Government that it is wasting the taxpayers' money by spending $300,000 because it has decided that it will impound this great area just so it can pick up a lousy 2 per cent of the vote in Melbourne and Sydney. The Government has destroyed the livelihoods, the jobs and the families of 3,000 people in north Queensland. How Senator Reynolds can go home to Townsville and face those people is beyond me. I said that the Government had employed eight consultants. The Government employed eight consultants and disregarded seven of them. It listened to Dr Keto who is in charge of the `Save the Rainforest' campaign. The Government did not listen to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It did not listen to the Queensland Department of Forestry. The Government did not listen to Professor Florence of the Australian National University. It has not listened to anyone, except the people who filled in a questionnaire and said that they were interested in conservation. The Government thought `Here are six or seven seats we can pick up in the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne'. Senator McGauran —Trendies. Senator BOSWELL —I would not say that they were trendies, but I would say that they are misguided. They do not understand what the Queensland Government has done. Let us look at what Senator Richardson said about the Queensland Government's proposals. To draw a red herring across the whole argument, Senator Richardson flooded the Press Gallery with Press releases saying that the Queensland timber industry is dead; it had lost jobs; it was finished; it had been destroyed-it was only a matter of time because it was on the ropes and it could not survive. But he did not say that the Queensland Government, of its own volition, reduced the timber take from 195,000 cubic metres per year to 60,000 cubic metres per year to bring the forestry harvest back to a figure that could be sustained on 18 per cent of the available rainforest. That is the honest approach that this Government should be looking at. The Queensland Government's record on this matter is impeccable. We have been up there. I believe the Liberals have visited the rainforest, we have visited the forests, but where has Senator Reynolds been? Senator Lewis interrupted a very busy program to visit the rainforest. He knows it is most important to sustain this industry in order to provide jobs. We must provide every job that we can for the future of our sons and daughters. We must cut down on our imports into Australia. Senator Bjelke-Petersen —What about the timber they are going to bring in? Senator BOSWELL —Senator Bjelke-Petersen has been into the rainforest. She understands too that the Government is going to cut $33m from the industry and that some other form of timber will have to be imported. That will lift our balance of payments deficit by another $33m a year. We are not only going to lose 2,000 jobs, but we are also going to have to import $33m worth of timber. Today I have been told that the firm of Touche Ross and Co., a group of public accountants with an international reputation, has done a study of the rainforests. A minimum payment of $60m in compensation will have to be made by this Government to the people in north Queensland. I am glad Senator Walsh is not in the chamber because his meal would certainly be spoilt if he knew that the Government will not only lose $33m but will also have to provide unemployment benefits for 3,000 people. On top of that, it will have to pay compensation of $60m to the timber industry. This has been worked out not by some little fly-by-night bush accountant in Ravenshoe, but by an accountancy firm with an international reputation. The whole matter gets murkier and murkier. Senator Richardson says, `We will establish 840 direct jobs'. The Commonwealth's own consultant said that the Federal proposal for job creation in the timber plantations is 1,000. But let us just have a look at the real figures. A program involving 2,000 hectares per year for six years would employ only 84 people during the establishment phase, falling to 19 for the remainder of the cycle from seven years to 30 years. Then Senator Richardson says, `We will establish 12,000 hectares of plantations'. Again, no government land is available. The 12,000 hectares would have to be bought by the Federal Government. Senator Walsh-- Senator Lewis —He's come rushing in! Senator BOSWELL —He has come rushing in. If I explain these figures to him he will be terribly worried. We are already up to $1 billion and we are only half way through. I will go through the figures again. There will be $60m in compensation required. Under Senator Richardson's plan the Government will have to purchase 12,000 hectares of prime land which is selling for about $1,000 a acre, probably $2,000 or $3,000 a hectare. The Government has lost taxation on a $33m a year industry and it will now have to pay unemployment benefits to 3,000 people. This World Heritage listing is a very sorry story for the Government's economic policy. Senator Lewis —Is it worth $60m to get those votes? Senator BOSWELL —The Government has paid $60m. In fact, it is more than $60m; it will probably take well over $1 billion to win six or seven marginal seats in the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne. I say to the people of Australia that it is a disgraceful exhibition of hunger for power. Absolutely no consideration has been given to the future of Australia or the taxpayers of this nation. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(9.06) —I do not propose to delay the passage of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) The Bill. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: (1) That leave be given to Senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the Report of Estimates Committee A. (2) That where more than one motion is proposed the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the Vote before the Chair. (3) That any Resolutions be reported when the Chairman reports to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.10) —I am concerned, and this concern was expressed in the report of Senate Estimates Committee A, that a Bill has not yet been presented to this Parliament to set the precincts of the new Parliament House. This matter was raised in the Estimates Committee. In response to a question from me the Department of the Senate has said: In its report presented to the Parliament on 28 November 1985 the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House recommended that legislation be passed delineating the precincts of the new building, declaring that the Presiding Officers have the management and control of the precincts, and amongst other things, making provision to facilitate prosecutions for offences committed in the precincts. Mr President McClelland had a bill drafted to reflect the recommendations of the Committee, and on 19 March 1986- I remind the Senate that that is 20 months or so ago- forwarded the bill to the Prime Minister for the Government's consideration. The bill is still under consideration by the Government and the Presiding Officers have asked that that consideration be concluded as a matter of urgency so that the legislation may be passed before the new building is occupied. I simply wonder whether the Government intends to deal with this as a matter of urgency and when we can expect to see the legislation before this Parliament. Of course, this has a particular problem relating to the prosecution of people for offences committed in or near the Parliament House. The Senate Estimates Committee A report to the Senate expressed concern over this matter, stating: The Committee's primary concern is simply the security of the building. The Committee noted: . . . extensive consultation has taken place between the Parliamentary departments and the A.C.T. Administration on means of dealing with the graffiti vandalism to the New Parliament House, but notes also that the responsibility for the prosecution of offenders is to an extent unclear, pending a definition of the precincts of the New Parliament House. I hope that the Government responds smartly to this matter because it seems to be taking an awful lot of time. I noted from the estimates that a significant amount of money has been set aside to cope with graffiti on the new Parliament House. As I recall it, about $50,000 is the amount set aside in the first year just in case people start scribbling on the walls of the new Parliament House. Of course, it also involved quite an expensive preparation of wall areas to limit the impact of such scribbling. I would be grateful if the Government could give an indication of when it will do something. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(9.14) —As far as the precincts Bill is concerned, the final Cabinet discussion is under way at the moment. The Speaker and I spoke with the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr West, yesterday. We think that most of the difficulties that we had have been cleared up. We realise that this is a matter of urgency. We believe that the precincts Bill will be introduced into the House of Representatives next week and we hope that it will be dealt with by the Senate before it rises. It is extremely important that that happen. Senator Haines —Into what is it going to fit? Senator SIBRAA —I realise that that is a problem. Hopefully, if there is agreement on all sides of the chamber, it will go through rather quickly. We have to deal with a number of the leases for the commercial properties that will be concerned with the new Parliament House. I am confident that, if we get the legislation into the House of Representatives next week, we can deal with it before we rise. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.15) —I thank the President for that answer. It is quite cheering to hear that he has managed to get the Government stirred up enough to do something about it. The other thing I would like to raise relates to Senate information systems. I quote from the report of Estimates Committee A, which states: The Committee was highly critical of procedures of the then Department of the Special Minister of State (SMOS), in ensuring that an Australian-made system could be found which would ensure sufficient networking and compatibility between equipment in electorate offices and the new Parliament House. Of the failure of the SMOS to achieve the goals that had been set, the Committee had this to say in its Report of May 1987: A situation has now developed which should never have arisen-two systems, with two training and support systems, two word processing software options, two different keyboards, duplication and waste in staffing, and so on. The report continues: The Committee notes that Estimates Committee F has expressed similar concerns to those of this Committee. It seems extraordinary that this unsatisfactory performance was outlined then and the unsatisfactory performance of the equipment supplied by the initial contractors has gone on. The report continues: The Committee notes the assurances given by officers of the Department of the Senate that compatibility of equipment is dependent only on some modest expenditure by the Department of Administrative Services to link electorate offices with the New Parliament House Network. I believe that it is only right that we should get an assurance that that small amount of expenditure will be forthcoming to ensure that this equipment is compatible. I repeat that the report states: `is dependent only on some modest expenditure'. To what extent can we have an assurance from the Government that that modest expenditure, which will have an infinitely large marginal benefit, will be paid? Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(9.17) —I noticed that Senator Michael Baume was quoting from the Committee's report of May 1987. I believe that the problem has basically been solved, but if the honourable senator raises this matter when the Department of Administrative Services is dealt with, I think he will get a much more detailed answer. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(9.18) —While we are on the subject of the computing system I would just like to point out that a number of people have come to me and said, `There is simply no good instruction booklet for the computing system'. There are the large instruction booklets for the DEC system and our Cleveland systems have a very confused instruction setup. I ask whoever is in charge- Senator Haines —If anybody is in charge. Senator SANDERS —If anyone is in charge of the computing system I ask that person to compile a concise, easy to read, short instruction manual for the computing system we have because we are wasting an awful lot of time trying to figure out how to use this equipment and the instruction manuals are simply not adequate at this time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.19) —Again, whilst we are in this area of word processors, computers and technology, where honourable senators are involved in committee work and where it is necessary for them to be engaged in a re-write of draft reports, it is most difficult and very frustrating when the software that is given to us on one make of computer is different from the make of computer that we have in our offices. It is hard enough to be studying the background of the report, concerning which one must attempt to formulate changes and amendments in a form that other members of the committee can understand, but to have this problem is quite unnecessary. In the case I am talking about, the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, for the work that is being done by the Senate staff-the stenographers on the ground floor and the systems people, Mark Goodall and others-I can only express my deep appreciation. But it is taking many days to do what would not have taken any time if, in the first place, we had compatible systems. I still have only up to chapter 3 of 15 chapters. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(9.21) —This is one of the occasions on which I wish that I could have one of the Senate officers who is sitting quite close to me made an honorary senator so that he could speak. I refer to Mr Wharton, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this subject, as I am sure all honourable senators know. I am very sympathetic to what Senator Harradine and Senator Sanders have said. I am sure all honourable senators realise that there has been a long history to this matter. I would like to point out that the Department of the Senate looks after only the equipment in Parliament House. The Cleveland system, which is in the electorate offices, has been looked after by the Department of Administrative Services. I am sure all honourable senators realise that. Again, if I can pass the ball, that perhaps is where questions ought to arise-in the Department of Administrative Services. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.23) —As foreshadowed during my remarks in the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bills, I formally wish to move the amendment which was incorporated in my remarks at that time. I move: 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''. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Stones's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop. B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. E.Cooney, B. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Gietzelt, A. T. Teague, B. C. Ryan, S. M.Baume, Peter Crowley, R. A.Chaney, F. M. Richardson, G. F.Lewis, A. W. R. Morris, J. J.Puplick, C. J. G. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: (1) That clauses 1 to 22 be postponed till after the consideration of the Schedule. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Votes in the Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F, as follows: Division No. Department Amount $ Group A 915-918 Industry, Technology and Commerce 72,312,000 937, 938, 939 Prime Minister and Cabinet 30,897,000 910 Industrial Relations 2,874,000 Group B 972, 973, 975 Transport and Com- munications 140,445,000 873, 875 Foreign Affairs and Trade 10,512,000 Group C 864, 865 Finance 59,503,000 868 Advance to the Minister for Finance 140,000,000 976-980 Treasury 904,545,000 930-932 Primary Industries and Energy 229,720,000 Group D 848-850, 852 Employment, Education and Training 151,703,000 830-832 Community Services and Health* 2,206,303,000 902-904 Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs 8,198,000 839-842 Veterans' Affairs 38,414,000 Group E 818, 819 Attorney-General's 94,640,000 835-837 Aboriginal Affairs 46,946,000 805, 806 Administrative Services 884,977,000 Group F 948 Social Security 41,871,000 811, 812, 814, 815 Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories 340,120,000 *Excludes items under the control of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. (3) That leave be given to Senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the Reports of the Estimates Committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular Vote, the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the Question is put on the Vote before the Chair; and that any Resolutions be reported when the Chairman reports to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —The question now is that the votes in Group A be passed without requests. Is it the wish of the Committee that the various departments in Group A be considered together or separately? Senator Walters-Separately. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —We will take them separately. GROUP A Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $1,104,618,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.32) —During the hearings of Estimates Committee A on 6 October I asked a question relating to rebates of excise on diesel fuel used in forestry roads construction in Tasmania. We do not appear to have departmental representatives present. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Ask your question, Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —I am not sure whether the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will be able to answer this without some help. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —If you ask you will find out. Senator WALTERS —The Deputy Comptroller-General of Customs promptly and correctly advised me that recent decisions overruling a 1982 amendment to the Customs Act and claiming repayments of previously granted rebates would be withdrawn. I would like to compliment him on his efficiency and the speed with which he was able to fix the problem for me. However, new information has come to light which highlights glaring inconsistencies in relation to diesel fuel rebates at some railheads in Tasmania, particularly at Maydena, Bridgewater, Parattah and Conara. Contractors using diesel powered equipment engage in offloading road trucks on to rail wagons. They have either had their rebate claims rejected or been told that they are ineligible for rebate. However, operators at Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd rail sidings and at least one other goods yard claim and receive the fuel rebate. Can the Minister explain to me the inconsistencies in this? The two issues raise doubts about the consistency of the application of the Customs Act. Senator Walsh —I cannot and I won't even try. Senator WALTERS —Mr Temporary Chairman, I move: That progress be reported. Question put: That the motion (Senator Walters's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Bishop, B. K. Newman, J. M.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Brownhill, D. G. C. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G.Durack, P. D. Short, J. R.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Harradine, B. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N.Burns, R. R. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. E.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Boswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N.Panizza, J. H. Morris, J. J.Teague, B. C. Ryan, S. M.Baume, Peter Crowley, R. A.Chaney, F. M. Richardson, G. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.41) —I ask the Minister for Finance the same question: during the Estimates Committee A hearing on 6 October I asked a question relating to rebates of excise on diesel fuel used in forestry road construction in Tasmania. The Deputy Comptroller-General of the Australian Customs Service promptly and correctly advised me that the recent decision overruling a 1982 amendment to the Customs Act, claiming repayment of previously granted rebates, would be withdrawn. I compliment him on his efficiency and the speed with which this was carried out. New information has come to light which highlights glaring inconsistencies in relation to diesel fuel rebates at some railheads in Tasmania, particularly at Maydena, Bridgewater, Parattah and Conara. Contractors using diesel powered equipment, engaged in offloading road trucks on to rail wagons, have either had their rebate claims rejected or been told that they are ineligible for rebate. However, operators at the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd (APPM) rail sidings and other goods yards claim and receive the fuel rebate. These two issues raise serious doubts about the consistency of the application of the Customs Act in Tasmania. No doubt there are many more cases. Is the Minister aware of what is occurring? I notice that there has been a change of Minister. I compliment Senator Button on replacing the Minister so promptly. I now address my question to Senator Button. Senator Walsh —You silly old bag. Senator Crichton-Browne —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. That was an unparliamentary comment. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I understand the point of order. Senator Walsh will resume his proper seat and withdraw the remark. Senator Walsh —I withdraw. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am pleased to see Senator Button in the chamber. Senator Walsh —Harpy! Senator Puplick —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. There is an absolute limit to the sort of personal behaviour to be tolerated in this chamber. Senator Walsh clearly disregarded your previous ruling. His behaviour is clearly unacceptable to the chamber. There is a contingent notice of motion by the Leader of the Opposition to require the question to be put if the proper courtesies are not extended by Senator Walsh. He has behaved in a most unparliamentary fashion. He has now left the chamber. I believe the dignity of this chamber and the respect which is due to honourable senators is simply being affronted by Senator Walsh by this sort of behaviour. I give notice that this behaviour is quite unacceptable to the Opposition. Senator Button —I seek leave to withdraw on behalf of Senator Walsh. Senator WALTERS —That is not good enough. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I do not need any more advice on this matter. The Black Rod will instruct Senator Walsh to return to the chamber and withdraw the remark that he made, which was quite unparliamentary. Senator WALTERS —I would like to ask Senator Button a question that I put earlier to Senator Walsh regarding an Estimates committee hearing on 6 October. Did Senator Button hear my question? Senator Crichton-Browne —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Is it proper that we proceed from one point to another without resolving the first matter-that is, that Senator Walsh be brought back by the Black Rod to apologise. At such time that matter can be resolved and then we can proceed in the normal course with the debate that is taking place. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. We may proceed. The matter concerning Senator Walsh will be dealt with when Senator Walsh returns. He has been sent for. Senator WALTERS —I ask Senator Button whether he heard my question. If not, would he like me to repeat it? Senator Button —No, I did not. Senator WALTERS —During the Estimates Committee A hearing on 6 October I asked a question relating to rebates of excise diesel fuel used in forest road construction in Tasmania. The Deputy Comptroller-General of the Australian Customs Service promptly and correctly advised me that the recent decisions overruling a 1982 amendment to the Customs Act, which claimed repayment of previously granted rebates, would be withdrawn. I compliment him on his efficiency and the speed with which that was carried out. New information has come to light which highlights glaring inconsistencies in relation to diesel fuel rebates at some railheads in Tasmania, particularly at Maydena, Bridgewater, Parattah and Conara. Contractors using diesel powered equipment, engaged in offloading road trucks on to rail wagons, have either had their rebate claims rejected or been told that they are ineligible for rebate. However, operators at APPM rail sidings and at other goods yards make claims and have received the fuel rebate. Can the Minister explain what has occurred and the inconsistencies? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.47) —I cannot explain what has occurred in relation to this matter. While I try to maintain a comprehensive view of my Department's activities, I am not totally familiar with the diesel fuel rebate insofar as it applies to a particular small town in Tasmania. On the last occasion Senator Walters had a request of this kind she received a letter from the Deputy Comptroller-General of Customs within two days. I offered her that facility in the course of the Estimates Committee. I offer it to her again. I am quite happy for the Comptroller-General to write to her in the next day or two and answer the question she has asked tonight. I undertake that that will be done. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.49) —I ask the question of Senator Button: Inasmuch as I assume that the Government is of one view, why is it that he is able to answer the question in the way that he has and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) answered it in the way that he did? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.49) —Would Senator Button consider making some arrangement to report progress until we can resolve what has quite clearly become a matter of some crisis in the Chamber? Senator Button will appreciate that the decencies of this place have been seriously encroached upon by his ministerial colleague tonight. I ask Senator Button to apply his wise mind to resolving this problem. I can fill in by asking a number of questions which arise out of a departmental matter, and this might give Senator Button time to apply his mind. Instead of endeavouring just to fill in and waste the time of the Committee I would rather some attempt be made by the Government to bring this critical matter to some conclusion. Senator Walsh has now reappeared, so the problem may very well be resolved. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walsh, before you left the chamber you were heard to make a distinctly unparliamentary remark, which you should now withdraw. Senator Walsh —What was it, Mr Chairman? The CHAIRMAN —I will not repeat it. You are perfectly well aware of what it was. You should withdraw. Senator Walsh —Somebody told me that I was alleged to have said, `You old harpy'. In fact I just said, `Harpy'. The CHAIRMAN —That should be withdrawn-now. Senator Walsh —I withdraw, in deference to you, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It must be an unconditional withdrawal, not one in deference to me. Senator Walsh —I withdraw. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.52) —I now direct a question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Senator Button —You have a real question? Senator LEWIS —Yes, I have a real question and it is in relation to so-called corporate citizenship or some new-fangled name which the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce or the Minister has worked out about partnerships in progress, or some such thing. The Minister may not be aware that while he was overseas a number of Press releases were issued from either the Minister's office or his Department's office about a number of contracts which were apparently being entered into by the Government while the Minister was away. I refer to a contract with Digital Equipment Corporation (Aust.) Pty Ltd which was alleged to be valued at about $500m. Another contract which was announced, I think, today or yesterday was with NEC Information Systems Aust. Pty Ltd. In any event, a number of Press releases were issued about these contracts. The Minister has been back from overseas for some time. I have endeavoured to allow him time to recover from the excesses or whatever of his trip, but I am wondering when the Minister will get around to explaining to the Parliament and to the public at large what the Government is on about with its corporate citizenship proposals. I am concerned, as was the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, that the offsets program should produce what I think the Committee called real product exports. In other words, it should not be a technical offset whereby some technology transfer appears to take place and one is unable to make a proper assessment of the value of that technology transfer, but we should be able to ascertain the real value of the export arising from the so-called corporate citizenship program, the partnership in progress or whatever the Government is calling it. Is the Minister able at this stage to give us some explanation as to what this matter is all about and what might have arisen as a result of his trip overseas. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.55) —Senator Lewis said that he would like an explanation to be given to the public and to the Parliament. I do not think the public has too much difficulty understanding what this is all about but Senator Lewis clearly does, which does not entirely surprise me. I am not sure what this matter has to do with these appropriations but I do not want to avoid the question by saying that. Senator Lewis —I did ask you during the Estimates committee. Senator BUTTON —I think it would be best if, at an appropriate time, which is not yet, I made a statement to the Senate about a whole number of arrangements that have been entered into by the Government in relation to what Senator Lewis calls corporate citizenship but what we call partnership agreements, and I will undertake to do that in due course. The offsets program is of only marginal relevance to the corporate partnership program, but it is of some relevance. In essence that program is about encouraging computer and communications equipment companies-companies involved in the so-called information industries-to do more research and development in Australia and to export. I do not know whether Senator Lewis has had the advantage of reading a very full Press release which I put out about this issue perhaps five weeks ago. I thought I had made it available to him but if he has not seen it I can certainly give him an extra copy. It explains the purpose of the policy and, to some extent, it explains the likely achievements of the policy. Much of industry policy in the 1980s has to be about undoing what was done or doing what was not done in the 1960s and 1970s by the governments of the time. That means developing a manufacturing sector which has a sophisticated technological infrastructure. These matters were not attended to by government in the past but they will be by this Government. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.58) —The Minister will recall that the Inglis Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements recommended that there be a dual system of tendering for contracts where offsets are involved. This was a means whereby by paying higher prices for goods for the offsets program one could ascertain the contribution being made by the Federal Government. The Government rejected that recommendation of the Inglis Committee. My recollection is that the Government gave to the Bureau of Industry Economics the responsibility of supervising in some way or other the contracts being entered into so that the extra cost of the offsets requirement imposed on those tendering for government contracts could be ascertained. I have not been able to see any report from the Bureau of Industry Economics as to the nature of those costs. Is such a report available? Has the Government received such a report? Has it been made public and I have missed it, or has it not been made public? If not, when will it be made public? Alternatively, if the Government is reconsidering the recommendation of the Inglis Committee it might be wiser in the circumstances to insist upon dual tenders being sought-one with offsets and one without offsets. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.00) —As a student of poetry, Senator Lewis will remember the line, `The moving finger moves, and, having writ, moves on. Senator Puplick —Get it right. It is: `The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, moves on'. Senator BUTTON —I am sorry. Senator Puplick will have understood my point. The offsets policy has gone through a number of developments and, if I might say so, those developments might be described as stages, A, B and C, and Senator Lewis's question suggests that he is locked into stage A, which was some time ago. Increasingly, offsets policy is not, and will not be, about the sort of large contracts that were entered into in the past, and which were rarely fulfilled, but it will be about a range of other issues, particularly technological transfer and, increasingly I suspect, agreements of the corporate partnership nature to which Senator Lewis referred in an earlier question. In so far as the Bureau of Industry Economics was requested by the Government to look at this matter, it was on an ongoing basis, not on the basis of producing a report. The Government has not reconsidered the recommendation of the Inglis Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements on this issue and we regard it as an increasingly less relevant issue. That is the position. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.01) —Surely the Minister will agree that in any offsets proposal, a tenderer is putting itself in a situation where it has some sort of commitment to spend money in Australia, and therefore, the probabilities are that it takes that cost into account in its tender price. Surely it is a question of public accountability of these tender prices. Surely, the people of Australia are entitled to know whether the nation might be better off without an offsets policy; whether, if the Government seeks some technology transfer, it might be better to purchase that technology transfer rather than to hide the purchase cost in some offsets policy. The Minister can make his remarks about whether I am in A, B or C phase, but nevertheless the truth of the matter is, as the Industries Assistance Commission will very soon expose even if the Government is not prepared to do so, that offsets are a cost burden, and there must be some built-in cost factor. The public is entitled to know what that cost factor is, so that it can make an assessment as to whether or not we would be better off not having that in-built cost factor in our offsets arrangements, and instead, if the Government wants some technology transfer, it should simply purchase it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.03) —I do not disagree with the substance of the argument. That is precisely why the Government has been moving out of the sort of conventional offsets about which Senator Lewis is talking and into new arrangements. As I recall, even the Inglis Committee of Review on Government High Technology Purchasing Arrangements found that difficult to estimate. Some 60 countries operate offsets policies of one kind or another, and the suggestion that the Australian community was necessarily being discriminated against by international suppliers of large scale equipment is one that would be very difficult to substantiate. The Government did not accept that recommendation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.04) —On this technology transfer business, might I ask the Minister whether it will be possible, for example, for a major multinational company to task to its Australian subsidiary some technological question, while retaining the proprietary rights, the intellectual ownership of those rights in the multinational company. Can it then use Australian technicians to resolve the question, and then not only take back the entire advantage of that technological gain to the nation, but also claim the 150 per cent research and development taxation concession? These are the sorts of questions to which Parliament is waiting to hear the answers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.05) —The Parliament has been waiting avidly, if I might say so. It has been waiting for years. I shall deal with the question by referring to the last part first. We are anxious to attract-- Senator Lewis —I apologise, Minister. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.06) —I once again want to raise the issue of the steel industry plan, which is under this Department. This afternoon, in an unprecedented move, the General Manager of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd steel plant in Port Kembla called a Press conference in which he announced that the company will not proceed with steel making at Port Kembla if the recent levels of industrial confrontation persist. I raise this matter because it is the strongest comment that has been made about this unfortunate situation. I welcomed the steel plan and I congratulated Senator Button on it at the time because I thought that it had within it the ingredients of success, and success was absolutely vital to the region from which I come because it depends so heavily on the Port Kembla steel works. In the Senate Estimates Committee A meetings, I pressed Senator Button about the scope for sanctions to require the unions to fill their part of this tripartite arrangement. It is a system under which the company has contributed $800m and the taxpayer, through the Government, has contributed about $100m in bounties, but the union movement has contributed industrial unrest. I asked Senator Button what the Government intended to do about it and his view was then, and it has been repeated since in this chamber, that until the beginning of this year, the steel industry plan had resulted in a good level of industrial relations and that the problem only really emerged in the February to May period of 1987. When asked what he was going to do about the situation now and whether there was any cause for intervention, he said: The Government does take a role through industrial relations policies of one kind or another. All I can say is that Senator Button's `one kind or another' has ended up fairly unsatisfactory in terms of its outcome. His industrial relations policies have ended up with a threat to the major steel producer in this nation, the major provider of either import replacement or export product and certainly the major employer in the Illawarra region. Can I deal with what seems to me-I presume it was by accident-to be Senator Button's misleading remark that this matter had only blown up this year? I remind him of the fact that in the June 1986 six months, the level of industrial disputation at Port Kembla represented 124,774 man hours lost, which was an increase of 684 per cent over the previous period. It represented a very substantial rise and one sufficiently large for the 1985-86 annual report to note: It is disappointing to note that industrial disputation returned to high levels in the last six months of the year and that man-hours lost per employee continued to increase . . . If this pattern of industrial disputation continues, it does not augur well for the success of the industry over the remainder of the Plan and, consequently, for the longer-term security of employment. That is what the Steel Industry Authority warned the Government of over a year ago. As the only solution to this matter, we have Senator Button's various industrial relations programs, none of which appears to be capable of doing anything positive. This report for the previous year made this point: When the Steel Industry Plan was being developed it was recognised by all parties that the high level of industrial disputation in the industry was having a detrimental effect on its overall performance. In the Accord between BHP and the Unions it was agreed that both parties would comply with established dispute settlement procedures to reduce the incidence of disruption leading to the loss of wages and production. It concluded: There is strong evidence to suggest that this part of the Accord has not been followed over the last six months of the year, particularly at Port Kembla. In a quite interesting comment, the 1985-86 report said: The Authority recognises that total manhours lost through industrial disputes is an imperfect measure of the industry's performance in industrial relations due to the significant fall in total employment that has occurred in the industry in recent years. Accordingly, the Authority has decided also to monitor manhours lost through industrial disputes per employee as a more accurate measure of industrial relations performance in the industry. Table 8 shows what that record is. I raise this because, quaintly enough, in the latest annual report this more accurate measure does not appear. We are entitled to ask: Why on earth does it not appear in the latest annual report? Is it because of pressure that the union movement has brought to bear on the Authority? There were certainly complaints in Wollongong about the Parliament being given this report before the trade union movement. In fact, Mr Nando Lelli of the local ironworkers union regarded as disgraceful that `Baume should have been given access' to the report before the union was. That section of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia is the bad section of what is generally a very responsible union in Australia. Mr Lelli complained, and I noted that he is reported to have said: Mr Lelli said as a result of Senator Baume gaining first look at the figures, the unions were put in a defensive situation. They were put in a defensive situation because the figures showed what an appalling performance they had put up. What concerns me is that this table, which, as the Steel Industry Authority says, is a more accurate measure of industrial relations, does not appear-on my brief look-in the latest annual report. The significance of this is quite simple. Obviously, if there are fewer people employed, as there are now at BHP, and yet the number of man hours lost increases, the percentage of people who are on strike all the time is going up at a far greater rate. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the chamber-this might be an appropriate time-why this more appropriate measure-a table-of what is perhaps the most depressing and central issue in the whole question of the steel industry plan-that is, the question of industrial disruption-does not appear in the lastest annual report. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.13) —I will address the question to the Steel Industry Authority and provide Senator Baume with an answer as quickly as possible. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.14) —I am concerned that the Minister was not prepared to answer my questions, which he started to answer, apparently because I turned behind me and sought some advice from one of my colleagues about a matter. That shows a petulance which I would not have believed this Minister would display. He goes around with a high reputation, and yet I am sure that people in industry would be surprised to discover such a petulant, childish performance simply because I sought some information from a colleague behind me while he was-- Senator Tate —You asked a question and you were not prepared to listen to the answer. Senator LEWIS —It may be that he was unable to answer the question. If he is unable to answer the question at this stage, why does he not say so? He started off by saying that he would deal firstly with the last part of the question, about the 150 per cent rebate. I offer the Minister the opportunity, again, to let me have an answer to the questions which I raised in connection with this matter. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.16) —With respect to the tax concession, the Government is not about discriminating against multinational companies which do research and development work in Australia. His sort of voodoo theory that they will come here, pick the best of Australian brains and somehow steal them is, if I might say so, antiquated in what is increasingly an international economy. Many benefits flow from research and development being done in Australia, including benefits of improving the research and development infrastructure, the employment of skilled personnel, the technological transfer which results, and all those things. The honourable senator led into this question by referring to the fact that certain companies might be asked to, what is sometimes called, `mandate' particular products here. That is right. But it will not be done on the basis that they are not competitive or operating competitively in Australia in respect of those product developments. For example, Australia has particular strengths in areas of software development and so on which make it very attractive for some countries to develop products here and market them in the region. If they do market them in the region, world markets and benefits flow to Australia not only in terms of the taxation revenue which is earned but also in terms of the export earnings. Those are the more general issues which have to be taken into account. One cannot go back to the mentality of previous years and think about this country as a little protected island which has to be relieved from the burdens of the big wide world. It has to operate in that world. It is through these sorts of mechanisms that it will best do so. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.17) —I ask the Minister a very simple, quick and direct question: Is the steel industry plan still alive or have the unions today killed it? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.18) —I honestly do not know what Senator Baume is talking about. He is hysterically excited about the fact that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) today uttered a warning to the unions at Port Kembla, and he asked me the silly question: Does it mean the unions today killed the plan because BHP made a statement? The obvious answer to that question is no, but the further answer-if the honourable senator wants a short one-is that it is a silly question. He will bear with me for making that point. If Senator Baume analyses his own question, I think that even he will reach the same conclusion. The answer to that question is no. Senator Michael Baume —How long do you think it will survive? Senator BUTTON —Until 31 December 1988. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.19) —I understand that the motion before the Committee at the moment is that the votes for the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce be passed without amendment or request. To that the Opposition wishes to move as an amendment that the votes for the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce be reduced by $1 in order to express its profound disapproval of the unparliamentary conduct of Senator Peter Walsh during the debate on these estimates. Senator Harradine —Can't we leave that until tomorrow? Senator PUPLICK —I want to resolve it tonight. I do not need to rehearse the events which took place in the chamber this evening other than to say that there are certain standards of propriety and behaviour which we believe ought to be properly adhered to. We believe that they were not properly adhered to by Senator Walsh this evening. It is unusual to have on the Senate Notice Paper a contingent notice of motion which refers to a senator by name. There is already one in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and, indeed, another in the name of the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Haines), which draw attention to this particular matter. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Puplick, before you go any further, I think I should put this in order. Technically there is not a motion before the Chair. We are considering the votes as a whole. You are not entitled to move an amendment to the motion but you are entitled to move a request. I take it what you are moving is a request that the vote be reduced by $1. Is that correct? Senator PUPLICK —That is correct. Mr Chairman, I will seek your guidance on this matter. Senator Button —You should have sought that guidance before you got up. Senator PUPLICK —I have received a great deal of advice on this matter. I do not claim to be an expert on it. I am attempting to do what I can to conform with the conflicting advice which I am receiving. It had been my original intention to move quite simply that certain words be added to the end of the motion that the votes of the Department be passed without amendment or request. Mr Chairman, I will be guided by you in terms of the appropriate motion to be moved at this stage. The CHAIRMAN —The situation is that there is no motion before the Chair. There is a question at the end of each vote which is put formally. There is no formal motion. You are entitled, if you wish to do so, to request that the vote be reduced by an amount of $1. You can do so as an expression of opinion. If you move that as a motion, that is in order. You may give whatever reasons you choose. Senator PUPLICK —Mr Chairman, I am loath to move a motion which, if carried, would in fact require some reference back to the House of Representatives by way of request. That is not the intention. The CHAIRMAN —That would have to happen with a request. Senator PUPLICK —That is obviously not the purpose of what the Opposition is attempting to do this evening, Mr Chairman. Senator Button —Why don't I just give you a dollar and I will get it back from Walsh later. Would that make you happy? Senator PUPLICK —If I received a dollar from Senator Button, the first thing I would want to know is whether it was a false one or not. As far as this is concerned, what we are seeking to formally record is that in the opinion of the Senate the behaviour of Senator Walsh this evening during the course of the debate on these estimates was unparliamentary, that it was provocative of all honourable senators, that it was a blatant disregard of the rulings of the Chair and that it should not pass without being formally noted in a disapproving fashion by the Committee of the Whole. It is clearly a matter of some particular difficulty to find the appropriate form of words, since it is not our intention to seek to reduce the vote for the Department which is before us. Senator Tate —Then why don't you move to reduce it? Senator PUPLICK —That was the advice which was given. My initial view would be that I should be given leave to add certain words to the motion that the vote be passed without amendment or request. I am loath to move to the suspension of Standing Orders in order to do that. I do not want to delay the Committee for that particular purpose. Perhaps, therefore, Mr Chairman, I can simply ask your advice as to whether, with leave, it would be possible to move an expression of the opinion of the Senate to add certain words at the end of the motion that the vote for this Department be passed without amendment or request along the lines of `but the Senate expresses its profound disapproval of the unparliamentary conduct of Senator Peter Walsh during the course of the debate on these estimates'. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Puplick, if you can get leave, you may move such a motion. Senator PUPLICK —Mr Chairman, I seek leave to formally move such a motion. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? Senator Button —I would like some advice, seeing that everybody else is getting free advice. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? Senator Tate —He is asking a question of the Clerk. The CHAIRMAN —No, I am not-I am asking the question of the Senate. Senator Tate —He is asking a question of the Clerk. There are thousands of people advising on the other side. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? Senator Tate —There is a question to be resolved before leave is granted. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted for Senator Puplick to move such a motion? Senator Tate —Why can't we seek some advice before we give an answer? The CHAIRMAN —All right, seek your advice. I will help you if I can. Senator Button —If he suspends Standing Orders, what does he do next? The CHAIRMAN —If leave is refused-and any one senator may refuse leave-Senator Puplick cannot move his motion. If leave is granted, he may move his motion and it is then up to the Committee to decide what it does with the motion. Is leave granted for Senator Puplick to move his motion? Senator Button —Leave is not granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.26) —I move: That progress be reported. I do so to enable a motion for suspension of Standing Orders to be moved to enable a motion of censure to be moved against Senator Walsh for his behaviour. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McLean, P. A.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Macklin, M. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Brownhill, D. G. C. Newman, J. M.Calvert, P. H. Panizza, J. H.Chaney, F. M. Parer, W. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Patterson, K. C. L.Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Puplick, C. J. G.Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Hamer, D. J. Sheil, G.Harradine, B. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Evans, GarethBeahan, M. E. Foreman, D. J.Black, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T.Bolkus, N. Giles, P. J.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, R. Zakharov, A. O. Teague, B. C. Ryan, S. M.Baume, Peter Crowley, R. A.Watson, J. O. W. Richardson, G. F.Bishop, B. K. Morris, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after half past 10, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 9 —— Aulich, T. Foreman, D. J.Beahan, M. E. Gietzelt, A. T.Black, J. R. Giles, P. J.Bolkus, N. Harradine, B.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, R. Zakharov, A. O.Evans, Gareth Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McLean, P. A.Bishop, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Hill, R. Stone, J. O.Jenkins, J. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Knowles, S. C. Vanstone, A. E.Lewis, A. W. R. Walters, M. S. Ryan, S. M. Teague, B. C.Crowley, R. A. Baume, PeterRichardson, G. F. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave for Senator Puplick to move a motion in the following terms: That the Senate expresses its profound disapproval of the unparliamentary conduct of Senator Peter Walsh during the debate on these estimates. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.40) —I move: That the Senate expresses its profound disapproval of the unparliamentary conduct of Senator Walsh during the course of the debate on the Appropriation Bills. The events of this evening have been well rehearsed. I have nothing to add to what is already on the record. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Senator Wood —Mr President, I take a point of order. In order to make a reasoned vote on this question I really need to know just what `an old harpy' means. Only then can I make a decision as to whether the term is unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael McLean, P. A.Bishop, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Stone, J. O.Harradine, B. Tambling, G. E. J.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jenkins, J. A. Walters, J. O. W.Knowles, S. C. Wood, W. R.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. Evans, GarethBeahan, M. E. Foreman, D. J.Black, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T.Bolkus, N. Giles, P. J.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N.Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Coates, J. Ray, RobertCollins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Cooney, B. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, R. Zakharov, A. O. Teague, B. C. Ryan, S. M.Baume, Peter Crowley, R. A.Watson, J. O. W. Richardson, G. F.Short, J. R. Morris, J. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Tate) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Walters. Senator Haines-What do you call Senator Walters? The PRESIDENT —At 10.48 p.m., do not tempt me! Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.48) —Mr President, you will be pleased to know that I will be speaking about a matter entirely different from that which we have been discussing. As this is only the second time in 12 years that I have spoken in the adjournment debate, I will be as quick as possible. Earlier this month a working party of the National Health and Medical Research Council brought down a report on home births and alternative birth centres. The National Health and Medical Research Council unanimously endorsed that working party's recommendations on 4 November 1987, at its 104th Congress. As a result of those recommendations being endorsed, most of the major newspapers carried sensational headlines. Let me quote from just one article which is headed `Home safe alternative for births, says health body'. The article states: In a major policy turnaround, Australia's premier health advisory body has backed home births as safe for most mothers. The National Health and Medical Research Council has also criticised hospitals for failing to meet the needs of consumers. . . . . ``We concluded that if you give careful consideration to the individual and the skills of the attendants there is no reason to assume that birth is any safer in hospital'', spokeswoman Dr Cathy Mead said yesterday. Because I was concerned about the headlines, I immediately turned to the report. I would like to quote just a few points in the summary of conclusions of that report: Women should be able to make their own choice about place of birth depending on their geographical location, factors relating to their pregnancy and the professional and support services available to them. Many obstetric services are not meeting the expressed needs of many of their customers and all hospitals should address this. It goes on to suggest what the hospitals should do. It says: An extensive review of the literature did not substantiate the expressed concern about the safety of home births. However, it is now highly unlikely that a study of sufficient statistical power could even be undertaken to unequivocally answer the questions of relative safety of place of birth. On page 4, the report says-and it is now referring to how unlikely that statistical study would be: A randomised control study is the ideal way of evaluating the safety of place of birth. However, as maternal deaths are now very rare and perinatal mortality associated with full term delivery (and not attributable to congenital malformation) is also very low the number of participants required for such a study would be too large. In addition it is unlikely that there would be acceptance of the idea of random allocation to a place of birth. Of course, there could not be random samples of place of birth-hospital patients and births at home-because those people in hospital would include all those patients who are very much at risk. In the introduction to the report, it is stated: In June 1978 . . . the National Health and Medical Research Council made the following statement on home births: The Council noted that the trend for women to request home delivery has occurred partly because of unfamiliar and forbidding clinical surroundings in hospitals. It therefore recommended that in the interests of reducing the number of requests for homebirths, obstetric hospitals should review their procedures and facilities so that without compromising the necessary clinical requirements, a more homelike atmosphere permitting family-child interaction could be promoted. With that, there is no argument. The report goes on: Although birth centres have been established- and this report, of course, had been referring to birth centres in hospitals- around Australia the demand for home births is not lessening and in recent years the number of births taking place at home has continued to rise. This statement surprised me particularly. So I rang the chairman of that working part, Dr John Campbell, who is an obstetrician at the Queen Victoria Medical Centre. To my surprise, when I asked Dr Campbell what figures he had to substantiate his statement, he said, `We have no figures to substantiate that statement. There are no figures for home births'. When I said that he had said in the report, `The demand for home births is not lessening and in recent years the number of births taking place at home has continued to rise' he merely said, `People believe that they are on the rise'. The only figures on home births in this report are for 1985 and 1986. In 1985 there were 1,135 and in 1986 there was a decrease to 1,068. There is a little asterisk beside the 1986 figures which says: Although the number of home births had fallen in 1986, those working in this area believe that the demand for home births had increased. It seems incredible to me that a report that has been brought down by the working party of a very august body-I believe it to be-should use words clearly saying that the demand for home births in recent years is not lessening and that the number of births taking place in homes has continued to rise, and that it should be unable to substantiate that statement with any figures. The only figures produced in the report indicate a decrease in the number of home births. The report goes on: In March 1986 the Women's Health Committee NH&MRC acknowledged that home births and alternative birth centres were well established. These sorts of statements which are only anecdotal are perhaps all right for Homebirths Australia, that has a vested interest, but surely they are not good enough for a scientific body such as the National Health and Medical Research Council to abide by. It says that its working party recognised in March 1986 that home births are established. Yet, in this report, it is pointed out that only 0.44 per cent of births take place in the home. I fail to understand, when such a small number of births take place in the home, that it can be concluded that home births are well established. The terms of reference that the committee was to look at are as follows: To carry out an overview of the homebirth movement with the aim of establishing better professional relationships between homebirth practitioners and the medical profession, and of establishing better relationships between families and support people and the medical profession. That is the first one. Unfortunately, the way the working party seems to have carried out that term of reference is indicated by its spokesperson, Dr Cathy Mead who said she did not expect the National Health and Medical Research Council's change of policy to result in a massive increase in the number of women requesting births at home or a backlash from the doctors. She said that home births make up only half of one per cent of all births, so even if the number is doubled it would not be a significant threat to anyone's income. That sort of statement from a spokesman for the working party of the National Health and Medical Research Council hardly acts towards a better professional relationship between the home birth practitioners and the medical profession. Her statement only underlines that this attitude would create far greater divisions. My husband, who happens to be an obstetrician, both in private practice and as a staff member of the Royal Hobart Hospital, took great exception to that comment from Dr Mead. In an article in the newspaper following the announcement he was reported as saying that he believed the statement by Dr Cathy Mead was degrading to his profession. He said: If they think money is the reason most obstetricians oppose home births, then their opinion is not worthy of consideration and they should give us a public apology. Dr Mead was responding, I gather, to a term of reference which suggested that the aim should be: . . . establishing better professional relationships between home birth practitioners and the medical profession, and of establishing better relationships between families and support people in the medical profession. I can only say that I believe she has failed dismally. The next terms of reference are: To develop principles for alternate birth practice, in and out of hospital. To look at criteria for education of homebirth midwives. Report to the Women's Health Committee. The results of this report are very similar to what was put out by the Women's Health Committee of the New South Wales Health Department and it seems quite extraordinary that there is such a great similarity. I wonder why that is so. I move now to the birth centres. There is one in Tasmania; one in South Australia; two in New South Wales; and five in Victoria. So, many of them have been established. A recent study of the Royal Women's Hospital in Victoria took at random 30 women who had their babies in the labour ward and 30 women from the birthing centre in that hospital. The study followed through for eight months of pregnancy, and it found that 15-exactly half-of those in birthing centres, who were all well screened patients-indeed, all those patients were meant to have absolutely no risk, no problem at all-needed to be removed to the labour ward. They were taken out of the birthing centre and their delivery was finished in the labour ward. All of those who were removed had a healthy baby as a result. The Committee's report goes on: Over the last two decades obstetric care has become more interventionalist and the birthing process is well entrenched in a traditional medical model. It says that in response to this demands by women for a more sensitive birthing environment are increasing. I will go into what has occurred over the last two decades when obstetric care has become more interventionalist and the birthing process has been well entrenched in a traditional medical model. Between 1961 and 1965, neonatal deaths-that is, deaths between birth and four weeks-totalled 3,260. Between 1966 and 1970 that figure dropped to 3,141. Between 1971 and 1975 the figure dropped to 2,930. Between 1976 and 1980 it dropped to 1,869 and between 1981 and 1985 it dropped to 1,481. So with the intervention of the medical profession, the figure has dropped in those two decades from 3,260 to 1,481. I doubt whether anyone would be critical of that. Foetal death figures have been recorded only since the 1973 to 1975 period. Between 1973 and 1975 there were 2,751 deaths. Between 1976 and 1980 the figure was 1,980 and between 1981 and 1985 it was 1,628. In respect of maternal deaths the situation is even more dramatic. Between 1961 and 1965 there were 81 maternal deaths. Between 1966 and 1970 there were 54. Between 1968 and 1970 there were 50, and from 1971 to 1975 there were 31. From 1976 to 1980 there were 20. From 1981 to 1985 there were 19 on average. In 1986 there were only 15. Intervention by the medical profession in delivery of babies has increased and has obviously resulted in far better and far safer deliveries and better baby health than if that intervention had not occurred. There has been no consultation between the Committee and the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, even though two obstetricians were on that Committee. The other thing that really surprised me was that in the whole report there was absolutely no mention of morbidity. Morbidity relates just to the general health of the patient. Mortality relates to death, but morbidity relates to general health. There is nothing at all in this report that points to morbidity, which is often an even greater issue in home births than mortality. The report said: All available evidence suggests that in carefully selected and well supervised low-risk deliveries the extra risk to mother and baby attributed only to the absence of hospital facilities must be low and the satisfaction of a successful delivery high. However, a number of reports were not included in the list in the appendixes. I wondered why that was so. I wondered whether the reading list was rather selective. The figures for birth profile from the Home Birth Association points out, as I said, that in 1986 there were 1,068 home births, which is 0.44 per cent of all births. Registered midwives delivered 944, lay midwives 62 and doctors 62. Transfers to the hospital represented, amongst the registered midwives, 9.6 per cent. The figure for lay midwives climbed to 12.1 per cent, and for doctors delivering at home 2.4 per cent had to be transferred to hospitals. This points out that lay midwives have a rather bad reputation in this area. Another thing that concerned me considerably was the type of selection that occurred. In the report by the National Health and Medical Research Council there was no comment on the selection of patients already delivered at home. The delivery characteristics stated that, in 1986, 18 vaginal births were recorded as having occurred after the patient had had a caesarean section. I would have thought that no midwife-whether she be a registered midwife or a lay midwife-and certainly no doctor would suggest that a women should have a home birth following a previous caesarean section. The risks are far too great. I will only touch on a few of the recommendations of the Committee. There would be no argument with the majority of them. The principles of safe home births that have been gone into suggest that there should be very strict screening. Only those mothers who have a clear bill of health and medical history should have home deliveries. However, the Committee states that to develop a single definitive set of guidelines is not feasible, given the differing environments in which home births and birthing centres may operate and the difficulty of obtaining adequate scientific evidence properly to justify such a definitive set of guidelines. Indeed, the Committee is not able to put down any guidelines to say that it is really safe for a woman to have a home birth. There are no statistics to prove that it is safe to have a home birth. The Committee obviously has thrown its hands in the air and said, `Because we can't prove anything, we have no statistics, and we do not have any method of giving definitive guidelines as to who should and who should not be looked after at home, we will leave it to the doctor, the midwife or the lay midwife to make that decision'. Every honourable senator would know that we have had some tragic results. Just recently there was the very tragic death of a baby who was delivered at home. The baby was born underwater and subsequently died. The Committee recommends that there be an alteration to the Poisons Act to allow the midwife to administer a number of drugs. There is no suggestion that pethidine or morphia be allowed to be given. Yet there is a suggestion that neonatal naloxone be allowed to be carried and given. This is used only to reverse the effect that pethidine would have on the baby following the administration of that drug to the mother. I am not sure who the Committee thinks would give the pethidine if the nurse is not permitted to give it, yet she is permitted to give a drug that reverses its effects on the baby. The Committee must understand that if it brings down a recommendation that, no matter how gently, supports home births, without any substantial data-indeed, without any data at all-and without any substantial reasons as to why it should advocate home births, it cannot resile from the responsibility for additional decisions being made by women which could well result in similar tragedies to that which we witnessed the other day. As a nurse, I have seen how some of the emergencies can occur. There is no way that if one has a baby at home and there is a prolapsed cord, for instance, one could be removed from the home situation to the hospital in time to have a caesarean. The only way this can be remedied is for the attending doctor to push the baby back while the mother is taken, as speedily as possible, to the operating theatre, where a caesarean is performed. This is the only way one can possibly save the baby's life. It is very obvious that this sort of thing cannot be done at home. There is no way that the baby's life could be saved. Such an occurrence cannot be anticipated. It can happen to any mother who is perfectly healthy. No matter how many normal babies she has previously had, it can happen at any time. It is one of those risks that are completely unforeseeable. The National Health and Medical Research Council, with its reputation, has brought down a report that I believe is totally irresponsible, particularly when the Council is not prepared to substantiate its statements with figures. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.16) —In view of the hour, I will not keep the Senate long, but I do wish to raise the issue of Fiji, which is causing me deep concern. I refer to what is happening in Fiji, the inability of the Australian Government to respond in any constructive way to it and the fact that this Government appears to be burying its head in the sand rather than facing up to its responsibility. Those in Australia who treasure our basic human and political rights must be deeply concerned about events in Fiji and the deprivation of such rights being experienced by so many Fijian citizens. I suggest tonight that it is time we received a considered response from a number of Government Ministers to matters within their respective spheres of responsibility. Australia and Fiji are part of this one region and, therefore, not only should we be looking compassionately at those who are suffering as a result of the destruction of democracy in our neighbouring country but also we should be addressing constructively the question of how we can help. The first aspect of the matter that I wish to raise concerns allegations of torture and human rights abuses which are continuing to come to our attention. Mr President, you will be aware that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of this country, Mr Hayden, apparently saw the foreign affairs spokesman of the Rabuka regime in Sydney earlier this week. We understand that he presented to that spokesman a list of alleged human rights abuses which had been prepared and given to him by the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard that list of abuses, which is not a long list, but only one and a half pages, reported to the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Reported instances of human rights abuse. A. Labasa 1. JAMUNA PRASAD (Administrative Officer): human excrement placed in hands and made to walk naked on the streets after being released. 2. BHARAT BHUSAN (Dental Assistant): made to bath in sewerage pool. 3. MARY SCHRAHM (Medical Superintendent): made to bath in sewerage pool. 4. SAHU KHAN (Magistrate): forced to bath in sewerage pool. 5. RAVIND SINGH (Sheriff): forced to bath in sewerage pool. 6. SUBRAMANI (Farmer): forced to bath in sewerage pool and kept in it for a further 4 hours. 7. SUGRIM SINGH (Farmer): forced to bath in sewerage pool and kept in it for several hours. 8. MUTTHU SAMI (President, FPSA, Labasa): kept under stressful conditions that triggered a heart attack. Has been hospitalised after release. 9. SOHAM SINGH (Proprietor): forced to walk barefoot for several hours on hot tarsealed road. 10. ARUN KUMAR (Taxi Driver): forced to walk barefoot for several hours on hot tarsealed road. 11. WAHID ALI (retired School Teacher): forced to fill a drum full of sand with a small cup. Mr Wahid's left arm had been amputated several years ago. 12. LATCHMI CHAND (Farmer): forced to swim in sewerage pond and beaten. 13. BOB VITHAK (Pharmacist): forced to bath in sewerage pond. 14. KAMPTA PRASAS (Bailiff): forced to bath in sewerage pond. 15. SANTA RAM (Doctor): forced to bath in sewerage pool, and is now suffering from psychological after-effects. B. Suva 1. VIJAY NAIDU (Lecturer): brutally bashed up while under detention. 2. RICHARD NAIDU (Coalition Spokesman): brutally bashed up while under detention. 3. SOHAN SINGH (Lawyer): assaulted while being arrested and bashed up while in custody. C. Children The following incidents of torture have resulted from alleged cases of violation of the Sunday Restrictions. 1. BA: 17 children between ages 5 to 12 were arrested by security forces for violating Sunday restrictions. They were all stripped and corporal punishment was inflicted to an extent that they could no longer stand up. They were then made to rub their noses against a course concrete floor until their noses bled. 2. NAUSORI: a group of children arrested for the same offence were made to lick cowdung (fresh) and corporal punishment was inflicted upon them. Other humiliating punishment was also given to these children. Senator HILL —It is of regret to me that, after those discussions, our Foreign Minister was not prepared to make any statement about his discussions, let alone a statement concerning these alleged human rights abuses, which are really quite revolting. Many of them concern persons apparently being made to bathe, to stand and to swim in sewage pools for considerable lengths of time. There are also allegations of bashings, assaults and other brutalities. I would have thought that we would hear afterwards from our Foreign Minister the reaction of the Fijian spokesman to such a list. What we should also have heard from our Foreign Minister is whether in the opinion of this Government such allegations are well founded. I remind the Senate that our Government has intelligence facilities within Fiji, although they were found wanting, having not been able to predict either of the two coups that occurred in that country. Nevertheless, they exist. We have a continuing diplomatic presence there. I would like to know, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid would like to know, and I know that many of my colleagues in this place would like to know, whether these allegations of most horrific abuses that are said to be occurring in Fiji are in fact true. I understand that Australian authorities in Fiji have brought them to the attention of the Fijian authorities. Again we do not know the response but the mere fact that this matter was brought to the attention of the Fijian authorities would suggest that there is some evidence to suggest that the allegations are well founded. If that is the case, I would like to know what further efforts the Australian Government is making diplomatically or in other ways to exert pressure on the Fijian authorities to desist from such abhorrent practices. Furthermore, if these allegations are true I would also like to know whether Australia would consider accepting, under a humanitarian category, applications for immigration from those who are physically or mentally suffering as a result of such abuses or who can substantiate the well founded fear that they are likely to suffer from such abuses. As part of this region and having a responsibility to those who are suffering within the region, that is the sort of question the Australian Government should be addressing rather than simply burying its head in the sand. I would like to hear its reaction to that suggestion. The second area of concern I raise is the effect of what is happening on children in Fiji and the education of those children. Even apart from the human rights abuses which are alleged, it is clear that about half of the population of Fiji-that is the Indians-will have reduced political rights which will be based on an assessment of race alone under any new arrangement that might follow. Presuming that the loss of political rights or the granting of lesser political rights on a determination of race alone is abhorrent to this Government, I ask: Will the Government at least increase the quotas allowable for private students from Fiji to undertake schooling in this country? This would at least provide some comfort to parents who reasonably desire their children to have the opportunity to study in a peaceful environment. Two months ago I wrote to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) making this suggestion and I received a reply only today. Basically, the reply is to the effect that the Government will not give further consideration to the matter on the basis of the political events that have occurred in Fiji. He mentioned that there has been a slight increase in the number of places allocated to Fijians but that that is based on factors entirely irrelevant to this matter. In the circumstances of what has happened in Fiji, I believe that the Minister should now be considering whether we in this country can allow further school children to come here in order that they might complete their education in a much more satisfactory environment. I urge him to consider positively that suggestion. The third area of concern is in relation to tourist visas. I was told only last night of a teacher who was refused a tourist visa to visit this country during the Christmas period without any reason being given. What disturbed me particularly was a suggestion that the Australian Government is generally refusing to give tourist visas to teachers and public servants on the basis that, in any event, they would be stopped at the airport from leaving Fiji, according to apparent current practice of the Fijian authorities. If that allegation is true, the Australian Government is facilitating what are obviously intolerable practices of the Rabuka regime, and that would cause me great concern. I would like to know what are the facts. I was even told today that tourist visas, even in a broader sense, simply are not given by Australia in Fiji. I would like an assurance that such a situation is not the case and that the basis for granting tourist visas has not changed since the coup. If it has changed I would like to know how it has changed. Surely we can grant tourist visas on the merits notwithstanding what has happened in that country. The last area of concern I raise is that of immigration. Like other senators I have received many allegations of delays in the processing of applications and practices of authorities which, it is suggested, are designed to frustrate the orderly processing of applications for migration to this country. I even received one letter on 19 October advising that Suva `has stopped giving out application forms'. I would like an assurance that that is not the case. I have other letters in which applicants claim that the Australian authorities are telling them that there is a processing time of 12 to 18 months. I would like an assurance that this also is not true. I would like an assurance that applications for migration are being handed out and that they are being dealt with expeditiously and on merit. It is of further concern to me that I am told that there has not been any increase in the immigration staff in Fiji since the coup notwithstanding what has been obviously a great increase in the number of Indian Fijians seeking to leave that country. That causes me concern because it suggests to me that if this Government were acting in the best interests of the Fijian community it would facilitate these extra applications rather than create a bottleneck. Is it in fact the intention of this Government to create a bottleneck? I would like an assurance that that is not the case. As Australia is a member of this region, one which recognises the importance of maintaining stability within the region, and we appreciate the value of democratic principles, I urge the Government to get its head out of the sand on this issue and face up to its responsibilities in the areas I have raised. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.27) —When Australia lost the America's Cup early this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was not the only person to lose money on the venture; many Australians lost money, some without realising it. In fact, all of us lost money inadvertently because Australia Post decided to gamble on the outcome. Australia Post's gamble involved printing 35 million stamps on which a victory sign was later printed over them. The stamps used were existing America's Cup stamps on issue. The art work involved in converting those stamps consisted of putting an overprint of the victory sign on them. Thirty-five million stamps represents about a two weeks supply. The total cost of producing, overprinting, perforating, packaging and, ultimately, destroying those stamps, was $120,000. I wonder why on earth Australia Post found any sound commercial reason for printing $120,000 worth of stamps on the off-chance that we would win the America's Cup. It is a bet to nothing. What commercial advantage would Australia Post have from printing America's Cup stamps with the V for victory overprint? I wonder why it provided a two weeks supply of them. Doing this sort of thing in advance may be seen by someone in Australia Post as a great public relations coup, but it seems to me to be an extraordinary one which cost the Australian public money. At a time when Australia Post was going around closing 105 small community local post office agencies, because it said they were uneconomic, it seems strange that $120,000 should be gambled away in this fashion. I wonder how many of those 105 local post office agencies could have been kept open at less than the cost of destroying 35 million stamps. I draw this matter to the attention of the Senate as another example of one of our governmental monopolies having very little care, very little concern for the real needs of Australian consumers and acting in a way which may have given some potential for pleasure to some of the administrators of Australia Post. It certainly gave no pleasure whatsoever to the taxpayers of Australia. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.30) —in reply-Senator Walters raised the matter of the report prepared under the aegis of the National Health and Medical Research Council on home birthing, and listed alleged deficiencies in the scientific underpinning of many of its assertions about and evaluations of home birthing, which will prove interesting reading. Senator Hill asked for a considered response from a number of Government Ministers in relation to certain misgivings about our stance on events in Fiji. That ruled me out, and therefore I will bring these matters to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) and seek a response. Senator Michael Baume raised, for the interest of the Senate and, I think, to meet a journalistic deadline, the question of Australia Post producing stamps to do with the America's Cup with a victory overlay, and I think that he has said what he needed to say. I have said what I need to say. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.31 p.m. The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 36) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What measures are currently in place regarding the Federal Police in the control of prostitution and drug dealing in the A.C.T. and the N.T. (2) How many prosecutions for violations of Acts affecting prostitution and drug dealing in the two Territories were effected in (a) 1985-86; and (b) 1986-87. (3) Has the Federal Government issued any instruction to police in either Territory to contain rather than eliminate massage parlours or escort agencies. (4) Has, to the knowledge of the Government, the Federal Police delivered such instructions from senior officers to junior ranks. Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is responsible for enforcing laws relating to prostitution and illicit drug dealings in the A.C.T. only. The force has no responsibility for law enforcement in the Northern Territory other than for Commonwealth law. Consequently, the information provided below relates only to the A.C.T. (1) The offences relating to prostitution in the A.C.T. are contained in the Police Offences Ordinance 1930 at Sections 18, 19, 19A, 23 and 34. The Ordinance is explicit in creating offences for managing or being knowingly concerned in the management of a brothel and knowingly permitting or leasing premises to be a brothel. Accordingly, the AFP has standing internal instructions to investigate their operation with a view to obtaining evidence for prosecution. The very nature of the offences, proof of which requires detail of privately arranged transactions of sexual activity in exchange for the payment of money, does present police with difficulties in obtaining evidence sufficient to instigate successful prosecutions. Section 19B of the Ordinance provides that a prosecution for an offence under the Ordinance is not to be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or a person authorised by him. For these purposes the Attorney-General has authorised the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to consent. When determining whether to prosecute, the DPP firstly considers whether the available evidence establishes a prima facie case and secondly whether the public interest requires a prosecution. In 1985-86, the AFP submitted one brief of evidence to the DPP for consent to prosecute. In 1986-87, three briefs of evidence were submitted. Consent to prosecute was granted in relation to two premises; one resulting in a conviction and one yet to be finalised at court. In the other two referrals consent was refused, one on grounds relative to the evidence and a procedural delay, and the other on the grounds that the prosecution was not considered by the DPP to be necessary in the public interest. Legislation regulating drug related crime in the A.C.T. is contained in the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 1987. Under the Ordinance, the offences relating to `drug dealing' are supplying a controlled substance and possessing a controlled substance for the purpose of supply. As well as action to enforce the legislation generally, the AFP A.C.T. Command Drug Squad has recently initiated a system of target policing directed specifically at individuals suspected of being major drug dealers within the Territory. This system of policing has led to the arrest of persons of greater significance in the organisation of illegal drug activities in the A.C.T. (2) (a) Prostitution-one; Drug dealing-79; (b) Prostitution-one; Drug dealing-48. (3) No. (4) No.