Wednesday, 16 December 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of the city of Tamworth, New South Wales, respectfully showeth: a. that there is a very limited range of cultural provisions for rural areas; b. that the provision of ABC Concerts significantly enriches the options available to rural residents; c. that regional centres permit residents of wide country areas to attend concerts when they would not be able to journey to the metropolitan areas; d. that the youth of country areas have an equal right to access to visits by outstanding musicians and should not be disadvantaged; e. that significant savings could be effected without the complete elimination of the country concert program; f. complete elimination in the Bicentennial year would be a retrograde step. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Broadcasting Commission be asked to continue its provision of country concert tours by leading artists. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 460 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 990 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Port Pirie Education Centre Inc. has for twelve years fulfilled a wide range of educational needs among underprivileged and isolated rural people in the upper north of South Australia: that the Federal Government's withdrawal of base grant funding will in effect cause the Centre to close at the end of 1987: that Federal Government managerial incompetence is evident in deciding to cause the closure of the Centre at the same time as approving a Community Employment Program grant of approximately $50,000 to upgrade the Centre's grounds. Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Federal Government will restore base grant funding for 1988 and beyond to ensure that the Port Pirie Education Centre Inc. can continue to provide its wide range of educational services to the people of the upper north of South Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 104 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: 1. We reject in principle the need for a national I.D. card on the basis that it will be a gross violation of individual liberty. 2. We reject the notion that the government can claim a mandate for the proposed legislation and state categorically it does not reflect our will. 3. We believe that, as with the proposed Bill of Rights legislation, the government's methods and arguments in promoting this legislation have been under-handed and undemocratic. 4. We believe as a matter of faith and judgement that the proposed legislation is anti-God and that its implementation will result in further attacks on individual freedom and responsibility, the family and the Church and that the real intent is the promotion of a powerful secular humanist ``big brother'' government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should together with the House of Representatives take action to reject this proposed legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chapman (from 323 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 144 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and Senators in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia strongly urge the Australian Government to give more accurate information of the proposed Satellite Base. Department of Administrative Services employees, Ross Temple, in charge, and Collin Ekert; and Civil Engineer in Housing and Construction, Mark Appelt, all stated a projected cost of 300 million dollars for this Base. We ask public accountability for the cost of this project, and detailed information on the functions of the Satellite Base. We ask you to observe Section 51 of our Constitution which requires a just settlement for any possible land acquisition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 70 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name regarding National Health Act principles and the Defence (Public Areas) By-laws. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109A, I give notice that at the placing of business on this day of sitting I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for this day for disallowance of the Lakes (Amendment) Ordinance and the Children's Services (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 2). These are withdrawals of notices of motion. Therefore I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Lakes (Amendment) Ordinance imposed a penalty of up to six months imprisonment for being a passenger on an unauthorised power boat. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances considered this penalty to be too severe and the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) has undertaken to amend the ordinance to reduce the penalty. The Children's Services (Amendment) Ordinance provided for children in detention to be brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable. The Committee felt that an upper time limit of 24-hours should exist with suitable flexibility for contingencies. The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories has agreed to amend the ordinance to provide for this. I seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence for the information of honourable senators and others. The correspondence is too bulky to be incorporated. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —I table the correspondence. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales) —by leave-I wish to make a brief statement regarding one of the notices of motion which was just withdrawn. Senator Collins has reported that the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has persuaded the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Mr John Brown) to amend the Australian Capital Territory Children's Services (Amendment) Ordinance to ensure that 24 hours will be the maximum time that a child can be detained before he or she must be brought before a magistrate, subject to unforeseeable circumstances. This is an extremely important undertaking. The Children's Services Ordinance is model legislation based on five years of research by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It is vital that this aspect regarding the holding of children prior to judicial intervention be got correct now. The Committee has suggested a formula which would require a child to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours, or as soon as practicable thereafter, but in no case later than 48 hours, provided that if the 24-hour time limit were exceeded a written explanation for that would be given to the magistrate and the child's parents. This model legislation deals with our most vulnerable section of the community. The ordinance is being watched by all of the States and the Northern Territory. We are hopeful that the Minister will make an amendment containing some definite time limit which will not unduly hamper law enforcement and child care administration but which will at the same time adequately respect the traditional rights of people in detention. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Family Court of Australia (Additional Jurisdiction and Exercise of Powers) Bill 1987 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by the first day of sitting in March 1988. Senator WOOD(New South Wales) —I give contingent notices of motion as follows: (Contingent on the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business)-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wood moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate. (Contingent on the Senate proceeding to the consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order)-That so much of the Sessional Order relating to the consideration of Government Papers be suspended as would prevent Senator Wood moving a motion relating to the order in which the papers are called on by the President. (Contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under Standing Order 64)-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wood moving an amendment to the motion. (Contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under Standing Order 64 and the expiration of the time provided for discussion of the motion)-That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Question on the matter of urgency being put forthwith. (Contingent on a Minister moving a motion that a Bill be considered an Urgent Bill)-That so much of Standing Order 407B be suspended as would prevent debate taking place on the motion. (Contingent on the Chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a Bill, or any stage of a Bill, has expired)-That so much of Standing Order 407B be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the Bill, or the stage of the Bill, without limitation of time or for a specified time. (Contingent on the Chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a Bill, or any stage of a Bill, has expired)-That so much of Standing Order 407B be suspended as would prevent the questions being put in respect of any amendments circulated by Senator Wood, any other Independent Senator, the Australian Democrats, or the Opposition, and that such questions be put accordingly. (Contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day)-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wood moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. (Contingent on Senator Wood being refused leave to make a statement to the Senate)-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wood making that statement. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) welcomes the report `France: the Nuclear Renegade' as the most comprehensive picture of the intertwined military and civilian nuclear industries of France, and Australia's role in the proliferation of French nuclear weapons. (b) condemns the French Government's plans to build between 950 and 2,650 new nuclear warheads in the coming decade, to add to its present arsenal of 500. (c) is concerned that the presence of this great number of French nuclear weapons will undermine the INF Treaty and jeopardise any future nuclear disarmament agreements. (d) deplores the Australian complicity in the French nuclear arms buildup, through shipment of uranium to France; and (e) calls on the Australian Government to ban uranium exports to France and any other country engaged in the construction of nuclear weapons. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, contingent on the Senate resolving to establish a Select Committee on Agricultural Chemicals, I shall move: 1. That the following provisions apply to the Select Committee on Agricultural Chemicals: (1) (a) That the Committee consist of six Senators, three being Government Senators, and three being Senators who are not Government Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators. (b) That the nominations of the Opposition or any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee be determined by the Senate. (2) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (3) That the Chairman of the Committee be appointed by and from the members of the Committee. (4) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (5) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (6) That the quorum of the Committee be three members. (7) That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (8) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the sub-committee. (9) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (10) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (11) That the Committee report to the Senate by the last sitting day in May 1988. (12) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may provide the report to the President or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy President, and, in that event (a) the report shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate, (b) the publication of the report is authorized by this Resolution, (c) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the report, and (d) the President or the Deputy President, as the case may be, shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. 2. That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes recent reports in the Media which have claimed (i) that Vietnamese refugees, who are now Australian citizens have been involved in armed insurrection in Indo-China and are now on trial in Vietnam, and (ii) that a prominent Australian sponsored by the Afghan-Australia Council took part in a recent Mujahadeen raid on a Soviet airbase; and (b) is of the opinion that the Government should: (i) ensure that the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs inform all migrants and refugees who are seeking Australian citizenship, of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978; (ii) advertise widely that it is against Australian law to fight, recruit or raise money for ventures such as these; and (iii) ensure that Afghan-Australia Council, whose main aim is to give tangible support to the Mujahadeen inside Afghanistan, is not acting outside the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its disregard of women's health issues; (b) urges the Government, in consultation with the States, to establish a uniform system of collecting data on the treatment and outcome of admissions to all hospitals for obstetric and gynaecological patients to enable monitoring of this specialty practice in Australia, which should be undertaken in the same way as is currently being done in Tasmania; (c) notes that the Hawke Government acknowledges that the University of Tasmania, with the encouragement of the Liberal Government in Tasmania, currently leads Australia and the world in the monitoring of women's health in relation to obstetrics and gynaecology, thereby enabling investigation in areas of need; (d) note that the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland do not collect any data in relation to births as a result of caesarean section and that of those States that do, percentages of live births delivered by caesarean section are as follows: South Australia (17.7%), Western Australia (15.1%) and Tasmania (11.4%); (e) notes that the only national figures which include all States are compiled by Medicare, relate only to the cases where Medicare benefits are claimed for caesarean deliveries, and that these rates vary alarmingly from South Australia (12.4%), Victoria (11%), New South Wales and Queensland (10.4%), Western Australia (9.2%) to Tasmania with only 7.3%; (f) notes that statements made by Senator Giles, representing the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, to a women's health conference in Hobart on 12 December 1987, were misleading especially when she said that Australian estimates for this financial year for caesarean sections as a percent of live births would reach 25%; and (g) considers that statements from members of the Hawke Government that this problem will be looked at next year are not good enough and that such statements indicate that the Government does not have a real commitment to alleviate Australia's very real problems in the area of women's health. Senator ALSTON(Victoria) —by leave-I rise to make a personal explanation in relation to a matter touched on by my colleague Senator Sheil a moment ago. I do so as Chairman of the Afghan-Australia Council and in particular in relation to the notice of motion given by Senator Sheil, which suggested that, in some way, Dr Phillip Ayres, who is a member of that Council, had been involved in either mercenary or military activity in witnessing a mujahedeen raid on an airstrip in the town of Khost in the Paktia province of Afghanistan. I wish it to be known that in no way was Dr Ayres involved in, or did he participate as an active member of, that attack squad. He was merely an observer from a distance of some half a kilometre from the point of fighting. He was there as someone who had been taken into the confidence of the mujahedeen but was not otherwise actively involved in any way in the military exercise. I would like to make it very clear that the Council does not have as its main aim the support of the mujahedeen. It has many aims, and that is one of its aims. It is principally concerned with the welfare of some 1,500 Afghans in Australia and it is very much a welfare-oriented organisation. It also supports some of the concerns that are shared by many people in the Australian community that the Soviet Union should withdraw troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible. I do not want it to be misunderstood by anyone in this chamber or in the community that, somehow, the Afghan-Australia Council might conceivably be in breach of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act or in any way is simply a political agitation organisation. The PRESIDENT —That was really a statement made by leave. It was hardly a personal explanation, Senator Alston. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the ever-increasing number of war toys now being made available for children during the Christmas season, mostly designed in the United States but manufactured in East Asian countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macao; (b) notes, in particular, the proliferation of victim toys and inter-active video games involving media heroes like Rambo, Terminator and Dirty Harry, as well as the connection between television and these so-called toys; (c) notes too the names of some of these war toys like `Star Scream' recommended for children aged five years and over which include statements like, `Cries and screams are music to my ears' and, `War is a dirty business, and I am as dirty as they come.'; (d) congratulates Pax Christi for co-ordinating a national campaign against war toys and Mothers and Others for Peace and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom for launching their campaign against war toys in Canberra today with their leaflet `Toys are for Fun, Not Fighting'; and (e) suggest that senators and their families and the community in general bear in mind the psychological well-being of future Australians by careful avoidance of giving war toys this Christmas. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act relating to the conversion of the Australian National Airlines Commission to a public company, to repeal all but certain provisions of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, and for other 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)(10.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- In my statement outlining the Government's domestic aviation policy, which I tabled on 7 October 1987, I indicated that the Government would serve the required three years notice to terminate the Airlines Agreement with effect from 1990. Following agreement of both Houses of Parliament, notice of termination of the Agreement was issued on 30 October 1987. An essential element of the deregulated environment after termination of the Two Airlines Agreement will be a strong, viable and efficient Australian Airlines which will be able to provide effective competition across the trunk route network. The Bill now before the Senate represents an important first step in the process of preparing Australia for its future role by: establishing the airline as a public company; providing for re-organisation of the airline into a more appropriate structure prior to incorporation; and removing detailed Government controls on the airline's operations. The legislation will establish the airline as a company in the most efficient way possible, by providing for the Commission to be deemed to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1981 on a day to be proclaimed. Secondly, the legislation provides for a re-organisation of the Commission prior to deeming. The Commission is seeking to establish a group structure which provides it with maximum flexibility to prepare for the more competitive environment facing the airline over the next few years and following deregulation. The legislation therefore makes provision for the re-organisation of the Commission prior to incorporation to ensure that the new company can operate from the outset on a proper commercial basis. Thirdly, the legislation provides for removal of existing statutory controls on the airline which are embodied in the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 through deletion of all substantive sections of that Act. The removal of these statutory controls will occur at the time of deeming the airline to be a company. As I announced previously, the Government is giving consideration to the scope for removal of other broader controls, such as subsection of borrowings to Loan Council, in the context of the Structural Adjustment Committee. Decisions on these controls are expected to be taken early next year. I now wish to address the major provisions in the Bill in more detail. Deeming The Bill provides in Part IV for the conversion of the Australian National Airlines Commission to a public company. In particular, Clause 15 deems the Commission to have been, immediately before the transition, and to be, at the transition a corporation within the meaning of the Companies Act and provides for the Commission to be registered as a company under the ACT Companies legislation. A major benefit of the deeming approach is that the company maintains the same corporate entity as the Commission. Because there is no change in the corporate entity there is no need: to transfer assets and liabilities from the Commission to a new body corporate; for novation of overseas contracts of the Commission, because there would be no new party to those contracts; to transfer any tax losses or the benefit of Capital Gains Tax exemptions for pre-20 September 1985 assets to a new corporation; or for any change to existing Commonwealth loan guarantees, which would remain in place. The deeming approach therefore avoids the administrative costs and time which would be involved in resolving these matters under alternative legislative approaches. All contracts, agreements and arrangements entered into by or on behalf of the Commission and which are in force immediately before transition, including the 1981 Airlines Agreement, will apply to the deemed Company. All the shares in the deemed company will be held either directly by the Commonwealth, or by a Commonwealth wholly owned holding company. Staffing Matters related to Conversion On transition each staff member of the Commission will become an employee of the Company on the same terms and conditions as applied to his or her employment by the Commission. Entitlements such as long service and recreation leave, and eligibility for sick leave, will be preserved. There will be no entitlement to any payments in lieu of leave entitlements. The legislation enables the Company to become a ``prescribed authority'' for purposes of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. Those staff who have rights under the repealed Officers Rights Declaration Act 1928, or Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922 will retain those rights. On transition the existing provisions covering superannuation for staff who are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (some 950 employees) will be maintained; and the company will become an ``approved authority'' for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976. These provisions are necessary to avoid any industrial difficulties which could arise if the terms and conditions of staff on transition were left open. The airline has proposed that, as a corporation, and subject to industrial agreement it should have the ability to withdraw from the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and to transfer CSS staff to existing airline Plans. This proposal is to be considered by the Structural Adjustment Committee. The timing of conversion to a public company does not need to be decided at this stage. However it is expected that the transition will take place on 31 March 1988. Company Structure The airline has indicated it wishes to re-organise its activities into a holding company/subsidiary company structure, and views this as an essential part of the changes required in establishing the airline as a fully competitive public company, and to avoid any adverse legacy of its previous statutory authority form. This new structure would also allow greater devolution of management responsibilities and assist management to focus on activities where performance may need to be improved. The Bill provides flexibility in the way in which the final group structure is to be achieved. One such way would be for the deemed company to assume the role of holding company. The other would be for the new holding company to be incorporated by the Commonwealth and for the deemed company to become a subsidiary undertaking the major airline operation activities. Staff Matters related to the Re-organisation The Bill, by amending the appropriate provisions of applicable legislation, enables new companies created before commencing day as part of the group re-organisation, to also be covered by the provisions of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. Where existing employees of the Commission are contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme or have rights relating to Public Service employment under the repealed Officers Rights Declaration Act 1928 and Part IV of the Public Service Act 1922, those rights and entitlements will also be preserved irrespective of transfer to any company in the group. Transfers of Assets and Liabilities Given that there will be no change in beneficial ownership by the Commonwealth, all transfers of assets and liabilities from the Commission to other companies within the group as part of this re-organisation, and for any related transfer of shares, should not be subject to Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes and duties. The Bill therefore provides for transfers to be exempt from such taxes and duties but restricts these exemptions to transfers related directly to the re-organisation which take place within the period between Royal Assent and transition day. Taxation The Bill will also ensure that the group re-organisation will be `tax neutral', with the overall taxation position of the companies involved being the same as would otherwise have applied to the Commission. Removal of Government Controls In my policy statement of 7 October 1987, I announced the removal of a number of day-to-day controls over Australian Airline's commercial operations to help streamline management decision making and place increased responsibility with the airline's board where it properly belongs. These controls included: all but exceptionally significant expenditure decisions (e.g. those requiring additional equity capital); detailed terms and conditions of borrowings and leasing arrangements; investment of surplus moneys; choice of auditor; dividend recommendations and; provision for insurance against risk. The deletion of all substantive sections of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 will give effect to the Government's decision. Further, as indicated earlier the Government through the Structural Adjustment Committee will be examining the scope for removal of other broader controls over Australian Airlines operations. These controls include: Loan Council borrowing limits; Remuneration Tribunal determination of board member and senior executive salaries; industrial relations arrangements being subject to Government oversight and co-ordination; restrictions on superannuation arrangements; application of the offsets policy to purchases of aircraft and related spares. Once the position on the broader controls has been settled, the Government will address the form of Memorandum and Articles of Association, together with appropriate Guidelines to Directors of the Company to ensure that the airline continues to be subject to appropriate minimum levels of control, and so that there is an on-going basis for establishing the airline's financial target and corporate planning responsibilities previously contained in the ANA Act 1945. Intrastate Operations It has been necessary to retain Section 19a of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945 to enable the Commonwealth to hold shares in a company operating intra-state air services in those States to which that section applies (currently Queensland, Tasmania and New South Wales). Legislation adopting Section 19a has also recently been enacted by the Western Australian Parliament and is currently awaiting Royal Assent. The Bill ensures that a group company will be able to carry on business in all States and Territories under names which have been protected in accordance with provisions of the Bill. Amendments to Related Legislation As required by the proposed re-organisation, the Bill amends definitions in the Airlines Equipment Act 1958 and the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981, which play an integral role in the operation of the existing Airlines Agreement, to extend the application of those Acts to over all companies in the re-organised group. Additional legislative provisions are necessary to apply the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987 and the Commonwealth Sales Tax legislation to the group of companies. For constitutional reasons these provisions will be contained in separate Bills, which cannot originate in the Senate, and will be introduced in the House of Representatives to coincide with transmission of this Bill after passage by the Senate. Financial Impact Statement The Bill does not involve additional expenditure by the Commonwealth or additional revenue to the Commonwealth. The Bill provides for exemption from Commonwealth, State and Territory taxes on transfer of assets as part of the proposed re-organisation of the airline, in recognition of the fact that there will be no change in the Commonwealth's beneficial ownership. Conclusion In future, there will be greater opportunities for the aviation environment to become more competitive as aviation specific economic regulatory controls are removed. There have already been developments in the domestic aviation industry which impinge on the extent and form of future competition. Following the recent take-over of East-West by News Corporation and TNT, Australian Airlines faces the prospect of greater competition from, on the one hand, Ansett Airlines in traditional markets and, on the other, East-West Airlines in the growing price sensitive leisure and tourism markets. Australian Airlines is therefore confronted in all areas of the domestic market by strong commercial competitors backed by extensive financial resources. In these circumstances, this Bill represents an important first step on the part of the Government towards improved competitiveness of the airline by giving the management of Australian the flexibility to structure the airline in the most effective manner to meet the current and future challenges and the ability to run the airline without the hindrance of detailed bureaucratic controls. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I indicate to the Senate that there will be a short delay in the circulation of the copies of the Bill and the second reading speech. They have only just arrived from the printer and will be available later this morning. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Jones) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) notes the double century by the Queensland and Australian Captain, Allan Border; and (b) congratulates Allan Border for posting his highest test score, his 22nd test century, and becoming Australia's foremost Test run-getter, with his double century passing records set by the great Bradman and Greg Chappell. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Annual Report of the Attorney-General's Department states that the key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 was for the establishment of a national body to regulate the area of human embryo experimentation in Australia; (b) notes that the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 refers specifically to its ``chief recommendation'' in the final sentence of paragraph 4.38 of its Report, which states: ``In short the Parliament should adopt the chief recommendation of this Report (see paragraphs 3.6, 3.7, 3.21 and 3.22) as the basic statutory principle underlying research on human embryos in Australia'' and that this principle was stated in the final sentence of paragraph 3.22 as follows: ``The Committee recommends that the principle protecting the embryo from destructive non-therapeutic experimentation be adopted by the Senate in its consideration of this matter''; (c) notes that the Senate Select Committee Report clearly obliges the recommended national body to be bound by the basic statutory principle which would implement the key recommendation of the Report to make ``unlawful and destructive non-therapeutic experimentation which frustrated the development of the human embryo''; and (d) draws the attention of the Attorney-General to the inadequacy in the Annual Report of his Department. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given earlier today, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1 and 2. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I move: That Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Collins for this day for disallowance of the Export Control (Animals) Orders be postponed till a later hour. I seek leave to make a short statement relating to that motion. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances is still corresponding with the Minister for Resources (Mr Peter Morris) on a technical legal aspect of these orders. We hope that the matter will be resolved later today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Pursuant to contingent notice, and on behalf of Senator Chaney, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Lewis) put: That General Business, notice of motion No. 54, standing in the name of Senator Lewis and relating to the appointment of a Select Committee, have precedence over all other business until determined. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. Messner, A. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Newman, J. M.Boswell, R. L. D. Panizza, J. H.Brownhill, D. G. C. Parer, W. R.Calvert, P. H. Patterson, K. C. L.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.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. M. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Jenkins, J. A.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P.Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Ryan, S. M.Crowley, R. A. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Wood, W. R.Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Michael Foreman, D. J.Baume, Peter Cooney, B. C.Puplick, C. J. G. Reynolds, M. E.Vanstone, A. E. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 15 December, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Lewis had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement should be amended: (a) to recognise progress made by previous governments, by the persons who live along the Murray River and in the River's drainage area; (b) to reduce the new bureaucratic administrative and consultative arrangements for the Basin to enable efficient action and co-ordination; and (c) so that the Government with the States provides a firm commitment to finance the already known necessary remedial measures along the Murray River which would immediately improve water quality''. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.25) —When this debate was interrupted last night, I was outlining that the River Murray Waters Amendment Bill amends the River Murray Waters Agreement and establishes a Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The new Commission replaces the River Murray Commission with a Murray-Darling Basin Commission which, in addition to assuming the statutory responsibilities of the old Commission, will also have an advisory role to the Ministerial Council on water, land and environmental matters in the whole of the Murray-Darling basin not covered in the 1982 River Murray Waters Agreement. The other aspect of importance is that the Bill establishes a ministerial council comprising three Ministers from each of the four governments, whereas under the previous arrangements they were for the water Ministers only from each of the States. The Bill in its Ministerial Council arrangements enables much greater ministerial participation by State and Federal governments, the four governments concerned being the Federal Government, and the State governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The new arrangements will enable a much broader input into the activities of the new Commission than was the case previously. The Bill also establishes a Community Advisory Committee to bring together, and present to the Ministerial Council, community views on the management of the natural resources of the basin. The Chairman of the new Commission-it is an appointment that we certainly welcome-is Professor John Burton of the University of New England. Approximately 17 representatives of regional and national organisations are to be included on the new community advisory committee. Complementary State legislation, which is essential for the effective operation of the new arrangements, is presently before State parliaments. This is an important Bill because the River Murray is a very important part of our river system in Australia; it is also a very important part of the economy of the relevant regions of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The River Murray system is a major provider of irrigation water. It provides irrigation water for 75 per cent of Australia's irrigated land. It is an area that supports a quarter of the total cattle and dairy farms in Australia and approximately half the sheep, lambs and national crop land. It is also an important source of water supply for the city of Adelaide and other centres along the Murray system. It is a very important recreation area and with the growth of tourism within Australia it will become increasingly important. The River Murray system is a wonderful tourist area and has great potential. It also plays a large part in the history of this country. It is, therefore, an area of concern to all Australians. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. Indeed, we believe that there are aspects of it which will, hopefully, lead to an improvement in the management of the Murray-Darling river basin system. But we do have some concerns about it. In particular, there is every prospect-unless the matter is handled carefully-that we will simply be presiding over the growth of a whole new series of bureaucratic structures for the management of the region at a time when that would be detrimental to the work going on. What is really needed in this area is a much greater degree of co-operation between the Federal and relevant State governments over the whole history of the River Murray system. I think the River Murray Commission goes back to the 1920s. The period since then has been fraught with a great deal of difficulty in getting the respective governments to work together as co-operatively as is necessary if we are to tackle the real problems of the system. Whilst new ministerial and other bureaucratic arrangements may have some beneficial effect, provided they do not become over-bureaucratised, the real solution will lie in the goodwill of the various governments and their willingness to co-operate, and also in an adequate supply of funds being put into the system. The Opposition is concerned that the Bill does not make any new financial provisions for the system. We are concerned that over the last few years, since the Hawke Government came to office, funding for this very important region has declined progressively on a dollar for dollar basis. The Fraser Government believed that the States were not acting urgently enough in the light of what could and should be done to solve some of the major problems, perhaps the major one being salinity. I will come back to that. Over a period of years $640m of Commonwealth money was to have been provided as a result of a major initiative announced, I think, in 1982 by the Fraser Government when it initiated the bicentennial water program. This money was to have been provided because of the frustration involved in waiting for the States to play their part. A number of valuable works which would have improved the situation in the Murray were planned, including the Mallee pipeline. But when this Labor Government came to power one of its early actions was to drop the bicentennial water program. That is a matter of great regret. It is certainly a matter of concern to the region because the problems facing that region, particularly salinity, are compounding all the time. There has been a salinity problem in the Murray River system throughout its history and it has been exacerbated over the years by the development of irrigation. However, it is important to recognise that the salinity problem has always been present. The soils and the groundwater of the Mallee zone around the Murray are salty; indeed they are sometimes more salty than the sea. This is a result of the area having been submerged beneath the sea for millions of years. The area extends as far east as Swan Hill. The groundwater of the Riverine Plains received salt from the weathering of sediments in the eastern highlands and from salt swept in from sea spray and rain. Therefore, salinity of the Murray resulted from natural causes but, as I have said, the problem has been exacerbated by the activities of man through land clearing, river structures and irrigation drainage. Of course the clearing of trees reduces transpiration of water causing ground water to rise through salt laden soil and flow into streams. Lakes and weirs raise upstream water levels, increasing pressure on underlying salty ground water and forcing it into the river downstream. Irrigation can also allow ground water mounds to form under irrigation areas, increasing hydraulic gradients towards, and saline seepage into, the river or tributary. Salinity problems increase towards the west as more and more salt is poured into the Murray via the tributaries and ground water inflow. Anyone who has driven through the area or, more particularly, flown over it would have seen the enormous problems of salinity in certain regions along the Murray system around Kerang, Swan Hill, towards Mildura and beyond. It is a problem of considerable magnitude. In supporting the legislation that is before us, the Opposition hopes that the new arrangements will enable a broader perspective to be brought to the consideration of the issues of concern, some of which I have already outlined. As I said earlier, it will be very dependent on the attitude which the participants bring to the Council and to the advisory tables. If that co-operation is not forthcoming then, of course, no particular administrative or bureaucratic arrangements will solve the problem. The Opposition is also concerned about the role of the Community Advisory Committee. In practice that sounds an admirable establishment because in theory it should enable community representatives to have proper technical and other input into matters of concern. The issue will be whether the membership of that Committee is sufficiently representative and non-bureaucratised to enable that to happen. We hope that the four governments concerned will do all that they can to ensure that that Community Advisory Committee fulfils the role for which it is designed. Having introduced this legislation, the Government has a tendency to promote the new arrangements almost as the saviour of the area as if nothing has been done in the past. In my earlier remarks I mentioned that previous governments-and particularly the Liberal-National governments-over the last 30 to 40 years have indeed done an enormous amount to improve the situation along the Murray River. We fully recognise that a great deal more needs to be done but it would be regrettable for us now not to recognise the work that has been done, not only by previous governments but also by the persons who live along the River Murray and in the river's drainage area. For that reason the Opposition has moved an amendment to the second reading of this Bill which, amongst other things, notes the recognition of the progress made by previous governments and by the persons who live along the Murray River and in the river's drainage area. Our second reading amendment, which was moved by Senator Lewis yesterday on behalf of the Opposition, also points out the need for the Federal Government, with the State governments, to provide a firm commitment to finance the already known and necessary remedial measures along the Murray River, which would immediately improve water quality. There is need for additional research and the development of new concepts and techniques, but a great deal is already known. I believe that political will, political co-operation and necessary funding are required. With those ingredients, the scene will be set for a major improvement in the Murray system. The coalition will watch with great interest and monitor the activities of the newly created Ministerial Council and Community Advisory Committee to ensure that they are playing their full role to meet the objectives which are commonly agreed on both sides of this chamber. I support the remarks made by my colleague Senator Lewis in supporting this Bill, whilst at the same time highlighting the work that has already been done by previous governments and drawing to the attention of the Government the potential concerns that will arise if the new arrangements are not handled appropriately. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.40) —The River Murray Waters Amendment Bill 1987 amends the River Murray Waters Act 1983 to give effect to a Murray-Darling Basin Agreement which is designed, at least on the surface, to improve the management of the land, water and environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is the last in a long line of gestures by governments, both State and Federal, to improve access to and the quality of water in that area. The Bill establishes a Murray-Darling Basin Commission which replaces the River Murray Commission and comes into effect on 1 January 1988. I think all honourable senators would agree that that is an appropriate date. In addition, the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council are given a legislative base and a community advisory committee is established to allow for community input into the management of the basin. To what extent that community input will be effective will depend, as has already been pointed out, on the political good will or otherwise of the relevant State governments and the Federal Government. It is probably indisputable that the major dissatisfaction with regard to the quality of water in the Murray comes from the end users in South Australia. Over the years their complaints have had very little impact on governments in other States, particularly, of course, in New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Victoria. So I approach this Bill with a certain amount of frustration and caution and not a small pinch of cynicism, although I am glad to have the opportunity that the presentation of this Bill gives me to make a number of important points in relation to the effects in South Australia of increased salinity in the River Murray Basin. Senator Chaney —Tell us about Adelaide water. Senator HAINES —For about the fourth or fifth time since I have been in this place I am about to treat Senator Chaney to a description of Adelaide water. Senator Chaney —It is disgusting. Senator HAINES —I could not agree more with the comment that Senator Chaney just made. Most Adelaidians, of course, resent the fact that we have this problem. Having made that point, it is worth while pointing out-as members of this chamber and others ought to be aware-the World Health Organisation recommendations for salinity levels. Over and over again during the last 10 years I have pointed out the way in which South Australia is getting a raw deal with regard to its water quality-a consequence, of course, of the fact that the original 1914 Agreement related only to the quantity of water rather than the quality of River Murray water reaching each State. Like most other South Australians, I have become increasingly fed up over the years at the procrastination and the buck-passing that has gone on amongst State and Federal governments, local government authorities, the Commission and other relevant organisations, regarding a solution to this problem. The result of that procrastination for South Australians has been water which smells, tastes and looks revolting-as Senator Chaney pointed out, rather opportunely. It is not suitable for washing, much less for cooking or drinking. It has quite justifiably given Adelaide an international reputation as having the worst water in the world. The States that have contributed to the problem ought not to sit back and smirk about it. It has been largely due to the impact of agricultural procedures, enthusiastically supported by State governments looking for votes, that South Australia has the worst water in the world and is having to tolerate it when a solution ought to be found. It is a matter of considerable irritation to all of us from South Australia to see, popping up over the years, ministerial statements and pieces of legislation relating to the River Murray waters when most of us suspect that very little will result as a consequence. This is, of course, not to make light of the problem, as some members of this place have tried to do. The need for quality control of River Murray water has been so obvious for so long, I would have thought, that the reluctance of previous governments to act constructively amounts almost to a dereliction of duty on the part of the relevant authorities. It is all very well for Senator Short and others to castigate this Government for its inaction, but I cannot say that I noticed in the time I was here during the previous Fraser governments that they did much more than introduce ministerial statements on the matter. If one reads the Hansards, one will see that these statements tended to be greeted with somewhat more all-party support and hope than what it appears will be the outcome of this piece of legislation. So there certainly has been a dramatic failure to act in any meaningful way with regard to the quality of River Murray water when it reaches South Australia. That failure to act rests on the shoulders of all previous governments and the existing one. Over the years South Australians have been confronted with a plethora of reports which do no more than tell us what we already know: that is, that there is a serious problem with the quality of River Murray water and, hence, for the end users of that water, and it is getting worse. We hear time after time from State and Federal Ministers and from authorities of one sort or another that the quality of River Murray water is appalling and getting worse and is causing significant economic problems for South Australia. Yet very little action is being taken. Let me refer for a moment to an excellent report that appeared last month in the Times on Sunday. This significant article was entitled `The degradation of the noble Murray'. A number of other senators, including my colleague Senator Powell, have already referred to that, but I think it is important that I cite some paragraphs from that article which highlight the problem that is relevant to the debate today. The article points out: But time is catching up with the Murray, where over a century of irrigation projects . . . have created an environmental disaster. I do not think that is putting too excessive a label on the problem that we are facing in South Australia with regard to the Murray. The article points out: Millions of tonnes of salt, fertilisers and pesticides are being dumped into the river every year. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of some of the richest farming lands in Australia are salting up or suffering other forms of land degradation. Wetlands have been altered or destroyed, forests endangered and much wildlife killed off or put in jeopardy. The environmental plight facing the Murray is a product of poor planning, lack of understanding of the delicacy of the river ecosystem and bad farming practices such as deforestation, overcropping and excessive irrigation. The Murray also suffers from political opportunism. Of course, it has been political opportunism that has in fact allowed the deforestation programs, the overcropping and the excessive irrigation. The article continued: According to Bruce Davidson, a senior lecturer in agricultural economics at Sydney University, the irrigation program was a `terrible' mistake and has cost Australian taxpayers around $1 billion in expenditure never recouped. The article continued: The problem is that after spending billions of dollars winning votes over the past century- and that is how long we have been debating this problem- the State and Federal Governments now have to decide how to share the astronomical costs of repairing the damage to the river environment. In the whole of the Murray-Darling basin, governments have put in 13,500 kilometres of supply channels and 7,000 kilometres of drainage channels. Massive irrigation programs have clearly been undertaken over a period of far too many years. The article points out: Excessive irrigation means that water percolates down into the soil, raising the water table. This part of Australia was once a sea (though there are other theories about how the salt got there), and a higher water table means salt rises to the surface. The man-made process adds to the natural salination of the Murray. However, the author points out: salt is only part of the problem. Downstream from Swan Hill in Victoria, the water in the Murray is becoming more polluted with fertilisers and pesticides washed off the farmland and drained into the river. I pause here for a moment to point out that we have already suffered quite significant embarrassment in our trade area because of excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides. It is time that governments at State and Federal level, political parties of all persuasions and those people involved in the agricultural sector got together to look at the long term needs of this country, and of the people they represent, rather than simply proceeding with very damaging and long lasting short term methods of increasing profit and producing the products that we all need. The article goes on to say: The widespread clearing of land-less than 9 per cent of the original vegetation remains in the wheat/sheep belts is making the soil problem worse and also creating more salination. Trees suck up moisture, and when they are killed off, the water table rises. . . . An average of 2.5 tonnes of salt flows over the South Australian border every minute. At Morgan, nearly out of the weir system and in the final run to the sea, the water is monitored and the results are appalling. The Murray has accumulated pollutants and naturally and agriculturally derived salt from nearly the whole course of the river. The salinity level is 20 times what it was at the start of the voyage, and this has to be filtered out before inhabitants of Adelaide and other South Australian population centres can use it. I would suggest to the author that he come back to South Australia and see how little use we actually get out of that water, even after it has been fiddled about with, allegedly to make it potable. The article continues: The task of repairing the ecological damage to the Murray is daunting, both in size and complexity. It finishes off on much the same line as it started on, with a comment from Adelaide University's Dr Walker, who points out that fixing the Murray would `require a cost even the government cannot accept'. He said: We are locked into a situation where solutions are apparent, but politically impractical. That means that some government might lose a few seats if it puts into practice the solutions that are necessary to improve the quality, as distinct from the quantity, of water flowing through South Australia down towards Adelaide and then into the sea. I think it is fairly clear from this article, among others, that we cannot afford to pussyfoot around any longer about the problem that we, as a country, are facing. While the problem is certainly significant for South Australia, it is a national problem. Two other decisions that have been announced recently-interestingly enough by the State most affected-also point to the urgency of the situation. In the Adelaide Advertiser recently, a small article headed `Report urges halt to irrigation development' pointed out that: A State Government committee report has recommended suspending irrigation development in the Keith area. I would simply note that those of us who have been involved in these debates over the years have been calling for the suspension, or at least the considerable diminution, of irrigation in a variety of areas along the course of the Murray for a very long time indeed. This particular recommendation was in a five-year draft water resources management plan for the Tatiara Proclaimed Region. The plan was prepared by the Upper South East Water Resources Advisory Committee, and it is to be discussed at a series of public meetings in the Tatiara area. The recommendations for suspending irrigation followed the discovery that the area had severe ground water stress resulting from overuse of reserves. The second article appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser a little more recently, headed `$22m scheme to desalinate Murray'. It points out that the Federal Government and three State governments, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, have agreed to fund a $22m, 12-year project, aimed at dramatically reducing River Murray salinity. The article says towards the end that irrigators in Victoria had drainage problems and were looking to drain water directly into the river, which could negate the effects of the Woolpunda scheme. So again there is a report of a continuation of the very actions which have led to the problem, actions by irrigators in States which have access to the Murray water before those of us in South Australia do. The River Murray Waters Amendment Bill appears on the surface to be a step in the right direction. But we in South Australia could be forgiven for having developed some cynicism or, at the very least, a healthy scepticism about the possibility of some improvement occurring. As I said a moment ago, year after year in this place we have debated ministerial statements on new and presumably improved River Murray waters agreements, with no discernible results to date for South Australia. However, the Bill seeks to do something positive and I will suspend, at least temporarily, my concern that maybe all that is going to happen is that history will be repeated and all the good intentions expressed will come to nought. At worst, the more comprehensive approach taken in this Bill will do no harm. At best, the new Murray-Darling Basin Commission will provide a central point for discussion and consideration of the sustainable use of the natural resources of the basin. It is particularly pleasing to see that at long last the governments concerned-I say again, apparently-have put aside their parochial interests and appear willing to approach the problem in a more co-operative way than in the past. One can describe those past approaches only as dismal failures. While the Murray has been dying, political opportunism has dictated the actions of all the governments involved. State governments, with an eye to the next election, have failed persistently to address the fact that the granting of irrigation licences needed to be cut back. It would be nice to think that with good will on the part of all concerned and a real determination to make the new arrangements work, the environmental health of the basin and the economic well-being of the urban centres in the valley would be assured. Unfortunately, it is still by no means certain that State and Federal governments, with different aims and ambitions but with one mutual aim and ambition of winning each next election, will agree on politically unpopular moves, for example as has already been indicated in the articles I have referred to and in comments that have been made in the past about measures to limit irrigation licences. We all know how much damage is being done by irrigation to the quality of the River Murray water. In South Australia, fruit trees are dying, people are becoming bankrupt and most South Australians are unable to drink the water because of what happens before the water even gets to our border. As Senator Short mentioned a moment ago, anybody with an eye that cares to see can note, simply by flying over or driving through the area, the devastation that has occurred. We all know the problem is there. We have lacked so far the political will to do something about it. I do not want to underestimate the difficulties and the complexity of the problems to be resolved but, unless something changes, South Australians will continue to suffer from what I believe is nothing short of selfishness, thoughtlessness and political gutlessness-I suppose that is the most polite way of putting it-that applies in other States, particularly in New South Wales. The new Commission envisaged by this legislation will certainly have a greater advisory role. But its enforcement powers are very similar to those of the old Commission. One knows that advice can be handed out willy-nilly. It is the capacity to enforce the provisions that we all know are necessary that is the most important element of improving any situation and those are still lacking. The Bill refers to the whole drainage basin; that is, the Murray-Darling Basin and extends the Commission's advisory role to land management, water use and the environment. There is, therefore, within this legislation a recognition that solutions to the problem depend on more than just engineering; for example, salt interception works. That recognition is welcome, overdue as it is. The Bill also gives a clear legislative basis to the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, as the Council will be made up of Ministers representing the portfolios of water, land and environment from the Federal Government and the State governments of South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. It will, I suppose, be in a position to initiate worthwhile programs and exercise general oversight and control over all major policy questions-and perhaps there will be a greater willingness of State and Federal Ministers to agree, since all the governments are of one political persuasion. One of the problems, particularly over the last decade, has been that governments in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and the Federal Government have not always had the unity of political purpose behind them, so there has been an impediment to getting an agreement with regard to the best action to take in this area. Within this framework, the purported purpose of this Bill is to improve intergovernmental collaboration in all aspects of natural resources management. I hope that finally this aim will be achieved. The legislation also provides for the Ministerial Council to establish a community advisory committee. The committee is intended to bring together and present to the Council community perceptions and views on matters referred to it by the committee or raised by the community in relation to management of the basin's natural resources. The aim is to encourage consultation and participation. Again, it is to be hoped that this laudable objective is achieved and has some results. It is all very well to encourage consultation and participation; but if no positive actions result, all we have had is yet another frustrating talkfest and more South Australian fruitgrowers going into bankruptcy. There is an increasing amount of leeching, more trees are dying and the salinity level of the Murray as it passes through South Australia continues to rise. So while it is gratifying that the Government has introduced this legislation, yet again it has tried to take credit for some improvements in recent years, as if nobody else had ever noticed that there was a problem or tried to suggest improvements. The improvements that are claimed to have been achieved by this Government probably are more likely to have been achieved somewhat fortuitously by the prevailing climatic conditions that, in recent years, have favoured improved quality of water in the basin. These climatic conditions have meant less demand by irrigators on the river water and a reduction in saline inputs compared with what happens during periods of drought. It is precisely during these sorts of better climatic conditions that we should have readied ourselves for the less favourable conditions. Unfortunately, we have not done so. To make that matter worse by claiming that some sort of political situation has improved the condition of the water temporarily, rather than simply fortuitous climatic ones, is simply not helping matters. In any event, I welcome this latest attempt to solve the problems in the Murray-Darling Basin. They have been going on for so long that I suspect it will take almost as long to cure the problem as it took to produce it. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this river as a resource for this country, particularly for South Australia. This country is very dependent on river water, with a host of primary industries and urban centres vitally affected. It is in the interests of all of us to look after the Murray. Failure to look after it, indeed failure to remedy the existing problems, will have catastrophic consequences not simply for South Australia's economy but eventually for the economy of the country as a whole, dependent as it is on the commodities that are produced in the area along the course of the Murray. This legislation will not in itself, of course, solve the problem. It may, however, facilitate the means whereby the problems might be overcome. So while I welcome this step, there is no room for complacency. Commitment, co-operation and adequate funding are, as Senator Short and others have already pointed out, necessary adjuncts to the new arrangements. They have been sadly missing in recent decades, and I think it is very important that we acknowledge yet again that we cannot do this simply by an Act of parliament in the Federal scene. There must be commitment, co-operation and adequate funding, and that must be evident not just in this place but also within the State governments that are involved. Until commitment, co-operation and adequate funding become automatic elements of solving the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin, and in particular the problems of the Murray after it has wound its way into South Australia, we are going to continue to have a very serious problem economically and, I suggest, socially with the Murray. Whilst I commend this Government's move in this direction, I hope that it will have a better and longer lasting effect than the moves made by previous governments have had so far. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.07) —I also wish to address the River Murray Waters Amendment Bill 1987. Unfortunately I, too, am somewhat sceptical as to what this Bill might in fact achieve. The effective management of Australia's major river resource has a long and largely disappointing history. When we look back we see, on the one hand, so little progress and, on the other hand, so many examples of regional and State jealousies, bureaucratic conflict and, most of all, a lack of political resolve to really come to grips with the problem. Salinity in the River Murray system alone has been estimated to cost urban, industrial and agricultural water users some $40m to $60m each year. Add that to production losses due to soil degradation in the adjoining dry land cropping areas and the total damage comes to over $200m each year. Unfortunately, evidence suggests salinity below Euston is still increasing at the rate of 2 per cent per annum. So we see a situation where enormous damage has been done, and at best the remedial action taken to date has simply succeeded in reducing the rate of further damage. If we look at this Government's response to the situation, we find that it has been prepared to spend only some $27m on salinity and drainage during the whole of its term of office. To put that in context with what it would cost to try to put the River Murray system right, let us look at a recent technical report to the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council which suggested that high priority projects alone, to overcome the most urgent problems, would cost in the vicinity of $172m. That report from an expert committee advised that to repair the entire Murray-Darling irrigation system would cost in the vicinity of $785m. So we are looking at enormous sums of money, but I suppose everything should be looked at in its true perspective. That would be some $400m less than we have spent on the new Parliament House. But, as I said, in actual fact the Government has spent only $27m. Salinity is, of course, only one of the River Murray's problems. We have to add to it the problem with nutrients and pesticides entering the river system. The by-products of agriculture are killing wildlife and fish and choking the watercourse with weeds. These matters have been dealt with in greater detail by previous speakers. But it is salinity which so much impresses us, particularly South Australians. I reiterate the figure cited last night. South Australia receives 1.4 million tonnes of salt from upriver each year, and that to us is highly significant. Even those of us who live in Adelaide suffer the consequences of that. I remind honourable senators that in most years about 40 to 50 per cent of Adelaide's water comes from the Murray. In dry years, such as in 1977 and 1978, up to 83 per cent came from it. We see salinity levels hovering around 835 electrical conductivity units, which of course is the World Health Organisation's maximum salinity level for a domestic water supply. So it is not surprising that South Australians are conscious of this continuing problem with the River Murray, or that when from time to time Bills such as this arise in the Senate we wish to address them. We do know how fragile the whole system is. We are reminded that it was only a few years ago, in 1980, that the river ceased to flow for 240 days, producing a near catastrophic situation. We now better understand what has gone wrong with the total river system. We know that much of the problem has resulted from poor planning in the past, from a lack of understanding of the river ecosystem as a whole and from inappropriate farming practices, such as flood irrigation and excessive irrigation, as has been mentioned by other speakers. Although research on the river system is still too sketchy, we better understand that a lot could be done to improve the situation. What that requires is a concerted and co-ordinated program of management. It requires reclamation, land management and environmental protection. When it comes down to the bottom line, that must be the responsibility of the governments concerned, and therein lies the problem. It is with that background that one has to address the terms of this Bill, the latest attempt to provide further remedial action for the river's problems, and see just what it can contribute in relation to the responsibility of this Government. The Bill, and the expanded agreement covered in the Bill, changes the River Murray Waters Agreement to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. I commend that change. I recall it is something that I sought in a speech I gave in this place in 1983. For too long the River Murray Commission and the other authorities concerned have been limited by their legislation and by the agreement simply to looking at the River Murray, when what happens to the river is so much affected by what is happening in other river courses. So I commend that expansion. That is a small step forward, as was the 1982 agreement to allow the Commission to consider matters of water quality. Perhaps in another six years-it has taken six years for the latest advance-we might have a Bill that states that the agreement now includes Queensland, which of course it should. Queensland covers about a quarter of the basin, with the catchment area extending some 400 miles into that State. At the moment it is not a party to the agreement. Again I reflect on previous addresses I have made in this place and say that it is necessary for the three States and the Commonwealth which are now parties to the agreement to look at embracing Queensland in an expanded agreement in the future. The Government will no doubt say that under this Bill Queensland is given observer status. That, I guess, is a small step forward to future participation. I acknowledge that, but, for more effective management of the total river system, I look to Queensland being incorporated as a responsible party in the years ahead. The new Commission will advise the Ministerial Council in relation to the management of water, land and environmental resources within the basin. We see the Commission, under this Bill, having an extended responsibility to include land use and environmental matters. It might seem that that should have been obvious, and should have been included a long time ago, but, as I indicated, because of bureaucratic jealousies and the like, it has not. It is now included, and I commend those who have negotiated the extension to include land use and environmental matters because, in a total management plan for the river, they must be incorporated. What we see, unfortunately, is that although the Commission is expanded to look at a wider perspective, its power is simply to advise the Ministerial Council. It has no executive capacity in its own right. Therefore, when we get to the bottom line, it still relies on the attitude of the Ministerial Council, in this instance, the Ministers representing the States of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, and the Commonwealth Government. There has not been a resolution in this Bill of the political conflicts between the States and the Commonwealth that have existed in the past and will no doubt continue to exist in the future. The Commission's role has expanded to include land use and the environment, but it cannot act in those areas unless it is given authority by this body of Ministers which, in the past, has not been ready to give the Commission the executive responsibility that it needs. Again, I draw this obvious point to the attention of the Government, and urge that further efforts be made in that direction. I note that now advice from the Commission can be given by a majority of commissioners. That might not seem a major step forward, but it is a small, but significant, step in the right direction. It means that one commissioner holding out will not stop advice going forward to the Ministerial Council. Therefore, one commissioner, who may be tied in one way to a particular State or particular land use problem, will not be able to thwart the program of advice being put to the Council and, one hopes, executive responsibility being given back from the Council to the Commission. I commend that small step forward. The Commission's advice to the Ministerial Council need be only by a majority vote, but when we get to the Ministerial Council, which the Commission is advising, we find that each policy decision by the Ministerial Council still requires all parties to agree. The body that still has the ultimate responsibility to make decisions in this area must make unanimous decisions. Those of us who have looked at the history of the failure of the management of the River Murray all know how often one State, or the Commonwealth, has been able to thwart the action that would have been to the benefit of the nation as a whole. Unfortunately, this Bill will not overcome that problem. One need only think of the example of the Commission seeking to monitor tributaries in one State, and the reluctance of the State to allow that on an ongoing basis because it might show up unsatisfactory land use and result in the other States and the Commonwealth putting pressure on that State for greater expenditure in that area or in some other way. Unfortunately, if one looks at the history of the River Murray-I do not want particularly to pick on States, but I can mention New South Wales-one finds examples of one State holding out and the Commission not being able to carry out the function that I believe it should. A number of other shortcomings are still contained in this legislation. I note that the Standing Committee of the Ministerial Council is to remain as an advisory body to the Ministerial Council, so that the Commission may possibly have less influence in an advisory capacity than the Standing Committee, which is made up of the relevant heads of the State and Federal departments. Again, there is a potential that the Commission's more objective advice may possibly be overlooked, and that causes me concern. I note that the Commission is still restricted in its monitoring activities of water quality to the main stem of the River Murray, without first obtaining State permission. That, I would argue, is an unnecessary restraint. I would have liked to think that we have gained sufficient maturity in this area and sufficient confidence in ourselves to give the Commission power to monitor tributaries without having to go to the State for permission first, but as yet, that is not the case. The history of this matter is one of slow progress and I draw that to the attention of the Government. All the good intentions will be thwarted if staff resources for the Commission are not made available. To date, the Commission has had only 10 professional staff. When one looks at its massive responsibility, one must ask what can be achieved by a staff of only 10 professionals. I understand that the four governments have indicated that a further sum of $320,000, borne equally by the four governments, will be put into providing six additional staff. I am pleased about that, but the situation still remains much the same. When we look at the scope of the problem, and the massive task before the Commission, to have that responsibility and to exercise it with only 16 professional staff is an impossible task. That leads one to question the bona fides of the Government's concern in this area. Looking at what has been achieved in the past, and what is sought to be achieved by this Bill, we find that there have been slow steps forward. In 1982, the Commission was given the chance to consider water quality and not simply quantity, and, therefore, it took one step forward, beyond simply being a Commission to determine the quantity of water for each of the States and to implement the engineering functions necessary to achieve those objectives, to considering quality. Now, under this agreement and this Bill, it takes a small step further, and that step is directed to considering matters of land use and environmental resources. The Ministerial Council will include Ministers responsible for land and environment matters, as well as Ministers responsible for water, so some practical manifestation of the increased responsibility of the new emphasis in being concerned with the total resources is indicated by that change. I remind the Senate that the Ministerial Council remains a political forum. It now allows land use and environmental matters to be discussed at a political level, and no doubt gives the capacity for the Ministerial Council to look at co-ordinated programs within that area. Whether it will determine co-ordinated programs in that area and give the Commission the responsibility and instructions to execute them is something we have yet to see. I commend the fact that a community advisory committee will be set up. That will help to keep the mind of the Ministerial Council on the job but, again, I would not overstate what it means because all it will really do is provide another input. I guess what is needed in this area is more output rather than further input. What I have said in the past, therefore, I regret to say remains the case today despite these small steps further and that is that there is still not an executive body, a management body, that is given adequate powers to carry out the function that is necessary to manage this very important national resource. No body is given functions such as are given to river commissions in the United States. This has largely come about because the governments of the three States and the Commonwealth have not been prepared to give that responsibility to an executive body; in effect, to abdicate their political rights, particularly in the land use area, to a third party which might act objectively in the interests of the whole of that vitally important region of Australia as opposed to the interest of particular States. I have said in the past that I cannot see that the position will be achieved without a national authority-in other words, the States giving to the Commonwealth the power to do that. I am still of that mind. Of course, were the power given, the Commonwealth would have to accept responsibility to ensure that such an executive body was properly funded, which is not the case under the present arrangement, and that it had adequate research capacity, which the present body does not have. I note that this Bill takes some further small steps forward but I remain somewhat sceptical, looking at the whole history of this matter, as to what will be positively achieved. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.27) —I did not hear all of the second reading debate but I did hear the last few minutes from Senator Hill. I think he has put his finger on one of the real problems and noted correctly that this legislation does not fully address that real problem; that is, the divided responsibility over a geographical area covering the entire Murray-Darling Basin catchment area. Queensland, which includes a significant portion of the catchment area, is not even a party to the agreement. It is not the first time that Senator Hill has expressed views which are well in advance of those held by the majority of his Party. I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bill any longer. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.31) —The Opposition welcomes the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill, which is one of the measures that are needed to facilitate the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard to private enterprise. It is, of course, entirely consistent with the Opposition's philosophy on government organisations being put into private hands where it is appropriate to do so and where there is no good purpose served by their remaining in public hands. We welcome this Bill also because it will stop the terrible drain on the public purse. We have been talking about a low of $18m a year and something had to be done to stop this drain on Commonwealth funds. Therefore, we welcome the sale of the dockyard and we welcome this Bill because it will go towards facilitating that sale. We also enjoy the fact that the Government is clearly embracing the principle of privatisation. It agrees with coalition policy but I recognise that in the other place Government members were very reluctant to admit the fact that they were adopting the coalition policy of privatisation. I dare say we will once again today hear that there is some very fine distinction between privatisation as espoused by us and privatisation as practised by the Government. Nevertheless, I do not wish to harp on the subject but just to welcome the fact that this sale is taking place. The Williamstown Dockyard is one enterprise which, quite clearly, has to be run more efficiently by private enterprise than public enterprise, as is the Government Aircraft Factories, about which the Government has also taken the same decision in regard to its sale. The history of this dockyard is an appalling, long saga of which I am sure honourable senators on both sides of the House do not really need to be reminded. It has been raised here many times over the years. It has been raised in the public forum in the Press. The fact that the public purse has been so badly served by the dockyard, by its employees, by its management, by the whole control and inefficiencies that are practised there has been constantly raised by the Auditor-General. The dockyard simply could not have been run, I think, any less efficiently than it has been run with the bad management and the overmanning. We see that at least 600 people will be shed through voluntary retirements and phased redundancies. That in itself shows how badly overmanned the organisation has been. Of course, there had been an agreement that people would not be shed. Having so many people sitting on the public payroll unproductively at the Williamstown Dockyard has been disgraceful. It has been renowned for inefficient work practices over the years and these are still continuing. I recognise that some attempts have been made in recent times to improve the financial management of the place-not before time. It has been renowned for union problems. Let us hope for the sake of Australia, for the sake of us all, that these problems will be overcome now by the new employers. The employees, above all, will be the beneficiaries of an organisation which is efficient, vibrant and well run. I referred earlier to the Auditor-General. I am surprised that the Government was able to find a buyer for the Williamstown Dockyard willing to part with $100m in light of the problems which are all too well known in this country and in light of the disastrous record keeping which was pointed out by the Auditor-General in numerous reports, most recently in his report on the audits to 30 June 1987. According to the Auditor-General, the records contained discrepancies and inaccuracies. He consistently found that the accounting practices were unsatisfactory, and there are pages in his report dated September 1987 concerning the dockyard. I would be appalled if I had been a part of the management that gave rise to this report. The Auditor-General said over and again in different areas of his report into the dockyard that the result of the audit was unsatisfactory. I quote from page 61 of the report: The failure of the management information systems to produce accurate and timely reports resulted in the Dockyard severely underestimating the projected loss from operations during the year. Management could not even keep track of how fast it was losing money. The Auditor-General's overall conclusion was: Audit has commented previously about the unsatisfactory findings of Dockyard audits and the lack of appropriate resources devoted to major changes to the Dockyard's accounting information systems. During 1985-86, it was disappointing to see that so little progress had been made in determining asset holdings and verifying existing asset records, many of the controls and standard features associated with the new financial systems had not been introduced, and up-to-date procedural instructions were yet to reach the drafting stage for so many of the new functions. The Dockyard's preparation of its financial statements for the year ending 30 June 1986 is nearing completion. When the statements are received, it is envisaged that the AAO will be able to bring that audit to a conclusion. It is also hoped that the Dockyard will be able to prepare financial statements for 1986-87 in a more timely fashion. That report was issued in September 1987. The management of the dockyard had been dragging its feet in upgrading and in its recordkeeping. Only at the Senate Estimates hearings this year when I referred to this report, representatives from the dockyard told me, `Of course, that all relates to 1985-86. Things are better now'. I hope that they are better now for the sake of the purchaser, because one cannot but wonder how the successful purchaser-Australian Marine Engineering Corporation-knows whether it has its money's worth. Huge problems in procurement procedures were identified by the Auditor-General with no accurate records of stock movements having been kept. I would like to quote again from his report. He criticised the annual stocktake, the cost of store issues, the review of obsolete stores, the reconciliation of stock values and a number of other items, and he ended by saying that the result of the audit into stores was unsatisfactory, once again. He said: Audit considers that the lack of internal controls and deficiencies identified in existing procedures and controls are such that the system cannot be relied upon to ensure: the accuracy and completeness of opening balances of all stores accounts at 1 July 1985, and the accuracy, adequacy and reliability of the stores accounting and financial records at the Dockyard. How did the purchasers have a clue what they were buying? It is beyond belief that they could have known what they were getting. I hope that they have not bought a pig in a poke. I notice in the Auditor-General's report that he mentioned how outside stocktakers had to be brought in to try to see whether they could get some sort of order out of the chaos in the stocktaking section of the dockyard. That is all history. Very glad I am to think that it will be history. The Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill, which is a very little Bill, simply deals with the question of redundancy or otherwise of employees at the dockyard. The Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), in his second reading speech, said: This Bill recognises that there is continuity of employment in this case. It is designed to facilitate the handover of the dockyard to the new owners without the absurdity of making employees eligible for large redundancy payments where there is continuity of employment. This could result in savings to the Commonwealth of between $4m and $13m, dependent on the number of employees involved. What will happen to the employees at the dockyard? I recognise that these decisions have been taken after long consultations and negotiations. People who are not offered work will be given redundancy payments. People who choose to retire will be able to do so, and other people, who are offered either the same or better terms, will go to the new employer without any redundancy rights at all. We are very pleased that this has been able to be negotiated because nobody wants the Commonwealth to be spending enormous sums of money when people have other employment to go to. But we, in the Opposition, are concerned for a very small group of employees who are under the Public Service Act, not the Naval Defence Act, under which the bulk of employees are employed. A very few professional engineers and technical people who are under the Public Service Act are currently permanent public servants. In the Commonwealth Public Service at present there are not many opportunities for employment and redeployment of these people and, in a sense, without wishing to exaggerate the case, they are almost forced into being conscripted into accepting employment with a new employer. If they are offered the same or slightly better conditions, they will be unable to get any redundancy assistance. Retirement is a very difficult option, if, say, one is approaching 50, with a family at its most expensive. These people, therefore, are losing their rights of permanency in the Public Service and are being pushed into employment with an employer for whom they may not wish to work. They might quite willingly be going to the new employer but might find that their employment is really intended by the employer to be for only a fairly short period. It may be that these people have some technical or accounting knowledge that will be very useful to the new employer in the short term and that their knowledge is simply to be sucked out of them and then, in a sense, they are to be spat out by the new employer. We are concerned to see that the rights of these people are protected in the 12 months after the transition period. We hope that the Government will look at the situation of these very few people, who do not have much opportunity currently to be redeployed in the Public Service, which I think would be the wish of most of them, and may be forced into either retirement or employment with a new employer against their will. We on this side of the chamber would like to see preservation of their rights to apply for positions in the Public Service without the disadvantage which comes from being outside the Public Service when applying for a job. Only a few positions in the Public Service would be applicable to these people, and they would be disadvantaged once they were outside the Public Service in relation to positions that are available only to people in the Public Service for promotion within. So we are speaking about a very few people. But if the Government intends to persist with the sale of these government companies, this is something which should be taken into consideration. The Government is unilaterally removing their right to be permanent public servants. We hope that the Government will see and acknowledge that it has some sort of responsibility to facilitate these people getting back into the Public Service within a reasonable period of, say, a year, or maybe two years, if an opportunity were to arise, so that they could apply on the same basis as if they were still in the Public Service. We hope to get an undertaking from the Government that it will protect this small group of people before the sale is finalised. I understand that the Government is prepared to look at this, and I am hoping that, when we get to the committee stage, such an undertaking will be forthcoming. It is only fair that all employees at the dockyard get fair treatment in something which is being taken above their heads by the Government, although I recognise that negotiations have taken place. The people for whom there seems to be small gap do not have much industrial muscle and are very few in number. The sale of the dockyard is taking place, not before time. As I have said before, it is very appropriate that it be privatised. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate any more by labouring the point. I wish the new owners well, for the sake of their employees, for the sake of the enterprise and for the sake of the nation. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.45) —I will not speak for long. The Australian Democrats have some reservations about the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill. In essence, we support the intention of the Government. We are concerned about some of the impacts of the Bill on those currently employed at the Williamstown Dockyard. However, we support the objectives of the Government in rendering the Williamstown Dockyard more efficient-as Senator Newman has pointed out, it has a bleak history of inefficiency-and the sooner we get on with the business of rendering it much more effective, the better. We respect the Government's intention of doing this without a huge burden upon the public purse. The strategy of this Bill, essentially, is to ensure the transition from Commonwealth ownership to private ownership with minimum redundancy payments. There was potential for an outgoing of between $4m and $13m had generous redundancy payments been undertaken. It is the intention of this Bill to avoid that impact upon the public purse, and we respect that intention. However, we make the observation that some of the effects of the Bill appear to be unjust and warrant the attention of the Government. I believe that initially some assurances were given that the Government would give the injustices appropriate attention and attempt to remedy them through regulation but, as Senator Newman has said, we will be seeking those assurances in the committee stage of the debate. It is interesting that, although the essential intention of this Bill is to avoid huge redundancy payments, the word `redundancy' does not occur in the Bill at all. The difficulties of the Bill hinge around the concepts of resignation and retirement. The impact of redundancy is catered for within the context of the Public Service Act. As Senator Newman has noted, the majority of employees are currently employed under the Naval Defence Act, but a significant proportion are employed under the Public Service Act and they would seem to be the ones who may suffer injustice should injustice occur. In essence, a ministerial announcement was made on Friday that the new owner is the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC). It is interesting that the new owner, the employer now, has a choice as to whom it will employ, but the employees have no choice, except as to whether they stay or leave voluntarily, the impact of one of those choices-namely, leaving-having the potential to disadvantage many of them. If we analyse the impact of this transition from Commonwealth ownership to private ownership by AMEC, we see that the current employees are confronted with four possible choices. The first of those choices is to be re-employed by AMEC under the same or better conditions, assuming that they are offered a position. I understand that, while approximately 1,000 people are employed at the dockyard at the moment, it is anticipated that within the next three to four months AMEC will offer in the vicinity of 300 to 400 positions, so it follows that in the vicinity of 600 to 700 people currently employed there will have to find employment elsewhere. So the impact of the transition in terms of employment will be quite considerable. That is the first possibility-that employees may be re-employed under the same or better conditions. Presumably they will no longer be public servants, but will be reasonably happy with their new situation because they have accepted it. The second possibility-this would seem to be the most frequent occurrence-is that an employee will not be offered a position at all. The consequences of this are one of two possibilities. A person who is not offered a position may be redeployed within the Public Service, perhaps within Victoria or elsewhere in Australia. One would imagine that of those who are offered redeployment and who accept it, a considerable proportion at least will be satisfied. It is quite possible that a considerable number will be dissatisfied by their new circumstances, but they will not really have much choice because they fall into the group of 600 or 700 who will not be offered a new position. The other possibility for those people is that they will not be offered a position elsewhere within Victoria or Australia but will be retrenched and become the beneficiaries of the redundancy provisions. Because the redundancy provisions are quite generous, one would imagine that they will be reasonably happy. The third possibility is that employees may be made an offer which they find unsatisfactory and may refuse it. They will fall into the same ongoing path as those I have just mentioned-they will either be redeployed or become redundant. However, the fourth possibility is probably the one of greatest conjecture; namely, that a person offered a position under similar circumstances will refuse it for personal reasons, perhaps having made a judgment about the new circumstances and deciding that the potential of the new position is not what he requires even though the conditions offered are the equivalent of his present ones. I believe these are the people who are likely to be most dissatisfied because, by virtue of doing that, they will be deemed to have resigned from the Public Service-the implications of that are quite considerable, financially and otherwise, for some people-but will not receive any redundancy payments. This is the group of people whom I believe Senator Newman and certainly the Australian Democrats are most concerned about. It may not be a large group; it could be between 10 and 20 people. In reality, it appears already to be a group of five to 10 people. We have to remember that these people are having this imposed upon them by a decision of the Commonwealth. Their life circumstances are being impacted upon, but they are not being offered any redundancy provision. We see them, to use Senator Newman's expression-one that we shared yesterday-as tantamount to being civil conscripts. They really do not have much choice. It would seem that they have been caught up in what is virtually a package deal. Not only has the plant been sold, but also the employees have been transferred, some of them without much real choice. In fact, a package deal has been undertaken which involves not only the sale of the plant, but also the sale of the expertise, the skills, the knowledge and the know-how that have been working within it. In the old days if one sold the boat and the rowers it was called slavery, but perhaps that is putting too much of an emotional interpretation on it. We are simply citing the fact that there is potential for injustice. In the committee stage of this debate we will be seeking assurances from the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) that those injustices can be attended to through regulation. As I cited earlier, it is a curious situation that these injustices are not catered for within the Bill itself, but we are dependent upon the provisions of the Public Service Act to cater for those potential injustices. It was the intention of the Australian Democrats to attempt to resolve this difficulty with an amendment and an amendment has been circulated. However, I now give notice that that amendment will not be moved. We are not convinced that it will achieve what we are hoping to achieve. It was only in the last 48 hours that we became fully informed, through our discussions with the Opposition and the Minister, as to the diverse implications of this Bill. It is quite complex. Although we thought that an amendment would correct the situation, we do not now believe that it would. In essence, what we were hoping to do was to impose a period of 12 months during which people had the right to make a choice, should an offer be made to them by the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation, as to re-entering that work force without loss of entitlement. We understand that, due to complications in the Public Service Act, that is not possible. Once redundancy payments have been accepted by a public servant they cannot be re-paid under any circumstances. The only way in which we could achieve that would be to insert a delay clause of 12 months before anybody received redundancy payments. Clearly this would be quite unsatisfactory for the majority who, by virtue of the nature of the shrinkage of the work force from 1,000 to 300, would take their money, go elsewhere and build a new work life. In essence, we have no fundamental objection of what the Government is intending to do, namely, to render the Williamstown Dockyard more efficient by its privatisation thus avoiding a huge burden upon the public purse. We simply state the fact that there is potential for injustice to be done and the matter cannot be resolved through an amendment to this Bill. We will be calling upon the Minister-we understand that the Opposition will also do this-to offer adequate assurances that these difficulties can be resolved, and will be resolved, through regulation. If we believe that the assurances are not adequate we will move a motion that the Bill be adjourned to the next session. We hope that that action will not be necessary. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.58) -The Senate is debating a Bill for an Act to make provision for certain employees of the Williamstown Dockyard. Staff at the Williamstown Dockyard number approximately 1,600. What is involved here is the sale of the dockyard to a new owner. It happens to have been owned by the Commonwealth of Australia and the new owner will be private industry. The Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987 deals with the conditions for those Public Service employees who may be made redundant in the changeover. With the greatest of respect, I would suggest that for Senator McLean to talk about this measure in terms of civilian conscripts and slavery is to put an incorrect emotional connotation on what, in one sense and at one level, is just a normal, everyday, commercial transaction going on in the business world. We have a responsibility, insofar as we are the representatives of the former owners, and our concern is the welfare of those men and women who have been employed at the Williamstown Dockyard and we do not wish to see them unfairly disadvantaged in any way at all in the transfer. At present they are employed under the Public Service Act or under the Naval Defence Act. Williamstown was a Royal Australian Navy dockyard. It dealt purely with building, re-fitting and modernising Navy ships. In 1982 it was transferred out of the control of the Navy into the Department of Defence. After having been advertised for an appropriate period it has been sold to the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation with two ships on order-the O5 and the O6, the last two of the FFGs to be bought for the Royal Australian Navy contracted to be built at Williamstown Dockyard. In April 1986 figures, that was an approved expenditure of $835,240,000. So we can see that nearly $1 billion of work is on the books for the incoming company. The purchaser, the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation, must have staff to operate the dockyard to build these ships. There are not many shipyards in Australia on which to draw for staff so the presumption is that the great majority of present employees at the Williamstown Dockyard will be employed by the new owners. The O5 and O6 are relatively large ships by Australian naval standards. They will have a full load displacement of 3,650 tons. Up to the present time employees could apply to leave the Commonwealth service subject to the approval of the Government because it wished to retain certain key personnel who are critical to the operation of the dockyard. Apart from those whom the Government wished to retain, employees of the dockyard had the right to leave and were eligible for redundancy payments. Redundancy payments were quite generous. They provide all leave entitlements-long service leave, recreational leave, 3 1/2 times their superannuation contributions, two weeks salary for each year of service up to a maximum of 24 years and four weeks termination pay-that were due to employees. The dockyard has now been sold and we enter into a transition period which will run for some months. During this period employees can leave or they can accept employment with the new owner. Those who leave are eligible for redundancy pay, as I understand it, and those who are offered less by the company than they are receiving at the present time will also be entitled to apply for redundancy pay. But those who are offered the same pay and elect not to take it are deemed to have resigned and, basically, their entitlement is diminished in that circumstance because they get the re-payment of their superannuation contributions plus interest and their leave entitlements, which is considerably less than that of those who are officially declared redundant. In general, the Opposition supports what the Government is doing. I think the Government has gone as far as it can in looking after the welfare of the employees of this dockyard. It has to be put on the record that probably no operation in Australia, no engineering works, has had the abysmal record that the Williamstown Dockyard has had over such a very long period. I think it is generous of the Government, on behalf of the people of Australia, to now offer redundancy terms when one looks at the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars that this dockyard has cost the taxpayer over the years of its life, which goes back over 100 years. Senator McLean said that we will raise some points in the committee stage of the debate and make a judgment as to whether amendments are required to look after some special cases or clear up some areas of uncertainty. The Opposition overwhelmingly supports and applauds the decision to sell the dockyard. The general rule that I hold-I do not hold it dogmatically or ideologically-is that governments simply should not be in commercial operations if they can be operated by the private sector. The reasons for that are basic and fundamental. The Public Service, it does not matter how intelligent or how devoted it is, simply does not have the experience in the commercial world that enables people to make a profit on a commercial operation. One has to make a profit if one is to stay in business. The Public Service does not have the judgment and, above all, it does not provide a system of incentives and rewards in the commercial field. If a public servant, who is the head of a department, gets involved in some commercial venture and loses $100m a year, no one censures him. When he comes before an Estimates committee, no one ever censures him for the lack of commercial judgment because it was a policy decision by the Government. But the taxpayer pays. In fact, the taxpayer probably pays twice because the person who loses $100m gets an increase in staff and probably advances up the promotional ladder, so he can lose $150m next year. Similarly, when someone is successful there is no way of beating the Public Service pay and salary structure to give him the sorts of rewards that he would get in private industry. In the past in Australia there was a definite need for the Government to be involved in commercial ventures. We had a very big country with a very low population and above all-this is the critical point-we were short of capital. It was very hard to raise money in Australia. It was relatively easier for the government of the day to go to the international markets and get the funds to build railways, government dockyards and all the things that were needed to develop the country. But that is all changed; we are in the 1980s now and we have no problems at all in raising capital. As the boards of Qantas Airways Ltd and Australian Airlines have made very clear, private industry finds it easier to raise capital for these enterprises in the commercial world than the Government does because the only way the Government can raise it is by taxing or by borrowing and taxing again to pay for the interest on it. That leads me to the crucial point: it is not difficult to raise capital now, but it is difficult to meet the interest payments on it. Private industry is much better able to meet those interest payments than governments. We applaud the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard to private industry. The Government has been aware of the abysmal record of this institution and over the last two or three years it has tried as hard as it can to reform it. But the Government has recognised that while there have been some improvements-some of which have been significant-these are nowhere near enough. The reason why it cannot get enough improvements is that being a Labor Party government it is a captive of the trade union movement. We are bedevilled by the rigidity of the work practices dictated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its minions. In a flash of honesty the Government has recognised that as it will never beat the union movement, and as it will never make Williamstown Dockyard efficient, it will sell it. Although that move was reached by a tortuous path, we applaud it. But the point I want to put before the Senate this morning is that selling the dockyard to private industry does not necessarily solve any problems. It does not necessarily save the taxpayer one cent. Unless the Royal Australian Navy and the Department of Defence get their act together and run the program correctly, with correct program management, instead of our paying taxpayers' money directly to the dockyard for a hugely expensive program, we will now pay it through the circuitous route of paying for cost overruns caused by inefficiency. We are looking at a very big program here. As I said before, in April 1986 the approved cost was $835.24m. By the time the ships are completed in the mid-1990s, the program will probably cost at least $1.2 billion. It is very difficult to get out of the Navy figures relating to costs. I have gone back through a few of the recent Estimates committee transcripts. I would like to quote from them to illustrate how I have tried to determine from the Navy the cost of this program. Unless the FFGs can be built at a reasonable price, we are better off buying them overseas and using the scarce funds to put some weapons on them and to flesh out the Department of Defence, thereby giving it an operational capability. On 17 April 1986-in the Estimates Committee hearings I asked a general question on shipbuilding. The Hansard reads as follows: How is the frigate construction at Williamstown going? Has it been subjected to any audit in any way at all? Rear-Admiral West-It has not been subject to an audit. Senator MacGIBBON —Is it on time and is it on cost? Rear-Admiral West-It is running on cost at the moment. It is about two to three months behind in its current program. I do not know that that means it will be delivered late. Senator Watson —That is a contradictory statement. Senator MacGIBBON —As Senator Watson says, it is a contradictory statement. On 18 September 1986 at an Estimates Committee hearing I asked: Is the Williamstown Dockyard construction of the fifth frigate on schedule and on budget? Commodore Hunt replied: Let me try to separate those two questions. Indeed, my compatriots from the Office of Defence Production might want to join the conversation. Because of the number of issues involved in this project, which sees the first major warship construction at Williamstown for a long time, the agreements reached between the Navy, Defence Production and the Dockyard allow for a band of completion. For instance, we have set ourselves the task that the first ship will complete within a band of June 1990 to June 1992. The answer then to your first question is: Yes, it is inside that band. However, having set ourselves a plan to stick to the front end of the band as a guideline, the answer is: No, we are probably just a little under nine months. I presume that is behind. On 7 April 1987 Senator Vigor asked how the AFP 05 was going with respect to schedules and budgets. The answer from Commodore Hunt was: Senator, 05 is now scheduled to be completed by mid- 1991. As I have explained in previous hearings of this Committee, the agreement between Navy, the customer and yard management, was that 05 would be delivered in the band 1990-92 and 06 in the band 1994-96. So while the slippage in the front end of the band has been something like nine months for 05, she is still inside the agreed delivery time. At the last Estimates hearing on 22 October 1987 I asked the question again of Rear-Admiral West: Is the Australian frigate program, given the rubbery limits you have for schedules, within those limits? The Hansard record then reads: Rear-Admiral West-It is still in those limits. Senator MacGIBBON —How have the dockyard staff been performing? Have you had any industrial problems? Rear-Admiral West-They have come along quite well. They seem to be improving as the years go by and they get used to building ships again. At the moment we are perfectly on schedule and on budget for our anticipated progress this year. The very fact that we have these rubbery time spans of about two years for the completion of the ship speaks volumes for the confidence that the Department of Defence does not have in the dockyard. But we will wait and see how these costs pan out. One is left with the impression that the decision in late 1983 by the Labor Government to award the contract to Williamstown Dockyard was made initially to satisfy the union movement so that it had some work on hand. Also, when the Government realised that it was going to sell the dockyard it was convenient to be able to fatten the goose before it was killed by having nearly $1 billion on the order books. The fact that we are building these ships at Williamstown also raises the very real question of whether we need to build warships in Australia, given the facts of life in the 1980s. The question really turns on how much of a premium we pay for building them in this country. It is worth paying some amount of money and we can argue as to how much it is, whether it be 5 per cent or 10 per cent. It is probably not worth paying much more than 10 per cent for home construction because we do not get terribly much out of building warship hulls in this country. The great technology transfer comes from the weapons systems and the electronics. We would be much better off buying the hulls overseas, if there is a significant cost difference, and doing the fit-out in Australia and developing our own electronic industries. There is simply no flow-on to the commercial world from the skills we learn in warship hull construction. The commercial shipbuilding world is dominated by the Koreans, the Chinese and the Japanese and we will never be able to compete with them. One of the great difficulties we find in this Parliament is dealing with the Department of Defence and getting information from it as to what its objectives are and how it arrives at its decisions, particularly with regard to the Navy. I am on record as saying that I find the Department of Defence the worst department to extract information from. I place on record also the fact that the Navy is the worst of the three Services from which to obtain any information in public. From that limited information that is available, one can make a few observations. Navy seldom seems to know clearly what it wants and how it wants to go about getting it. It also has the fatal habit of always wanting to have its own unique design. It always wants a ship specifically designed for tasks that no other navy requires. The building of a ship is a very complex exercise. It is as complex as the building of an aircraft. Senator Watson —It happened with the Tobruk. Senator MacGIBBON —The demand for a unique design incurs enormous cost penalties on the taxpayer. The Navy has never been able to satisfy me or anyone else in this Parliament that the huge cost penalties of its unique designs are beneficial, desirable and cost effective. We would never dream of saying to aircraft manufacturers around the world that the Royal Australian Air Force wants a fighter plane with specific performance characteristics. We would not do that in regard to a strike aircraft or a transport aircraft, either. We would look at what was available on the world market and pick the most appropriate from a production line in existence. Maybe we would modify it slightly in relation to the weapons fit. That is what happened with the F18. A fault analyser that was a little different from that installed by the Americans was installed. Most importantly, we installed a high frequency radio, which was quite a complex modification. Basically we buy the design that exists. But Navy always requires its own design. That has cost us a fortune. Navy has tried to cover up this criticism by saying that it always calls in its tenders for a built design-a design that is already in service. From memory, Navy has never honoured this undertaking in the contract. It has always ignored it once it assesses designs. The Fremantle class was not a built design. It represented a stretching of a stretched design that was built for the New Zealand Navy, which was a stretch design of a patrol boat built for the Persian Gulf. It was only the brilliance of North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd that enabled that ship to be built on time and on budget. As Senator Watson interjected a few minutes ago, HMAS Tobruk was probably the closest to a built design that the Navy achieved, but it blew it by using a heavier grade steel. The ship cannot beach in the way in which it is meant to beach, and discharge its tanks and cargo on to the beach, because it now has a heavier grade plate which means that it has a deeper draught that will not permit it to go as close to the shoreline, so it is in deeper water when the doors open. HMAS Success, built in the French Durance class, was another bungled design. It probably cost two to three times what it was contracted to cost, because of Navy's mismanagement. Simple things that Navy did continually while the ship was being built added immeasurably to the cost. I will give the Senate one example. Navy decided it required a heavier pallet size for ammunition and stores. Because the pallet size was heavier, it needed a bigger forklift truck. This meant there was a greater all-up weight for the pallet and forklift truck. That meant that the decks buckled, so heavier steel plates had to be put on the decks where the cargo was carried. This meant that heavier deck beams were required. The whole thing rolled on exponentially, due to a lack of management skill by the Navy. It did not know what it wanted. We have been through the drama of the submarine program. We find out now that the bow section and, it is rumoured, probably the stern section, will have to be built in Sweden because the Swedes simply do not know how to build power discharge tubes into a bow section for a submarine which is nearly twice the size of any submarine they have built before. Again, it was supposed to be a built design. But Navy rejected the only two built designs that are in existence in the world today-the Upholder class by the Vickers Shipbuilding company for the Royal Navy, and the RNV Walrus design for the Royal Netherlands Navy. The two built designs were excluded from the submarine program. I warn the Navy that the day is moving inexorably closer when, in light of information now appearing about that submarine program, the Senate will set up a select committee to inquire into all matters pertaining to its selection. The Navy simply has no idea what it wants from the Anzac class. At an Estimates committee hearing on 22 October, various officers of the Department, in answer to questions as to what the design requirements were for that ship, stated in effect that they wanted a hull for $240m. They have no idea what the weapons fit will be. They talk loosely about `fitting as required'. One of the facts of modern life is that, as the British found when they sent ships to the Falklands without air defence weapons systems fitted to them, one must come as one is when an emergency starts. One does not have time to put ships into dockyards and spend six or nine months fitting them with elaborate air defence weapons systems or anti-submarine sensors. If those ships are not fitted up there is not much use having them. Yet that seems to be the mistake we are making with the Anzac class. Navy simply does not seem to have any concept of operations. More accurately, the concept of operations that Navy has will not stand up to any rigorous intellectual examination. The result is that we have now committed about $8 billion to $10 billion of taxpayers' money to the submarine program, the FFGs and the Anzac class. This will take up half of the capital expenditure during the next 10 to 15 years. We must ask: Are these the right priorities for the shipyards and the Navy to be embarked upon? I would argue that they are not the right priorities. Because we do not have a concept of operations from Navy that is realistic, we do not know what equipment is needed. The obvious deficiency is the lack of any amphibious capability. As I said years ago in the Senate, in any emergency in which we are involved we will need to deploy troops and equipment over the beaches in the South Pacific region. That dictates some amphibious capability. Yet it was Navy's own decision to cancel the amphibious capability we have, to disband the amphibious squadron and disperse the talent that we had. Not only is it a Navy loss; it is an Army loss. For years the Army's 6th Brigade at Enoggera simply has not been able to do any amphibious training. The ships are no longer there. We have no organic air power at sea. That means we cannot protect the ships in a hostile environment. It is absolutely mandatory that one has air power at sea. That was learnt generations ago. The greatest threat we face today does not relate to battleships coming over the horizon or submarines torpedoing ships; it relates to a simple aircraft with an Exocet, Harpoon or other air launched air to surface anti-shipping missile. It is a cheap, deadly, effective weapon. The only counter to that is anti-air-being able to establish air superiority around the ship or ships that are operating in that area. It is a prime essential for the Royal Australian Navy to have that, yet the Navy will not do a damned thing about it; nor will the Government. We are spending a huge amount on antique diesel electric submarines. No other power in the world would be embarking on this course for its sole sub-surface element, upon a diesel electric build, which is already outdated before the first one comes into service. The matter of redundancy payments for dockyard workers raises some significant questions for this country. It is not simply a matter of whether we make redundancy payments to the dockyard workers; of course, we should. We have an obligation to look after their welfare. We also have an obligation to the people of Australia and the taxpayers to ask what the dockyard is doing. There are a number of profound questions on this matter that the Government simply avoids. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(12.25) —I was interested to hear Senator MacGibbon make the point that no government-owned enterprise could make a proper commercial decision and that it was fairly inevitable that Williamstown Dockyard would go out of business. I suggest to him that he should do a little research and find out why the shipyard at Whyalla, the Evans-Deakin Industries Ltd shipyard in Brisbane, the shipyard at Maryborough, which was owned by Walkers Ltd, and the shipyards at Mortsdock and Newcastle came to grief. Most of those shipyards were run by private companies and were able to make commercial decisions. Senator Newman talked about how bad the union position was. She should note that the term `industrial relations' obviously implies that there are two sides to any argument, that two sets of forces operate in any enterprise-that is, the one that looks after the interests of members of unions and the one that looks after the interests of management. Either the unions or management can make mistakes; either one or the other can make decisions which may be based sometimes on a feeling of anger or a feeling of not being able to achieve what is believed should be achieved. I do not think anybody can reasonably suggest that all of the problems-or most of them even-at the Williamstown Dockyard were caused by trade union activity. The shipyards that I have referred to perished as a result of demarcation disputes and work practices. I have been involved with those and know a bit about them from personal experience. This cannot be said for honourable senators opposite who seem to substitute ignorance for expertise. Those work practices, which originated in the United Kingdom, were engaged in by both management and trade unions. I say categorically that this was not a good arrangement. Such practices have begun to cease; a move away from that concept is already proceeding. The unions had to make a decision about what they would do at Williamstown when they were faced with the possibility of closure. Obviously they sat down and negotiated a settlement for the transfer of ownership with compensation for people who would be likely to lose their jobs and move out of the industry. Senator McLean has talked about the arrangement as a package. It is quite normal for such a package to be negotiated between two interested parties. I think it is important to be concerned about what will happen at Williamstown from now on. Honourable senators opposite can parade this rubbish about past conflicts and say that what has happened will always happen in the future. It is easy to do this, particularly if one is ignorant and does not know what industrial relations are all about. It is quite easy to talk from that point of view. I suggest that both management and the trade unions have learnt from the past. The trade unions, for instance, have developed policies and taken action in regard to education and training and skills formation. Some of the unions have moved towards amalgamation. The unions have also sought to change work practices of their own volition on the basis of merit. Let us look at a classic example. For many years shipwrights and boilermakers had fierce arguments, which sometimes involved other engineering trades in the shipyard. The metal workers union and the shipwrights amalgamated. As a result of that amalgamation, a proposition was put and negotiated with the employer to establish the position of shipbuilding tradesman under which tradesmen of three different types could perform the one function and as a result become much more efficient and eliminate restrictive work practices. That is a practical application of union amalgamation. It is not airy-fairy rubbish such as that that the Opposition talks about always, as I have said, from a position of absolute ignorance. That is what has been done already. We should also take note of the work practice changes which are already in the pipeline; the fact that amalgamations are going to be extended further, which will remove friction from the area of work application, the area of who may do a particular job; the question of job security; and the question of skills formation, which means multi-skilling. All of these things have been done. A new approach is needed. The trade unions have taken that new approach; they have taken the lead. I suggest that the Opposition should read some of the interesting comments in Australia Reconstructed which refer to many of these things. We need industrial democracy if we are to have the best possible result at Williamstown. We need the involvement of the workers in decision making. When they achieve the sorts of productivity levels that are possible they need to have a clear understanding of what they are about, why and how they will benefit. It is very obvious that they need the support of a national enlightened union to assist them in formulating ideas and policy in this matter and to give them some instruction on how they should behave and respond to employers. Also, some pressure needs to be put on employers in relation to their standard of behaviour. There needs to be some sort of mutual approach which will lead to increased productivity, keep the shipyard alive, maintain the level of jobs in excess of 1,000 and create a position where the workers will benefit in terms of the income which they take home to their families. The community will benefit because the workers have a taxpaying capacity and are creative. The continuation of the shipyard will mean that we will not have to purchase ships overseas and this will result in a large difference in terms of our balance of payments. I think the Bill is a good one and I commend it to the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.31) —The Senate is debating the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987. I do not intend to canvass the detailed redundancy aspects of the Bill which have been adequately debated by my colleagues. I look forward to the new philosophy, direction and attitude of the union movement towards shipbuilding in Australia. Unfortunately, the Williamstown Dockyard has had in its recent history a very checkered career. It is hoped that the sale of the controlling interest to private enterprise will lead to a new era of success and profitable operations for the yard. The Bill before us this morning serves a twofold purpose: first, it will bring about a major restructuring of the defence shipbuilding industry; and, secondly, it will have long term benefits for the defence budget. Naturally, the Opposition supports this sort of philosophy and hopes that the two aims which have been outlined by the Government will be realised. But I think we have to be somewhat realistic in recognising that Williamstown, unfortunately, has not completed a warship since the HMAS Swan in the 1970s. However, the yard has been involved in the modernisation and fitting out of river class vessels and is involved in the Australian frigate program. I think it is good that the State Government of Victoria and the unions have supported the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard. I think the sale price was approximately $100m. But the Senate should be reminded that the problems at Williamstown actually began in 1975 as a consequence of an ill-judged decision by the Whitlam Government, coupled with the prevailing national economy of the day, to cancel the DDL project which would have seen Williamstown building three sophisticated destroyers designed specifically for Australian needs. As a result, Williamstown as such was left with a skilled labour force and little work to do. This is another thing that we can thank the Whitlam Government for. The Fraser Government took a much more constructive approach when it came to office. A committee was established under the chairmanship of Mr Ross Hawke, a senior shipbuilding executive, to study the Williamstown Dockyard and make some recommendations as to its future use. Mr Ross Hawke recommended privatisation. It is pleasing to see the bipartisan support which has been given to this Bill which moves in the privatisation direction. I only hope that after this sale takes place the new management at Williamstown will be more responsive than the management has been in recent years. The long time lags and delays in the work of the yard are to be eliminated. In the House of Representatives, the Liberal National Party shadow Minister for Defence, Mr Peter White, an ex-defence man, gave the example of a nine-month delay in getting materials into the yard because of the tendering system and the long bureaucratic processes. In the course of preparing a review of defence project management as a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I visited the Williamstown naval dockyard. Following that visit, I am not surprised that the yard was forced to move to privatisation. The lack of some safety features was really quite alarming and gave no credit either to management or to unions. I will give three brief examples. Although there were adequate warnings around the plant about safety issues, there appeared to be both a management and a union disinclin- ation to enforce even the most minimal of safety measures. I acknowledge that the yard had good, up to date technical, physical features. On the safety aspect, we witnessed a man assisting another man who was cutting metal. That assistant had no eye protection even though metal was being cut with a gas torch. We witnessed employees carrying around sheets of metal with the naked hand, without glove protection. These people were wearing sandshoes. However, an adequate supply of gloves and steel-capped boots was available in the store. While some people were wearing them, a significant number were not wearing metal-capped boots or safety gloves and were handling freshly-cut metal. In the pit area of the dock, where cranes and gantry were moving overhead, not all employees were wearing hard helmets. The success of the sale is highly dependent on the attitude of the unions. New approaches will have to be devised to maximise the introduction of new technology and modern work practices. I thank Senator Burns for his assurance on behalf of the union movement that it has acknowledged the need to implement new work practices. But one of the problems of this dockyard under the old regime appeared to be the inability of the manager of the dockyard to control his employees. The problem was that there were too many bureaucrats of independent status, operating from Canberra, who had a finger in the operations. An example is that the manager's right to fire for violations of safety issues and other related matters was a drawn-out and complicated process which required numerous contacts and communications with Canberra. The other big difficulty was that there was a lack of performance targets. That sort of operation should have provided an ideal opportunity for what is now known as program budgeting. Despite the sale of the dockyard, we hope that the Department of Defence-which will still have quite a close interest in the dockyard because it will be building for defence purposes-takes notice of the Public Accounts Committee's 223rd report. For example, we drew attention to the need for there to be skilled departmental quality assurance personnel on site in sufficient numbers to efficiently and effectively fulfil the quality assurance programs, because that is where there have been significant delays in relation to our shipbuilding program. One cannot blame the dockyards, as such, for these problems. The blame must go well and truly to Defence. The members of all future on-site resident Department quality assurance teams must have adequate skills and expertise and a clear understanding of departmental policy on quality assurance. The Australian Shipbuilders Association feels that there should be a review of the contracting arrangements for ship construction. I remind the Government that the most effective form of industry protection is the construction of ships in Australia, because the maintenance of a de-fence capability of the industry would be greatly assisted if we had a proper sequence of defence orders. Unless there is that sort of continuity, one cannot blame the dockyard for loss of ear-nings. We have to acknowledge that the Government has bitten the bullet in making this decision. Naturally, we congratulate the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, on this. But I am disappointed that this step has taken such a long time, and that the delay, inaction and resulting inefficiency unfortunately have brought about a decline in morale at the Williamstown Dockyard. It has plummeted. The Government has also announced that the lease of the Cockatoo Island Naval Dockyard will not be renewed after the current refitting work on the Oberon class submarines is completed in the 1990s. We on this side of the House believe that this should lead to a sensible and, hopefully, effective rationalisation of shipbuil-ding and fitting facilities to meet the requirements of the Royal Australian Navy as it moves into the twenty-first century. In the other chamber, the Opposition really did not have a chance to refute some wrong allegations that were made by the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, who contrived to blame the Fraser Government for the inefficiencies and lack of management at the Williamstown Dockyard. As I have pointed out, the problems of the dockyard began when men were recruited and equipment was purchased by the Whitlam Government to undertake the DDL project which, for political reasons, was then abruptly cancelled. Contrary to the statement that the Fraser Government contributed to the problems of the yard, Mr Fraser and his then Minister, Sir James Killen, took a special interest in trying to solve the problems they inherited. Not only did they set up an expert committee under Mr Ross Hawke, but they implemented many of his recommendations. Certainly there have been enduring problems, which privatisation should address. But the point has to be made that it was a Labor government which originated many of these problems. So the taxpayer has already invested in all the new equipment and facilities, or much of it, required to build the light patrol frigates on time, to budget and to specification. So the decision behind this Bill to remove those aspects of the bureaucracy and the inflexible employee organisations which have hampered the Williamstown yard is welcome. Having reminded the Senate of the recent history of the Williamstown Dockyard, I join my colleagues in supporting this Bill. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(12.43) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions and their indicated support for the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill. The Government's decision to sell the Williamstown Dockyard was made in consultation with the work force there and it received, for the most part, support-it was not unanimous support from the work force. This Bill represents a package. It is always very difficult when people come along with further suggestions, wanting, perhaps, to put a bit more turkey on the plate, for us to accept them. It is the policy of this Government in this case to sell the dockyard. It does not indicate any greater policy of philosophical commitment to selling government enterprises. I note that my Victorian Australian Labor Party colleague, Mr Halfpenny, philosophically is opposed to privatisation. But on this occasion he was one of the negotiators who decided that it was in the best interests of the dockyard that it be sold. A couple of points were raised in the debate. Senator Newman referred in particular-and will probably do so again in the committee stage-to the situation regarding certain employees and their right to re-enter the Australian Public Service. This matter is not contained within this legislation. It is subject to the Public Service Act. I understand that the Department of Defence has written to the Public Service Commission suggesting that these people be given those sorts of rights. We do not have a response at this stage, and we cannot give a categorical assurance on those matters other than that our intentions are good and we believe that should be the position. Senator McLean referred to people who receive equivalent offers from a purchaser but who, for personal reasons, do not want to take them up. These people are not in a true redundancy situation. The dockyard enterprise is on-going. It is therefore not appropriate that they should receive redundancy payments, because they have the opportunity for continued employment. It is not practical to give people in these situations unlimited choice. They do have certain choices before them. But no doubt these matters will be explored in the committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Local Government, Senator Reynolds, is again absent from the chamber for Question Time today, and she will be away for the rest of the week. The injury that she sustained has proved to be more serious than was first thought. Any questions in the chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Reynolds in relation to her portfolio or those she represents should again be directed to the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer the Minister to the latest chapter in the saga of the Coastwatch contract, namely, his announcement last night that the interim Coastwatch contract now being performed by Skywest Aviation Pty Ltd will be extended for a year, to March 1989, that is, 18 months after the termination of the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract in September. I note that the Minister in his statement says that the contract extension will be negotiated: on the basis of an extension of the charging rates contained in the previous Skywest contract, with necessary allowances for the acquisition or modification of equipment. I note that his Associate Secretary, Mr Roger Beale, told the Senate committee of inquiry that the existing rates for the interim service that Skywest is performing are lower than the rates for the original Skywest contract. In that event, will the rates to apply until March 1989 be the higher rates as in the original Skywest contract or an extension of the rates now being charged under the interim contract? Furthermore, what is the estimated cost of modification of equipment? Will this modification upgrade the Skywest aircraft in its service to the standard which Amann was intending to use, or will the Coastwatch service continue to operate for an extended period using planes below the standard specified in the previous tender requirements? Senator GARETH EVANS —The major matter referred to when we talk about the modification or acquisition of equipment involved the re-establishment of the number of Skywest planes back to the basis of the original contract. There had been some divestment of planes by Skywest in anticipation of the contract going elsewhere, but once it became apparent that the interim arrangements were going to extend for a number of months-at least 12 and now 18-it became apparent that there would be a necessary re-acquisition program which would involve the amortisation of the capital expenditure incurred over a relatively short period, and thus justify some increase in the rates involved. How precisely the different elements of the equation will fall out in the final calculation of the rates payable is a subject of discussion with Skywest at the moment. It would be premature for me to go into any detail as to what precisely the rates would be, or how they would be put together, and what particular components would be attributed to what. I am happy to make that information available once the arrangements are settled. Senator Durack will appreciate that, although it is a commercial negotiation taking place within limited parameters, it is nonetheless a commercial negotiation and it does not help any such negotiation to embark on public discussion in the kind of detail that he is suggesting that we ought to. To my knowledge, there has not yet been any discussion as to whether the modification to Skywest aircraft should include some of the modifications that were proposed to the basic equipment in what was to be the current period of the contract-for example, larger bubble windows than are presently installed on Skywest aircraft, and other matters of that kind. It is a matter for consideration as to the capital costs involved in making those modifications, as compared with the extra degree of efficiency in the surveillance task that would be associated with carrying them out. It is a matter to be considered as to how that balance falls out. I may not be in a position by Question Time on Friday to elaborate further on these matters, but if I am I will do so Senator Durack. Otherwise, I will let him know as soon as possible. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister did not deal with the point about the flying rates-namely, that they will be continued on the basis of the previous Skywest contract. Are those the rates under the interim contract or are they the rates under the old Skywest contract? I refer again to what his departmental Associate Secretary, Mr Beale, said when asked about this matter in the Senate committee recently, which was: In terms of the actual rates that apply they were amended to take into account the tender processes themselves and the lower bid that was made by Skywest itself for the operation of the contract. What rates are we talking about-those under the previous contract or those under the interim contract? Senator GARETH EVANS —I would need to check what Mr Beale has said, as I have not read his evidence and I am not sure whether the passage that Senator Durack has quoted is to be taken as saying that the original rate has prevailed but with some add-ons during the interim period, or whether a new rate has been struck. It is not my impression that a new rate has been struck, but it was my impression that there were some negotiated add-ons to cover the particular contingencies and the circumstance that the numbers were larger. Whether the basic rate in issue is the previous base rate, or whether it has changed, I am not certain. Essentially, my answer is the same as the one I gave before. I am not prepared to speculate or discuss detailed matters of rates and charges which are presently the subject of negotiation by the Commonwealth, with the taxpayer's interests in mind. Senator Durack has been around this place long enough to appreciate that, without wanting to score some cheap political points in pursuing a matter which has no further milage in it. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Can the Minister advise on the Government's plans for the construction of the air traffic control training college which had been proposed for the Watson High School in Canberra? Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me clear up a further loose end which has been the subject of some discussion and a point of interest for the Opposition. The situation is as follows: The Cabinet has decided to defer further the commencement of the construction of the proposed aviation central training college to enable consideration of an alternative concept for the training of air traffic control and flight service staff, involving that training taking place in a technical and further education (TAFE) college or a college of advanced education (CAE) environment. Up until now, air traffic services staff have been trained on an in-house, salaried basis by the Department of Transport and Communications, formerly the Department of Aviation. Planning was well under way to continue that in-house training concept at a new college to be constructed at the former Watson High School site here in Canberra. This would replace the existing outmoded and cramped facilities in Melbourne. The new alternative concept, which has emerged primarily from a proposal put forward by the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology (TSIT) in Launceston, would involve trainees completing a two-year associate diploma course which would be capable of later being upgraded by additional study to a three-year, full diploma course. Students on this sort of model would receive cadetships rather than being salaried as government employees from the outset. It has become apparent to the Government, looking at this proposal, that it holds potential for quite significant savings through undertaking training at an existing institution rather than a new facility being built especially for this purpose. In particular, it would exploit opportunities for linking the course work with training currently being provided at the Commonwealth funded Australian Maritime College in Launceston in areas such as radar and search and rescue. In addition to a thorough evaluation of that TSIT proposal, consideration would also be given to the potential for associating a Canberra-based alternative with the Australian Capital Territory TAFE colleges or CAE. We want to look at the full range of options thrown up by this new proposal to look at the training in a tertiary context, rather than just an in-house professional context as previously. Senator Reid —Put it at the CCAE. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have already said that we will look at the TAFE and CCAE alternatives. A detailed review of these two different approaches will now be conducted-but within a short time frame-and completed in order to allow a final decision by the Government in February, which will in turn still allow a 1989 start-up for the new training program. I should say that this review will involve consideration of such matters as, obviously, the relative costs of the proposals and the educational advantages of the respective proposals, including in particular educational requirements for the performance of air traffic services functions and the effects on the career prospects of the staff concerned. It will address the impact of the proposals on the efficiency and effectiveness of air traffic and flight services programs and, in particular, it will address the balancing of supply with demand, which is a real problem the more one lengthens out these courses. Obviously, it will also address the longer term implications of the different approaches for salary levels and staffing arrangements generally. Finally, I should say that although there have been expressions of interest in conducting this kind of training in other cities, and in other institutions in other cities, the Government's further consideration of this issue will be limited to the Launceston and Canberra options, not only because of obvious timing constraints but also because of the equally obvious locational advantages of each-Launceston by virtue of the scope for co-ordination with the Maritime College, and Canberra through the potential for efficiency gains through co-ordination with my Department and the soon to be established Civil Aviation Authority. Senator Reid —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the paper he quoted from. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. Senator Reid —Mr President, I shall move later that the Senate take note of the paper. Senator GARETH EVANS —You will have to get Senator Watson and Senator Walters to join you in that. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Did the Minister have a telephone conversation with Sir Peter Abeles on or about 2 September 1987, or on any other occasion, concerning the Coastwatch contract? What was the nature and purpose of that or any other such conversation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I simply cannot recall. I did have one conversation which touched on that in the aftermath of the acquisition by Ansett Airlines of Australia of Skywest Aviation Pty Ltd, the substance of which was that Ansett had no particular interest in the matter one way or another and that I should resolve it as I saw fit, based on the contractual merits of the occasion, without the need to be concerned that there would be any litigation initiated of the kind that I think was being threatened in a roundabout way, or more directly by the Skywest management at the time. I have no recollection of when that conversation was. I think that it was the only conversation I have ever had on the subject. Certainly it was one that does not give any encouragement to those conspiracy theorists around the place who have seen all along some mysterious third party or some other hand lying behind the course of events. That is absolute nonsense. It is particular nonsense in the context of Ansett's interest in this, which was minimal. Senator MESSNER —I have a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask the Minister to check his diary and his memory at some later occasion and advise the Senate by the end of the week of any other developments. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, I do not keep a diary on those sorts of things. I know that Senator Messner would be so excited at getting a call from just one businessman in the country prepared to take notice of him that it would be a red letter day in his particular diary, but I am afraid that that is not the sort of thing that I would take particular note of. Senator BEAHAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer him to his answer yesterday to a question asked by Senator Zakharov regarding a letter from Mr Howard to his colleagues rejecting the proposition that the tax policy of the Liberal Party of Australia was based on supply-side theory. Has the Minister, as he said yesterday he hoped he would, received any further information in relation to the evidence Mr Howard has put forward in regard to his contention that his were not supply-side proposals? If so, what is that information and will it provide a basis for any change in Government policy? Senator WALSH —Yesterday in Question Time I expressed my disappointment that nobody in the Liberal Party had yet leaked to me a copy of Mr Howard's letter. The degree of unity in the Liberal Party has now been so enhanced that it took a whole three hours before a couple of pages from the letter hit my office in the proverbial brown paper envelope. I presume the reason that I did not get all the other pages-the ones I got were numbered 17 and 18-was that whoever it was who leaked the letter to me was mentioned unfavourably in some of the other pages. If somebody else cares to supply the first 16 pages I would be grateful to receive those as well. Perhaps the letter went out only to members of the Liberal Party front bench, in which case the search for the leaker is narrowed down quite a bit. Anyway, on page 17 of the letter Mr Howard wrote: During the campaign we were under attack from the Labor Party because of the alleged severity of the expenditure cuts that would be needed to pay for our tax reductions. The whole `Wendy Wood' series of TV commercials had this as their theme. Now the claim is made that our policy was based on supply-side economics. According to Mr Howard, `The conflict is obvious'. Of course, the fact is that the Opposition election policy contained both a supply-side component and a very large number of unfunded cuts. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. No one would hesitate to describe the Minister's current ramblings as debating anything. It does appear to me that in substance he is debating the question rather than answering it. As I recall the question, which was asked a very long time ago now, it asked the Minister whether Government policy was going to be changed. Now he seems to be, as is usual, just wandering around tiptoeing through the tulips, in one way or another. Mr President, I suggest that you call him to order and if he is not interested in answering the question that was asked of him by his Western Australian colleague, may I suggest that you sit him down so that we can ask some other Minister a question. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Walsh was asked whether he had received the document. He is quoting from it. But I remind the Minister again not to debate any issue when answering a question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I was also asked in the question whether Mr Howard had put forward a defence of his contention. As I said, there was of course both an unfunded cut component and a $900m supply-side component-plus, if I might say so, another $900m worth of blue sky in enhanced tax collection. Senator McLEAN —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Is it the case that section 3 of the Koongarra Project Area Act 1981, the section which excises the Koongarra mining project area from Kakadu National Park, has never been proclaimed? Does the Minister agree that this is an area of great ecological significance and that mining there would also make a significant impact on other sections of the park, especially the South Alligator River catchment area? In view of this and the second Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry report recommending against mining in the Koongarra area, will the Government move to repeal the Koongarra Project Area Act and return the excised Koongarra area to its rightful place in the Kakadu National Park? Senator RICHARDSON —I think the first thing to do is to look at the history of this matter. The Koongarra project area was first excluded from Kakadu National Park when stage 1 was nominated by the Fraser Government back in 1979. The purpose of that effort on the part of the Fraser Government was to vary the boundaries of Kakadu National Park to facilitate the Koongarra project. If section 3 of the Act were to be proclaimed now, the shape of the window would change. That does not mean that it would be eliminated; it just means that it would be altered. As far as the past is concerned, and even looking into the future, I have stated in this place on a number of occasions the Government's policy on uranium mining. It remains unchanged and, for the foreseeable future, it does not look like changing. We have a three-mines policy for Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs, or Olympic Dam as it is otherwise known. Under the policy no approval would be given for mining at Koongarra and, in any event, no valid mining leases have been given over its area. Title to the land is in the Aboriginal Land Trust. Aboriginal agreement would, therefore, be required if we were to attempt to put it back in the park and to hand it over to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Of course, it is worth noting that the Northern Land Council has signed an agreement with Koongarra Energy Ltd on behalf of the Land Trust to become a joint venturer in any proposal. The fact that we are not allowing mining at Koongarra, and do not intend to allow mining at Koongarra, means that the environmental impact question simply does not arise. Finally, I point out to Senator McLean that repeal of the Koongarra Project Area Act would not change the current situation at all. Senator SCHACHT —Will the Minister for Transport and Communications give some indication of what mechanisms could be used to ensure that the aged, infirm, single parents and other low income groups that are particularly dependent on telephone communication are not disadvantaged by a move by Telecom Australia towards a system of timed local telephone calls? Senator GARETH EVANS —Perhaps I should say at the outset that telephone call charges essentially are a matter for Telecom in the first instance rather than the Government, with any decision eventually made by Telecom being subject to close consideration by the Prices Surveillance Authority before it comes anywhere near the Minister for formal approval. Telecom is keen to have a proper, full public debate on the issue of timed local calls before introducing any system of call charges. Telecom will be setting that debate, I hope, on a solid basis with the Managing Director's proposed Press conference tomorrow, at which conference the reasons for Telecom wanting to go down this particular track will be fully explained and a number of different possible implementation options will be set out as a basis for discussion over the next six to nine months. For those sorts of reasons I have not wanted to pre-empt any of Telecom's presentation in this respect. But it might help to relieve some of the more extreme concerns that are presently being expressed if I were to mention now just some of the considerations that Telecom has in mind, which will be more fully explained tomorrow, focusing particularly on the problem to which Senator Schacht has adverted-that is to say, problems that will arise for pensioners, for the disabled and for those who use the telephone as a lifeline, if some very expensive new regime is introduced. I think it is appropriate to make three points at this stage. The first is that any such proposal for timed local calls would necessarily involve a cheaper basic call rate than the present 20c. The basic timing unit would be longer than the three-minute timing unit presently used for subscriber trunk dialling (STD) purposes-it could be six minutes or it could be eight minutes; that is one of the things that are being talked about-and the rate for that basic unit would be less than the present 20c local call charge. I think it will put it in perspective if I say that the overwhelming majority of local calls will, in that context, clearly end up being very much cheaper than they are at the moment. More than 82 per cent of all local calls presently take six minutes or less. More than 88 per cent of all local calls presently take eight minutes or less. So against the background of whether the timing unit is six minutes or eight minutes and, on the basis that that timing unit will be charged for at a lesser rate than the present 20c-- Senator Walters —We are being brainwashed now. Senator Collins —Shirley, give it a rest. Senator GARETH EVANS —Might I incorporate Senator Collins's interjection. On that basis, and for the reasons I have indicated, which I think even Senator Walters can appreciate, the overwhelming majority of local calls presently taking place would be cheaper under this regime. The second point that I make is that any proposal for timed local calls would certainly involve very cheap off-peak rates. Among the options being considered in this respect, and which will be spelt out more fully tomorrow, is a combination along the following lines: for weekends, from 6 p.m. on Saturday to 8 a.m. on Monday a 60-minute call could be held for a single unit fee; that is to say, less than the present 20c. For a week night call from 6 p.m. through to 8 o'clock the following morning, it is currently anticipated that, under this sort of option-and there are many others that could be considered-a 30-minute call could be held for a single unit fee. So those are the sorts of options for extended calls that we are talking about that would be compatible with the timed local call system. The third point that I make is that, in addition, it would be possible for specific provision to be made, for example for pensioners, by an extension of the present pensioner rebate system. It would be possible, for example, to make some provision along the following lines-and this is another sub-option that is being talked about: a rebate for eight free 10-minute calls made during the week-day non-concessional period, which would cost perhaps $5 to $10 per month. These sorts of proposals would be in addition to the other sorts of considerations that could be given by government departments and business organisations to a wider use of the 008 toll free number, as I mentioned the other day, and a number of other options of that kind. Finally, Telecom is acutely conscious, as is, of course, the Government, of the sensitive and very different problems that are involved. But the problems with the present system are real and we really need to think in a serious way about workable and equitable solutions to these problems. I am sure that those solutions are possible. Senator Messner —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the document from which he quoted. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, Mr President. Firstly, it is confidential and, secondly, the honourable senator would not be able to read it. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, after that last answer I am tempted to ask whether you will introduce time charging for answers to questions. My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications, follows the fascinating answer that Senator Gareth Evans gave to Senator Messner's question, in which he suggested that the import of a telephone call from Sir Peter Abeles was that the Minister could make his own decision about the Coastwatch contract. I ask the Minister: At any time prior to the Government's decision to cancel the Coastwatch contract awarded to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd, did Skywest Aviation Ltd tell the Government that, if any concessions were made to Amann in relation to aircraft modification, it would immediately withdraw all its services, thus ending the Coastwatch service and severely embarrassing the Government? I ask: What was the Government's reaction to such a threat? Did this threat in any way influence the Government in its decision to cancel the Amann contract? Senator GARETH EVANS —I recall a whole variety of communications being made, mostly by letter, and others being transmitted through the various Opposition parliamentarians who were acting as a conduit for the Skywest neuroses through the duration of the Amann affair. I have a vague recollection that some proposition along those lines may have been advanced. There were also threats of litigation made at various stages and, as I previously indicated, it was in the context of possible litigation on behalf of the Skywest interests that I recall the particular telephone conversation occurring. It is a grotesque misrepresentation of what I said for Senator Chaney to characterise it in the way that he did at the outset of his question. I say finally that none of those recommendations from Skywest-whether along the lines of the one, if there was one, to which Senator Chaney was referring, or on any other basis, whether threatening litigation, threatening a withdrawal of services or generally carrying on; and there was a fair bit of carrying on going on during this period-made one iota of difference to the particular decision that I and the Government made in relation to the termination of the Amann contract. That was made entirely on the grounds of rigorous scrutiny of the terms of that particular contract, the character of the performance and the judgment about the inability to perform. Beyond that, of course, the nature of the contractual termination decision is the subject of litigation. I do not propose to comment further on the reasons for it. I have already, I think sufficiently, put it on the record. But I reject absolutely and comprehensively any suggestion that any course that the Government or I took during this particular period was based, in any way, upon any of the representations directly or indirectly received from Skywest. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of the confused nature of the early part of the Minister's reply when he concedes that there probably was some sort of threat made, I ask the Minister whether he can recall that the Associate Secretary of his Department, Mr Roger Beale, in a written report to him dated 1 September 1987, said: Skywest has signalled that its reaction to Amann being allowed concessions in relation to aircraft modifications will be to withdraw its services from all remaining bases. Later in the same report he said: The Commonwealth would accordingly be forced to bear much of the odium of a major breakdown in the coastal surveillance service. I ask the Minister: Was he given that clear advice by his Department? Given the nature of it, why is his recollection of it so fuzzy? Would he like time to refresh his memory and to give us a straight answer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have, again, a vague recollection of Mr Beale talking to me in terms of the poo being likely to hit the fan. He expressed it a little bit more cautiously and a little bit more bureaucratically in the letter. But I repeat without equivocation the response I made earlier that, whatever the consequences that might be contemplated as flowing from Skywest behaving in any particular way during this affair, it is inconceivable that that could have influenced the decision that was made about Amann. Every decision that was made every step along the way that I was involved in from the time of taking up this office was based on an assessment of the contractual responsibilities of Amann, whether or not those responsibilities, those obligations, had been met, and the legal consequences that flowed from that. I reject absolutely the various snide innuendos and other forms of more direct challenge to my integrity that Senator Chaney is offering on this occasion as he does so often, in his usual oleaginous fashion. Senator Messner —I ask Senator Chaney to table the document from which he has just quoted. The PRESIDENT —Will Senator Chaney table the document? Senator Chaney —Yes, I am happy to do so. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I ask: Will the new Antarctic vessel, which is to be built in Australia as announced by the Minister today, have a significant effect on Australia's scientific research in the region? The PRESIDENT —I am sorry, I did not hear who that question was directed to. Senator Zakharov —Senator Richardson. The PRESIDENT —I call the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. Senator Richardson —I am sorry, I did not hear the question. The PRESIDENT —Senator Zakharov, would you please repeat the question. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. I ask: Will the new Antarctic vessel, which is to be built in Australia as announced by the Minister today, have a significant effect on Australia's scientific research in the region? Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr President. I apologise to the Senate for being momentarily distracted. But having just received the news that as a senator for New South Wales I will be able to remain one for some time without facing another election, I think that is a matter for some celebration and I was distracted. My apologies. The PRESIDENT —I was reading the same document myself. Senator RICHARDSON —I think the President and I are the happiest of the New South Wales senators but there are a few smiles around the room. Turning to Senator Zakharov's question, there are a number of implications-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I tabled a document, Mr President. I would like it to be tabled since it has not been tabled, as yet. I handed it to an attendant and I would like it to be tabled. Senator Gareth Evans —How often have you asked for documents to be tabled? The PRESIDENT —Order! The document will be tabled. Senator RICHARDSON —There are some major implications that flowed from the Government's announcement this morning of the decision to have an Australian built, Australian crewed and, indeed, a ship flying the Australian flag as part of our Antarctic efforts. The first point to make is that in the Antarctic, if we have one scientific role of prime importance at present, it is in support of the Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and the treaty which deals with marine living resources. I think the fear shared not only by this country but also by a number of others is that the resources of the oceans in and around Antarctica are under threat. If we are to monitor those resources, we need adequate fish stock and scientific research methods. To do that we need a different construction. In a very short space of time we will have a platform on our new vessel which will double the capacity that we had with the Nella Dan and finally allow us to do all that we can under CCAMLR to monitor those fish stocks. I, for one, am delighted that members of the Cabinet have agreed to that. The other problem not often discussed with the Nella Dan is that the only helicopters that we could have on board in travelling to and from the Antarctic had to be stored on deck. When they are stored on deck they are subject to weathering. Therefore, we could never get new ones. They were always old and very small. We are now able to get larger ones that have got medium and longer range. This will mean that we will be able to service our summer bases and will be able to go to other points of interest in that 42 per cent of the Antarctic which Australia claims as its territory. That will mean a significantly increased scientific effort from Australia and we will be able to hold our heads high for the first time in decades as a leading nation in the area. Senator CHANEY —My question is to Prince Charming, the Minister for Transport and Communications. I noticed the Minister had a chance to thumb quickly through the document that I tabled a few minutes ago and to see that the quotes which I gave him were accurate about the report he had received from Mr Roger Beale about Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd signalling that its reaction to Amann Aviation Pty Ltd being allowed concessions would be to withdraw its services from all remaining bases. In light of that, I ask, the Minister whether he stands by his statement in the Senate on 21 September when he said: . . . there is no truth or substance whatever in any suggestion that might be made that Sir Peter Abeles or anyone acting on his behalf exerted pressure of any kind on the Government to cancel the Amann Aviation Pty Ltd contract. Senator GARETH EVANS —Absolutely. I have no cause whatsoever to alter one word of what I said then or what I say now. Senator COOK —I refer the Minister for Finance to the claim by Mr Howard, reported in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, that the effect of the Liberal's tax package would have been to cut more than on Mr Howard's own figuring, the $270m being `the difference between expenditure savings to be achieved under our policy in the first year and the cost of the proposed tax reductions in the first year'. Can the Minister explain the technique by which the deficit can be cut by more than the net figure for expenditure savings and tax reductions? If so, will the Government employ this technique in preparing the forthcoming May statement and the 1988 Budget? Senator WALSH —Senator Cook seems to have got hold of page 18 of the letter of the Leader of the Opposition to either his front bench or the Liberal Party caucus and he quoted from it. I was asked whether I can explain the technique by which the deficit can be cut by more than the net figure of expenditure savings and taxation measures. The answer is no, I cannot explain that. Therefore it is not a technique which the Government will be using. My inability to understand how that can be done may be related to my confident expectation that I would be able to add up a column of figures without making a $1,500m error. Perhaps Mr Howard's belief that one can get more from savings than the net figure for expenditure adjustments and tax changes is related to his inability to add up a column of figures. Nor can I understand how, as Mr Howard claimed, `the enhanced revenue base would not have been affected by our commitments to abolish the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax', but he also wrote that on page 18 of his letter. More importantly, this letter ignores a number of other commitments that have already been given by the Opposition regarding the expenditure cuts that the Government made in its May statement. On page 18 of his letter Mr Howard stated: The coalition would have left in place the measures contained in the May statement. That is, if it had won the election. This statement cannot be reconciled with the undertaking given by Mr White in a Press release of 14 May to restore defence cuts, which are worth $350m, or the undertaking given by Peter Shack in Press statements on 13 and 18 May to restore education cuts, to remove restrictions on eligibility for Austudy, and to remove the assets test on the unemployment benefit for over 25-year-olds. In round figures, those measures are worth another $70m. Mr Howard's statement also cannot be reconciled with the undertaking given in a Press release of 14 May by John Moore, the shadow transport Minister, to restore cuts to road funding. Or by Michael Baume-remember Michael Baume, the one-time shadow Minister for Health?-in a Press release on 14 May promising to reverse changes to benefit arrangements for in-hospital private medical services. Those promises given by the Opposition to reverse May statement decisions represent a total of about $700m. Mr Howard is now writing to his own people, in what he was foolish enough to think would remain a confidential letter, that the coalition would have left in place the measures contained in the May statement. I do not want to make this answer unduly long, Mr President, but I also draw attention to the promises of the National Party of Australia. In a Press release on 14 May the National Party communications spokesman, Mr Sharp, promised to reintroduce sales tax exemptions for major Commonwealth-owned authorities, such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post-that measure is worth nearly $400m-to restore cuts to road funding, and to remove the assets test for unemployment beneficiaries over 25 years old. If the statement written by Mr Howard-I presume that it was circulated last week-that the coalition would have left in place the measures contained in the May statement is correct one can only assume that he and various other Opposition spokesmen, who promised in May to reverse a number of May statement decisions, were again fibbing. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer to the answer given by the Minister, Dr Blewett, on Monday, 7 December, concerning the charge by Dr Jodhi Menon of the Private Doctors Association of Australia of massive medifraud taking place within the Health Insurance Commission by its employees. Did Dr Blewett mislead the other place when he said that Dr Menon had not provided concrete proof of his allegations to the Government? As both Dr Menon and the Private Doctors Association of Australia have provided submissions to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, for which they have receipts, and have supplied evidence to the Australian Federal Police, and as bogus cheques, bogus complaints and bogus addresses are now flooding into the Private Doctors Association, how can the Minister ridicule Dr Menon's charge and put this massive scam down to Medicare's extraordinary low error rate? Why will the Government not release the Australian Federal Police report entitled Review of Fraud Against the Commonwealth completed last April instead of bouncing it around between Ministers? Senator RYAN —I do not think I can add anything to what Dr Blewett told the House of Representatives last week. In his reply, Dr Blewett pointed out that Dr Menon had, in the past, made extravagant claims about Medicare and had never been able to substantiate them. For example, Dr Menon is reported to have claimed that Medicare had lost up to $5 billion in 10 years because of an elaborate computer fraud involving bogus cheques allegedly issued by Health Insurance Commission employees. Considering that Medicare is not quite four years of age, this is a remarkable revelation. Dr Blewett has acknowledged that clerical errors can occur, for example, when the doctor's provider number is not shown on account documents and staff are required to make a computer inquiry to try to locate the correct number. The error rate is low. For example, in September in New South Wales the error rate was only 0.29 per cent for direct bill claims and 2.14 per cent for patient claims. It is the case that Dr Blewett said that Dr Menon had provided no concrete proof of his allegations, and he requested the Australian Federal Police to arrange to interview Dr Menon so that he could provide proof. That interview has taken place and, as far as I am aware, proof has not been provided. In relation to the fraud report in which Senator Sheil expressed an interest, my colleague Senator Tate has just passed me a note pointing out that the Review of Fraud Against the Commonwealth was tabled some months ago. Senator Sheil will be able to read it at his leisure. Senator McKIERNAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a Press release issued by Mr Peter Reith, shadow Attorney-General, concerning the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill recently passed by the Parliament? Is the Minister aware of comments made in the Press release that the number of bankruptcies in Australia is at record levels? Is the Minister also aware that when speaking to the Bill in the House of Representatives, the shadow Attorney-General attributed the level of bankruptcies to the Government's economic policies? How does the Minister respond to Mr Reith's assertions? Senator TATE —I thank Senator McKiernan for his question. The matter of bankruptcies in the community is one of great importance, and Mr Reith has made much of it in his Press statement. I am sorry that he has departed from the bipartisan attitude which had characterised the approach of both sides of this chamber to the question of amendments to the bankruptcy law which, I thought, went through the Parliament earlier this session in a very good spirit. Figures show that, in the financial year ended 30 June 1987, 7,495 Australians became bankrupt, so obviously there is a serious problem within the community. We need to look a little behind these figures-as Mr Reith was quite capable of doing, but he chose to ignore a closer reading of them. Figures provided by the Attorney-General's Department, which are in Mr Reith's possession, show that, although bankruptcies are on the increase, it is in the area of consumer bankrupts that this is so. By `consumer bankrupts' I mean those people who, in the course of their usual activities, have overcommitted themselves with credit providers and wind up being forced into bankruptcy either by their creditors or on their own application. The passage of the Bankruptcy Amendment Act earlier this session and the action taken by my colleague the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr Peter Staples, are positive signs that the Government is responding to the problem. In the Bankruptcy Amendment Act the Government introduced a pre-bankruptcy moratorium. There was evidence that persons in the community with debt problems were choosing to go bankrupt without fully appreciating the consequences. For example, it is not widely known in the community that a bankrupt must surrender his passport; nor can a bankrupt generally obtain credit. The moratorium gives the person a seven-day period of protection, a cooling-off period, so that he or she can seek advice as to alternatives to bankruptcy. We also propose to produce a video explaining in a clear way what bankruptcy is all about. People will be requested to view that upon attendance at the Federal Court registry. Senator Walters —You will have to send out a lot. Senator TATE —Senator Walters can scoff and laugh but there have been cases where people have gone in and declared themselves bankrupt, as it were, on an impulse and got themselves into terrible strife rather than having this seven-day period in which to consider consulting some debt counsellor and going through all the implications. In any case, the Opposition supported this concept when the legislation was passed a few weeks ago. Apart from those amendments, the Minister for Consumer Affairs proposes to hold a debt summit early in the new year. In this way the question of how people become overcommitted and how this can be prevented will be addressed. Senator Alston —How much are you wasting on that? Senator TATE —Does Senator Alston not think it is a worthwhile exercise to try to find out why people in the community are being led into consumer bankruptcy? I think this is a very important issue which is harming many households and many good and decent Australians who find themselves trapped by the over- extension of credit by unscrupulous traders and finance companies. As to whether the Government's economic policy is, as Mr Reith suggested, the underlying reason for the increase in bankruptcies, that also has been well and truly rebutted, as a perusal of last Sunday's Times on Sunday article by Christine Rau would indicate. That article stated: Analysts are also unanimous that a widespread lack of management expertise and more aggressive behaviour by the banks are more important as key reasons than the recession. Richard Grellman, a partner with Peat Marwick Hungerfords, says that- speaking of the experience of his firm- those going broke on the land were one of the `rare instances' of economically induced bankruptcies. `It generally has little to do with the economy. People are getting into business that are just not suitable or competent to run them. They would be better off employed by someone else' . . . That is the opinion of a partner in a firm which over the last five years has done a tremendous amount of work in this area. The Professor of Business Studies at Wollongong, Professor Grant, has also made that very clear in his various comments on this subject. On the whole I am trying to say that there is a very real problem out in the community. This Government is attempting to tackle it by preventing people making impulsive and quick decisions to make themselves bankrupt, as it were. The summit being organised by my colleague Mr Peter Staples will, I believe, bear good fruit and prevent a lot of distress into which so many households are plunged. Senator Brownhill —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Minister to table the paper he quoted from. The PRESIDENT —Will the Minister table the document? Senator Tate —That is not a point of order, but I am happy to table it. The PRESIDENT —I did not say that it was a point of order. Will you table the document? Senator Tate —Yes, I will. Senator WALTERS —Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General confirm the report in the Brisbane Sunday Sun of 13 December of considerable lobbying between the Australian Labor Party factions for a new appointment to the position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the Human Rights Commission? Has Ms Pam O'Neil resigned from the position? Is Cabinet considering the appointment of either Ms Quentin Bryce or Ms Helen L'Orange without a public advertisement to ascertain interest or making the position available to the best qualified person on the basis of merit? Senator TATE —I understand that Ms Pam O'Neil has resigned and that the matter of a replacement has been before the Cabinet. I am sure that, when the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, desires it, a suitable announcement will be made. As to the other questions about what lobbying may have gone on, I do not know anything about that. As to the more detailed parts of the question, I will refer them to the Attorney-General for his consideration and response. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am quite sure the Minister did not hear me because of all the fuss being created by his backbenchers behind him, but I asked whether Cabinet considered the appointment of either Ms Quentin Bryce or Ms Helen L'Orange without a public advertisement to ascertain interest or making the position available to the best qualified person on the basis of merit. Senator TATE —There is no way I would divulge any short list which may have been before the Cabinet of those who might be suitable for this appointment. As to the question of advertising, I will refer that to the Attorney-General and, as I said, get a response. Senator Vanstone —What about the advertising? Don't you know? Senator TATE —No, I do not know. Senator COULTER —My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment and the Arts. By way of preamble, I point out that this question is being asked because of the superficial, dismissive and ostrich-like attitudes repeatedly expressed by the Opposition to sound scientific evidence in relation to the greenhouse phenomenon. Is the Minister aware that a large number of high level scientific meetings have been held throughout the world in recent years on the so-called greenhouse phenomenon? Is the Minister aware that the United Nations Environment Program, the World Meteorological Office and the International Council of Scientific Unions have published a statement making the following predictions: a rise of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees centigrade in global temperature; a rise of between 0.2 and 1.6 metres with a mean of 0.8 metres in sea level; and significantly different global weather patterns, all within 40 to 50 years from now? Has the Government adopted a preventive or adaptive attitude to these predictions? If preventive, how is the Government modifying policies in response to these predictions? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of a large number of high level scientific meetings to discuss the problem in recent times, the most recent to come to my attention having been the Greenhouse 87 conference held in Melbourne just a few weeks ago. I know that preparations are already in hand for a Greenhouse 88 conference to follow up the good start that was made this year. Senator Hill —Call a summit. Senator RICHARDSON —I would not treat this matter flippantly. I think the greenhouse effect is a little more important than to warrant a typical flippant response. I think Senator Hill should go back to the airport and get on another plane. He will find a destination; he always has. I am also aware that the predictions referred to by Senator Coulter, while they are certainly alarming, are within the broad range generally accepted in the world scientific community. That should be sufficient to make us all sit up and take notice, because such climatic effects would have devastating results for all parts of the globe. They would have devastating results economically, socially and environmentally. One wonders where our agriculture would be if this were to come true. However, given that the main cause of the greenhouse effect is the combustion of fossil fuels, the response of the Australian Government-or, indeed, of governments around the world-will be difficult to ascertain at least in the first couple of years of looking at the problem. I think that Australia's response in the first instance should be to find out enough information upon which to react. The main problem with that is that most of the research from which the figures Senator Coulter quoted are drawn has been conducted in the Northern Hemisphere. Very little research has been conducted in our area of the woods, so to speak. That being the case, the Australian and New Zealand governments have already agreed to collaborate on scientific research into the problem. A couple of weeks ago my counterpart in the New Zealand Government, Mr Palmer-I might say, just as Minister for the Environment, that I have not reached his other dizzy heights-and I put out a Press statement to announce that we had held some discussions about that collaboration and about how it might proceed. Of course, Australia is a relatively small contributor to the problem, so whatever response we make in slowing the greenhouse effect will be minimal indeed. What we can do, though, is to act, as we have in so many other areas, as a voice for sanity in world forums, and we will certainly be applying our influence. Senator Vanstone —Do you see yourself on the world stage? Senator RICHARDSON —No, but there are others in this Government who are more than well qualified to strut the world stage, and have done so admirably and with success. I have no such ambition. However, we will use our voice in international forums to try to urge those countries of the world that can have a major effect to do so. At the last meeting of the Australian Environment Council this matter was discussed. We have agreement across Australia that the advisory committee to the Council will look at the problem and report back to us next year. I just add, in my answer to Senator Coulter, that I will provide him with a copy of that resolution so that he can see how far it went. Finally, I have raised the matter with my counterpart, Mr Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Small Business, who is co-ordinating research within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). We will attempt to upgrade the priority given by CSIRO to this research. That, inevitably, will mean getting successful outcomes in the Budget next year. Senator Walsh and Mr Keating being the sorts of people they are, I am sure I will have further to report at that time. Senator COULTER —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I am surprised to hear the Minister imply that somehow or other the global atmosphere stops at the equator. I have noted that the International Council of Scientific Unions has said, among other things: Many important economic and social decisions are being made today on long-term projects . . . based on the assumption that past climatic data, without modification, are a reliable guide to the future. This is no longer a good assumption. In view of that statement, will the Minister answer my last two questions? Has the Government adopted a preventive or an adaptive attitude towards these predictions and, if preventive, how is the Government modifying its policy responses in the light of these predictions? Senator RICHARDSON —I thought I had answered at least the tenor of Senator Coulter's question. First off, I must take issue with Senator Coulter because I do not think that I suggested that anything ended at the equator. However, I did suggest that the primary causes of the greenhouse effect do emanate from the Northern Hemisphere and affect us all; there is no doubt about that. I am sure no one disputes that. Having said that, before announcing the Government's response to the greenhouse phenomenon, I think it would be appropriate to get some more research. I have outlined that we have a program of research with the New Zealand Government. When that is completed, we will outline the response. Senator TATE —As Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I was asked a question by Senator Bishop on 10 December. I seek leave to have the question, and answer from the Minister, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ELLIOT-NEWCASTLE WATERS ABORIGINES PROGRESS AND HOUSING ASSOCIATION INC. Senator BISHOP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware that the Elliot-Newcastle Waters Aborigines Progress and Housing Association Inc. of Elliot in the Northern Territory, which for some time has been extended credit by suppliers on the basis that recompense is made when the Association receives its periodical funding from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, has had that government funding withdrawn, leaving outstanding debts of more than $200,000? Is the Minister further aware that creditors have been told that the assets of the Association cannot be sequestrated because they were purchased with government funds and as such are prescribed assets? Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the creditors who extended credit in good faith will be paid? Senator BISHOP —I ask a supplementary question. If, when the Minister refers the matter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the answer is in the negative, that is, that the Association's debts will not be paid, will the Minister then take steps to inform members of the business community of the consequences they face if they issue credit facilities to organisations whose assets can be proscribed? Suggested answer The Elliot Newcastle-Waters Aborigines Progress and Housing Association Inc. was funded by the Aboriginal Development Commission. The Commission has advised that the Association is in financial difficulties apparently because of management problems associated with construction contracts it had secured and inadequate costing. The Commission has, in response to requests from the Association. engaged a firm of accountants to review its indebtedness arranged for legal advice to the association convened a meeting of Government agencies to develop a strategy to protect the interests of Aboriginal people at Elliot. The matter of the sequestration of the Association's assets, is one for the creditors to pursue if they so wish, through the means normally available to them to prove debts against allegedly defaulting debtors. I am advised that the Sheriff at Tennant Creek has already seized a motor vehicle belonging to the Association. It is assumed that when creditors provided credit they would have done so on the basis of prudent business practice which would involve confirming the true credit-worthiness of the Association and any encumbrances attaching to its assets. The Commonwealth does not accept any liability arising out of the transactions between the Association and suppliers of goods and services to it. Senator TATE —I was asked a question, as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, by Senator Crichton-Browne on 24 November. I seek leave to have the question, and answer from the Minister, incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- KALUMBURU ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY: FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT Mr President, I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the financial management problems that have been and presently are being experienced by the Kalumburu Aboriginal community located in the Kimberley region of Western Australia? If so, can the Minister say what was the cause or causes of the financial mismanagement? What is being done to solve the community's financial problems and to prevent their recurrence? Is it a fact that the Aboriginal Development Commission is looking into a proposal to purchase an aircraft for the use of the community? If so, can the Minister say why the purchase of an aircraft is being considered in light of the community's financial problems and in light of the fact that the charter flights presently servicing the community are not heavily booked? In these circumstances does the Minister consider that the purchase of such an aircraft would be a waste of taxpayer's money? Suggested Response I am aware of the past and present situation at Kalumburu. The community experienced some financial difficulties in late 1986 and early 1987 as a result of the sudden departure of a key community support person. The Kalumburu community is a self-managing group and whilst the Government had provided it with financial assistance, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs only became involved when it was apparent that there were some problems in the community's financial affairs and action needed to be taken in the interests of ensuring proper controls in the expenditure of public moneys. I should stress that when the Department became aware of the situation it assisted the community to institute strict financial controls. The community is currently trading itself out of its financial difficulties and expects to have paid out all creditors by the end of the financial year. All that has happened so far in regard to the possible purchase of an aircraft is that the Aboriginal Development Commission has simply engaged a consultant to examine the feasibility of various options for air transport to and from the community. The consultant's report is not completed at this stage, but when it is no action will be taken until a proper assessment has been made and it has been considered by the Board of Commissioners. Senator TATE —I was asked a question by Senator Panizza on 14 December. I seek leave to have the question and answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- COMPENSATION CLAIMS Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Commissioner for Employees Compensation received 340 claims for compensation following the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia and that he allowed only 13 of these on the grounds of contraction of cancer? Is it further a fact that the Commonwealth, presumably on advice from the Attorney-General's Department, is appealing against all these decisions and that, in the first case to go before the Federal Court of Australia, the Commissioner's determination was upheld by a single judge but rejected by a Full Bench to which the Commonwealth decided the matter should go? Does the Minister not agree that the Commonwealth is behaving in a very contradictory way in that, having opened up the issue through a royal commission, it now appears to be doing everything it can to avoid the consequences of its actions? RESPONSE TO QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE-SENATOR PANIZZA COMPENSATION CLAIMS The Government policy in radiation cases and on the recommendations of the McClelland Royal Commission as stated in the Senate on 17 September 1986 by the former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, is that the Government does not seek to deny compensation where it is justified, but will make full use of the appeals process where it believes Commonwealth liability does not exist. The Commonwealth Commissioner for Employees' Compensation has received 340 claims for compensation from employees and former employees of the Commonwealth in respect of the nuclear tests. As at 2 December 1987 he had allowed 13 on the basis that the claimant had a radiation-caused condition and 13 in respect of other causes. As at that date 49 cases were under investigation and 21 had been investigated but undetermined pending resolution of the appeal to which the Honourable Senator referred in his question (the Bird case). The appeal to the Full Federal Court concerned the interpretation of section 30 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The Commonwealth's earlier appeal to a single judge of the Federal Court had been dismissed. Mr Bird claimed compensation is respect of carcinoma of the tongue which he attributed to peace-time service in the RAAF after the Hurricane nuclear test in 1952. He had serviced and cleaned aircraft at a time when they were contaminated. The delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation determined that, as the service had possibly caused the carcinoma, the reverse onus provision contained in section 30 applied to make the Commonwealth liable to pay compensation. The Full Court found that material before the delegate would have enabled him to find that the minor exposure to ionizing radiation which Mr Bird suffered in the course of his employment was not a probable, but could have been a possible, cause of, or a contributing factor to, Mr Bird's disease. The decision went on to affirm the Commonwealth's view that to attract the reverse-onus provisions of the Compensation Act in radiation cases, there had to be a probable (not merely possible) cause of a claimant's pathological condition. On 11 December the High Court granted Mr Bird special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court decision, and the matter is likely to be heard early in 1988. The Commonwealth has not appealed to the AAT all cases in which the Commissioner has found liability, but has done so only where it considered the finding to have been unjustified on the evidence available. The PRESIDENT —I believe it will be of interest to all honourable senators for me to announce that I have been advised, in response to a telephone inquiry to the Registry of the High Court of Australia, that the petition lodged with respect to the eligibility of Senator Wood to be chosen for and to sit in the Senate has been dismissed with costs. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) -Earlier today I indicated that I would seek leave to move that the Senate take note of a paper tabled by the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) entitled Air Traffic Services Training. Leave granted. Senator REID —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is important that the Senate look at the matters placed before it this afternoon by the Minister in answer to a question. It seems that the Minister has not read the report of the Joint Committee on Public Works relating to the construction of the former Department of Aviation's central training college in Canberra. It also seems that he has not read the report of the Location of Australian Government Employment Committee into the need to locate the central training college in Canberra. We are now faced with the situation that, for some political reason which has little to do with aviation, the Minister is now prepared to do a deal with somebody to shift the college from Canberra to somewhere else. We do not know where else that may be, apart from the fact that Launceston is being considered. I have no quarrel with Launceston or with the people of Tasmania, but I certainly have quarrel with this Government for the way that it is treating the national capital. It is quite clear from the reports to which I have referred that the central training college ought to be in the national capital. The Public Works Committee made that plain. The report on employment made it plain, and I will refer to some aspects of that report. The training which will be provided is not available elsewhere. Under the heading of `air traffic control' the report refers to the need for the college to be in an area where there is high traffic density, which is the case here but not in the other place. The former Minister for Aviation referred to the Committee the requirement that it consider Watson High School in addition to the other site at Pialligo on the basis that the Minister and the Government knew that it would cost about $1m less to have the facility at Watson High School than to have it at Pialligo, and considerably less than to locate it in Tasmania. The report also refers to the fact that one of the reasons for shifting the college from Melbourne to Canberra was that in Melbourne it had been near the central office of the former Department of Aviation. When the Department of Aviation moved to Canberra, a considerable amount of funds were spent by people from central office travelling to Melbourne to visit the college. For that reason it was decided that it was better for the college to be near the central office. Mr President, can you imagine the additional costs incurred by taxpayers if officers from the central office have to travel continually to Tasmania and back? That is a consideration which ought to be taken into account. The Minister says in his statement that that is being taken into account. But it seems hardly likely that it is being considered at present. It is important for the building industry that we retain what construction we can. The Master Builders Association has commented on the impact on Canberra if the facility is not located here. It is a small amount, but it indicates the Government's attitude to my electorate. Money has already been spent on the project. The Minister says that not much has been spent, but I suggest to him that he may find that nearly $1m has already been spent. Work has been done at Watson High School. Can he deny that electronics contracts have already been let for this site? I have mentioned the loss of contracts for industry in the Australian Capital Territory. Does the Minister also know that the simulator wing needs to be got under way right now if it is to be ready in 1989? The initial consideration of this site took the Department about three months of intense investigation. It was given five days to come up with a report to move the college from Canberra to somewhere else. It is quite clear that the officers responsible for this matter within the Department know where it should be and why it should be there. It is some external political influence which is causing this confusion and chaos at present. I know that we are under time constraints. I have much more to say, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Senator Stone, proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take timely action to address: (a) the results of its own past policy failures, and (b) the need for action to protect Australia against the impending international economic consequences of the policy failures of the major world economic powers. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.10) —The matter of public importance that I have placed before the Senate this afternoon asks the Senate to discuss the failure of the Government to take timely action-and I stress the word `timely'-to address two important topics: first, the results of the Government's own past policy failures; and, secondly, the need for action by the Government to protect Australia against the impending international economic consequences of the policy failures of the major world economic powers. Within two days the Senate will adjourn for the Christmas-New Year recess. The House of Representatives adjourned almost a week ago. Sittings of both chambers will resume on 16 February next. In other words, for two months we shall run through a period during which the results of the Government's own past policy failures, and its inaction in addressing the results of those past policy failures, will continue to mount, and during this period the consequences of the policy failures by the major world economic powers for the state of the international economy will also continue to mount. I know that this Government is a tired government; I know that it badly needs a rest. But this postponement of any action to correct the course on which we have now been set for some time is simply irresponsible. After all, this call for action from the Opposition is not new. I am sure that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) will recall that on Budget night itself we sat side by side, in an atmosphere of relative amity-a relationship which we always have-and I said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) radio in discussion with him that, while the mini-Budget of 19 May last had moved the fiscal policy of this Government in the right direction although not far enough, the Budget itself, brought down some four months later, had totally failed to follow up that possible beginning. I said at that time on the ABC program that the result would be that we would find, as the months ahead of us then unfolded, that the pace of adjustment on which the Government had set its course in the Budget Papers would prove to be insufficient. I said that against the background of the then known level of our international debt, which was already very high-in the order of $A109,000m-and which the Budget Papers themselves had revealed to be growing apace by, on the Government's own estimates, something like $11 1/2 billion more in the current financial year. I also said at that time that we were, of course, heavily at risk from any adverse developments abroad. All of this was said on the evening of 15 September. On 20 October we saw the Australian stock market crash and continue to plunge in the days thereafter to an extent far greater than any other major stock exchange in the world. A week or so after those events commenced, we saw the international foreign exchange market crash and, again, our own foreign exchange market crashed in the wake of it. I remind the Senate that at that time the Opposition also called for action from the Government. In this place on 26 October, a little less than a week later, I moved an urgency motion. It is instructive to refresh one's memory of the terms of that motion. I urged the Senate to express its concern that Australia's gross foreign debt, at around 40 per cent of gross national product, is now among the highest in the world; and that our level of business fixed investment, even prior to then recent events in the stock market and financial markets generally, was forecast in the Budget Papers to increase by only 4 per cent in real terms, or little more than in line with the forecast growth in GDP. We all know that those figures have now been sharply revised downwards. I also asked the Senate to note that the state of these fundamental indicators of economic ill health renders the Australian economy excessively vulnerable to any adverse change in world economic conditions. In addition, I asked it to note the serious risks for Australia which were involved in the matters I had raised. My motion called upon the Government to undertake urgent measures to speed up the pace of the economic adjustment which, as the Budget Papers themselves conceded, has to be made. A few weeks later, on 17 November, in a speech I made in this place on the second reading of the Appropriation Bills, I reiterated those warnings-as indeed did many other Opposition senators in the course of that quite prolonged debate. I wish to quote a passage or two from the amendment that I moved to the second reading motion of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I moved: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate is of the opinion that: (1) this Bill- that is, the Appropriation Bill which had failed to make the appropriate adjustments in the budgetary position of this Government- is part of a continuing pattern of failure by the Hawke Government to face up to the need for adequate and timely- again I stress the word `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 . . . (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. In response to those and many other such expressions of opinion from this side of the chamber in the course of the past two months or so, the Government and its senior economic spokesmen have ducked and weaved, always with the looming shadow of the New South Wales election in the background. Meanwhile, our international debt has steadily grown. Let us be quite clear that Australia today is at risk for two reasons. The Government is quite prepared to speak at some length about one of them-namely, the failure on the part of some major economic powers in the world to amend their policies appropriately-but it is not prepared to draw conclusions about the risk that bears for Australia. The Government will never concede that any of our present troubles stem from its own past failures in policy action-or, rather, inaction. It is because of the failure of this Government to deal with our problems over the course of the past 4 1/2 years and, particularly, the past three years or so, that our overseas debt and the cost of servicing that debt have continued to mount. A tabulation attached to the balance of payments figures released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that our present servicing cost for non-official capital investment in this country-mainly borrowings from abroad-is now running at either just above or just under $700m a month, or $8 1/2 billion a year. So, because of our own failures we have become more vulnerable to any adverse turn of fortune. The matter of public importance before us this afternoon also draws attention to the Government's failure to insure against the international economic consequences for the Australian economy of the policy failures on the part of the major economic powers. In the limited time available to me, I do not want to spend undue time speaking about international economic policy failures. They are plain to most members of this chamber. But let me just mention in passing one recent development which has got much less publicity in Australia than is warranted. I refer to the recently announced decision by Moodys Investor Services Inc. to downgrade the Eurobond ratings of Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela and-in many ways much more significantly, although there are connections between the two things-to place under review the possible downgrading of the ratings of 10 major United States banks including Bankers Trust Co., New York, Bank of America Corporation, Chase Manhattan Corporation and J. P. Morgan and Co. because of the extent of loans of those major money centre banks to Third World countries such as the three first named, whose capacity and continuing willingness to service such loans is increasingly in doubt. These disturbing-I think they can be called only that-international debt developments are already casting a pall across the face of the international financial community. Notwithstanding Australia's critical foreign debt and precarious balance of payments position, and our consequent urgent need to reduce our risk exposure and protect our creditworthiness in the face of the deteriorating outlook for world trade and growth, Ministers are about to depart this national capital for two months rest and recreation on the basis of a statement from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance, last week, I think, indicating that there will be no fiscal policy action from this Government until after the New South Wales election or, to use their words, until the middle of May. I can only repeat that I regard that inaction on the Government's part as irresponsible. The Government has, as we all know, been taking refuge in the line `It is not our fault'. Yet the fact is that world economic growth has been going on quite steadily for almost five years now, since late 1982, early 1983-almost precisely the time when this Government first came to office. Throughout the whole of 1987 our international terms of trade, which the Government made a great deal of play about last year because at that time they were deteriorating, have been improving-not worsening. Instead of taking advantage of this breathing space, as any prudent family would do to repair the family fortunes, this Hawke-Keating Government has simply squandered that opportunity. One month ago, in a characteristic grandstanding action, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to President Reagan, then leaked his letter to the local Press before, I suspect, the President had even read it-not that, I suspect, he took much trouble to read it-to urge the United States Government to take remedial action in its budgetary and other policy fields to address the major economic problems of that government-and there is no doubt that they are major economic problems-in the interests of the world. This brazen advice was being given to a country which, whatever its faults of omission or commission may or may not have been over the past five to 10 years or so, has a debt amounting to 13 per cent of GDP by a country whose overseas debt today amounts to over 40 per cent of GDP. That advice was being given to a country whose balance of payments deficit was then put at around 3 1/2 per cent of GDP by a country whose balance of payments deficit was then put at around 4 per cent of GDP. It was to a country whose total public sector borrowing requirement, not just the deficit in the Federal Budget, was and still is a shade lower than that of Australia. I remember someone saying to me at the time, when I made some slightly critical comment on the Prime Minister's action in this regard, `Why should not our Prime Minister write to Mr Reagan? Mrs Thatcher is recently reported to have written to him on the same lines'. I said, `Yes, but the difference is that Mrs Thatcher counts'. Is it any wonder that Australia no longer counts in those great countries of the world where we once did count, perhaps more than our intrinsic importance really merited? But at least we did count. Now we are merely the purveyors of windy advice from a government which, by having perpetually run away from the economic problems facing us, no longer possesses any credibility or standing in those quarters. Meanwhile, only yesterday, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) issued the balance of payments figures for November. At first sight, the deficit of $767m on current account contained in that ABS release was summed up in the phrase `Not good, but no worse than expected'. On closer examination of the supporting data, however, more can be said. First, the trend estimate of imports in November rose once again for the seventh successive month. This is in an economy which, we are assured by the Treasurer and his supporting economic Ministers including, I believe, the Minister for Finance, is turning around and in which the Government is beginning to master our external problems, among other things. Seasonally adjusted for November, imports were up by 9 per cent and, seasonally adjusted, exports fell by 2 per cent in the month. The apparently not worse than expected overall outcome was largely a product of a sharp fall in the net income deficit which reflects in particular an increase of no less than $156m-that is, almost 100 per cent-in investment income credits-for reasons which have yet to be explained. There is no sign in all this of the Treasurer's long promised J-curve, promised now for some 2 1/2 years since the Treasury first told him about it back in early 1985. More importantly, I remind the Minister for Finance of his remarks in answer to questions from this side of the chamber very shortly after the stock exchange developments began in October, when, among other things, he said that of two possible consequences which would cause the Government to take those matters seriously, one would be an outflow from Australia of private capital. The Minister might now begin to note that that has occurred. The November balance of payments figures show that in that month private capital outflow, including the balancing item, was $1,252m. I refer to table 4 of the ABS release. So in November, our central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, had not merely to finance our current account deficit of $767m, but also to cover the drain of private capital flowing out of the country. To sum up, Australia is at risk because of the results of the Government's past policy failures and because, in particular, of the Government's failure to insure against the likely consequences for Australia, including particularly for the prices of our major export commodities, of the impending slow-down or worse abroad. I wish the Minister and his colleagues a happy Christmas. I do not think that he or, much more importantly, the Australian people can now look forward to a happy new bicentennial year. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(3.30) —Senator Stone referred to timely action. In light of his usual conviction of infallibility, I expect that he knows precisely at what time action should be taken. That is a certainty obviously not shared by his Opposition leader, if not his Party leader. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, for example, was interviewed on AM on 26 October on the matter of the share market fall. In reference to mini-Budgets-that is his term by the way-he said: . . . exactly when that should come down is a matter of practicality, I think sooner rather than later. But almost two months later, on 10 December, he was arguing that the stock market decline would-and I use his words: . . . reduce confidence and therefore have an impact on the real economy-- I notice that he uses the term `real economy'. He continued: We won't know that until three or four months have gone by next year . . . So, although Senator Stone, with his usual certitude, believes that action should have been taken yesterday, his Opposition Leader believes that we will not really know the effects until three or four months into next year. But, more important than that customary or characteristic exhibition of disunity on the other side, Senator Stone referred to the alleged failures of this Government. I would just like to remind the Senate of some of the facts and of what those alleged failures are. For a start, when we came into office we were facing a prospective Budget deficit of $10 billion. I quote Senator Stone's own note, prepared for delivery to Mr Howard had he still been Treasurer after the 5 March 1983 election. Senator Stone wrote: When the estimated cost in 1983-84 of the new policy proposals announced in the policy speech is added- that is, Malcolm Fraser's policy speech- the prospect is for a Budget deficit of almost $10 billion. Such a deficit would be equivalent to 5 1/2 per cent of projected GDP, the highest in Australian post-war history. Senator Stone set out accurately enough the fiscal mess that this Government inherited. It has, it is true, taken us five years to clean up the mess that John Howard left behind. But, so far as the Commonwealth Budget is concerned, we have now, in 1987, produced a surplus-the first time since adequate accounts have been kept that that has happened, and possibly the first time ever. So that is our failure on cleaning up John Howard's mess-we have turned a $10 billion prospective deficit into a surplus. Real unit labour costs have fallen by 10 per cent at the same time as the overall unemployment rate has fallen. There is no precedent in Australian economic history for that outcome. We have taken three percentage points off the consumer price index, in spite of the very significant boost it received from the devaluation of the Australian dollar and its effect on export prices. We must contrast those failures, as Senator Stone would call them, with the big trifecta that this Government inherited from John Howard-above 10 per cent unemployment, above 11 per cent inflation and a $10 billion Budget deficit, to which I have already referred. Senator Stone referred repeatedly to the need for adjustment. But apart from reference to the Commonwealth Budget deficit-or Commonwealth fiscal policy; the deficit has already been eliminated; he wants further changes in fiscal policy and he believes that they should have been made yesterday-he actually stipulated nothing about the adjustments that were required. I suggest that more important than the Commonwealth fiscal policy or the Commonwealth Budget outcome-given that on present expectations it has now been put into surplus-are matters such as unit labour costs and productivity. This, of course, embraces work practices, which I know Senator Stone has spoken about at other times, but he did not mention them today. I do not know whether he is still committed to the sort of policy which he has long advocated and which the Fraser-Howard Government actually experimented with in 1981-82; that is, of course, a deregulated labour market whereby collective bargaining was allowed out in the market-place to determine wage outcomes. That was the policy that was followed for 18 months after the Fraser-Howard Government abdicated responsibility for wages policy in May of 1981. That little experiment was undertaken, and we know what the outcome was. The outcome in 1981-and I am using calendar years-was a wages explosion of 13 per cent. The outcome in 1982 was an even bigger wages explosion of 14 per cent. So although Senator Stone did not mention it, in regard to the alleged failures of this Government we can stack up our performance-a 10 per cent real decline in unit labour costs over the period that we have been in government-against the wages explosions of 1981 and 1982 which happened immediately before. My next point is not a critical one, but I think it is worth making, given Senator Stone's background. Speaking of his urgency motion moved last month, I believe he referred to Australia's gross foreign debt as being around 40 per cent of gross domestic product. I think that figure is correct. But what makes it surprising, coming from a former Treasury Secretary, is the emphasis on gross foreign debt. I am far from sanguine-and I have made this point many times publicly-about Australia's net foreign debt, but gross foreign debt does not necessarily matter at all. It is the net foreign debt that matters. If Australians owe $100 billion to somebody overseas in loans and Australians have lent to people overseas $100 billion-overlooking such minor complications as possible divergences in respect of interest rates and so on-it does not matter at all. It is no problem at all, because under those circumstances the net foreign debt is zero. So I am surprised that Senator Stone, first at that time and again, apparently uncritically, now, focuses his attention on the gross foreign debt. The only possible explanation for that that I can think of is that, for a political propagandist-as distinct from a professional Treasury officer, which he once was-quoting the gross foreign debt makes better political propaganda. Senator Stone is acquiring a reputation in some quarters as the chameleon senator. In case some people do not know what a chameleon is, it is a lizard that takes on the colours of its background. He is acquiring that reputation for such things as initially opposing the floating of the Australian dollar and later approving of it; and for saying in 1981, as he did when he spoke at the Agricultural Outlook Conference: The current account deficit in 1980-81 is therefore likely to be significantly larger than earlier suggested. This fortunate development will, of course, work to supplement domestic savings . . . An increase in the current account deficit was seen by Senator Stone in 1980-81 as being a fortunate development. An admittedly large but declining current account deficit is seen by him as catastrophic in 1987. Two days ago, I believe, in the debate on the Government's petroleum resource rent tax legislation, Senator Stone voted against the second reading motion. But in 1981, when appearing as a witness before the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, he made an interesting reply to a question by Senator Tate. Those who are interested can find this quotation on page 1070 of the transcript of evidence. He said: But Senator Tate is seeking to suggest, by picking up the term `economic rent' on page 57 of our submission- that is, the official Treasury submission- that over and above that there may be an area for exploitation, if that is the right word, by other forms of taxation, including in particular resources rent taxes. I suppose that is what he had in mind. The answer to that is yes . . . Senator Tate said: I am delighted with the answer, of course, but it seems not to be unexpected. To this Senator Stone said: I am simply answering a question of fact. He spoke then as Treasury Secretary, and he took on the background colour of Treasury. But as a National Party senator from Queensland, when there is legislation before the Senate, he takes on the colour of the Queensland branch of the National Party. Then, of course, we had the extraordinary performance two weeks ago when Senator Stone delivered a eulogy to none other than the former Country Party Leader, Sir Earle Page, who was, more than any other Australian in the 1920s, responsible for running up, on behalf of various governments-governments; not the private sector-a foreign debt about three times as large as the net foreign debt which Australians, both government and private, owe today. And for what purpose? Investment, Senator Stone? It was for investment in crazy land settlement schemes and irrigation schemes, which failed because Sir Earle Page had an obsession about redistributing the population of the Empire, as he called it, in order to exploit its unlimited resources. As I observed the other day, he was able, unfettered of course by the remotest understanding of economic principles or concepts, to pursue those sorts of obsessions without any intellectual problems to himself. But, of course, they left a massive economic problem for the rest of Australia which, again as I mentioned the other day, a number of respected economic commentators would suggest took us two decades to overcome. Senator Stone, with his normal absolute conviction of infallibility, not only believes that he knows the precise time at which action should be taken; he also believes that he knows what sort of action should be taken. His record as a forecaster does not, unfortunately, live up to his conviction of infallibility. Indeed, on 19 August 1986, when commenting upon and criticising the 1986 Budget, he said: I personally doubt whether any real growth in non-farm product will occur in 1986-87. Certainly, any forecast for it greater than, say, 1 per cent should excite disbelief. Senator Stone —Was that the Budget you had to repair with the mini-Budget in May this year? Senator WALSH —It is from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 August 1986. Repair the 1986 Budget, Senator Stone? Senator Stone —The mini-Budget this year was simply repairing the omissions of last year. Senator WALSH —No, we have brought in economic statements in May for most of the years we have been in government. Senator Stone also said that there would be: a balance of payments current account deficit higher in money terms than in 1985-86, and probably no lower even as a percentage of GDP. But to take up Senator Stone's interjection-and his logic is failing as well as everything else-let us assume that the May statement should be regarded as a repair exercise. What he was making a forecast about was employment growth, and obviously any change to economic policy announced at the end of May is not going to have any effect on employment growth for the financial year, particularly on a year on year basis; so, as I said, his logic is failing as well as his prophecy. On 27 August Senator Stone said: Moreover, detailed examination now shows the truly awful Budget facing us in 1987-88, with a deficit which even on a conservative basis looks like being $8 billion or more. It is true that the Government, principally on the outlay side and to a lesser extent on the revenue side, announced policy changes in May which, combined, had the effect of bringing the Budget deficit down by $4 billion, so take that off. Senator Stone's forecast about the Budget deficit in prospect for 1987-88 was exaggerated by a bit more than 100 per cent, because what we finally brought in was a balanced Budget when he said the conservative estimate was $8 billion, from which we subsequently took $4 billion. He also said that the Budget description for unemployment of `some increase' was `patently dishonest', `is going to increase'-and so on and so forth. I do not know whether all of this dogmatic but inaccurate forecasting should be attributed to the fact that Senator Stone no longer has the resources of the Treasury behind him, or whether it should again be attributed to the chameleon factor-that is, that when he was Secretary to the Treasury, as well as having the resources he did not have any particular vested interest in interpreting information that was available in a way that, let us say, for other reasons was slanted. I will not speculate on that any more, but I let the facts speak for themselves. On a minor point, Senator Stone said that after Friday-it is not his word, but it is the sense of what he was saying-there would be a hibernation period of two months. Well, hibernation periods of much more than two months are not unknown on the Opposition side of politics. I know that, and perhaps all of the Opposition members are going to hibernate for the next two months. But I can assure Senator Stone that although I am going to take a holiday, for somewhat less than half of two months, and various other people will as well, we will not be hibernating for two months. Senator Stone obviously not only believes that his predictions and prophecies are infallible, and that his judgment about the timing of events or policy changes is immaculate, but also believes that major economic policy changes should be put together in a matter of a few days or weeks. I would have thought that the experience of the last election campaign would have driven home, even to the Opposition, the lesson that putting things together on the run, doing cut and paste jobs, carries hazards with it, such as the hazard that major mistakes will be made, not just in failing to take account of all the possible variables and ramifications that are associated with a policy change, but even in arithmetic-in other words, the sort of horrendous mistake, and politically catastrophic mistake, even, in arithmetic, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) made in the run-up to the last election, when he tried to put an alternative Budget together on the run, in a cut and paste way in about one or two weeks. The Government, of course, completely rejects the charges that it does not take timely action, and I think it has pretty convincingly demonstrated that the alleged failures of this Government are actually achievements, and, in particular, spectacular achievements when compared with the failure of the previous Government. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.48) —The matter of public importance before the Senate today, submitted by Senator Stone, is: The failure of the Government to take timely action to address (a) the results of its own past policy failures, and (b) the need for action to protect Australia against the impending international economic consequences of the policy failures of the major world economic powers. I would have to say that this is probably one of the most extraordinary matters for discussion that we have had before this chamber, at least in the time that I have been a senator. I think it is extraordinary in its arrogant assumption that only Senator Stone, presumably, has the answers to the world's economic problems. It is ironic too, and extraordinary in that irony, that the Government's policies have been put into legislation, supported in the main over the years by Senator Stone's own political party-- Senator Stone —By the Australian Democrats. Senator HAINES —No. If the honourable senator looks at the voting figures on Government legislation in the last few Budget sessions-the Budget session of 1986, the May economic statement of 1987 and the Budget session of 1987-he will find that on legislative matters he and his colleagues have voted in divisions on Government legislation more often than the Democrats have. That is why the Treasurer has already announced that there will be a mini-Budget in May of next year. It has not taken the Government very long to work out that, as long as the word `Budget' is attached to a piece of legislation, the Opposition parties will lie down, roll over and have their tummies tickled, and pass absolutely everything that the Government dishes up to them. If there is a problem with the policies of this Government, then it is shared equally with the Opposition parties, whose support has put many of those policies into place. This is an astonishing matter to be discussing, given the views of economists of considerably greater international note than Senator Stone-for example, Dr Henry Kaufman, Managing Director of New York's Salomon Brothers Inc. I refer the Senate to a recent article in the financial pages of the Australian headed `US, world economies face crisis in the new year', which quotes this economist as making the point that renewed international discord between the United States and its trading partners, tightening monetary policy world-wide, rising interest rates and inflation and a plummeting greenback are the issues that will preoccupy the United States and world economies next year. He went on to say: The rebound in economic activity will strain resources, heighten inflation, reintroduce discord internationally, induce much higher interest rates and eventually pose serious risks to the economic expansion. He said that it was unlikely that the major industrial nations would be able to fashion policies with enough flexibility to reduce structural world trade imbalances. Yet, apparently, of all the countries in the world, Australia is supposed to be able to do something about this-something that no other country is able to do. If the major industrial nations will not be able to protect themselves, how can Australia be expected to do so, given its poorly developed industrial and manufacturing sector, a poor development that has been engendered by decades of Liberal-National Party protectionism and reliance on agricultural and mineral resources for export income? This is not to say that there are not problems, nor is it to deny that these stem from policy decisions made by this and previous governments. The results of past policy failures-they certainly have been policy failures-include unemployment, which is now a way of life for some 600,000 Australians, many of them young, because the Australian Labor Party and the coalition partners have abandoned anything resembling full employment as an economic objective. The results of past policy failures include the number of Australians living in poverty, a number that has increased from an estimated 780,000 in 1973 to something like 2.2 million in 1985-86. By contrast, at least until the stock market crashed in October, the number of millionaires in this country had risen from 30,000 to nearly 50,000 in a little over 12 months. Government policy has reduced access by middle and lower income families to health care, education opportunities, child care and public housing, and Australian consumers, house buyers, businesses and farmers have consistently faced some of the highest interest rates of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We have more consumers living on so-called credit that they cannot afford. It was only during Question Time today that it was confirmed that we have experienced a dramatic increase in the number of bankruptcies, 70 per cent of which are directly related to consumer debt, which is increasing at about three times the rate of inflation. Farmers are facing punitive interest rates and falling commodity prices, which leave them with little choice except to sell out, often to international companies and corporations which are eager to buy family farms at bargain basement prices. It is difficult to see how Senator Stone can be so critical of this Government when both the Hawke Government and the coalition promote the same economic policies, and the difference is only one of degree. The Hawke Government has reduced wages, cut social security benefits, introduced tertiary education fees, reduced the capacity of the health system to deliver essential health services and given the biggest tax cuts to the highest income earners. As I said a moment ago, all this has been done with the help of the coalition, as the voting figures for the last three sessions clearly indicate. The coalition itself, given half the chance, would cut the living standards of average Australian working people and their families and social security beneficiaries more savagely, while presumably giving even bigger tax cuts to the highest income earners. Anybody who does not believe that that is the case need only look at the Australian of 28 November this year, in which an article by Robert Hadler headed `Howard razor cuts aid to jobless, ill' indicated that the Federal Opposition planned, if given the chance, to cut up to $7 billion from assistance programs to the unemployed, the sick and sole supporting parents as part of its radical Budget agenda for the 1990s. Since World War II, successive Labor and Liberal governments have pursued economic policies that have cut our manufacturing capacity in half and shifted it to South East Asia, where the wage rate is one tenth as high. Successive protectionist policies pursued by the National and Liberal parties in government have created a manufacturing industry which can survive only with billions of dollars worth of subsidies. The business community, which benefits most from these subsidies, continues to press for reductions in government expenditure on education, health care and social security. The corporate welfare mentality is alive and well in this country, and it is screaming for cuts in every area except its own. Over the last 20 years, Labor and Liberal governments have allowed us to become dependent on mineral and agricultural exports and massive flows of foreign capital. Now, however, mineral and agricultural export prices have dropped, we have a massive trade deficit and a huge national debt and we have become more dependent on foreign borrowing and investment. At the same time, as I said, they have engendered a welfare mentality in our manufacturing sector, making it quite ill-prepared to fill the gap with export or import replacement goods. Instead, the New Right solution to this problem has been implemented by the Hawke Government. Financial deregulation, the admission of foreign banks, the tying of the hands of the Foreign Investment Review Board, cuts in wages, cuts in social welfare and privatisation have all been lifted out of the policy manifesto of the New Right, supported by the National and Liberal parties and implemented by the so-called Labor Government. The Labor Government is doing all of that, and the result is more poverty and cuts in the living standards of ordinary working Australians as our foreign debt and our dependence on foreign borrowing or foreign investment continue to grow. It is amazing that those who in the past have bayed for financial deregulation and the admission of foreign banks to lock us into the international financial system are now suggesting that we need to respond independently, somehow, to the policy failures of the major world economic powers. Well, we cannot, for we are no longer, if we ever were, independent. We are, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, inextricably linked with the fortunes, good or bad, of our trading partners, and this has come about because of actions by all Australian governments, past and present, including those advised by Senator Stone when he was head of the Treasury. Financial deregulation and the admission of foreign banks have not benefited the average Australian consumer, or the Australian economy, but they have given the Australian private sector access to more overseas funds. These foreign borrowings are now the major reason the Government advances for reducing the living standards of the average Australian through expenditure cuts and privatisation. Most ordinary Australians have not borrowed overseas, yet they are paying the price for the problems caused by those who have, and who continue to do so. Some 60 per cent of our foreign debt is the result of private sector borrowing. The companies that borrow use the funds to buy shares in other companies and claim the interest costs as a tax deduction. Whenever I get up in this place and call for action on things such as negative gearing on foreign financed takeover bids and transfer pricing on off-shore investments by the big life and superannuation funds which are able to continue their tax free status even when they do that, there are howls of outrage from those who support the corporate welfare sector while at the same time denigrating and decrying those who are forced into the social welfare sector because of the very actions of the corporate sector. The capacity for companies to borrow overseas and then negatively gear certainly increased the price of shares during the boom but added nothing to our ability to export more or to import less. In essence many of the taxation benefits that are granted to the corporate sector are non-productive. They do not in any way at all benefit the economy as a whole by increasing our export potential or our import replacement areas. Where companies which are currently making profits and paying tax are taken over the foreign borrowers can use their interest payments to wipe out their tax liabilities and, in doing so, reduce the amount in Consolidated Revenue that the Government has to spend on areas of greatest need. Therefore, the Australian taxpayer is, and has been, for far too long, subsidising the activities of speculative takeover merchants who are responsible for our growing debt while the Government uses the debt as the excuse for reducing the living standards of those Australians who have not borrowed overseas. The Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party will take no action to stop this process, thereby denying something in the vicinity of $2 billion annually to tax revenue. To that extent those parties are all culpable through the adherence to the selfish and greedy policies of the New Right. The Australian Democrats will not be supporting this matter of public importance. Senator Stone has not made out any case for how any government in this country at the moment can protect Australia against the policy failures of other nations, unless of course he is suggesting that we build a very big wall around Australia, dig a huge moat, fill it up with sharp pointed spikes, not let anybody in or out and isolate ourselves totally from the rest of the world while trying to go it alone. I presume that even Senator Stone is not silly enough to suggest something of that sort. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The consideration of the matter of public importance is concluded. Debate resumed from 15 December, on motion by Senator Bolkus: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.04) —I wish to refer to the tabling statement which Senator Bolkus, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, incorporated in Hansard yesterday. I refer here to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report entitled Report on the Operation and Administration of the Freedom of Information Legislation. The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1982 was first referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, as it was then called, for review of its operations and administration in November 1985. That reference was transferred to the newly named and, I suppose I should also say, newly composed Committee on 22 September this year. I think it should be understood by the Senate that the task given to the Committee proved to be an enormous one, particularly enormous, if I may say so, to those new members of the Committee such as me who, from September this year, have had to attempt to catch up with all the work done by their predecessors in the preceding 18 months or so. But in any event, I take this opportunity of congratulating the staff of the Committee, particularly the Secretary, Miss Susan Gibb, on the herculean task which it has done in assisting the Committee to put together the report. Notwithstanding the other pressures upon the Committee in the course of what has been, I think, a very rugged session of the Senate, it has produced a report containing no fewer than 126 separate recommendations for amending or otherwise commenting on the present FOI Act. In regard to all but 15 of those recommendations, from which I personally dissented, the Committee members were unanimous. I wish to say something about those aspects of the report in respect of which, regrettably, I found it necessary to separate myself from the views of my colleagues on the Committee-including, I should say, those two of my colleagues, Senator Robert Hill and Senator Richard Alston, whose company I have the privilege to share on this side of the Senate chamber. Before I do so I should like to say something about the whole question of freedom of information legislation and my own attitude to it. First of all, I would like to make it clear that I have always been a supporter of the principle of freedom of information legislation, insofar as that principle can render government more open without, at the same time, threatening the proper workings of the Westminster system of government under which, within our constitutional procedures, we live and work in this place. However, I have never favoured an FOI process which would result in some kind of public or, if you like, Press, voyeurism into the inner workings of government. Incidentally, I have been interested to note that, as experience has grown of the actual operations in practice of both the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act and its counterpart in Victoria, Labor governments in both places have come to much the same conclusion. Nor have I ever favoured a process whereby information in the possession of governments-the retrieval of which and the decision making provisions for the release of which can be very costly-should be treated as some kind of free good to be available without cost, or largely without cost, to anybody who turns up and simply holds our his or her hand to ask for it. It follows that while it is always recognised that the public interest in the accessibility of information should mean that less than full cost should be charged for its recovery-in other words, because of the external benefits which, it can at least be argued, can derive from the provision of that information-I have nevertheless always favoured a policy of charging which much more nearly equates to full cost recovery than was the case when the 1981 Act was originally brought into being under the Fraser Government and when that situation continued to obtain even under the 1982 Act. I may say in passing that my dissents from the recommendations such as No. 111, No. 112 and paragraph (b) of recommendation No. 58 derive from that position. Again, it appears to me basic that wherever any third party had been implicated in the production of information now reposing in Government files and, therefore, now subject to request for access by an applicant it should be mandatory that, in the decision making process leading to decisions on that application, that third party have a right both to be consulted and, if desired, to intervene in any subsequent review process, including before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which might be invoked by an initially unsuccessful applicant. That is the view which underlies two of my dissenting comments on this report. To me, one of the more encouraging aspects of the development of the Commonwealth freedom of information processes has been the manner in which, on the whole, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has brought to bear a generally common-sense attitude towards the appeals which have been brought before it under the Act. In the course of doing so, members of the Tribunal have been required, in the normal course of their duties, to interpret a number of provisions of the Act dealing with matters such as those in section 24 (1) (b) of the Act. The motives of certain applicants-I should say fortunately very few applicants-have to be taken into account by the Tribunal when interpreting that section of the Act. There is also the interpretation by decision-makers of the words `and would not, by reasons of the deletions, be misleading', appearing in section 22 (1) (b) of the Act, and so on. Given that course of quasi-judicial interpretation, I have not felt it appropriate in this Committee to seek to reverse the views arrived at by the Tribunal on those interpretations and, therefore, I have not been able to agree with my colleagues' recommendations to do so in several cases of that kind. I could say more but I am aware that we are under constraints of time. More importantly, to go on addressing those limited areas of the report from which I have dissented would, I fear, have the effect of misrepresenting my position of general support, not only for the Act in its now considerably amended form but also for the general body of the report which the Committee has brought before this chamber. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.12) —I was a new member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as was Senator Stone, having been elected in July. I was faced with the rather daunting task of coming into a very significant inquiry-- Senator Stone —Awesome. Senator POWELL —It was awesome, yes. I came into this very significant inquiry in its final stages and I felt that, if my name was to be attached to a report, a considerable amount of work had to be done in order for me to feel that that was possible. I want to put on the record my appreciation of the staff of that Committee, particularly Susan Gibb, its Secretary, and the other members of the Committee for the for- bearance in this exercise they showed both tonew members and, continuing members of that Committee. The report encompasses the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee and I was eventually happy to have my name attached to it. The Australian Democrats have always placed a very high priority on freedom of information (FOI) legislation and it was particularly pleasing that the Committee was able to conclude unanimously that the Freedom of Information Act has been of considerable benefit to the community and that it has attracted more support than opposition. This is not to say that the Freedom of Information Act is free of imperfections, nor that the notion of freedom of information receives universal support. Unfortunately, resistance to the availability of information and the placing of obstacles in the path of those who seek access are still problems. One important aspect of access, of course, is cost and the 1986 amendments to the Act significantly reduced the possibility of some people being able to pursue their rights under the Act. In some cases, the impact of these increased costs would have been prohibitive. It is noteworthy to see that the 1986-87 annual report on the Freedom of Information Act shows that freedom of information requests decreased by 18 per cent during that year. While the report surmises that a significant part of this decrease seems attributable to a stricter definition of what constitutes an FOI request for reporting purposes, I am not so sure. It is regrettable that the report did not make any real attempt to assess the impact of the increased charges. Given that charges are central to the workability of freedom of information of legislation, I take this opportunity to stress my view that charges will deter people from using the Act and thus defeat the whole purpose of the legislation. I did join with the rest of the Committee in accepting some charges-importantly with an upper limit-but this is not my preferred position. Ideally, no charges should be imposed on applications for, and provision of access to, documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Nevertheless, it is pleasing that the Committee has recommended a range of reductions in the quite excessive charges imposed by the 1986 amendments and I trust that these recommendations will be acted upon as quickly as possible. In the time available to us here, it is not possible to refer to all of the 126 recommendations made by the Committee, but I would like to refer to some of the more significant ones. As the Chairman has noted in his tabling speech, the Committee tried to identify provisions of the Act which lend themselves to abuse by unduly secretive bureaucrats. Secretiveness being an occupational habit for some bureaucrats, I hope that the guidance we have given in our conclusions and recommendations will be followed to offset that inclination. Another significant matter relates to access by non-citizens. Some people take the view that there should be restrictions on the rights of non-citizens, or at least on people who have not been granted permanent residence. Given that non-citizens almost invariably have some sort of documentation on them held by government department, the Committee, with the exception of Senator Stone, has quite rightly recommended that the right to seek correction of records under section 48 should be open to all persons in Australia, regardless of their citizenship or residential status. The only exception to this approach is that the restrictions on charges to which I referred earlier should not apply to illegal entrants and illegal residents in Australia. The range of recommendations contained in the report covers other significant matters, including a proposed amendment to ensure that an applicant's motives are not taken into account for the purpose of the section 24 work load test and amendments to the system of conclusive certificates designed to strengthen the principle of accountability of Ministers to the Parliament. I particularly welcome proposed amendments aimed at ensuring better protection of privacy. Overall, the recommendations contained in this report reflect the Committee's commitment to the concept of freedom of information. While I have some reservations about the continued existence of charges and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal fee, I believe that, if followed, the recommendations contained in this report and resulting from such a wide-ranging review will do much to protect the principle of freedom of information in this country. The object of this report-as it was in the 1979 report-should be our benchmark on this issue. The object is: to ensure that a maximum amount of information is made publicly available, and that the barest minimum of restriction is placed on the public disclosure of such information. It cannot be reiterated too often how important workable freedom of information legislation is to the health of a democracy. I stress `workable' because this Government's propensity to put the reduction of operating costs above access for Australian citizens is to be regretted. In saying that, I do not doubt that the Opposition parties would be behaving in the same way if they were in government. After all, they supported the Government's increase in charges in 1986. Any government or opposition in this country, and the bureaucracies which administer government policy, should be mature enough to accommodate, and indeed welcome, freedom of information legislation that is more than a token gesture. Freedom of information legislation should be easily understood by everyone, the rights arising under it should be widely promulgated, access to information should be easy and cheap and restrictions should be at a minimum. I think we have some way to go before achieving this objective, but I believe this report will aid that process. On that basis I urge all honourable senators to support its recommendations. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(4.19) —I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It is a very significant report because it comes some years after the Freedom of Information Act came into operation and after a sufficient time has elapsed to enable a mature judgment to be made on its efficacy. I think all members of the Committee ultimately took the view that it has worked very well; that it is in need of some tidying up but, overall, it meets the objectives for which it was established. There is one popular misconception in the community; that is that the Freedom of Information Act is there largely to enable interested citizens, politicians, journalists and others to find their way into the inner workings of government. The reality is that more than 80 per cent of the users of this Act are those who are simply seeking access to personal records. I regard it as a very unsatisfactory arrangement that these matters should come within the purview of FOI at all. I think it would be much more satisfactory if the Australian Public Service were to enable its own employees, for example, to have access to records and if that provision were not a charge on FOI legislation. My recollection is that, as a result of the 86 amendments, the cost of maintaining this Act has fallen from about $18m to $8m. That is a very significant reduction. It comes about because of the need, I think, to try to contain the cost burden. But I certainly would not want to see a situation develop where ordinary citizens who are wanting to hold government to promises of openness are deterred. I do not take the view, as the Australian Democrats do, that there should be free access to all aspects of the Act. I think in one very important recommendation we have made it clear that we take the view that persons who are not lawfully in Australia are to be made to bear the full cost burden of applications in relation to their own personal records. I think that is very significant. I have taken a more robust view than some of my colleagues about access to personal records. I believe that most persons seeking personal records are able to bear a modest cost. I would have thought about $10 to $15 is not unreasonable. One recommendation in this report is that ordinary application fees be reduced from $30 to $15. I think that is a welcome measure if it does induce more people to make constructive use of the Act. I think it is fair to say that there is not much evidence of abuse, although one is always concerned at reports of many hundreds of hours of Public Service and court time being taken up by relatively abstruse applications and matters that are supposedly to further research but which really reflect the idiosyncratic interests of simply one citizen in the community. I would like to think that in some way restraints can be placed on those sorts of applications. One recommendation that goes some way towards that is a requirement that if the respondent-that is usually a government agency-makes an application in the first instance to have a declaration that there is no merit in the applicant's case, and that application is upheld, then a tribunal will not preclude an applicant from proceeding to a full hearing, but it will put the applicant at risk of costs. In other words, for the first time an applicant can be made to bear the costs of losing, which is the usual rule-the loser pays-but it does not apply in this jurisdiction. I did have some qualms about that, but I think the safeguards are sufficient, hopefully, to deter those who might otherwise make frivolous and vexatious applications. There is also provision for security of costs to be lodged in an instance such as that. I think that is also a worthwhile measure. It can be said that, in many ways, the report deals with a number of tidying up arrangements which I think will improve the quality of the Act. I very much welcome my colleague Senator Stone, who endorses the principle of the Act. All right thinking citizens would recognise that this type of legislation has made a qualitative improvement in the performance of government and, hopefully, will serve as an incentive for all those concerned in government processes to ensure that there is not an unnecessary withholding of information, that public debate can proceed on an informed basis subject to a whole range of necessary safeguards but, nonetheless, give meaning to the concept of open government. It is in this context that I think it is highly regrettable that only one State has introduced freedom of information legislation-that is Victoria. What do we find there? The position is very instructive when considering the Federal legislation. The Victorian Government had, as its model, the Commonwealth legislation. It deliberately chose to diverge from it on the basis of this very Committee's earlier report on the early operation of the Freedom of Information Act. In many respects the Victorian Government took an enlightened view of the way in which this type of legislation should serve ordinary citizens. For example, I recall that members of parliament have free access to FOI. That has led to my colleague Mark Birrell in particular making quite a number of very useful and constructive applications, much to the chagrin of the Premier, to such an extent that the Premier is now intent on closing down freedom of information in Victoria. It is utterly regrettable. I note in today's Press that it has led one member of the Australian Labor Party (ALP)-incidentally, he is not standing for re-election and I suppose he therefore feels safe-to vote against certain regulations that the Premier has wanted to introduce to emasculate the Act in certain respects. These regulations included putting sensitive government agencies, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Police Complaints Authority and the Solicitor-General, beyond the reach of freedom of information. Those familiar with the Nunawading scandal in Victoria a year or two back will recognise why the Premier no longer wants the public to have access to the workings of those particular organs of government. Here we have one courageous member of the Labor Party in Victoria who is prepared to say, `Enough is enough'. He has signalled that the Commonwealth legislation is the desirable model. He stated: I was one of the people who was very keen on the idea of Freedom of Information. To walk away from it now would not be a good idea. . . . The FOI Act was party policy-all I am doing is voting for party policy. . . It is a great tragedy that the Premier of Victoria has not taken the same view. What we find in Victoria is that the Premier has waged an incessant campaign to stop Mr Birrell from getting access to absolutely innocuous documents. What we know about a series of documents that have been before the courts and tribunals over the last two years is that they relate to two-year-old public opinion surveys of the Victorian Government's performance. One would have thought-especially if we have master strategists such as Senator Richardson in the chamber-that we would not learn much from looking at two-year-old opinion polls. Our opponents are not going to learn very much either. Yet the Premier has shown this manic determination to withhold these documents through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal up to the Full Court, wisely choosing not to appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court to the High Court. Senator Stone —Mr Unsworth has not got an Act at all. Senator ALSTON —Mr Unsworth is having great trouble in getting his act together at the moment. I am sure the last thing Mr Unsworth would want is to have anything like this type of legislation around his neck. The Premier of Victoria chose not to follow the proper course, which was to appeal to the High Court; instead he chose to introduce scandalous regulations known as the Public Service Unauthorised Disclosure Regulations. Do honourable senators know what these regulations did? They allowed the Premier to declare any document a Cabinet document and therefore exempt from disclosure. I am reminded of the words of Humpty Dumpty, who said: When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less. That is what the Premier of Victoria has done. That is what he thinks of freedom of information. I think it is very desirable that we recognise the different position adopted. The Federal Government, apart from Senator Walsh, has not shown anything like that same determination to rip the guts out of this Act and I think that in many ways the Commonwealth legislation is setting an example that ought to be followed. It has broadly bipartisan support. It has served the people of Australia very well. Senator Richardson —It is too bad you couldn't convince Senator Stone. Senator ALSTON —Senator Stone exercised a very proper right in dissenting on a number of issues. I do not think they went to the heart of the Act or the report. He has acknowledged the principle and I think that is the position of all members of that Committee. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 10 December, on motion by Senator Watson: That the Senate take note of the reports. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the Government has not responded within the prescribed period. This list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard. The list read as follows- PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS Title of report Date tabled Government response A. LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. Commonwealth Law Making Power and the Privilege of Freedom of Speech in State Parliaments 30.5.85 6.12.85(I) 13.6.86(I) 5.12.86 86(I) 2. The Role of Parliament in relation to the National Companies Scheme 28.4.87 24.22.87(I) Education and the Arts 1. Examination of Annual Reports (Seventh Report) The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland 17.9.86 24.11.87(I) 2. ABC/SBS Amalgamation (Interim Report) 24.2.87 24.11.87(I) 3. ABC and SBS-Proposed Amalgamation 5.6.87 24.11.87(I) 4. Examination of Annual Reports (Seventh Report) The ABC's Radio Racing Service in Queensland-Supplementary Report 5.6.87 - Finance and Government Operations 1. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986 14.5.87 - 2. Briefing Note on interest rates 29.5.87 - 3. Report on Parliament House Construction Authority Annual Report 1985-86 5.6.87 - Science, Technology and the Environment 1. Examination of Annual Reports. Australian Libraries and Information Council 11.9.85 5.12.86(I) 24.11.87(I) 2. Technology Assessment in Australia 29.4.87 24.11.87(I) 14.12.87(I) B. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES 1. Video Material 28.3.85 31.5.85(I) 6.12.85(I) 13.6.86(I) 5.12.86(I) 24.11.87(I) 2. Animal Welfare: Dolphins and Whales in Captivity 29.11.85 13.6.86(I) 5.12.86(I) 24.11.87(I) 3. Human Embryo Experimentation in Australia 8.10.86 24.11.87(I) 4. Private Hospitals in Australia 29.4.87 24.11.87(I) C. JOINT COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs and Defence 1. Australia and the Philippines 20.11.86 24.11.87(I) 2. Disarmament and Arms Control 25.11.86 24.11.87(I) Publications 1. Review of the Cost and Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series 26.11.86 24.11.87(I) Note (I): Interim response only As at 16 December 1987 Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I present the eighteenth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Extradition Bill 1987 and the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BROWNHILL —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 18, dated 16 December 1987. Consideration resumed. The Bill. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.32) —In the second reading debate on the Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987 I drew attention, on behalf of the Opposition, to a matter which concerns us about a very small group of employees at the Williamstown Dockyard for whom we believe proper provision has not yet been made. We are concerned about a small group of people employed under the Public Service Act who either will be offered a job by the new employer and choose not to accept it and will therefore not be eligible for redundancy payments or will accept a job at the dockyard and perhaps will be very unhappy there or will be used and then their services dispensed with by the new employer within a very short time. Neither of these groups is entitled to redundancy payments and we are not suggesting that they should be. However, we believe that, in the light of the fact that they are presently permanent public servants with all the rights and benefits that that conveys and that, through no fault or choice of their own, they are ceasing to be permanent public servants, at the very least the Government should make some extra provision for them in the event of their leaving the Public Service and either retiring or working for a new employer. Therefore, we believe that the Government should give an undertaking as to their rights to apply, without any restriction, in the 12 months following the transition period referred to in the legislation, for any Public Service positions for which they might otherwise be eligible. Rather than our moving an amendment today, we ask the Government to give an undertaking that employees employed under the Public Service Act who resign, rather than take up employment with the new employer, or who take up employment with the purchaser of the dockyard will be able to apply for Public Service positions without loss of Public Service status for a period of 12 months from the end of the transition period. A few positions are available to public servants which are not available to people outside it. Restrictions are placed on some job applicants who are still in the Public Service and, by their enforced removal from the Public Service, there will be this small group of positions for which they will not be eligible to apply. We believe that the Government should, in all fairness, make provision for them to apply for those positions even though they will not legally be public servants during that 12-month period. I hope that the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) is now in a position to give that undertaking. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.35) —I might be able to give some additional information as background material. Senator Newman's query relates to public servants, particularly engineers and technical staff, who have made the Public Service a career but who find themselves working for a private employer. I think the honourable senator is really asking whether there is some way in which these people could return to the Public Service at a later date. She suggested a 12-month period in which they could apply for vacancies advertised in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. Senator Newman identified one particular group of people, those with specialised knowledge who might be taken over by the purchaser but later dismissed because there is no long term need for their services. In this respect there would be no problem in making specialist personnel available to the purchaser for limited periods without their being employed by that person. These people would remain Commonwealth employees. There seems no cause for concern here. The Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC), in conjunction with the Victorian Government, is developing a retraining program for staff taken over and this demonstrates long term career prospects. With regard to the other people covered in Senator Newman's query, the following points are relevant: a program has been set up by the Department of Defence at Williamstown Dockyard whereby those officers who wish to redeploy elsewhere in the Department are assisted in their endeavours. Some 30 officers have registered for this scheme and four have been redeployed. This is a reflection of the difficulty in present circumstances of redeploying people. AMEC will take control of the dockyard in early February 1988 and the transition period will run for three months from that date. This transition period is designed to help individuals to sort out their relationships with the new owner and vice versa. The employees to whom Senator Newman referred are primarily in professional engineering and technical classifications. Vacant positions in the Public Service in these classifications are not normally restricted to individuals already employed in the Public Service. Applications are normally accepted from all interested individuals whether or not they are public servants. Nevertheless, Senator Newman's point has been discussed with the Public Service Commission. I am happy to say that it has been agreed that the public servants who accept offers of employment at the dockyard with AMEC will have their rights in the Public Service reinstated for three years. This is on the basis that they will have to apply for vacancies and compete on merit in the usual way. In other words, with regard to vacancies, they will be in a similar situation to continuing public servants. However, no basis is seen for extending such rights to people who decline a suitable offer of employment and are deemed to have resigned or to have accepted the redundancy package. There is no reason to give such people special rights over and above anyone else. This would be against the spirit of the legislation and the agreed package of entitlements. I emphasise that the legislation reflects an agreement between the relevant staff associations and the Commonwealth agencies concerned. (Quorum formed) Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.40) —I welcome the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) but I feel that he has omitted one tiny but important group of people. I welcome the fact that the people who go to the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC) will continue to have entitlements over that three-year period. However, I see no reason for distinguishing between extending those rights to those people and giving the same rights to the people who choose not to go to AMEC, even though the offer is as good as or better than what they are presently receiving. Those people are being forced out of the Public Service. They are permanent public servants and they should at least have the same right to go back into the Public Service if they so choose. They are not leaving the Public Service of their own volition. Therefore, the Minister's undertaking is not satisfactory to the Opposition and I would ask that the Government look at this matter further before the Bill is proceeded with. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.42) —I would like to explore the impact of refusal. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, there are four options open to employees. One is to refuse an offer of similar conditions. Let us examine the implications of having made such a decision. For instance, a similar offer might include a position in Western Australia. I understand that the definition of `a similar offer' that is embraced by the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC) includes offers of relocation to AMEC positions in Western Australia. Senator McKiernan —What is wrong with Western Australia? Senator McLEAN —There is nothing wrong with Western Australia, but if one has to relocate one's family there may be quite serious domestic and professional implications. I do not think it is unreasonable that, upon deliberation, some people might find that to be simply unacceptable. Earlier the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) said that that was their choice and that people appear to have these options open to them. But these are apparent options which have been imposed upon them, so, in fact, what has been imposed upon them is the probability of the need to relocate their families. If they choose not to do that, they get absolutely nothing. They are deemed to have resigned from the Public Service when they have not voluntarily made the decision to do so. They are being forced to resign from the Public Service and, under these circumstances, to resign without redundancy benefits. The Minister acknowledged that there was great difficulty in redeploying some of these people within the Public Service structure. That is not a difficulty of their own making; it is a difficulty which has been created by this transition from public to private ownership. They have to live with the implications of this redeployment. The implications may-and usually will-be the need to accept different roles and different tasks and possibly be downgraded by one, two or three levels. Admittedly, such people do not suffer a downgrading of salary for a period of 12 months, but beyond that, when perhaps they will begin to incur a downgrading of salary as a result of redeployment, they will be confronted with a choice of either staying in the Public Service in a lower grade or, alternatively, moving on and doing something else. So we are simply asking for an acknowledgment of the fact that some people will be seriously disadvantaged-or will have the potential to be seriously disadvantaged-by this new set of circumstances which are not of their own making. They may find themselves out of the Public Service and without redundancy or settlement entitlements. Therefore, we believe that there is the possibility that a relatively small group of people will find themselves in this disadvantaged position. If we can have some acknowledgment and some assurance that this set of circumstances can be catered for within the Public Service Act by regulation, we will quite clearly have no substantial objection. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(4.45) —A whole series of propositions have been put. I do not think these people will be offered jobs in Western Australia because the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation is really a consortium set up to deal specifically with Williamstown; albeit the shareholders may be in Western Australia, but they do not run similar operations. Therefore, I think that such an offer is most unlikely. It is almost certain that there will be no downgrading involved in any of these moves. On the general issue, I am asked to give a categorical assurance that absolutely everyone in the dockyard will leave happy. I cannot do that. This is a negotiated package in which the general good of people was negotiated. If the i's were not dotted or the t's not crossed, I can hardly give such an assurance now-because I will never give an assurance that I might find at some later stage has not been met. It is really asking the impossible to demand an assurance that every group in every circumstance will be walking off the Williamstown Dockyard site with smiles on their faces. However, in virtually all cases they have alternatives. I might add that they have some alternatives that other people in the community are not fortunate enough to have. They will be offered redundancy, alternative employment or employment in the dockyard. That is not a right that everyone else has. In one way I am pleased that Senator Newman has reacted so strongly in wanting to defend the rights of all those public servants. I hope that when the Opposition returns to government-and I hope that is a long way off-we will not see a reappearance of legislation governing public servants which the Fraser Government introduced. None of these wishy washy and wimpish points would have cut much ice in the days of the Fraser legislation, which introduced a whole series of measures whereby public servants could almost be dismissed at will. Nevertheless, I acknowledge Senator Newman's concern to make sure that everyone is happy. But if she asks me for a categorical assurance that in every circumstance everyone will be looked after, I cannot give it. I have had contact with the Public Service Commission about that three-year period when people can apply for jobs in the Public Service. We have gone as far as we can in a lot of these areas at this stage. I can give no further assurance than that. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.53) —I would like the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) to make it quite clear that the offer which is being made to people who take employment with the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC) is not also being made to the people who choose not to be employed by AMEC and are not eligible for redundancy. Is that the situation of the Government now? Senator Robert Ray —I am advised that that is the case. Senator NEWMAN —In that case, the coalition will not find it acceptable and we will need to have consideration of the Bill adjourned so that an amendment can be prepared to protect the interests of those who are involuntarily resigning from the Public Service through no choice of their own. I move: That progress be reported. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Alston, R. K. R. McLean, P. A.Archer, B. R. Macklin, M. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. 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.Durack, P. D. Sanders, N. K.Haines, J. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Harradine, B. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Jenkins, J. A. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W.MacGibbon, D. J. Wood, W. R. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R.Burns, B. R. Morris, J. J.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Richardson, G. F.Collins, R. L. Ryan, S. M.Colston, M. A. Schacht, C. C.Cook, P. F. S. Sibraa, K. W.Crowley, R. A. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, R. Zakharov, A. O.Evans, Gareth Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J.Lewis, A. W. R. Cooney, B. C.Chaney, F. M. Reynolds, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Gietzelt, A. T.Brownhill, D. G. C. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Senator Richardson: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.56) —I rise to speak on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. I take the opportunity to commence with some general comments on the handling of and priority given to rural legislation by this Government, and I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a prepared schedule of legislation before the Senate at this time. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- Bills Into Reps Into Senate Senate Debate Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 (Originally introduced to Reps 30.4.87; lapsed at end of Parliament)... 7.10.87 2.11.87 16.12.87 Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987 Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987 Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987... 18.9.87 17.11.87 16.12.87 Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill 1987 Horticultural Policy Council Bill 1987 Horticultural Levy Bill 1987 Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987... 23.9.87 23.11.87 17.12.87 Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill 1987... 26.11.87 14.12.87 Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 [No. 2] (First introduced to Reps 18.3.87; lapsed at end of Parliament)... 18.9.87 27.10.87 17.12.87 Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill 1987 [No. 2] Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1876 [No. 2] Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987... 18.9.87 24.11.87 17.12.87 Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987... 18.9.87 3.11.87 17.12.87 Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1987... 4.11.87 26.11.87 17.12.87 Senator ARCHER —I thank the Senate. The schedule sets out the rural legislation before the Senate at this time, the date on which the Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives, the date on which they were introduced into the Senate and the date set down for debate here. This schedule clearly indicates that the Government gives absolutely no priority whatsoever to this type of legislation, particularly when we find that the fisheries Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives on 18 March 1987, prior to the double dissolution, and that the meat and livestock package that we are now debating was introduced on 30 April. There is absolutely no reason why, if the Government had any interest in this matter, this legislation could not have been dealt with well before now. We would not then be going through this helter-skelter business to try to deal with it now. Today, 16 December, it is suggested that the legislation should be curtailed, with a truncated debate, for no reason other than that the Government and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans) have no interest in the debate or the industries involved. The proposition has apparently been put that we should at this time have a cognate debate on a group of rural Bills covering dairying, wheat, fishing in two different groups, and dried fruits. This sort of thing is simply not on. I am sick and tired, as are the rural industries, of seeing issues vital to these industries shuffled off, year after year, session after session, and relegated to being treated as though they were just a damned nuisance. But they are not. The meat industry, for a start, deserves to have a proper debate on the issues affecting the industry. The objects of this package of legislation include: to increase the slaughter levies to fund increased expenditure on meat promotion and marketing; to tighten the accounting and reporting procedures for the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation (AMLC) and the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRDC); to improve and formalise the consultative process between the AMLC and the AMLRDC and the peak industry bodies; to streamline administrative and certain voting procedures at the annual general meetings of the bodies; and to apply equal opportunity provisions to the two bodies involved. In general, the industry supports the measures combined in the package, as does the Opposition. Faced by falling levels of red meat consumption, the industry has recognised the need for increased emphasis on promotion and marketing, and supports increased levy payments. The levies this year will rise from $36m in 1986-87 to $75m. I will come back to that later. The industry supports the formalisation of the peak industry bodies and the scrutiny of the AMLC-AMLRDC corporate plans and favours the streamlining of administration related to the annual general meetings (AGMs) of the AMLC and the AMLRDC. Reservations have been expressed, however, about the amendments to the voting procedures for certain motions at annual general meetings. I do not think, by any judgment, it would be possible to find a greater farce than this. For those who may be unaware, there are currently two voting registers for the AMLC: one for producers and another for processors. At present, a special motion, or a motion to overturn a Corporation motion for an increased levy, requires a vote of 75 per cent of those people listed on each of the two registers. This legislation will require such votes to have the support of only those present at the AGM or by proxy. There is no quarrel with this move which will help liberalise voting procedures. There is concern, however, at the maintenance of the 75 per cent two registers rule. This legislation continues the situation where a levy motion-a motion generally to increase levies-will be defeated only if 75 per cent of those present or by proxy and in each register oppose the motion. This raises two concerns: first, a minority-25.1 per cent-of the shareholders on one of the two registers is able to ensure that the motion is carried; and, secondly, unlike under the Companies Act, the onus is on defeating rather than supporting the motion. In this regard the second reading speech is misleading in that it fails to point out that there must be 75 per cent opposition from both of the two registers. The following illustration demonstrates the potential inequities that the absence of further amendments could create. At the 1985 annual general meeting, during an amendment to the levy, there were 10,300 votes cast on the producer register. On the processor register, only 29 were cast. Therefore, under this arrangement a levy motion could succeed even if only eight processors voted in favour of the motion-that is, 10,300, or 100 per cent, of the producers and 74.9 per cent of the processors could vote against a motion and it would still succeed. I do not have the figures from this year's recent AGM, but I gather that they were much the same. Of course, this legislation is put forward by a group which screams about gerrymanders, democracy, one vote one value and so on. But we still have that sort of situation in the livestock industry. Another major concern of the industry is the requirement for levy motions to be debated at the annual general meeting. The cattle and sheep meat industries believe that the AMLC should be obliged to reach agreement with the appropriate industry organisations on proposed levy increases prior to motions being debated at the annual general meeting. It is worth noting that this requirement to consult with the appropriate industry organisations is imposed on other statutory marketing authorities-for example, the Australian Wool Corporation and the Australian Wheat Board. For more than three decades the Australian meat industry has been discussing the development of an agreement on carcass classification. The development of Ausmeat is most welcome but the acceptance of the self-disciplines imposed by the Ausmeat scheme are critical to its success. At the moment the problem seems to lie with pig producers, where there are still problems especially in the central west of New South Wales. The point has been put that, with very little export in the pig meat industry, the producers fail to see the reason why there is need to have a classification and description of carcass which is contrary to their usual method and which, as a result, is costing them money. When questioned on the matter in the debate in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin) said: . . . the Australian Pork Corporation negotiated with the Ausmeat committee of the AMLC for an additional category of carcase which includes many of the components required to be removed under the standard carcase definition. My understanding is that that arrangement may have meant that the trotters and something else could be left on the carcass. But that does not leave the pig intact to the same extent that it was previously. This procedure is now costing every operation which has in the vicinity of a 100-sow piggery, through the abattoirs which are registered under the Ausmeat system, about $7,000 a year. I believe that there should be provision for this new category of carcass if such a measure is necessary. But I believe that if there is disagreement in respect of the returns payable through the Ausmeat works and the non-Ausmeat works, further discussions should be held with a view to maximising the returns that pig producers are able to achieve. No section of the meat industry has done as much as the pig producers to secure a better product. They deserve great credit for their results so far. They have secured a better pig-a much better pig. If the AMLC could show as much progress on sheep and beef, what a tremendous meat industry we would now have. Pork has deservedly lifted its popularity and market share. I urge the AMLC to concentrate on the other species so as to produce similar results. The other major development is that of the computer aided livestock marketing system (CALM). Under the CALM system, users will be able to buy and sell livestock by electronic auction. Although there has been some disagreement on the scheme's detail, the program offers a number of benefits to the industry. At this stage I would like to enumerate six of them. First, the farmers will be able to keep stock on the farm and sell it at the price and conditions most suitable to them; secondly, the system allows for the transfer of stock direct from the farm to the works; thirdly, the sellers have a larger and more competitive buying market; fourthly, sellers must assess their stock more accurately, or have it assessed and consider the grading; fifthly, they can achieve an accurate description; and, sixthly, the system greatly reduces the travelling time and travelling cost of stock. These Bills provide for a significant increase in the maximum levies on meat producers. These levy increases refer to the maximum rates which are provided for in the legislation. For cattle, this optimum rate has increased from $6 to $18, with the operative levy increasing by $3.30 per head to $11.30 to start on 1 January 1988. If approved, industry contributions to the AMLC in 1988-89 will result in $40.5m for the AMLC's general administration and promotion and a further $35m for residue testing procedures-a total of $75m. The industry accepts the inevitable importance of greater promotion. But the extraction of the levies from producers will cause significant economic pain in many places. In the last 25 years the economic position of meat producers vis-a-vis average male weekly earnings has been severely eroded. Only eight years ago the income of beef producers was on a par with average weekly earnings whereas, on the latest estimate, beef producers receive only two-thirds of that benchmark. This reduced profitability is clearly demonstrated by the following statistics. In 1962-63, 25 head of cattle paid for a Holden car, whereas to buy an equivalent Holden today would require the sale of 46 head of cattle. A significant factor in the reduced profitability of the meat industry has been the trend away from red meat over the last decade. Meat consumption peaked in the mid-1970s when Australians consumed 70 kilograms of red meat per head each year. This consumption has slumped dramatically to around 39 kilograms per head annually-about the lowest level ever. In the financial year 1985-86 alone, domestic beef consumption fell by 5 per cent. It is this trend away from red meat consumption that the AMLC and the AMLRDC hope to arrest by devoting increased resources to promotion and research and development. It all comes back to producing better meat and giving it better presentation. It is a truism of successful marketing that the product should be market driven and not production driven. In short, the product should be tailored to the market, not the market tailored to production. Although the meat industry has made some welcome steps in the direction of greater market responsiveness, change is sometimes slow to filter through the system. One of my preoccupations as a breeder and producer was the genetic production of both lean beef and lean lamb. The recognition of the value of lean red meat as an important new direction for the domestic industry is gratifying, even if slow. It would be improper not to make some comment on the Corporation and the industry. The Corporation generally has been successful. I give credit to Dick Austen, for the new light he has been able to throw on to it, and to Peter Frawley. I also commend Scott Ashton-Jones and others in Tasmania for the work they have done to advance the Corporation. It covers a very major group of industries. The industry presently runs something over 50 million sheep and 23 million cattle. It embraces 76,000 producers, whose product is worth $2,500m a year. It produces a million tonnes of beef, lamb and mutton alone, plus many other products. There is considerable export of a whole variety of meats and animals. The AMLC's annual report for 1986-87 lists them: live sheep, 7.7 million head; breeding sheep, 12,600 head; slaughter and feed cattle, 60,000 head; breeding beef, 17,445 head; dairy cattle exports, 3,554 head; live goats, increased to 44,000 head; buffalo, 4,536-and so it goes on. The industry has advanced in numbers and lines, and may it continue to do so. The industry has considerable needs in research and development. There are consumer pressures. There is a world surplus. The European Community (EC) and the United States, with their protection problems, are causing us a lot of difficulty. Then there is the special Japanese situation. The need is for better description and payment by description. The success of the CALM process is absolutely essential. There is insufficient inducement for the industry to be consumer conscious and for producers to produce the best beast possible. We need to concentrate particularly on the lean meat programs and to look at breeding-including the European breeds and the bos indicus influence. We also need to study the rates of growth of various breeds of animals. We need a better definition of what constitutes prime meat, we need greater price differentials between the top and the bottom of the market and we need to look at the cut-out percentages of carcasses. I would like to acknowledge the amount of research being done generally. I note that the annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation lists 125 different research programs under way. They cover a whole range of things, from the monitoring of the industry through to breeding, feeding, processing, marketing, health, disease control, transport and so on. I would like particularly to acknowledge the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and, as far as the cattle industry is concerned, especially the work done in tropical areas and the areas where the cattle are. I refer to the work it has done in places such as Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton and Brisbane, and to its work in Sydney, Melbourne and Geelong in disease immunology and things of that sort. There has been considerable advance in the work done in skins and hides treatment as a result of the efforts of its Division of Protein Chemistry. The potential for huge lamb export markets is developing. We have to provide the right lamb to meet those markets. There is a great need for value added work in the meat we sell and the by-products. We need to assist in the promotion of the AMLC through butchers and supermarkets. At present the AMLC has over 8,000 butcher shops listed for its promotions. Brucellosis and tuberculosis need a special mention. The work in controlling brucellosis has been very effective. It is a job very well done. It appears that Australia will be clear by 1992. Apparently fewer than 30 properties in the whole of Australia still carry an infection. The tuberculosis problem is slightly more difficult, particularly where there are buffalo. But eradication can be achieved. We must ensure that we keep an eye on pet food manufacturers so we do not lose control over the problem. We are currently facing the problem of residues. I do not intend to say very much on that matter; I will leave it to Senator Brownhill to comment. But we have in the order of 500 properties in quarantine. There are three different classes of problem. The first concerns antibiotics. There is a need for heavy penalties for anybody who tries to market property which is under the influence of antibiotics, and obviously there can be such residues only if the antibiotics are administered. Anybody who does that deserves to suffer. The second class consists of properties that are infected accidentally. This includes the properties of people who may have had their light poles sprayed by the electricity authority or something like that. The third group consists of people who used the various chemicals in the manner prescribed, well within the law, and who are now suffering although they were not responsible for having made the decisions that allowed the product to be used. Those people deserve special consideration. Research is urgent and early results are vital. In the meantime testing must proceed. I understand that between 250,000 and 300,000 tests have already been made. We are looking for a system that will reduce costs from double figure dollars to double figure cents and will enable tests to be carried out on the premises. The big hope is that we will be able to get a colour-responsive litmus-type test. That would be ideal. That is very high on the list of the testing and research effort. Surely a fifty-fifty contribution by the Government would ensure that research was speeded up and every possible effort was applied. We have to give credit to the amount of work that has already been done by the Australian Agricultural Council and acknowledge the degree of testing that has proceeded and encourage the research in any way we possibly can. It has been brought to my notice that moves have been made to purchase a new gee-whiz computer, at a cost of $1m, just for co-ordinating residue testing. It is proposed that the system will be totally independent of any other computer operation, and of course it will be funded mainly by the producer levy. I am aware that the Csironet Anadis operation is on the computer of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and that the computer also contains information on foreign fishing, plus details of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. That installation could be enhanced 3 1/2 times, at a cost of about $600,000, and provide a much better system at a much lower cost. I would like the Minister to advise whether this project is still scheduled to go forward and whether there has been adequate investigation of whether this job can be done on the existing computer with an upgraded system. The software skills already exist. I expect the best value to be obtained for the producer's expense, particularly if this colour-responsive testing system is achieved, as we all hope it will be. Finally, I will touch briefly on the export situation. The export meat industry makes a major contribution to the fortunes of the industry as a whole. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian meat exports, excluding the live sheep trade, were worth $1.9 billion in the 1986-87 financial year. That figure is cited in the AMLC annual report. These exports represent 4.7 per cent of total commodity exports. Australia's export meat industry, like most of our commodity exports, has been seriously disadvantaged by the corruption of world markets through export subsidisation and other unfair trading tactics. I recently read a European Community publication called Agricultural Prices-1987/88 Proposals which, on the question of short and medium term prospects for commodities, predicted: The overall situation seems likely to worsen under the combined influence of three factors, namely over-production at world level, the relative inelasticity of supply and the shortage of foreign exchange in the third world. The report continued grimly: An analysis of the available data indicates that the structural imbalance between supply and demand is likely to persist for the foreseeable future, with prices remaining depressed. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation. I would like to congratulate the industry on the progress it has made in the last decade, and I urge even greater attention to the product improvement and market consciousness. I give notice at this stage of the three amendments that stand in the name of the Opposition. The first amendment is to the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, and it requests the Government to honour its policy of meeting 55 per cent of inspection charges, including chemical residue inspections. The second is to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, and it concerns consultation with industry organisations before the levy charges are made. The third amendment applies to the same Bill, and it seeks to amend and insert a new clause in the equal employment opportunity provisions in line with our previously stated policy. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(5.21) —I support Senator Archer in his remarks. Because these Bills that we are debating cognately today are very important for the livestock industries. They affect a number of areas and I wish to address my remarks to several of the more important issues contained in this particular package of Bills-the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill will in fact amend several Acts. It will formalise the involvement of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) in the Australian pork industry through the Australian Pork Corporation, which Senator Archer has already mentioned. On a general note, it will alter the running of the AMLC annual general meetings and amend existing requirements for the Livestock Industry Policy Council to hold conferences every two years and make changes to the AMLC selection committee. With these changes, the responsible Minister will also be able to implement marketing schemes such as CALM-which is computer aided livestock marketing-and Ausmeat, which is a uniform specification system for meat and livestock. The Bill also ensures that the AMLC consults industry bodies on five-year strategy plans on a rolling annual basis and people selected to the Board can be appointed for up to three years and not for three-year terms. This will give more flexibility to the Corporation and will be of benefit to the industry as a whole. These sections of the legislation are wanted by the industry and will benefit the administrative efficiency of the livestock industries in Australia. However, certain aspects of this package are not popular. Senator Archer has already alluded to some of them but, for the benefit of honourable senators, I will reiterate some of them. For example, this Bill has caused a great deal of consternation to sections of the pork industry, and I would like to take some time to air the concerns sections of this industry have. The Central West Pig Producers Association, from my home State of New South Wales, together with a number of other small groups of producers, is worried about the proposed changes being made to Ausmeat classifications for the pig industry. Not all in the pig industry have the same views on this matter. In fact, the Pork Producers Association is in favour of the proposals. I feel sorry that there is disunity in the pig industry on this matter because the pig industry, perhaps more than any other livestock industry, has worked consistently over a number of years towards a standard carcass classification scheme for itself, which Senator Archer has already pointed out. The current Ausmeat classification for pork and bacon carcasses provides for one of two choices. The first includes the head, the flare, the kidney and the fore trotters removed, with the alternative leaving the head on, but removing the tongue and the ears. Sections of the industry argue that using these two classifications will not only deny butchers the use of trotters and heads, but also mean an average loss to the producers of about $2.30 to $3 per pig. I think Senator Archer has already mentioned that that amounts to quite a considerable sum per producer. Some producers would like a third option included in the classification scheme which would allow an entire carcass. They argue that there are no cost advantages to the producers in the existing two classifications. They do not support Ausmeat's argument that the new trim will allow for higher prices per kilo, and they do not support the accommodation to an export industry which is, in relative terms, quite small. As I said, I feel sorry that this industry, which has in the past had a reputation as being efficient-which has adopted aggressive marketing to make its product more appealing to the consumer and which has adopted new technology and now is most progressive-has had this division within its ranks. I am sympathetic to the arguments of those pig producers. However, I and my colleagues are of the firm opinion that it is up to the industry itself to sort out its problems. I do not believe it is appropriate for divided industries to turn to politicians and expect them to provide the wisdom of Solomon, although we can provide a lot of wisdom at times. We do not have to live with the system; basically the producer does. I think it is up to the producers to really participate in their organisation. The Australian Pork Producers Association must thrash out its own problems. If that means that it is stuck with a classification system that is not to all producers' liking, so be it. The only consolation I can offer is that Ausmeat has said that the new classifications will be on a one-year trial basis and that the situation will be reviewed. So I think there is some light at the end of the tunnel for those people who are not happy with the situation at this stage. If in fact the industry does suffer a loss of income, I am sure it will not be in anyone's best interest to continue with the system and it will be changed. Of even more concern in this package are the amendments dealing with the increases to the maximum levy rate for inspection, which will raise the levy from $6 to $18 a head for adult cattle. There are similar scaling up charges for sheep, goats, lambs and buffaloes. At present the maximum levy is some $6 a head for cattle, but in practice the charge has remained at $3.30. The AMLC meeting the other day suggested some charges which would probably be up to about $9.80, the new promotion costing about $3 and the new residue testing suggested to cost about $3.50-but it could be up to $5. I would also like to make some comments about that AMLC meeting the other day, which I attended. The producers are taking a much bigger interest now than they did in the past. In my opinion the meeting was very well run by Mr Dick Austen, and I would like to congratulate him also on the job that he has done for the industry in the last year. The pesticides scare, however, has changed the situation. The discovery of meat in both the United States and Japan containing higher than acceptable levels of pesticide residues has posed a severe threat to the Australian beef industry. It has dented our reputation as a reliable producer and it has caused panic among producers. I might say here that it is quite interesting that the American authorities test only between 1,000 and 2,000 samples from their entire domestic cattle herd of some 100 million. On the other hand, they are now taking 4,000 samples from our beef imports, which represents-I think this has already been mentioned at other times and in other places-about 6,000 per cent closer attention to the residue testing of our beef than of their own. The Government has reacted to the problem by announcing increased intensive testing for organochlorines in meat for export. In the circumstances that is an entirely proper and responsible approach to take and I have no argument with its decision to do so. But, as a beef producer myself and also as someone vitally concerned with Australia's trading position, I say that this is something that concerns me and all other beef producers a great deal at this stage. I would like to make several points on this issue. Honourable senators would be aware, from questions I have asked without notice in this chamber and also in the estimates hearings for the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, that I have some reservations about the Federal Government's role. Prior to this pesticide scare, standard residue testing was carried out and this was funded entirely by the Government to the tune of $1.8m. The Government has decided, in light of the pesticide problems, that testing should be increased. It has also decided that it should change the payments and it has called on the industry to contribute 50 per cent of this annual cost, which has already been discussed in this place. This has been increased to approximately $5.4m a year. This means that the contribution from the industry is some $2.7m, when it was previously nothing, and the Government's contribution has increased from $1.8m to $2.7m. The proposed intensive testing is anticipated to cost a total of $15m, and the industry and the Government will each contribute $7.5m. I do not believe the industry has been fairly treated in this whole sorry affair. The Age reports Mr Kerin, when addressing the recent National Farmers Federation Conference, as follows: `The way we've handled chemicals has been deplorable,' he said. `States have been negligent with respect to these chemicals, quite frankly. The beef industry's the one that's copped it in the neck and in effect is cleaning up the environment for the rest of the livestock industry, and the country as a whole.' That is what is happening at the moment. The beef industry is carrying the can for the rest of the community as far as residue testing is concerned. It is interesting to read a little about liability, if the facts reported in the Press are correct. Mr David Palmer, the New South Wales Farmers Association's executive officer for meat and livestock, was mentioned in a recent Land newspaper article which states: David Palmer, said letters written by the then Minister for Agriculture, Don Day,- Don Day was a member of the Australian Labor Party Government in New South Wales- in 1975 and 1976 indicated unnecessary procrastination by the NSW Government and the Department of Agriculture on banning chemicals like DDT. Mr Palmer said Mr Day and his department had advocated the continued use of DDT at a time when farm organisations wanted the chemical banned and alternative and safer pesticides were available. I think the Government is liable in the pesticide residue argument and I think it is partly at fault. But I suppose one could argue for hours about whether it was the fault of the chemical companies, the Federal Government or the various State governments. It may well be true in some cases that farmers were at fault for careless use of the chemicals. However, it cannot be said that it is entirely the fault of the beef industry, and it would therefore seem grossly unfair to insist that the beef industry suffer the total cost of cleaning up the residue problem. Additionally, the intensive testing will be of benefit to others, because it will point out potential problems before they affect other foods. The beef industry is worth some $2.6 billion a year to the Australian economy. For that reason alone it should be protected and kept on a sound footing. I think the industry and the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation in particular, should be commended for the way they have addressed this crisis. I think they have viewed the threat to the beef trade to America in a very responsible way. They have also taken into account that it will be a threat to Australia's economy and our current account if we do not clean it up. I must stress again that the pesticide residue problem is not the fault of livestock producers but it is this sector that has been asked to finance the clean-up. I think the Government should look again at giving it some more help to clean up the export industry problem which, if allowed to go on, will cause a lot of problems to Australia's current account. Finally, I would like to point out the insistence on equal employment opportunity (EEO) clauses which this Government feels necessary to tack on to every bit of legislation concerning statutory marketing authorities. I am a firm believer in the premise that jobs should be allocated on the basis of merit and not sex, religion, colour or anything else. I have often said in this place that women are more than equal with men, and I do not think there is any need for that to be placed in the legislation. Senator Boswell —More equal. Senator BROWNHILL —More equal, as Senator Boswell said. The various rural statutory marketing authorities have operated very sucessfully for a number of years without the need to resort to clauses such as the EEO provisions. I do not think they are necessary. But that will all be discussed with the amendments that will be moved by Senator Archer. I will support all the amendments that will be moved by him, as our spokesman in this debate. I counsel the Government again and ask it to listen with a sympathetic ear to the beef industry's arguments about cleaning up the residue problem in Australia. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.36) —We are engaged in another debate on allied Bills. To pick up Senator Archer's point, I suppose in some way we can be grateful that although at the end of the session we seem to have a large backlog of primary industry legislation-something which I note since I carry that shadow portfolio for the Australian Democrats-at least this time all the Bills we are debating relate to the meat and livestock industry. I briefly recall that at the end of the autumn session this year we had egg, wool and nursing home Bills all together in one cognate debate. I found that debate a great challenge. At least on this occasion we are addressing ourselves to a range of Bills which relate strictly to the meat and livestock industry. They are important Bills, as has been pointed out by earlier speakers. The first of the Bills, the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, amends a number of meat and livestock Acts and includes the formalisation of arrangements between the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) and the Australian Pork Corporation in the development of marketing schemes for meat and livestock, changes to the operation of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation's annual general meeting, and the requirement for that Corporation's five-year plan to be updated annually and for the Corporation to consult with industry in the preparation of these plans. In addition, the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council will retain its power to call industry-wide conferences whenever it feels they are needed, while the requirement for the Council to hold such conferences at least every two years will be removed. As Senator Brownhill has pointed out, the legislation also requires the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Policy Council to adopt the equal employment opportunity program, which is consistent with that already existing in the Australian Wool Corporation and which is also proposed for the Australian Wheat Board and other statutory corporations, as was the commitment of the Government, strongly supported by the Australian Democrats. We are pleased to see the implementation of these important equal employment opportunity programs in these rural authorities as the legislation relating to those authorities comes through. As Senator Brownhill has pointed out, we will have some amendments from the Opposition, amendments largely based on a stated perception at least that this Bill in some way implements an affirmative action program, but that is not the case. The Australian Democrats certainly do not perceive that to be the case. Senator Brownhill expressed some concern that appointments should be on the basis of merit. This legislation provides for that, as does all of the equal employment opportunity legislation which has been passed in recent times with strong Democrat support. Senator Brownhill did mention that rural statutory bodies had been chugging along quite nicely without the need for this provision. That is something that ought to be challenged. I refer to an article published in the business section of the Times on Sunday of 17 May which outlines some of the deficiencies within statutory corporations in the rural sector. The article appeared before the Australian Wool Corporation legislation had been passed. The article cited some figures relating to the Australian Wool Corporation. At that time the Corporation had 621 employees in total, and women made up 240 of that figure, or 39 per cent. It is interesting that the number of male employees whose salaries were above $30,000 per annum was 130, while the figure for women was 31, or 19 per cent of the total work force. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the body which we are now addressing, had 180 employees of which 72 were women, that is, 40 per cent. Ten of those women, or 14 per cent of the total work force, received salaries above $30,000, while 61 men received salaries above that level. Forty-two per cent of the total number of employees of the Australian Dairy Corporation were women, but only 11 per cent of women, out of the total work force figure, received salaries above $30,000 per annum. In regard to the Australian Wheat Board, 32 per cent of its employees were women and 11.5 per cent of the total work force receiving salaries above the $30,000 level were women. Those figures reflect the situation in the wider community. Women do not receive anything like the earnings of men. If one were to say that women earned 65 per cent of average male earnings, that would probably be too high a figure. It is quite clear that, although we have come a long way in recent times in our attitudes to women, we still need the sorts of provisions, such as those contained in this legislation, which draw attention to some of the deficiencies and encourage corporations and individuals to provide the possibilities for women which have existed all along for men. This matter is particularly significant in primary industry bodies, because one of the things that have not been recognised sufficiently is the role that women have played and do play in rural areas and, in particular, on the land. All too often it is not recognised that farming and primary production generally are most often a co-operative effort between partners or between entire families. It is quite distressing that in this day and age a sales agent for a rural company can telephone a farm property, have the call answered by a female member of the household, and ask to speak to the boss. I think that that sort of attitude is quite outdated, but it still occurs in this area. There is a failure to recognise the significant role that women play in rural industries. I draw attention to a booklet issued by Poolman Partners Australasia Pty Ltd, entitled Strategies for Survival. The subtitle is `Managing and financing the family farm in the 1990s'. The foreword by Julian Cribb points out that this booklet from Poolmans challenges some of the conventions of the family farm of the twentieth century in its struggle to adapt to change. I was very pleased to see a section on farm nepotism in that booklet. It points out: . . . it is still a common farm and agribusiness practice to hand over management, and often ownership, of the family farm to a son or sons, while daughters are relocated in other careers. In some cases, girls are better equipped and qualified to take over a family farm business than male heirs. Often, unfortunately, this option is not even considered. . . . . Vital management and specialist resources are being overlooked and ignored in agriculture because of farm nepotism. The provisions in this legislation, as far as the Corporation is concerned, recognise that, unfortunately, nepotism of this kind is still rampant in our community. It is not necessarily a matter very often of specific individual prejudice or a lack of willingness; it is simply that all too often we do not understand what we are doing when it comes to discrimination and that it has permeated throughout our whole community. We must take steps such as those that are taken in this legislation to provide for equal employment opportunity, particularly with regard to the rural sector, in which women play such a significant role. This week I was visited by women from the Union of Australian Farmers, who I believe are playing a significant role in drawing to the attention of the community the plight of people in terms of income support and their ability to retain their farms. They are addressing issues such as those we addressed in legislation last week with regard to income support for people on the land. We are now seeing a new generation of farm women activists who are being extremely political in their activities in support of women on the land in Australia. I congratulate them; I offer them my support. The Australian Democrats certainly support those provisions in the legislation. Further amendments provide for the appointment of members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee for periods up to three years, and also remove the requirement for the preparation of an annual report. The Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987 and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 contain some fairly substantial increases to the maximum allowable levies and charges. There is no doubt that these increases are substantial. The increases are largely necessary due to the cost involved following the chemical residue crisis which loomed before us earlier this year. The last two Bills in this package-the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987-make some technical amendments to the principal Acts dealing with collection arrangements and registration charges in establishments involved in the export of fish and poultry products. In giving the Australian Democrats' support for this package of Bills, I will address some concerns the Australian Democrats have in regard to some of the changes proposed by the Government, and some more concerns which relate to problems facing the meat and livestock industry in general. In respect of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, representations have been made to me by a number of pig producer groups, including the Central West Pig Producers Association, the Lachlan Valley Pork Producers Association and the Mudgee Pig Producers Group, all of which have strongly protested about the lack of information and communication afforded to pig producers prior to the introduction of Ausmeat and the consequent changes which have been outlined by previous speakers relating to the standard and definition of carcass trim, which is financially disadvantaging these pig producers. These groups do not object to the principles of Ausmeat in total; however, I feel that the concern expressed is genuine and warrants the attention of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), as well as greater consultation and understanding by Ausmeat representatives. I pick up the point that Senator Brownhill made. When there is conflict within an industry, and particularly within a significant industry such as the pork producing industry, that causes some problems for politicians. However, I suggest that we are happy to bring those views and concerns before the Minister and will ask for his consideration of them. Turning to the changes to the operation of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation's annual general meeting, I understand that it is the Government's intention to streamline the voting procedure because that procedure has proved to be too unwieldy. In order to increase the levy, the requirement will now be for a vote of 75 per cent of those people present, either in person or by proxy, rather than the requirement for a vote of 75 per cent of people on the register, as is the case at present. I also understand that Senator Archer, on behalf of the Opposition, has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading, to the effect that the recommendations for levy changes should in future be made direct to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation only after it has consulted with appropriate industry organisations. While the Australian Democrats recognise that there have been difficulties in voting procedure, our position is that we support the Government's endeavours to try to streamline these procedures in the form of this amending legislation. Therefore, we will not support the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The Australian Democrats are in complete agreement with the new requirement, as embodied in this legislation, for the AMLC to consult with the peak industry bodies in the preparation of its five-year plan and its annual operational plan and the additional requirement that the five-year plan be updated each year so that it constantly covers the following five years. We see this as a particularly sensible requirement and one which will encourage co-operation between the Corporation and industry bodies and allow for flexibility to cope with emergencies within that five-year planning process. In this respect, I note that the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation (AMLRC), in its 1986-87 annual report, has found it necessary to submit a revised plan with commencement in 1988-89 in the light of the recent and continuing residue crisis concerning our beef. This is a good example of the way in which this sort of flexibility is useful. While I am on the subject of chemical residues, I now turn to the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, both of which propose maximum levies and charges for both the AMLC and the AMLRDC components. In about half of the species to which the levies and charges apply, the increases are up to 300 per cent. The Minister, in his second reading speech for both Bills, informed us that the reason for these proposed increases in the maximum levies and charges is to enable the AMLC itself to seek increases in levies and charges from the industry in order to expand its domestic and overseas promotion activities and `finance industry supported programs related to testing and trace-back of meat for chemical residues and the repurchase of certain meat which may contain such residues'. The Bills give legislative force to increases that the industry itself has requested and agreed to. While the legislation contains the maximum levies and charges allowable, at the annual general meeting of the AMLC which was referred to earlier in the debate the industry agreed to increases to the AMLC component, which will become operative in March or April 1988. There are also some increases to the Australian Meat and Livestock Research and Development Corporation component. I turn now to the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading concerning the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. The Australian Democrats have difficulty with this. I think I understand what the Opposition intends but I do not think it has actually said what it intends. The amendment asks the Government to honour its policy of meeting 50 per cent of the cost of export inspection charges. I am not aware that there is anything in this legislation that does not do that. Possibly the Opposition was referring to the other charges in the other Bill-charges for residue testing and buy-back programs-which are charges on the industry. Since at least that part of the amendment seems to be addressing something which is already in existence, it cannot be supported. The second part calls on the Government sympathetically to consider requests from the industry for assistance with any special and additional export costs imposed on the industry by the chemical residue issue. That, of course, is something which we would all wish the Government to do. However, it does make an assumption that there has been no support from the Government and that, of course, is not the case. It is obvious that there is not as much support as the industry would have liked; that is an ongoing process. But it has already been pointed out in this debate that the Government's contribution to the upgrading of the national residue survey is costing the Government another $1m or so this year. There is no question that reside testing, buy-back and the whole problem are costing the industry. So, on that basis and given that these two points are put together, the Democrats will not support that amendment. We certainly recognise, as does the industry, that levies and charges have to be instituted. We congratulate the industry on the speedy action which it has taken in the past, but we have some serious concerns about the direction of government and industry efforts to remedy the residue problem. While some of the chemicals in question, in particular DDT and dieldrin, should have been banned in Australia long ago, as they were in other countries, and while government and industry have responded quickly to the recent crisis by upgrading testing procedures and quarantining contaminated farms-we should make it clear that those quarantines are voluntary-it is not even a matter of too little too late: we believe that this crisis should prompt a fundamental rethinking of the use of chemicals in agriculture. The residue problem in our beef is really only the tip of the iceberg. Unless government, industry and producers make big changes in policy and practice now, the future for Australian agriculture is not assured. The particular chemicals in question were widely used 10, 15 and 20 years ago, and it is only now that we are seeing the effects of their persistent qualities on much of our resource base, that is, the soil, our crops, our livestock, the food we eat and export and, ultimately, the harmful effects on the health of all Australians. The question must be asked: Just what other chemicals, either in current production or planned for the future, will have similar or worse effects? Unfortunately, that question is not being asked often enough and clearly enough, and it is certainly not being answered. Since the initial crisis this year, I have been calling on the Government for a range of concrete actions. I have included in that a call for greater liaison with the States to set up uniform standards and legislation on chemicals. I welcome the Minister's news that we will have agricultural and veterinary chemical legislation before us first thing next year. We need legislation for a national chemicals inventory and notification scheme. We need to look at research into chemicals being done outside the industry. We need compensation for quarantined farms and we need to look at where that is coming from. We certainly cannot look past chemical companies and State governments directly at the Federal Government only. Government promotion and encouragement of alternative methods of pest and disease control are important, including the establishment of an integrated pest management unit to compile and disseminate information on pest and disease control methods which will exclude, or largely exclude, use of all chemicals. Mr Kerin, the Minister, has already been quoted in this debate. In the Australian on 3 September this year he was reported as saying that he was committed to the establishment of legislation to cover agricultural and veterinary chemicals. That initial statement is now being followed up with action. Finally, we believe that is essential for State and Federal governments to promote more benign and effective control of pests and diseases. On the National Farm Report, I believe it was, just last week I heard that the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association has established its own weed resistance task force. The director of that task force was talking about establishing integrated weed management systems which would occur with the use of procedures; and farming practices other than the simple use of chemicals. If we do not ensure that we have proper regulation and monitoring of chemicals and proper dissemination of a wide range of information on the basis of a whole range of alternatives, we will as a community continue to suffer the economic costs of repair for current and future generations, which could be crippling. We have quite a challenge before us. The industry is to be congratulated on the responsible approach that it has taken so far. I notice that, just today, Mr Wally Peart of the Cattle Council of Australia has gone on record as calling on the industry to continue with its voluntary funding into next year, when compulsory funding is introduced. He made a strong statement in support of the process that is going on, and the industry is to be congratulated on the approach that it has taken in a difficult time. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.00) —The Senate is debating the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Amendment Bill 1987 and cognate Bills, which relate to the meat and livestock industries of Australia. These industries play a critical role in the welfare of all Australians and our economy. Livestock slaughtering injects $95m into our economy every week and a total of $4.9 billion was injected into the economy in 1987 and 1988. If one adds to those figures another $6 billion for products including wool, skins and dairy produce one sees what a significant industry this is, and what a major role it plays in the economy of this nation. This magnificent performance deserves proper recognition from all levels of government and we must not underestimate the value of the livestock industries to the well being of all Australians. The Bills introduce a wide range of amendments in such areas as computer aided livestock marketing, Ausmeat, chemical residue testing, the Livestock Industry Policy Council and slaughter levies. They are fairly complicated Bills and I know that many people who are listening tonight, as they weave their way through the traffic, are not interested in primary industry. However, I say to those people that this industry plays a very significant role in the well being of all Australians. I wish to concentrate on the particular issues of the voting procedures at the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) annual meeting, and the outlook for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign as it affects Queensland, the Northern Territory and the northern areas of Western Australia. The problems of the voting procedures at the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation annual meeting has been well documented over a long period by my colleague the Deputy Leader of the National Party, Mr Bruce Lloyd, and his predecessor, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). Put simply, the voting procedures set down by this Government are not working and need immediate amendment and change. This Government must put its house in order and sit down to discuss the matter with an industry that provides so many millions of dollars and so many jobs for all Australians. It must come up with some realistic alternative to this mess. Honourable senators may not be aware of the situation that our producers face at the AMLC annual meeting. It is astonishing that at least 75 per cent of producers registered with the AMLC, plus at least 75 per cent of registered processors, must vote against the motion to increase slaughter levies before the motion is defeated. In other words, a small group of people can effectively override the wishes of a majority of producers to impose a levy increase and our producers have no recourse to any further action. At the 1985 annual general meeting, when levies were increased, 10,300 producers and 29 processors were registered for a vote. That means that a vote of just eight processors in favour of increased levies on producers would ensure that increases took place. That is not democracy on any scale whatsoever; in fact, it is an absolute farce. I do not know what this Government is up to when it tries to pass legislation such as that. I say to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, that the least he can do is to sit down with representatives of this multi-billion dollar industry to ensure that the producers get some type of fair go-a fair go that they have not had in the last two or three years. I will not dwell on the matter beyond saying that the present situation cannot continue and that the Minister will be judged on his attitude on the long overdue change. I turn in particular to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987 and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987. It is proposed that the maximum allowable amount of levy on the slaughter of cattle will rise from $6 to $18. That levy comprises three sections of funding-the AMLC activities of promotion, industry research and development and disease eradication. The operative rate of levy will be set by regulation. It goes without saying that we on this side of the chamber will thoroughly scrutinise any increase in levies that is unsatisfactory for the industry. However, I point out to the livestock producers that of course an increase in the maximum levy does not necessarily mean an increase in the operative rate. The Minister has claimed widespread support for substantial increases in slaughter rates and promotional expenditure. The major industry organisations have considerable doubts as to whether the maximum operational levy envisaged by the AMLC for chemical residue testing purposes will actually be acquired by the time the levies can be implemented. The reason is that many of the areas that are returning positive testings have now been nominated and the testing will take place only in those particular areas. There is a large body of opinion, particularly among Queensland producers, that Australia will be off lot testing by April 1988, which is less than six months away. Let us hope that that can be achieved. The cattle industry is not unlike many other rural industries. It suffers from crippling interest rates, an inflation rate four times the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average, a fuel excise of 20 cents a litre, high chemical and fertiliser costs and other such government charges under the Hawke Labor regime. In no circumstances must these producers be subject to anything more than the bare minimum cost required to maintain the Australian meat industry's outstanding export reputation. Already the industry's commitment to a high level of testing has paid dividends in that the violation rate is now 0.07 per cent. That represents a large decline on what was the average rate of violation of 0.4. That rate has been maintained in regard to Australian meat exports for the last few years. This reflects the dramatic effect of the quarantining of over 300 properties around Australia. In the meantime there is a strong case for the Government sharing the residue testing costs with the industry. When the residue problem became apparent the industry swiftly responded of its own volition and, off its own bat, put in between $25m and $30m. This Labor Government has contributed very little-barely anything at all. That is quite disgraceful when we compare what the Labor Government has done for the secondary industries of this nation. Only yesterday we saw a disgraceful performance in this Senate when the Government tried to inflict on the industry a 15c a head levy to be made retrospective to 1 July, taking from the industry I think another $5m. This was to provide and charge for a service that had already been provided for the last number of years at absolutely no cost. This disgraceful performance was aided and abetted by the Australian Democrats. Senator Panizza —Shame. Senator BOSWELL —It was absolutely shameful to see them change their attitude. After they had moved a motion in the Senate which stated that they would support the farmers, they turned their backs on the rural producers of Australia once again. I know that it disappointed everyone on this side of the House because we thought that we could do a good deed for the farmers and the graziers in their hour of need. But we got let down badly by the Democrats once again. I do not want to denigrate the Democrats; I will let the farmers and the grazing industry of Australia make their own judgment. Let me get back to what the Australian Labor Party has done for this secondary industry and let us examine the anti-rural bias that this Labor Party displays. The steel industry is a good example. The steel industry said, `We are in strife. We need help. What can you offer us?' Senator Button, no doubt after a gentle shove from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, found over $500m to be paid over five years. On reading Senator Button's Press release I see that he said that this was the worst mistake he has ever made. He has certainly never helped rural industry and this Government has never helped the Australian farmer. What about the car manufacturers? They said, `We need some investment money,' and the Government said, `How can we help?' The Labor Party and the Labor Government found $300m to answer that problem, yet the export reputation of our meat industry comes under question. The industry takes the bit in its teeth and says, `We will solve our own problems'. It is spending $30m, that is, $130,00 a day, to protect the living standards of every Australian. Exactly what has this Government done for rural Australia over the last five years? Nothing. It is an absolute disgrace. It is time that our meat producers and our farmers were given some encouragement for the tremendous job they are doing on behalf of all Australians. They have had nothing from this Government except platitudes and even they are wearing a bit thin after five years. Senator Maguire —But more of them are voting for us. Senator BOSWELL —I have never met a farmer yet who has voted for the Labor Party. I suppose that there are some poor misguided people around, but I have been in politics for 12 years and I have never met one farmer who has ever voted for the Labor Party. He would be socially ostracised if he voted for the Labor Party in Queensland. Senator McGauran —That's right; and the Democrats. Senator BOSWELL —We do not even talk about the Democrats. I turn now to the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. This is another example of the meat industry and the rural industry needing some help. I want to emphasise a concern raised with me by Queensland cattle producers over the disease eradication component of the levies to be amended by this package of legislation. I am sure that all honourable senators will recognise the outstanding response by the coalition parties, when they were in government, to the threat posed by the long-standing diseases, brucellosis and tuberculosis. This has already culminated in a recent declaration in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia as being impending free of those diseases. I congratulate the farmers of those States for their achievement, but I ask them to spare a thought for the northern farmers who have to reach this impending free stage in very difficult circumstances, which I will go into a little later. This year's Budget Paper No. 1 clearly retains 1992 as the target date for a nationwide disease free declaration, and I hope that we can achieve that date. It is hoped that Queensland will have its impending free status by January 1992. The Hawke Government now appears reluctant to advance further funds to Queensland so the program can be accelerated and thereby achieve overall savings in its cost. In 1987-88 Queensland required $10.66m for compensation payments, compared with the Hawke Government's offer of $8.2m. If we spend more this year, we will spend $800,000 less next year. The Government claims that the Queensland compensation rates are above the cost of the cattle on the properties. This is frustrating the farmers. The industry bodies are seeking a high level meeting between Federal and State primary industry Ministers and their counterparts from the Northern Territory and Western Australia to resolve these fundamental differences on how the programs can be most effectively financed. As Senator Walsh is not in the chamber, I will ask a question of Senator Gareth Evans, who is the Minister in charge of the chamber. I do not think he knows a lot about rural industries, but I hope he can pass this message on to the Minister because it is very important. Queensland needs at least $10.6m for compensation payments this year. I ask the Government to accept that, despite the fact that tremendous progress has been made, a final total eradication from the more remote regions of north Australia will be quite difficult to achieve by 1992. I have been into the northern areas of my State. It is probably the roughest country in the world. Senator Archer —Rough people, too. Senator BOSWELL —I would not agree. They are absolutely lovely people. They are the salt of the earth. I have flown over those places and remote cattle stations in the Gulf and Peninsula country in Queensland. Farmers have tremendous problems. They have difficulty in putting down a fence line. As soon as the fence line is down the brumbies come through and knock it over. They have many other problems, such as floods, and they muster cattle in difficult circumstances. Queensland will find it extremely difficult to reach the target date of 1992. I hope it can be reached. I know that at the moment almost all the cattle have been mustered by normal means and the ones that are left have to be shot out. I know that Senator Powell will be disgusted because I know what she thinks about that type of behaviour. It is an absolute necessity up there. There is no way that the remaining cattle can be mustered because they are too wild, so a shoot-out is the only way left for Queensland to become clean by 1992. The industry needs to plan ahead. It needs an assurance that the present funding arrangements will, in principle, be maintained where necessary if the 1992 target date is not achieved. Queenslanders are already paying around $3m a year for stock crossing the border into New South Wales and Victoria because of their impending free status. Queenslanders should not suffer discrimination in the latest step of the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign (BTEC). I seek an assurance from the Government and from Senator Gareth Evans-I know he is very interested in this matter-that funding will be maintained. The least that Senator Evans and the Hawke Government can do is to provide some money for this very important industry that gives so much for all Australians. As I have already said, the cattle industry provides millions of dollars in foreign exchange and thousands of jobs. It has to put up with many problems-the residue problem, problems associated with the BTEC, the natural disasters of fires and floods, and all of the vicissitudes that annoy farmers. But the low blow that has been dealt to the industry by this Government, when the renewal of leases incurred the capital gains tax, is just beyond the pale. A couple of weeks ago this rumour was mentioned in the Australian Financial Review, which hinted that a capital gains tax could be charged on the renewal of grazing leases. I never believed that the Government would charge a capital gains tax on the renewal of leases so I fired off a question to Senator Walsh-only to have my worst fears confirmed, that is, that a capital gains tax now applies to the renewal or conversion of leases. I then put a series of questions on notice to which I received answers only today. I thought that I might have been able to congratulate the Australian Labor Party and Senator Walsh but, unfortunately, the anti-rural bias has come back once again. I was told that this measure was an unintended consequence. Mr Kerin said that a capital gains tax was not meant to apply to the renewal of leases and would not be charged. Three months ago I put a series of questions on notice and today I got the answer that a capital gains tax does apply, that that is the legislation and that although it may have been an unintended consequence, while the money is there the Government will put its snout in the trough and it will take a bit more off rural Australia. There is not much left to take from rural Australia. This is devastating news for the grazing industry. Over 80 per cent of Queensland grazing land is leased. There are pastoral leases, forestry leases, household leases and other types of lease. All of the grazing land in the Northern Territory is under lease, as is much of Western Australia. Senator Panizza, a Western Australian senator, informed me that a large number of leases are held in Western Australia. Senator Peter Baume —Does capital gains tax apply to leasehold land? Senator BOSWELL —That is my point, and I am indebted to Senator Baume for pointing out that a capital gains tax will be paid on all of these leases every time they are renewed. The lease may run for 10 years and every time it is renewed a capital gains tax will be paid on it. That is a shocking state of affairs and I urge this Government to do something about it. Some grazing properties have been held in one family for over 100 years and yet as the leases are renewed the capital gains tax will still have to be paid. There are a number of leases on some properties. Three or four leases may constitute one property and a capital gains tax will have to be paid every time those leases are renewed. A grazier who has a freehold property will never have to pay the capital gains tax unless he sells it after 20 September 1985 to someone who is not in his family. Many other anomalies need to be addressed and many questions need to be clarified by this Government regarding the capital gains tax. We certainly need some amendments to the capital gains tax. If this Government is not prepared to move them through both Houses of Parliament, I propose to move a private member's Bill and test it on the floor of this Parliament. We will see where the Australian Democrats and the Labor Party stand. I want to address one other aspect of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. This legislation contains an equal opportunity clause which, in the opinion of my Party, is completely unwarranted. This clause will be inserted in the legislation of every agricultural marketing authority, including the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and every other industry authority. This clause is to the effect that every authority will have an equal opportunity department within that authority investigating appointments made by the management. The equal opportunity department will be paid for by every farmer and grazier in Australia in the form of levies on their products. Although most of these farmers would be totally opposed to this type of legislation, they will be forced to pay this levy. The coalition will move an amendment, which I believe has been circulated by Senator Archer. The words of that amendment are: . . . but not so as to permit or require any positive discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, race, religion, or any other grounds. If this amendment is not supported by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats-and I do not believe it will be, as it was not supported in the lower House-those parties will be supporting a quota system of giving women senior positions on gender, not on ability, and discriminating against men. When this equal opportunity legislation was introduced into the Senate, Senator Ryan told us that there would be no quotas, that we would only have equal opportunity programs and there would be no positive discrimination in the Public Service. I believe that this is not the case. I am indebted to my colleague Senator Sheil who asked questions in Senate Estimates Committee D. As recorded on page 172 of the Hansard, a Mr Taylor, in reply to a question from Senator Sheil, said that his department was working towards targets of promoting women to the Senior Executive Service. Mr Taylor said: We do not call them quotas. We call them targets. What is the difference between a quota and a target? I do not believe there is any. The New South Wales Labor Government is giving 40 per cent of the highest paying jobs in the Education Department to women, irrespective of their ability. That is nothing short of a quota. The New South Wales Labor Party is no different from the Federal Labor Party. The leopard never changes his spots and that is the course this Government is following. Since you take an interest in this, Madam Acting Deputy President, I make the point that the National Party of Australia is all for equal opportunity. We believe that women are equal. Women do not need to be artificially subsidised or promoted by legislation. Women can never be made equal by legislation; it is degrading and demeaning to them. It clearly indicates to everyone that they are not capable of getting ahead under their own steam. The National Party does not subscribe to that principle at all. We believe that women and men are equal. I have asked many prominent women in business and in the grazing industries what they think about equal opportunity. They have all told me that they do not want to be treated like some disadvantaged minority group that has to depend on legislation; they want to get there on their own ability. They think this legislation is degrading, and so do I. My Party prides itself on its women parliamentarians and the contribution that they have made to the State of Queensland. Senator Bjelke-Petersen has made a similar contribution down here. They have all been excellent representatives. Our State secretaries in New South Wales and Queensland are women. All these women with whom we are associated have made the grade on their own ability, not on legislation or quotas. If the Government and the Democrats are honest about non-discrimination against any person on the grounds of sex, race, religion or anything else, they will support the Opposition's amendment. If they do not, they will discriminate against every man in Australia. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.30) —There are five Bills before the Senate-the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. These Bills deal with the beef industry, the sheep industry and the pork industry. But, of course, the principal interest in the Senate is in the beef industry. The interest comes from the pesticide problem that we have had in the recent past. As other speakers have said in this debate this afternoon, beef is one of the really great export earners in Australia; it always has been, and has made a major contribution to the welfare of this country. When we are talking about the export earnings of beef, let us not forget that there is also a very big home market for beef consumption. I deplore the attitude of the Australian Democrats and some other people in this chamber who run down the beef industry and rural industries in general. There is an implied contempt from the Australian Democrats for anyone who gets involved in rural activity. Only yesterday or the day before, during discussion on one of the matters of public importance, they ridiculed the previous Liberal-National Party governments for having done so much to promote beef, wool and wheat as export industries in Australia. The facts of life are that they are major contributors to our export earnings. It is vitally important for a country that is on its uppers, well down the Argentinean road the way that Australia is today under the profligate spending of the Walshes, the Keatings and the Hawkes of this world, not only to maintain the markets that we have for those few products that we can sell on the free markets internationally, but also to develop and expand those markets. Certainly, I have no argument with developing manufacturing industry. The fact that we do not have a manufacturing industry is a consequence of the rigidity in the work practices which the unions dictate to the Labor Government; we simply cannot free up the great talent in this country. There is no reason why we could not make mouse-traps, cars or all the other manufactured goods if people were allowed to work the way they want to work. But, as a country where the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) dictates what industry will do-and even more than that, dictates to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) what members of parliament will be paid, as Mr Crean, Mr Kelty and those other layabouts in the ACTU headquarters did recently-it is no wonder that we are in a state of bankruptcy. We need to develop our manufacturing industries and our service industries-our consulting industries, our surveyors, consulting engineers and all the other services that we can render to the world. We need to develop our educational programs. But, at the end of the day, we must maintain the markets that we have. The markets that we have are good. With things like foodstuffs and primary produce, once one is pushed out of a market internationally, it is terribly difficult-if not impossible-to get back in. Since we hold markets for beef in the United States of America, Japan and various other countries, let us do all we can to support and develop them. The export earnings of beef totalled nearly $2 billion last year, the great part of which came from my State of Queensland. The prospects for improved earnings in the immediate future are good. We need to get home consumption up. As a beef producer it amuses me how people turn to chicken. Somehow or other they think that white meat in the form of chicken is more wholesome than red meat. There is not a shred of evidence for this. In fact, all the nutritional research shows that red meat-- Senator Tate —I have just had some roast beef for dinner, and I thought Senator MacGibbon might like to know. Senator MacGIBBON —I am delighted. No doubt that stopped Senator Tate from going to sleep this evening. It kept his haemoglobin up and kept his circulation going. I am very pleased about that. Let me make a side observation about the preparation and sale of chicken: the standards required by all the public health authorities in the States in Australia are nowhere near as strict for chicken meat as they are for beef. If people want a wholesome product, red meat should be their first choice. The problems that we face in rural Australia really come from the high costs of production. I do not wish to take the short time available to me tonight to reflect on all the shortcomings of the economic management of this Government but, as I said a few minutes ago, we have a very overregulated labour force. We have the highest level of tariff protection in this country, and all those costs are added on to the products that we sell from the stations, properties and farms in Australia. The difficulty is that we cannot pass on those costs. We are selling on the world market in which price is the prime parameter. Sure, quality is important but price is absolutely crucial. We have to get our costs of production down. One of the ways in which we can become competitive is for the Government to run the economy correctly. The cost of production can be reduced if we can get labour costs down and if tariffs and interest rates are reduced. Another policy being savagely attacked at present is the decision by the Government to cut the research effort going into rural industries. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has experienced its saddest days since Mr Neville Wran was appointed as Chairman of that body. At some time in the early part of next year I will reflect at length on the shortcomings of the CSIRO under Mr Wran. But we have seen a movement away from rural research into the pursuit of more industrial research. A case can be made for doing more industrial research but we certainly need to maintain the effort that is going into rural industries. In my own State the Tropical Crops and Pastures Division of the CSIRO-a division with which I have had quite a bit to do over the years-is losing something like 26 scientists over the next couple of years. Scientists who play an absolutely crucial role in pasture development and soil erosion control in Queensland are being axed because the Government will not recognise the great contribution that the CSIRO has made to the betterment of rural industries in Australia. I think the beef industry stands apart from most other rural industries. Most of the people in the beef industry are strong individuals and they certainly do not have a handout mentality. If we look at the history of the beef industry we find that it has never been dependent on government for market controls or price support. At the other end of the scale, a great contrast can be made with the sugar industry. There has never been a more regulated industry anywhere in the world than the sugar industry, which is subject to controls over where producers can grow cane, cane quotas, prices and marketing. The whole industry is totally controlled by government regulation. Even the wool industry, with the Australian Wool Board and all the rest of it, has been dependent on government support in some way or other for more than 20 years now. The beef industry has always stood alone; it has coped with the problems as they have arisen and it is made up of a bunch of resourceful and innovative people. One has only to look at the way in which Australian cattle herds have been bred and developed. I suppose the first brahmans were imported in the mid-1930s. A large number of British breeds, principally herefords, were introduced into the tropical areas in the mid-1950s and the early 1960s. These breeds do not do very well at all in such areas. They are not heat or tick resistant and they are not too keen to go out and feed in the heat of summer. As a result they have a slower weight gain than the bos indicus strains of cattle. One nearly goes mad if one has to drove herefords. At best this breed of cattle can be driven only something like eight to 10 miles at best each day in the heat of a Queensland summer, whereas I have moved brahman cattle something like 28 miles in a day without any problem at all. We have seen a great change in herd development in Australia. The British breeds have been well developed in the south where the climatic conditions suit them. In the transitional areas between the more temperate regions and the tropics we have seen the development of softer breeds of cattle such as the santa gertrudis. In the northern areas, where the conditions are tough but which supply the majority of Australia's export trade, we have the dominance of the brahman breeds. This has all been done by the industry through its own resources. Just as the industry has solved problems with cattle breeds, it has solved the pesticides problem. I would personally like to say a few things about that problem. Senator Brownhill made a noteworthy contribution to this debate a little while ago and I will not go over the ground that he covered. It is a very serious problem. The threat that it poses to our export markets cannot be underestimated. I know there are people in the industry and on both sides of this chamber who think that by talking about the pesticide problems we will undermine confidence both in the Australian consumption of beef and in our international markets. I believe very strongly that such a view is fallacious. The Australian public at present gets the best beef in the world and the beef we are selling on world markets is also, from a qualitative point of view, the best obtainable. The steps that have been taken by the industry to address the problem have been adequate and appropriate. I would like to put the point of view that we have to maintain testing. Some people talk about the future when we will get away from analysis of beef or foodstuffs, that things will be so good that there will be no need for that. I do not share that view. We live in a world with increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques for testing chemical residues not only in beef but also in vegetables and in all foodstuffs. It is our obligation as producers and legislators not only to stay with the game but to get ahead of it-and we can get ahead of it. We have to have the sophisticated testing techniques to analyse in smaller and smaller quantities. We are getting down to quantities of parts per million of various chemicals and such things in foodstuffs. That will be an increasing requirement, through the foreseeable future, for anyone producing food. We cannot run away from the problems. One of the things that concerns me about the pesticides problem is that there is nothing new about it. International standards have been agreed for quite a number of years. There have been numerous conferences in Australia between agriculture Ministers from the States and the Federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), and industry groups have discussed the problem. The procedures that have been laid down over the years are good, practical and adequate. Despite all these procedures being laid down we still had a problem. Something went wrong. It is very important for us as legislators to know precisely where the administration chain broke down. It is not a matter of a witch hunt on what chemicals are and are not dangerous or trying to apportion blame to someone or other for falling down on the job. But it is critically important for us to know what went wrong, what happened between the agreed procedures with the Commonwealth and the States, and the States that had the obligation to implement those procedures and see that at the farm level the correct use of pesticides and agricultural chemicals was observed. Quite clearly, something in the chain broke down. It would be a fitting task for this Senate to look at that specific, narrow point-what went wrong in the administration? Unless we know clearly where the administration broke down there will be a very real risk, in fact a certainty, that we will have this problem in the future. People say that the United States in particular was playing politics, that this matter was part of the protectionist feeling in the United States, given its great balance of payments problem, and it turned on Australia. I totally reject that idea. The facts are that there are agreed international standards for chemical residues in beef. We knew those standards and we did not meet them. We could have met them. The abolition of testing in this country would do nothing to solve the problem because the purchasers of those products that we are selling in the international markets will always apply their own analytical tests to the product. So we have to know, when we ship the products, that they are right. Putting the matter in perspective, the volume of beef that was affected, at a peak, was 0.5 per cent. It is now very much less. The residues were not at a level to affect human life. People probably would have had to eat tonnes and tonnes of beef to suffer any ill effect-and that probably would not have been a fatal effect. Nevertheless, these standards exist. The Australian industry is well able to meet them and we will just have to be able to meet them in the future. The sad thing about this is that the beef industry ended up as the target for all the criticism on the use of pesticides in Australia. The industry, with its own resources, paid for testing plans and it has paid for the repurchase of contaminated meat overseas. It has done all that it can. There is certainly an unfair element in all this. The industry would have one or two people in it who do not follow the rules, but 99 per cent of beef producers follow the regulations that have been laid down by the various agricultural authorities in Australia. The problem often comes in the form of feed supplies. In my State of Queensland we have had a serious drought. Many producers have put cattle that were free from pesticide contamination on their properties, into feedlots. On the feedlots, they have been fed grain, some of which has been contaminated, and that is where the pesticide residues have come from. Pesticide residues also come from some of the forage supplied on cane farms. Cane production involves a considerable use of organochlorine pesticides. That is another source of contamination coming into beef. I know that only in recent times, literally in the past few months, anyone buying grain in Queensland has been able to get any idea as to the quality. There was no way that one could say to a grain supplier, when buying grain for cattle, `Is this free of any pesticides? Will you give me a quality assurance that the grain is not contaminated with pesticides?' One would be laughed at for doing that. One either wanted the grain and bought it, as is, where is, or not. Fortunately, that is changing, but most of the problems arose indirectly in the form of feed coming into the cattle industry. There was another problem in other parts of Australia, for example, where the electricity authority went around spraying poles carrying power transmission lines with dieldrin, and cattle subsequently came along and licked them. Most of the problems arose indirectly. Nevertheless, that is not to make excuses for the industry. All these things could be dealt with, and they will have to be dealt with. The final Bill with which I wish to deal is the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. There is a problem here in relation to annual general meetings. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) is the body that recommends the levy to be set under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. Currently, at least 75 per cent of producers registered with the AMLC and at least 75 per cent of processors registered with the AMLC must vote in opposition to an AMLC levy motion in order to have it defeated. The amendments in the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill aim to address this problem but, in the view of most of the industry organisations, do so ineffectively. The amendments specify that a levy motion will be defeated if 75 per cent of those people present, either in proxy or in person, and in each register, oppose the motion. The Cattle Council of Australia has indicated that this provision is unsatisfactory because a minority of 25 per cent of shareholders in one of the two registers-there is a producer register and a processor register-is able to ensure that the motion is carried. That puts the onus on defeating rather than supporting the motion, whereas the reverse is the usual practice at meetings for the carriage of a motion. That apart, this parcel of legislation is very important for Australia. As all speakers have said, the meat industry is very important to Australia. It is something that deserves the closest scrutiny of the Senate. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.50) —I had proposed to speak at more length on these important Bills before the Senate this evening-the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1987, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1987, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill 1987 and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 1987. The mere recitation of the titles of those Bills in itself indicates the complexity of the matters involved and I suppose, the necessary complexity of this cognate debate which is taking place upon them. But we are-and I am sure all honourable senators are extremely conscious of this-under great pressure of time. When the Senate met at 10 o'clock this morning we still had, I think I am correct in saying, some 31 Bills in all listed for consideration under Government Business for the day. Moreover, I have to say that the Senate has already heard from a number of very well informed honourable senators of my own Party on these Bills. I think particularly of Senator David Brownhill and Senator Ron Boswell, who spoke a few moments ago. We will hear shortly also from Senator Sheil and from Senator Julian McGauran, who are listed to speak. In that connection, I should not fail to refer to the number of other distinguished contributions from other speakers on this side of the chamber. But I make those comments to say that, in the circumstances, I propose to confine my own remarks on this bracket of Bills to one aspect of one of those Bills only-namely, the equal employment opportunity provisions which the Government has chosen to incorporate into, I think, clause 25 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the first of the Bills before us. Senator Archer, who is in charge of these Bills for us, will, I understand, be moving two amendments to that Bill at the committee stage. They are directed to clarifying what the Government means by `equal employment opportunity' and in particular to ensuring-that is, if the Government and, I trust, the Australian Democrats support the totally rational amendments which Senator Archer will be proposing-that that phrase `equal employment opportunity' does not mean, as some of us fear that it means, overt discrimination against those who are not either women or members of so-called disadvantaged groups. However, I propose to speak to those amendments at the committee stage, and I therefore reserve the chief body of my remarks on that matter until that time. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(6.54) —I am very pleased to be able to follow my colleague and leader in the Senate, Senator Stone, in discussing these cognate Bills that relate directly to the meat and livestock industry-the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill. Several amendments to be made by this legislation will have very serious effects on our great livestock industry. Like many of the other speakers, I also would like to concentrate on what I consider to be the main Bill in this package, that is, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the maximum rates of levies that may be imposed at slaughter at abattoirs. The levies cover the whole range of the livestock industry, including cattle, sheep, lambs, buffaloes, goats and bobby calves. The purpose of the levy is to raise funds to finance the activities of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) and its research arm. It is worth reflecting on the substantial increases in levies imposed on the livestock industries which, in most cases, are greater than 200 per cent. In the case of the cattle industry there has been an increase from $6 to $18 to enable the purchase and disposal of meat with a high risk of containing chemical residue and to finance the anticipated expenditure by the AMLC on the initiation of a program to avoid a repetition of the recent incident in this regard. The industry is to be congratulated on its very quick and responsible action in regard to the beef residue incident. The response has been very swift. Hundreds of thousands of tests have been carried out at an estimated cost per test of $40. Up until now the cost of the residue testing has been undertaken on a voluntary basis in each State. However, as a result of the levies, that voluntary basis will no longer operate. The AMLC has proposed that the operative levy be increased from $3.30 a head for cattle to $11.30, an increase of $8. That $8 is broken down into $3 for promotion and $5 for the residue testing procedures. It is estimated that the bottom line cost of these extra tests and Government inspections will be greater than $35m-a cost that is to be borne solely by the industry. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in the legislation which we are debating and in this Government's whole approach to primary industry. It is quite clear that the beef industry cannot get a fair and honest deal from this Government. It has been a long and consistent policy of this Government to pay 50 per cent of all export inspection costs. It is currently doing that in other areas of primary industry. However, in this most important area the government has rejected the industry's case that it should pay 50 per cent of the cost of the increased residue testing and inspection. The fact is that the Government has backed away from its own policies at a time when this country can least afford such a backdown in regard to one of its major five export industries. This Government has to understand that if it wants to regain a good relationship with farmers and farmer organisations it has to be consistent in its policies. If its policy is to meet 50 per cent of export inspection costs, that is exactly what it must do. If it indicates to the industry that it will meet 50 per cent of the costs of residue testing, that is what it must do. Clearly, the whole response of this Government and of the State Labor Government in Victoria has been nothing short of a disgrace and is a clear indication of the contempt with which they treat the rural industries. Senator Boswell —They have never worried about the farmers. Senator McGAURAN —Of course, they have not. They have never cared about farmers, as Senator Boswell rightly said. Now that the Government has gained a third term in office and now that it realises that it did not get the rural vote-the farmers' vote-it wishes clearly to turn its back on that sector. It is the sector that will not give it its vote. I certainly welcome the coalition's call for a Senate inquiry into the pesticide residue problem and the proposed terms of reference of such an inquiry. Such an inquiry would clearly show what is already known-that the farmers are not to blame for the recent residue problem but, rather, it can be traced back to the inaction of the State governments and, indeed, this Federal Government in regard to the non-removal from sale of pesticides such as DDT when they clearly knew that the use of such pesticides was not acceptable to the American markets. Meanwhile, the question of compensation to the farmers who have had their properties quarantined remains unresolved. These farmers have been innocently caught up in this incident. Their livelihoods have now been threatened and their cash flows have certainly come to an almighty stop. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd that the only response that this Government can offer is in effect to increase the costs and charges upon this industry. I would have thought that the first thing this Government ought to be doing is looking at ways and means of encouraging our export industries so that they can export more and increase the value of their exports. This nation's commodity market is already finely balanced between success and failure in a very competitive world, and the last thing it needs is a government that will burden it with further costs, taxes and charges. Having said that, I say with all pride: thank goodness there is a National Party of Australia that will go in to bat for the productive industries, for the primary industries and for the working men and women of Australia. I take issue with Senator Ray's comments yesterday when he issued his daily attack upon the National Party. He said that the National Party is no longer a country or rural party. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Nationals still are the old Country Party because we hold all our seats in rural Australia. Is the man blind? As the last election showed, in Victoria we not only regained our rural seats but we broadened our base into the regional towns of Bendigo, Traralgon and Morwell, and indeed into the city of Melbourne itself. I think Senator Ray has conveniently forgotten, and he certainly wants to forget, that Victoria returned a National Party senator at the expense of the Australian Labor Party. I suggest that Senator Ray should look at his own Party, that has gone far and wide from its roots, and even its members are willing to recognise that. I think the Labor Party has spent too much time courting the middle class trendies and greenies and it has forgotten its traditional working class roots. It had to go out and conduct polls and surveys before this was brought home to it, but it has been obvious for a very long time that it has turned its back on the working man. It saddens me to know that the once great Labor Party-we could respect it back in the 1960s when it was in opposition-is now infiltrated by radical academics, left wing teachers and party machine men and no longer has the good old time unionists who knew what work was. I welcome Senator Burns, who is about the only old time unionist from the Labor Party. He is a welcome relief from the radical academics, the left wing school teachers and the party machine men who have now infiltrated the Labor Party. Honourable senators opposite do not have to worry about the National Party. Our members were born and raised in the bush. I was born and raised in the bush. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator McGauran, would you please make sure that you relate your remarks to the Bills before us. Senator McGAURAN —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. I make the point clearly that the National Party does represent the bush. I think we have all spent more time in the bush than this city bound Government have has ever done, and in particular Senator Ray. Of late we have seen many other clear examples of how this Government has moved away from its interests in primary industry. Of late we have seen the slashing of the rural research division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Its scientists are certainly alarmed by what they see as a falling level of agricultural research in Australia. They claim that the farmers will soon suffer as a result of the low priority that this Government has placed on agricultural science research. Claims have been made that key research and administrative staff of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in my State of Victoria are resigning in protest over funding priorities. The Victorian President of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science, Mr Ian Aberdeen, said that the CSIRO cuts were part of a national trend. He claimed that the Victorian Government was also reducing support and other services to agriculture. I commend the bravery of Mr Aberdeen in speaking out. He also made a very pertinent point which is relevant to these Bills before us when he said that the value of agricultural science research was typified by its response to the chemical residue problem. He said that because we had the expertise we were able to introduce tests quickly to satisfy the Americans. He also said that this kind of expertise is now being eroded. I am sick and tired of the continual attacks by this Government and its State government cohorts upon the rural community. As a National Party Victorian senator, I will not stand by and allow these events to go unheard of and unquestioned. It seems to me that this Government is just trying to pull the rural sector into line with its corporate image and ideology. Clearly, it is starting to ignore the fact that family farms have provided great benefits to the community throughout Australia's history. In addition, as is the case with small business, family farms are the dynamo of private enterprise in the rural economy. Family farms not only represent Australian ownership of our national resources but also enable individuals and families to have access to ownership of private productive property. Such access is rapidly being denied in other sectors of the economy due to the great concentration of ownership in fewer corporations and due to this Government's small business policies. The link between ownership and work is the most powerful stimulus to personal enterprise. The integration of the family and the farm and the social and economic unit is of great social value to this country. This social-economic integration in rural Australia is unrivalled by other sectors of the economy and society. The National Party stands squarely behind the family farm concept and philosophy and it strongly rejects any suggestion, any policy, that reduces the worth of the family farm to this country. It is economically ridiculous to talk about family farms as though they need subsidies, or as though we are protecting a sacred cow. They are one of the most productive of the sectors that provide subsidies and great wealth to this nation. As we prepare to enter our bicentennial year it is time to re-affirm some of our traditions and our beliefs in the family farm. The Australian public can rest assured that the National Party stands squarely behind the rural sector and the concept of the family farm. In conclusion, although it has been a long, traumatic and extremely costly experience for the industry it has tackled and broken the back of the residue problem on its own, with no help from this Government. It can justifiably claim that our beef has the lowest chemical residue level of any major cattle industry in the world. I support the coalition's amendments that call upon the Government to meet 50 per cent of the residue testing levy and to establish an inquiry into the pesticide residue problem. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(7.09) —Essentially the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the Export Inspection Charges Collection Amendment Bill and the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Bill will determine how much more Australian livestock producers will be paying in compulsory levies. What makes it of vital concern to beef producers in Western Australia is that it represents a significant added cost at a time of real crisis, resulting from the necessary clean-up of pesticide residues. The crucial sections of two Bills in particular-the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill-raise maximum levies by 200 per cent in my State of Western Australia; that is, from $6 to $18. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC) is, of course, foreshadowing an additional levy of $8, of which $3 will be spent on promotion and $5 on the cost of chemical residue testing. That proposed $5 does, of course, pose a very good question, because that proposal was put before the AMLC's annual general meeting (AGM) on 3 December. It required 75 per cent of the vote to defeat the motion and, of course, that was not obtained. Time permitting, I will raise a number of matters later in the debate about the conduct of the AMLC's AGM, and the requirement for 75 per cent to defeat a vote instead of 51 per cent. There was some confusion during the meeting as to whether the amount proposed for chemical residue testing was $5 or $3.50. Even members of the Cattle Council of Australia have not been able to confirm that matter one way or the other in the weeks that have passed since 3 December. This increase in the figure gets stuck in the throats of Western Australians, because they are being asked to pay $5-and we might as well talk about $5 because no other concrete figure has been talked about-for residue testing when they have had a very effective voluntary testing scheme operating that originally cost $2.50, has now been reduced to $2 and is likely to be reduced even further in the new year to $1.50. It is very interesting, because the scheme is operating effectively. There is now a surplus, but Western Australians are being asked to pay the extra levy primarily due to the gross mismanagement of authorities and producers in the eastern seaboard States which have not been able to establish such a successful system and, into the bargain, have accumulated enormous debts. So now the Western Australian producers are being asked not only to pay an increased levy but also to cover the debts that have accumulated on this side of the country. I think that, by any yardstick, that is grossly unfair. We should look at the causes of the residue problem. The Department of Primary Industries and Energy has permitted and encouraged the use of organochlorines in the rural sector following clear evidence that such chemicals would or could cause serious problems further down the track. Governments did not take the lead from countries such as the United States, which banned the use of many of the chemicals which are still in use in Australia today. For example, DDT was banned in the United States in 1972, aldrin and dieldrin were banned in October 1974 and heptachlor in March 1978. There was also an inadequate residue survey and insufficient awareness of the potential problems inherited from other parts of the agricultural industry. Many beef producers have never used organochlorines, but are being asked to fork out cash to pay for the use by others, including the State Electricity Commission in Western Australia. That inadequacy was highlighted by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, on 26 November 1987, when he said: The way we have handled chemicals has been deplorable. For the ease of passage of other business this evening, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —by leave-The Export Control (Animals) Orders contained a sub-delegation of certain powers to a departmental secretary. The Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances wishes to establish that the powers involved were administrative only and not legislative. If they were legislative, the Orders would have contained an invalid sub-delegation of legislative power. The responsible Minister has received advice from the Attorney-General's Department that there may be some doubt about the drafting of the Orders and it would be preferable for them to be redrafted. Members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have agreed to accept this proposal. Therefore, I seek leave to withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 3 standing in my name for this day for disallowance of the Export Control (Animals) Orders. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —For the information of honourable senators and others, I seek leave to table the Committee's correspondence. It is too lengthy to have incorporated. Leave granted. Consideration resumed. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(7.15) —The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) was asked to give an undertaking in respect of employees at the dockyard whom the Opposition felt were not being sufficiently well protected in the transfer of the dockyard to private enterprise. The Minister made a statement in the committee stage earlier. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to give us the exact terms of the assurance once again so that it can be decided by the Senate once and for all as to whether this protection is sufficient. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(7.16) —I did rush through this explanation earlier, so I will give it again-at least that part relating to Senator Newman's query. I am happy to say that it has been agreed that the public servants who accept offers of employment with the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC) at the dockyard will have reinstatement rights in the Australian Public Service for three years. This is on the basis that they will have to apply for vacancies and compete on merit in the usual way. In other words, they will be in a similar situation with regard to vacancies as continuing Public Service officers. I take that to mean that if they do move back into the Public Service within three years there will be no loss of rights in terms of seniority, superannuation or anything along those lines. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(7.17) —I do appreciate the Minister spelling that out again. The Opposition has had a chance to give further consideration to that matter. We are not looking to increase the cost to the public purse, we are simply wanting to see that people do not get forced out into the cold hard world without some recognition of the fact that they are invol- untarily giving up the position of permanent public servants at the Government's behest. The Opposition is happy to accept that statement and will not put any further objections in the way of the legislation going through. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(7.18) —I thank Senator Newman for her remarks. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(7.19) —I will not detain the Senate for long because I understand there is quite a list of people who wish to speak on the adjournment. I rise in response to a request which I have received from a citizen of Australia who resides in New South Wales, a Mr G. G. Emblem, who is the President of a body known as the Patriotic Research Council of Australia. This is the second time that this group has approached me. In September 1985, at its request, I advised the Senate of the activities of this group of people who were then and are now running a campaign to keep the Australian flag in its present design. Of course, 1988 is our bicentennial year and it is the concern of this group of Australian citizens to continue their campaign to maintain the present flag. In 1985, I advised the Senate that the polls which the group had conducted on Anzac Day and Australia Day in 1984 and 1985 respectively and again on Anzac Day in 1985 had resulted in overwhelming support for the present Australian Flag. This little group of people have continued with their work and they have asked me again to put on the public record their results. They have indicated to me that they will be active at the official opening of the Bicentenary in Sydney and on Australia Day on 26 January 1988 and also on Anzac Day on 25 April next year. Once again they have been active in circulating petitions and polling votes and they have reported to me that the overwhelming number of people approached have again indicated their support for the present flag. They have a total of 5,817 signatures and only 228 of the nearly 6,000 people signing wanted a change to the Australian flag. As I said, at the request of Mr Emblem and his organisation I am simply advising the Senate that just as we receive many petitions from Australian citizens, that informal method of petition has indicated very strong support for the flag in the approaching bicentennial year. Senator PARER(Queensland)(7.22) —I rise on the adjournment to comment on what was said by the Chairman of the Endeavour Foundation in Queensland in its thirty-fourth annual report. The Endeavour Foundation has been offering care and support services for intellectually handicapped people since 1951. It is recognised as Queensland's leading community agency, offering services to something over 3,000 handicapped people. The Foundation operates through 20 branches with facilities and services at 180 locations. In addition, another 56 sub-branches operate throughout the State. The services provided by the Endeavour Foundation include clinical support services, educational facilities, accommodation, employment and occupation and future care. It has a staff of some 872 full time and part time employees plus an army of 3,000 volunteer workers. About a year ago this Government notified the Endeavour Foundation that it would make far-reaching changes to virtually all of the Foundation's existing tried, trusted and valued services. The organisation has been given five years to realign itself, to fit some new, ill-defined services types and philosophical thrust deemed more appropriate by the Labor Government in distant Canberra. It has been informed that if it does not make these enormous changes it will most likely have its subsidies cut or even removed. The Endeavour Foundation has objected strenuously about this unwarranted imposition and intrusion on its organisation. It has been further hampered by having to deal with ever-changing senior staff in the Department of Community Services and Health as well as three different Ministers in the past 12 months. Why is it that the present Labor Government seeks to disrupt totally what can only be described as the biggest success story in community care in Queensland? It can only be a case of callous interference in a popular organisation which has a proven track record of success. Let me expand more on the facilities and services offered by the Endeavour Foundation. The organisation has 27 activity therapy centres, 21 sheltered workshops-I might just comment on that: in my days before I entered this place I made a point of using the Endeavour Foundation for smallish-type jobs, for instance wrapping up company newspapers and making things like survey pegs by the thousand-8 sheltered farms, 13 family group homes, 52 adult residentials, 14 clinic services and 17 special schools. Clients involved in farm activity work in small crop production, horticulture, grading and packaging produce and poultry and cattle activities. In 1987, sales of workshop and farm products brought in $6.6m. Four new activity therapy centres were opened during last year in Cairns, Caboolture, Kingaroy and Roma, which brought the total number for the whole State to 27, a very impressive number. The Endeavour Foundation has always sought to give intellectually handicapped persons opportunities to participate in the community at large to the maximum of their potential. Examples of the sorts of activities they can become involved in are: a local toastmasters' club, a State emergency services squad, a CB radio club and local sports and arts and crafts clubs. The Foundation has a history of very successful fund raising and attracts support from station TVO in Brisbane and a string of regional television stations for its Statewide telethon appeal. Another successful appeal is its tiny tots quest. This year it raised $6.5m, which is up almost $1m on the amount it raised the previous year. I give this background to illustrate and to emphasise the fact that the Endeavour Foundation is an outstanding organisation which operates in a most professional manner. It is a privately run community organisation which is held in the highest regard in the community throughout Queensland. The last thing it needs is to be told by a far-off government that its mode of operation and, indeed, its philosophical basis is to be moved to accommodate the whims of that government body. These demands have caused great concern to the Endeavour Foundation and I urge the Government to reconsider its most unfortunate decision which will adversely affect people in genuine need in the community-the intellectually handicapped. In a similar vein, I refer to the treatment of parents of children who are severely intellectually handicapped. The Department of Health and Community Services seems to have no recognition whatsoever that there are people who are so severely handicapped they will never be able to take their place in the community under any circumstances. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter of frustration from such a parent to the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 18 Albar Street, Wavell Heights, 4012 22 November 1987 The Honourable Dr N. Blewett M.P., Minister for Health and Community Services Dear Minister, My wife Mrs Robin Lynch and I are the parents of a multiply handicapped, severely intellectually disabled young man of seventeen years. For the last eighteen months or thereabouts a Joint Task Group of the Uniting Church and the Catholic Church and some parents on behalf of severely disabled teenage children have been meeting in Brisbane. We have attended these meetings as advocates of our son. The Joint Task Group is engaged in planning for the establishment of suitable residential and training facilities for the severely disabled of teenage years. We met last evening-21 November. Miss Kris Sullivan of the Department of Community Services in Brisbane attended the meeting by invitation. We count ourselves among the people who have demonstrated our acceptance of the principles of the disability legislation brought in by your Government as we had previously refused offers of places for our son in State institutions for the intellectually handicapped. But there are aspects of the New Directions policies which we find unclear. As we are anxious to know, if the planning of the Joint Task Group is not to be futile, what are the parameters of models acceptable to the Department, I pressed Miss Sullivan concerning these policies. She told me that the meeting was not the place to go into those questions and suggested I should come and discuss them with her further. In the course of further discussion with other members of the Task Group she stated that the Department has no plans established to guide the implementation of the disability policies and will see what develops over the five year period. I expressed strong disapproval of such lack of policy as I see it as social experimentation affecting people who are among the most vulnerable in society. I made it clear that my disapproval of the attitude was directed against the decision and that I realised that Miss Sullivan was not responsible for it. Nevertheless, after a lapse of some twenty minutes and following discussion on other points raised by a minister of the Uniting Church in which we took no part, Miss Sullivan turned to my wife and I who were sitting some distance from her. Addressing us as ``you people'' (although she had been introduced to us on our arrival and she had had dealing with my wife as Chairman of a Demonstration Project) Miss Sullivan told us that she had put up with expressions of anger from us directed at her personally, that she had come to the meeting in her own time to help the Uniting Church and that she did not thing she should have to put up with such anger. I told her that my anger was directed at the way in which policies were being applied with no clear goals. She told us she did not wish to hear from us again. I realise that I was mistaken as to why Miss Sullivan was at the meeting. I understand the New Direction policies require the consumers or their advocates to be listened to and I thought that was the reason she was there, not to help the Uniting Church. In any case, Minister, the consequence is that communication between the advocates of one disabled person and the Department has been cut off by the Department. You will realise how difficult the group's forward planning becomes when the authority which must approve the proposal has no clear parameters or goals. It is like seeking building permission from a local authority without building bylaws. I appeal to you to intervene personally in this situation which we find stressful and counterproductive. Please have the Department establish its goals applicable to the establishing of facilities for the training and development of severely multiply disabled young adults. Yours faithfully Kevin Lynch The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Thank you, Senator Parer. The Foundation does very interesting work. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(7.28) —Tonight I would like to comment on the activities that have taken place in recent weeks at the World Heritage Committee meetings in Paris. It was very pleasing that Uluru National Park was formally listed on the World Heritage List. Of course, this had the support of the Commonwealth Government, the Northern Territory Government and, I am sure, the majority of people and interest groups right throughout Australia. However, the listing of stage 2 of Kakadu is a controversial matter and has attracted wide criticism and support from different groups throughout the community. I think the way in which the Commonwealth Government has launched into a series of very personal attacks on the Northern Territory Government and Northern Territory Ministers in the past few weeks is disgraceful. Not only Commonwealth Ministers but also other members of the Australian Labor Party have taken this tack. For example, on 2 December Mr Ede, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, said that Mr Coulter, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines, was in Paris denigrating the Top End. He said that `he was bad-mouthing the Territory around the rest of the world'. On 8 December in the other place the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, described the efforts of Mr Coulter as `those to ravage and vandalise one of the most important environmental areas in Australia'. On 10 December he described the Northern Territory Government as a `ridiculous team of vandals from the Northern Territory'. On 10 December the honourable member for the Northern Territory, Mr Snowdon, said: Both parks have been the targets of staggeringly expensive and, at times, stunningly racist propaganda campaigns by successive Northern Territory governments. He further said that they were ill-advised and foolhardy campaigns against the World Heritage listing and that the Northern Territory Government had displayed its usual disregard for the protection of the environment. He further stated: It is the Northern Territory Government which is both flawed and fraudulent. These statements are blatantly untrue. They are incorrect. They are seen to be disgraceful if the real record is examined. We should be looking carefully at and reviewing the procedures that took place at the meetings in Paris. Last week the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Mr John Brown, made a statement that the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service controls the Kakadu National Park. He said: It is a Commonwealth responsibility. It has nothing to do with the Northern Territory. What does Minister Brown think it is all about? He seems to be putting the clock back by saying that Kakadu is a Commonwealth responsibility. Does he think that things cannot happen without co-operation and that there cannot be an involvement of the appropriate State authorities in matters such as this? These Commonwealth Government arguments are flawed and fraudulent. Barry Coulter, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines, was in Paris arguing hard and strong, just as he and his team did last year for the important issues in the Kakadu stage 2 proposals. He was arguing for the standards and conditions that should be consistent with World Heritage conventions and how they should be met. He went there with a scientific document in which was incorporated submissions from some 15 eminent scientists. These covered natural values in such areas as surface geology, geomorphology and land systems, vegetation communities, floristics and mangrove assemblages, rare and threatened plants and animals, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, bird populations including water birds, feral animals, weeds, macro invertebrates, fishes and aesthetic impact. The cultural values relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage and Aboriginal sites were also well covered. The documentation was extensive and comprehensive and it argued very strongly in these areas. But the Commonwealth Government walked in and asked the World Heritage Committee to take the matter, site unseen. It had not presented the case. No members of the World Heritage Committee's advisory body had visited or looked at the area. The Government had merely allowed the listing to flow from the original submission on Kakadu stage 1. The Government had extended the original proposals that were in that submission. It did deals with Mr Whitlam, the former Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and built up an old-boy network in Paris. During the last week it certainly became evident as to how this was put together. What we need to do is ask what this listing has achieved or cost. It has certainly cost Australia more than $1 billion in lost mineral resources. It shuts the door forever on mining in the Kakadu stage 2 area. Surprisingly, there was a flow through to stage 3 and to further areas of Arnhem Land. Very surprisingly, again this area of consultation had not been picked up. For all of the Federal Government's pious attitude to Aboriginals and the very fine statement that Mr Hand handed down last week about consultation with Aborigines, the Government had not bothered to consult. This new surprise of looking further for listings has taken the Northern Land Council and the Aboriginal land owners in the area by surprise. Certainly these comments came out in various statements in the media and the Aborigines have expressed their surprise. Of course, any further World Heritage listing for Arnhem Land would be of great concern to the Aborigines in the area. There is a very important point of principle involved with regard to consultation with the States. In 1984 the Commonwealth Labor Government gave a commitment at the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers that it would not proceed to listings without consent of the various State authorities. We have seen that being demonstrated in this case and in north Queensland and elsewhere. There has been a complete failure to get involved but in this particular case the Government has gone further. At this stage it has not provided a regime for the management of Kakadu stage 2. Where is it? How will they manage it? How is it to be done? Does the Government believe that any management of an area so big and so vital to the Northern Territory can be proceeded with without the co-operation and the involvement of the Northern Territory Government and its statutory authorities, the Aboriginal land owners and the other people in the area? Where is the management document? Where is the plan of management? Where are the issues? The Government expects us to take these things on blind faith. It has created a very important precedent this time by allowing this extension to stage 1 to incorporate Kakadu stage 2. Not only has the Commonwealth Government embarrassed various governments and various groups in Australia, but also it has caused serious embarrassment to the World Heritage Committee. How will things be dealt with in future? I understand that there was concern in debates on this issue in Paris about the procedures involved, about the way in which this had been bulldozed through and the way in which the Committee was severely embarrassed because the procedures of the Australian Government were not in keeping with normal practice. As I mentioned earlier, the documentation the Northern Territory Government put before the World Heritage Committee forms a very comprehensive document. It is in three parts. It outlines in detail the specific location of the area, the nomination, the purpose for the submission, the basis for making the submission, the status of the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal land considerations, the world heritage proposals, the world heritage procedure, the consultation, the process for nominating Australian properties and the Aboriginal traditional owners. The documentation goes into the details, the criteria, the convention, the consideration of the issues, the nomination and the evidence in support of the Territory's submission, the resources available, the evidence of there being no immediate danger to the area and the various scientific proposals which argued about so many different issues. I seek leave to table for future reference this important submission to the World Heritage Committee, and I invite comparisons with the documentation that has been submitted by the Commonwealth Government. The comparison of the documentation belies the inadequate, incorrect and stupid statements of many members of the Australian Labor Party in the last fortnight. Leave granted. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(7.38) —I would like to address two matters tonight. The first is Afghanistan. As honourable senators will be aware, at this very moment there is being played out on the eastern perimeter of Afghanistan a life and death siege of a town called Khost, which has a population of some 40,000 and which has been under attack by mujahedeen resistance fighters for some three weeks. They have successfully surrounded the town, and the end result is that the Soviets are desperately trying to air lift supplies into that area. But that is just a symbol of what is happening in Afghanistan, and what has been happening since the Soviet invasion on 27 December 1979. Tonight I want to draw attention to what I regard as the very disappointing response of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on this issue. I believe that he missed a golden opportunity to exert some real influence while he was in the Soviet Union. Instead, as one might have expected, he settled for a few grand public relations gestures and a few flattering camera angles. He was content to accept what was put to him on the issue; he simply went through the motions. In my view he has been played for a sucker by Mr Gorbachev on the issue of Afghanistan. He simply accepted a few honeyed words from the Soviet leader and let the matter lie. In view of the starkly apparent refusal of the Soviet Union to negotiate a meaningful withdrawal, what is required is for the Prime Minister to express his disapproval of the unacceptable preconditions which have been attached to Soviet military withdrawal. The Press has tended to suggest that all that is required is for a timetable to be set. Mr Gorbachev, in his meetings with President Reagan, was prepared to come lower than the usual 15 to 18 months and to offer a 12-month withdrawal period. We were told that the talks then stalled on the basis of the starting point. It is not quite as simple as that. The reality is that the Soviets also insist on two principal conditions: first, that the United States of America should stop all aid to the Islamic resistance forces-the mujahedeen; and, secondly, that it should support the formation of an interim coalition government under the leadership of the Soviet-backed People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. That party is simply a Soviet puppet. It is the private outfit of Mr Najibulla, formerly the head of the secret police in Afghanistan, which everyone knows would not last more than a few days if Soviet support were withdrawn. It is therefore clear that, whilst Mr Gorbachev is prepared to indulge in an orgy of moral hand wringing on the issue and to make it appear to the Western world that somehow he is desperately anxious to extricate himself from the morass, he has not done anything tangible since his speech in Vladivostok in July 1985. I would have thought that 18 months was a fairly reasonable time in which to have taken action, especially if it is suggested that the whole withdrawal process can be accomplished in a 12-month period. Therefore, I think it should be apparent, even to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), that Mr Gorbachev is simply not serious. He is wanting to delude Western opinion into thinking that somehow the Soviets are about to accede to Western pressure and that, therefore, there is no need for the West to concentrate attention on the issue. The reality, of course, is that he is playing for totally unacceptable conditions. The Prime Minister has either refused or neglected to see through that approach. It is very disappointing when one puts that alongside the response of the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, who steadfastly refused to raise the issue with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, when he was out here earlier this year. Mr Hayden was adamant in his refusal to condemn the Soviet invasion on its anniversary in December last year, despite a number of other Western nations being prepared to express their outrage. I think it all shows a picture of an Australian government not prepared to take the issue seriously. Whether the Prime Minister has taken this position because there are only 1,500 Afghans in Australia and the Australian Labor Party does not think it is likely to get a majority of support from them at Federal election time, I do not know. But the reality is that the Prime Minister-- Senator Tate —That is pretty cheap. Senator ALSTON —Well, I would have thought that most things about the Labor Party are explained by looking at the numbers. The Minister was a fortunate beneficiary not so long ago and he knows how close things can get if the numbers do not quite add up at the time. I would have thought that there has to be some fairly blunt political reason for Mr Hawke's otherwise inexplicable refusal to tackle this very serious issue. He may think that Australian-Soviet trade is more important. But there are moral issues in international politics, and this is one of them. I would have thought, if one had regard to the recent vote in the General Assembly which was something of the order of 122 against and 19 for the Soviet position, that Mr Hawke would want to be on that bandwagon. He is very good at trying to curry favour with the majority. One would have thought that this was a very good opportunity for him at least to express his disapproval of the Soviet procrastination. But, no, all we had was a lip service mention of it in a Press conference, and that is that. I for one regard that as a very disappointing and totally inadequate response. I would now like to touch briefly on Telecom Australia's proposal for timed local calls. It is interesting that, ahead of the announcement that will be made tomorrow by Telecom of the various options involved in timed local calls, the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans has today, for the first time, put down some rational thoughts on the subject which provide a basis for sensible discussion. He said that more than 82 per cent of all local calls presently take six minutes or less while more than 88 per cent take eight minutes or less. He thought that the vast majority of users would therefore be beneficiaries of timed local calls because the pulse or timed interval would be something around the six to eight minute mark and those calls, therefore, were likely to cost less than 20 cents. I would have thought that to be a starting point. It may not be where we end up. It may well be that the whole issue will be dead and buried before it gets off the ground. But I want to deplore the orgy of political opportunism that has been indulged in by various State Ministers and Premiers in recent days-all of them, Labor. All are determined to ring every possible inch of milage-if I can use that expression-out of this issue. It is quite clear that they see it as a populist crusade, one that has some cheap votes in it. The very real danger in this approach is that the whole concept of restructuring cross subsidies, of looking at where the burden falls, will be lost in a welter of political opportunism. Senator Tate —What about the questions from your side at Question Time? Do they not fall into the same category? Senator ALSTON —We are entitled to legitimately flesh out some of the difficulties that arise with the proposal. Unless and until we have the sorts of rational contributions that at last have been made by Senator Evans, there really is not much more than a fear campaign. Understandably, I suppose, in that sort of vacuum, people are going to draw attention to the dangers that might be inherent in the proposal. I think there are some pluses that deserve to be taken seriously. This will provide an opportunity to restructure, to ease the burden on STD users and subscribers in rural and remote areas. My colleague, Senator Panizza, for example, says he believes the current system is operating quite unfairly in a number of rural areas. He is forced to pay $1.80 a minute for STD calls to Perth. All of this problem arises because of the outmoded structure of cross-subsidisation that places an inordinately heavy burden on STD users, the majority of whom, in terms of frequency, are businesses. We can all deplore the fact that businesses appear to have a large capacity to pay but the reality is that they also have a much greater ability to circumvent present arrangements. That is precisely what we are seeing at present. They are now prepared to install private networks, make much greater use of satellites, and, in many ways, circumvent the whole basis of the existing cross-subsidisation. Once that capacity to milk the STD users is gone, conversely there is a much lesser ability to subsidise local users. Local users are not all pensioners and disadvantaged people. They are often middle class users. I suppose most of us here represent the middle classes. Senator Tate —Except Senator McGauran. He represents the rural workers. Senator ALSTON —All manner of interests are represented here tonight. No doubt Senator Tate's Tasmania is in a class of its own in that regard. At the moment the structure is quite scatter-gun in its approach. It does not take account of real needs or the capacity to pay. Perhaps one of the best examples I have come across in recent times is that the holiday resort of Orpheus Island where, in reality, it costs something like $15,000 for a new connection, is charged only the maximum rate of $1,300. That is ridiculous. Similarly, internationally-owned cattle stations in remote areas that again have a great capacity to pay are able, because of this blunt approach, to get connections at a much lower fee. The time has long since passed when we can ignore the ramifications of cross-subsidisation. One further matter that is worth looking at is the announcement today that the Western Australian Government anticipates that it will save about $35m by installing its own local equivalent of Queensland's Q-net. The Victorian Government has recently announced the creation of Visitel, and those three States-and inevitably, I would have thought, others-will jump on the same bandwagon. In other words they are rebelling. They are prepared to install private networks that will service all government departments. That will create a very serious leak or bleeding in Telecom's revenue capacity. As a result, a much greater burden will be put on the system. That is why I think that it is scandalous that people of the order of the Victorian Premier, who is no doubt desperately concerned about an imminent State election, talk in the way that he did today. He described the proposal as an insult, suggesting that, somehow, it was all about punishing pensioners. That sort of nonsense is not only mischievous but dishonest. I deplore those sorts of self-serving contributions. Grandstanding for the purposes of election campaigning may be understandable in some contexts, but it will be a national tragedy if this proposal is still-born because it has been kicked to death by vested interests and State Premiers. I hope that there will be a lot greater concentration on the economic implications of the proposal and much less political opportunism on the part of State Labor governments. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(7.52) —This evening I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate, a jewel in Victoria, and that is the township of Koroit. Nestled in the Western District of Victoria, Koroit is a most picturesque township, with a proud history. The development of Koroit began back in the 1850s. It began with William Rutledge surveying the district around Koroit. Following this survey, many labourers were brought out from Ireland to work the land. Those early Irish labourers or tenant farmers of the nineteenth century eventually came to own the land they once worked. Most of those farms are today owned by descendants of the early Irish settlers. Therein lies the charm and mystic attraction of Koroit. The town features many grand old homes and is presently transforming the old council buildings into a museum and library to celebrate its proud Irish heritage. Famous Irish names of Koroit include the Maddens, Collins, O'Tooles, Gavins, Gleesons and Mugavins. I am sure there would be Ryans, Duffys and O'Briens also in the township. If Koroit is the jewel of Victoria, then one fine Irish lass, Siobhan Bourke, is the jewel of Koroit. Siobhan Bourke has taken the Miss Victoria crown for 1988. It is a fine tribute to all who have an Irish heritage that Siobhan Bourke is representing Victoria in this nation's bicentennial year. Siobhan Bourke is the daughter of Micky and Ellen, owners of the well-known `Micky Bourke's' Koroit Hotel. I am informed the pub serves green beer on St Patrick's Day. I wish Miss Siobhan all the luck of the Irish in her quest for the Miss Australia crown, to be judged in Albury on 12 February. Mr President, at this time, it is worthy to mention that some time ago I attended the Melbourne Celtic Club's 100 years celebration. Besides having a thoroughly enjoyable time, the difficulty of the Irish in migrating to Australia was brought to my attention. I have since investigated this concern and found a strong case for such a concern. How ironic that the Irish, who first settled this country-some by choice and some not by choice; but certainly all were fine contributors to early Australia-should now have difficulty doing so. As we prepare to enter our bicentennial year, it is a time to reaffirm our beliefs in traditional Australia and those Australians who have contributed to our traditions-and the Irish people are so much a part of traditional Australia. I have asked Mr Mick Young, the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, for comment on this matter, and I am still waiting for a reply. I believe that this Prime Minister, who calls Ireland his spiritual home and calls his Cabinet `the Irish Cabinet', should hang his head in shame-along with the other members of his Government; the lot of them-for their neglect of Irish migrants. Name alone is not enough to call oneself Irish; one must also have the Irish soul. I would like to conclude with an Irish proverb for Mr Hawke's Irish Cabinet: May you be in heaven half an hour before the Devil knows you're dead. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.56) —I want to say a few words tonight about the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) in the light of some recent attacks that have been made on the Institute, which I believe have been quite scurrilous. I refer particularly to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 December by Tony Sarno, which was headed `Sports Factory Flop'. That article was unbalanced, highly selective, totally negative and based on unsubstantiated evidence which in any event appeared to be several years old. Much of the article seemed to be based on comments or quotes from Don Talbot, who was an early coach with the Institute but who left as long ago as 1983 to coach the Canadian swimming team. The article completely ignored the positive results that the Institute has achieved in the past couple of years. Last night in Melbourne the 1987 Sports Australia Awards were announced. It is very interesting to note the representation of the AIS amongst those award winners. One dozen awards were made, of which two or three were in a category which could not, by their very nature, be awarded to AIS athletes or people associated with the AIS. Setting those aside, AIS sports men and women last night won the following awards. Kerry Saxby won the Female Athlete of the Year Award in athletics. Sarah Fitzgerald won the Junior Female Athlete of the Year Award for squash. Jason Stoltenberg won the Junior Male Athlete of the Year Award for tennis. He is the number one junior in the world and winner of the Wimbledon Junior Championships this year. Richard Aggiss won the Coach of the Year Award for men's hockey. The Team of the Year Award was won by the men's hockey team, and 11 of that team were either past or present AIS scholarship holders. The Junior Team of the Year Award given at last night's Sports Australia Awards was won by the girls 16 years and under tennis team. All the girls in that team are full time scholarship holders with the AIS. Those latest awards follow many other notable achievements by AIS scholarship holders. I will mention just a few of them. AIS swimmers won seven gold medals at the 1986 Commonwealth Games and provided nearly 50 per cent of the successful 1987 Australian Pan Pac swimming team. AIS trained athletes at the 1986 Commonwealth Games won two gold medals in weightlifting, two gold in rowing, and one gold in diving, as well as numerous silver and bronze medals in these sports. Ten of the 12 members of Australia's netball team, which won the World Championship in 1984, 1985 and 1986 and was the runner-up in 1987, were AIS trained. Three of the men's rowing eight which won the 1986 World Championship were AIS trained, and the whole eight members of the crew undertook their final preparation at the AIS. Three of the women's rowing four which won the 1986 World Championship were AIS trained. Twelve of the 18 world youth soccer squad which made the final series in Chile were Institute trained. The Sarno article in the Sydney Morning Herald also talked about poor coaching at the Institute. He totally ignored-he made no reference at all-to the following success stories. Richard Aggiss coached Australia's men's hockey team to the 1986 World Championship win. It was Aggiss who, last night, won the Coach of the Year, Sports Australia Award. Brian Glencross coached Australia's women's hockey team to second place in the 1986 World Championship. Wilma Shakespear coached Australia's netball team to world championship wins three years in a row, in 1984, 1985, 1986 and the runner up position in 1987. Reinhold Batschi coached Australia's men's rowing eight to a 1986 World Championship win. Peter Shakespear coached Australia's women's rowing four to its 1986 World Championship win. All of those are AIS coaches. Sarno in his article also totally omitted to mention some of the other top flight coaches associated with the Institute, including probably the two greatest squash players the world has known in Geoff Hunt and Heather McKay; Bill Sweetenham for swimming; Ray Ruffles, the tennis coach; and Pat Clohessy, the middle and long distance running coach; Ju-Ping tian, the women's gymnastics coach; and Adrian Hurley, the basketball coach. The Sarno article was a selective, distorted and emotive disgrace. However, it was not atypical of some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the AIS in recent times. Undoubtedly there is room for improvement at the Institute, despite what has already been achieved. The Institute receives a large amount of taxpayers' funds. Indeed, since it was set up by the Fraser Government in, I think, 1981, the Institute has received close on $70m of taxpayers' funds. Therefore, it must be required to demonstrate to the public that it is using these funds effectively and efficiently. For a period in the mid 1980s there was very proper concern that not all aspects of the Institute's activities, particularly the financial aspects, were under control. The appointment last year of Mr Ron Harvey to head the Institute has corrected that problem. As well, the Institute has produced a strategic plan covering the next few years-a plan that had not been produced before but which was very badly needed. Morale at the Institute which had been going downhill has been improved dramatically in the last 12 months or so. The Institute has come a long way in the past couple of years. No doubt, it can do better. Hopefully it will. Of course, the Institute should not be immune from criticism when criticism is due. However, that criticism should be objective and balanced and it should be based on facts. I am afraid-I regret-that some of the recent criticisms, particularly those by Mr Sarno, fail to meet any of those three criteria. Whether it is another example of the Australian syndrome of `chop down the tall poppies', I do not know, but if we are going to have our institutions denigrated without any due and proper basis for criticism then I think we do ourselves a disservice. I hope that we can, at least as far as the Australian Institute of Sport is concerned, get away from that very damaging and negative approach. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.04) —I rise tonight to discuss a serious deficiency in the provision of health care to the frail and aged in nursing homes and hostels. The deficiency to which I refer concerns the failure by the present Government to provide even a basic care and maintenance dental service to our aged. It is a failure which I would have thought would have been totally unacceptable to everybody. From 1 July this year nursing homes became subject to new Commonwealth funding arrangements. From that date all nursing homes, whether State owned or private, have been subsidised by the Commonwealth on a patient per day basis. As a result of a Commonwealth-State working party on nursing home standards which reported in June 1987 a number of `outcome standards' were set to which nursing homes must comply if they are to receive Commonwealth funding. Outcome standard 1.8 requires nursing homes to ensure that: `Residents are enabled to maintain oral and dental health'. The standard then lists a number of considerations. Firstly, there must be evidence of attention to oral hygiene. Secondly, dentures must be correctly fitted in accordance with the resident's needs and preferences, cleaned as required, discreetly labelled and correctly stored when not in use. Finally, residents have access to treatment for dental and periodontal conditions. It is clear, however, that no resident will be able to maintain oral and dental health as required by the standard unless that person has regular access to a dental practitioner for the purpose of check-ups. In Western Australia the only dental care provided to nursing home residents comes from a resident's own practitioner-if indeed that person has a private practitioner-or if that person has a family which cares enough to take that resident to the family dentist. The Perth dental hospital does operate a single domiciliary unit; however, this is a treatment based service which operates only on demand. Further, the unit is required to meet the needs of the entire community-not only those in nursing homes or hostels but also those non-ambulatory persons who reside in their own homes. For the domiciliary unit to come to a nursing home there must be a dental problem identifiable by the nursing sister. The fault with this is, of course, that nursing home staff are simply not trained to detect dental problems. They can see if a resident is physically ill or in pain; dental neglect, however, is often invisible. Therefore, unless dental pain is brought to the attention of the nursing sister by the resident, that person will receive no dental care whatsoever. One blatant illustration of dental neglect that was recently brought to my notice concerned a 91-year-old nursing home resident. She told a visiting dentist that he was the first dental practitioner she had seen since she had arrived at the home some 14 years previously. In 1986 the Western Australian Oral Needs Survey, showed that 25 per cent of those persons 65 and over were dentate or part dentate. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figure in 1979 was 14.9 per cent. Senator Tate —What is that word? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The proportion of our aged who are dentate is improving. At present, however, at least 75 per cent of those over 65 wear dentures. I will read on, and Senator Tate will then understand. The Nursing Homes and Hostels Review in 1986 indicated that there were 73,000 persons in aged care accommodation throughout Australia, and that they represented about 5 per cent of the total aged population of 1.6 million people. This means that around 55,000 nursing home and hostel residents are required to wear dentures. Honourable senators will recall that one of the considerations under the nursing home outcome standards concerned care for dentures. Nursing home staff are required to ensure that dentures are correctly fitted, cleaned and stored. Once again, however, nursing sisters are not trained sufficiently well in dental care to perform even this basic task. One shocking example of denture neglect that was recently brought to my notice concerned a nursing home resident who had a bolus of calculus half the size of a ping pong ball lodged in his lower denture. I am sure Senator Tate will understand what that looks like and what it is. When the examining dentist showed its presence to the senior nursing sister-a sister of some 35 years standing-she said it had been there 8 years ago and she thought it was simply part of the denture. This is not the fault of the nursing sisters. I am sure they are well trained in caring for the aged and they do a very fine job in most demanding circumstances. Nursing sisters, however, are not adequately trained in dental care and hygiene and cannot be expected to take the place of a properly qualified dental practitioner. Dental hygiene problems encountered in nursing homes will expand and proliferate in future years as the fruits of improved and modern dental techniques begin to show on our aging population. Australia's aged will have less need for prosthetic services, and a greater need for maintenance and restorative services for their own teeth. It is quite clear that nursing home staff are not sufficiently-if at all-trained in dental care. If they cannot identify neglect of a person's dentures when part of their task is to clean them, how can they be expected to be aware of problems with a resident's own teeth? Plainly, it is impossible. What is required is for this Government to provide, or undertake to fund the State governments so they can provide, a dental care and maintenance service. This most basic and necessary of health care services must entail at the very least an examination of the resident on admission to a nursing home and regular examinations by a dental practitioner thereafter. I believe that it is not appropriate for this Government to seek to avoid responsibility by passing the buck to the State governments. As we know, the Commonwealth subsidises nursing homes. As part of its commitment to do so it has set certain outcome standards which must be achieved by nursing homes if indeed they are to receive Commonwealth funding. One of these standards requires the nursing home to ensure that a resident is able to maintain oral and dental health. This cannot be done unless each resident has access to a regular dental care and maintenance service. The Commonwealth has undertaken the responsibility to set the standards for nursing homes. The Commonwealth must provide sufficient funds to see that these standards can be attained and then maintained. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(8.10) —I thank honourable senators for their contributions. Insofar as it may be needed, I will refer their remarks to the relevant Ministers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.10 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notices 1987- No. 200-Prohibition relating to the taking of prawns off Northern Australia, dated 24 November 1987. No. 201-East Coast Deep Water Fin Fish Trawl Fishery Closure, dated 30 November 1987. No. 44b-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 44-Minimum size of mesh for certain trawl nets, dated 10 November 1987. No. 44c-Amendment of Fisheries Notice No. 44-East Coast Deep Water Fin Fish Trawl Fishery, dated 30 November 1987. No. 77b-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 77-Prohibition relating to trawling, dated 26 October 1987. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- City Area Leases, dated 30 November 1987. Liquor, dated 30 November 1987. Motor Traffic, dated 1 December 1987. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendment of the Schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the States, dated 9 December 1987. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 117) Senator Puplick asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 5 November 1987: What was the function or functions, or the other commitments which the Minister had which prevented him from attending the official presentation of the Address-In-Reply to His Excellency the Governor-General on 5 November 1987. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Duties associated with my Portfolio. (Question No. 129) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1987: What was the cost of providing staff, accommodation and support services for three extra Ministers following the expansion of the Ministry from 27 to 30 Ministers. Senator Robert Ray —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The expansion in the size of the Ministry was associated with a re-arrangement of the responsibilities of fifteen members of the previous Ministry, the retirement of five others, and the appointment of eight new Ministers. In most cases the change in, or assumption of, portfolio responsibilities led to changes in the individual's staffing entitlements. The Department of Administrative Services has estimated additional expenditure of $900,000 this financial year in Ministerial staff salaries and salary-related allowances as a result of staffing changes following the expansion of the Ministry. The costs of Ministerial office accommodation and support services are borne by Ministers' respective Departments. Senator Ryan —On 23 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1177), Senator Harradine asked me as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the clinical study conducted at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital which revealed that a number of abortions have been performed on pregnant women who have been disappointed with the sex of their baby as indicated by chorionic villus sampling tests? Is it a fact that most of the aborted foetuses were female? Have the abortions been performed at taxpayers' expense through the Medical Benefits Schedule? What action is proposed by the Government in respect of this grave matter? The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following response to the honourable senator's question. My attention has been drawn to an article in the ``Australian Dr Weekly'' which refers to a clinical trial on chorionic villus sampling conducted by a Dr Tom Boogert of the King George V Hospital for Mothers and Children in Sydney. The article mentions that five women, who participated in the trial, decided to terminate their pregnancies because they felt that their foetus was of ``inappropriate sex''. The article states that dissatisfaction was expressed in relation to both male and female foetuses. I am unable to say whether these specific pregnancy terminations attracted Medicare benefits. While the Medicare Benefits Schedule includes items for medical services which may result in the termination of pregnancy and Medicare benefits are payable where medical expenses are incurred as a result of the provision of such medical services, doctors who perform these services do so within the framework of the laws of the relevant State or Territory, and neither the Commonwealth Government nor the Health Insurance Commission intrude into patient-doctor relationship by way of requiring details of the medical circumstances surrounding the provision of a service to a patient. While I am concerned at the alleged findings of the trial, as reported in the ``Australian Dr Weekly'', doctors undertaking any procedure for the termination of a pregnancy must do so in accordance with the laws of the relevant State or Territory. As a national health insurance scheme Medicare must cover a large number of medical services which are rendered in a diversity of circumstances. For these reasons Medicare is not intended as an instrument for resolving the complex issues raised by abortion and in particular those arising from the ability to obtain genetic and other information very early in pregnancy. The question of whether it is appropriate or desirable for abortions to be performed in the circumstances outlined in the ``Australian Dr Weekly'' article is an additional social dilemma imposed by the emergence of new technology upon an already complex legal and moral matter. Society must make judgements about the balance of benefits and undesirable outcomes as these new developments occur. Of necessity, governments made broad appraisals for public policy purposes which may not be capable of reflecting fully each different circumstance. It is recognition of these broad and difficult issues that has influenced all State and Commonwealth Health Ministers to agree at the Australian Health Ministers' Conference to the establishment of a national bio-ethics consultative committee which will consult widely and advise governments on the development of appropriate public policies. Senator Walsh —On 19 November 1987 (Hansard, page 2049), Senator Haines asked me as the Minister for Finance the following question without notice: Will the Minister 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 countries? In my reply I undertook to investigate whether any details are available concerning share investment in companies by Commonwealth statutory authorities. I now provide the following information: The Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration (formerly the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations) maintains a data base containing a range of information concerning Commonwealth statutory authorities, government-owned companies, subsidiary companies established by authorities and associated companies in which authorities have a shareholding of 20 to 49 per cent. A June 1987 publication by the Committee entitled ``List of Commonwealth Bodies'' provides a detailed listing of the information held on the Committee's data base for these bodies, under the then existing portfolio structure. Details of companies in which Commonwealth statutory authorities were identified as having a shareholding as at 1 January 1987 are included in this Report. A comprehensive compilation of more recent information on statutory authority shareholdings in companies is not available.