Wednesday, 17 February 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australia Card Legislation To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Australia Card (2) That this National Identity System will be intrusive, will not appreciably combat tax or social security fraud, is authoritarian and alien to the Australian way of life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to institute a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is re-submitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 421 citizens). This humble petition from certain businessmen of Western Australia requests that representation be made to Telecom advising it to immediately abandon its reported proposal to charge local telephone calls on a time basis. We humble petitioners believe that such a proposal, if implemented, would seriously damage the continued welfare and profitability of many small businesses in Western Australia. by Senator Panizza (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 165 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: most of the patronage of a casino in Canberra would come from local residents, not tourists Canberra families would suffer economically and socially if a casino were to be established in the ACT any potential economic benefits from income generated by the casino would be outweighed by the costs to the community of the damage to individuals and families caused by compulsive gamblers who provide most of the revenue of Australia's casinos Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal for or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 Oct 86 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 Oct 1986 to 1 Jul 87 so that pensions are restored to the 9 Oct 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Signatures of people protesting against the closure of the Post Office at 403 Magill Road, St Morris. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Request that the Post Office remains open. by Senator Maguire (from 586 citizens). Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 60 petitioners, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, requesting that the Senate urge the Government to reform tax for pensioners: Dear Senator I am writing to you concerning the steadily deteriorating position of pensioners. The decline in the value of pensions is well known, yet little is known about the influence of taxation on their living standards. Contrary to popular belief, pensioners pay tax. Not only do they pay sales and excise taxes like other members of the community, but those who earn more than $3.72 per week above the standard pension are liable for income tax. In the next financial year, unless reforms are made to the income tax system, pensioners will pay income tax on the pension itself. More tax reform? The Income Tax reforms undertaken by the Government in 1986-87 brought little relief to pensioners and low income earners. The recently announced review of the Corporate Tax system and of tax concessions in the cause of superannuation provide an opportunity to direct some benefits to people in greater need. It is recognised that there may be some justice in rationalising the Corporate Tax system to make it comparable to our overseas competitors, however, there is a stronger case in our view to direct some attention to the needs of pensioners. The Combined Pensioners Association has proposed an increase in the value of the Pensioner Tax Rebate from $250 p.a. to $700 p.a. This would enable pensioners to earn up to $40 per week above the pension, as allowed under the Social Security means test, without any losses through the income tax system. The Pensioner Rebate has not been increased since it was introduced in 1982 and, through the effect of inflation, its value has declined by 46 per cent. The other matter of considerable concern is provisional tax. The policy of encouraging pensioners to invest their savings to supplement their meagre pensions is being negated through the threat of provisional tax. These two key issues, the threat posed to living standards through the income tax system and provisional tax require urgent attention. As a Senator representing the people of NSW I urge you to support the calls of pensioners for tax reform. Pensioners deserve better treatment than they are getting at the moment. Yours sincerely, G. DRISCOLL Hon. Secretary Petitions received. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government) —On behalf of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That further consideration of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 1987 be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its concern about the breakdowns to essential services in New South Wales associated with the policies of the Unsworth Government, and calls on the New South Wales Labor Government to use Commonwealth grants to the State to the advantage and benefit of all the citizens of that State. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the devastating swings away from the Government in the recent by-election for the Federal seat of Adelaide; (b) cautions the Government to take note of the message from the electors, namely, that the Government is out of touch with their needs; and (c) congratulates the new member for Adelaide, Mr Michael Pratt, on his election. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) welcomes the announcement that the ACT Administration is moving to bring ACT payroll tax exemption rates in line with those in New South Wales, and urges the Government to ensure that the necessary legislative amendments are enacted as soon as possible; (b) regrets the Government's decision to impose payroll tax liability on certain non-profit organisations within the ACT, which have previously been exempt from liability for this tax; and (c) recognises that disparity in these matters discourages and disadvantages small business in the ACT; and (d) calls on the Government to immediately redress these issues and to restore some incentives for small businesses in the ACT. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting- (a) reports from the Federal Government that it will hold a referendum identical in principle to the Australian Democrats' one vote, one value Bill; (b) the decision of the Queensland Liberal Party to support any referendum on one vote, one value; (c) that the Federal Opposition has still refused to commit itself to supporting a one vote, one value referendum despite the existence of electoral systems in Australia which deny Australians the most basic of political rights, namely the right to elect the Government of their choice calls on the Liberal Party to retreat from its support of unfair electoral systems and to consider each referendum question on its individual merits. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Anglo-Australian Telescope Board-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to sub-section 19 (2) of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970. 2. Housing Loans Insurance Corporation-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965. 3. The Tasmanian Rail System-an assessment of costs and benefits-Federal Bureau of Transport Economics report 62. 4. Australian Honey Board-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962. 5. Grain Legumes Research Council-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 6. Grape and Wine Research Council-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 7. Barley Research Council-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 8. Dairy Research Council-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 30 of the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. 9. The Customs and Excise Bond Systems-Industries Assistance Commission report. 10. Australian Dried Fruits Corporation-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 36 of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978. 11. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961. 12. Australian Trade Union Training Authority-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to sub-section 58 (4) of the Trade Union Training Act 1975. 13. Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act 1982. 14. Australian Broadcasting Corporation-annual report 1986-87 together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 72 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and section 63M of the Audit Act 1901. 15. Victorian Grants Commission-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 13 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 16. Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission-annual report 1986-87-pursuant to section 13 of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986. 17. Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority-annual report 1986-87-together with the Auditor-General's report-pursuant to section 26 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Power Act 1949 and section 63H of the Audit Act 1901. Motion (by Senator Michael Baume): agreed to: That the Senate commends the men and women of the Australian Defence Force for their outstanding contribution to Sydney's Australia Day Bicentennial celebrations and notes that the success of the day was in large part due to their willing participation on what was a holiday for other Australians. Assent to the following Bills reported: Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1987 Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1987 Australian Tourist Commission (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1987 Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1987 Taxation Laws Amendment (Fringe Benefits and Substantiation) Bill 1987 Sales Tax (Off-shore Installations) Amendment Bill 1987 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill 1987 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Bill 1987 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Interest on Underpayments) Bill 1987 Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1987 Housing Assistance Amendment Bill 1987 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1987 Petroleum Excise (Prices) Bill 1987 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Amendment Bill 1987 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1987 Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill 1987 River Murray Waters Amendment Bill 1987 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 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 Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill 1987 Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1987 Dairy Produce Amendment Bill 1987 Management and Investment Companies Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Australian Horticultural Corporation Bill 1987 Australian Horticultural Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1987 Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Bill 1987 Horticultural Policy Council Bill 1987 Horticultural Levy Bill 1987 Horticultural Levy Collection Bill 1987 Horticultural Export Charge Bill 1987 Horticultural Export Charge Collection Bill 1987 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 Wheat Tax Regulations (Validation) Bill 1987 Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 Fishing Industry Research Amendment Bill 1987 Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1987 Fisheries Amendment Bill 1987 Asian Development Fund Bill 1987 International Development Association Bill 1987 International Fund for Agricultural Development Bill 1987 Family Law Amendment Bill 1987 Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1987 Broadcasting (Ownership and Control) Bill (No. 2) 1987 Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1987 Senator HILL(South Australia) —I present the report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on matters relating to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987, together with submissions and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator HILL —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 15 December 1987 the Senate referred a series of matters relating to the War Crimes Amendment Bill 1987 to the Committee for inquiry and report. The Committee's inquiry provoked considerable public interest and debate and attracted more than 350 submissions. We also held two days of public hearings in Canberra at the beginning of this month. The terms of reference required the Committee initially to consider whether the general nature of the evidence and the related material believed to be available in foreign countries, particularly the Soviet Union and eastern European countries, is likely to be of sufficient evidentiary value to warrant the institution of any prosecutions. In so doing, we were precluded from encompassing the facts of particular identified cases. The Committee is of the view that it is not possible to form a judgment on the evidentiary value of such evidence without referring to specific cases. The only material before us on the general nature of this evidence came from Mr R. F. Greenwood, QC, the Director of the Special Investigations Unit. The Committee notes that Mr Greenwood advised that he had `grave doubts' that such evidence, of itself, would be likely to be of sufficient evidentiary value. In the light of the prohibition against referring to specific cases, and having no first-hand knowledge of the general body of evidence and related material believed to be available in foreign states, the Committee is not able to report to the Senate that it has formed any final conclusion on the evidentiary value of `the evidence and related material believed to be available in foreign states'. The Committee's tentative conclusions on the evidentiary value of this material were not unanimous. The majority of the Committee, that is all members except Senator Stone and myself, have taken the view that, on the basis of Mr Greenwood's advice, including his advice that evidence and related material was available in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries, it is reasonable to expect that if that evidence and related material were to be brought to Australia, its evidentiary value is likely to be sufficient to warrant the institution of prosecutions. The minority on this point, that is Senator Stone and I, are not satisfied on the basis of what was put to the Committee that there is available in foreign states, and in particular in the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries, evidence and related material of sufficient evidentiary value to be likely to warrant the institution of any prosecutions. Senator Stone took this view one step further, and concluded that, if the Bill is enacted and prosecutions initiated, evidence and related material from the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries should be used only if corroborated by material derived from outside those countries. Term of reference (b) required the Committee to consider what procedures should apply to the collection of evidence in foreign states, if it is available. The Committee is firmly of the view that witnesses and evidence should be produced for examination, and cross-examination, in Australia. Despite the procedures laid down in Part IIIB of the Evidence Act 1905 and also the provisions in the various court rules for taking evidence overseas on commission, the Committee concluded that it could not contemplate any situation where these procedures should be adopted for taking evidence on future prosecutions, if the Bill is enacted. On the question of applicable law, the Committee has recommended that the Bill be amended to require any prosecution to be conducted in the jurisdiction in which the defendant is resident when the prosecution is brought. Further, we have recommended that the Bill be amended to allow the magistrate or trial judge, as the case may be, the discretion to terminate proceedings and authorise the prosecutor to re-enter them in another jurisdiction, in accordance with the rules of forum non conveniens or as agreed between the prosecutor and the defendant. The Committee was concerned by the failure of the Bill to prescribe the substantive law to be applicable in any prosecutions. Accordingly, we have recommended that the Bill be amended to include a provision that the part of Australia in which the act in question would have been an offence-in the sense contemplated by proposed section 6-be the part of Australia, that is, jurisdiction, in which the proceedings are brought. In relation to term of reference (c), and following on from the Committee's other recommendations, the Committee concluded that the normal rules of evidence and procedure should apply in any war crimes trials. This conclusion was reached, at least in part, because of our considered view that the accused in such trials should not be in any way disadvantaged simply because of the nature of the offences alleged. Similarly, in relation to term of reference (d), the Committee concluded that the procedures for instituting and conducting war crimes trials should be the same as in other criminal proceedings. This was, in our view, the best means of ensuring that there will be no diminution in the normal standards of justice applicable in Australia if such trials are conducted. Following from this conclusion, the Committee is of the view that both the prosecution and the defence should have an unrestricted opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. The Committee was of the firm view that this should take place in front of the jury. In adopting this view, the Committee has consciously rejected the practice of videotaping of witnesses' depositions which has been extensively used in United States cases. We were aware that the videotaping of witnesses' depositions appears to have been an integral part of the agreement which is reported to have been recently concluded between the Soviet Union and Canada on the provision of evidence by the Soviet Union on alleged Nazi war criminals. However, we are of the view that it would be undesirable for Australia to enter into agreement to provide for taking evidence abroad and leaving juries to rely upon a video recording of the process. The Committee noted that Mr Greenwood has exchanged letters with the Soviet Union, Hungary and Yugoslavia with a view to Australia entering into a similar agreement with these countries. Copies of Mr Greenwood's letters to those countries have been included as appendices to our report. The Committee is of the view that prosecutions should not proceed until agreements have been concluded between Australia and all countries from which evidence and related material is believed to be available, that both prosecution and defence witnesses will be able to travel to Australia and that it will be possible to test their evidence in our courts in the usual way. We are of the view that any trials for alleged war crimes should be conducted in accordance with the usual rules of evidence and procedure usually applying in our courts. But we are conscious of the special difficulties which may be encountered by defendants in proceedings for events which occurred in other countries more than 40 years ago. Consequently, the Committee is of the view that the Government must be especially conscious of the needs and interests of possible defendants when negotiating with other countries about the travel of witnesses and access to documents and the site of alleged war crimes. This being so, we have concluded that prosecutions should not proceed unless and until the Government is satisfied that any defendants have had access to defence witnesses and to such sites and archives as is reasonable in the preparation of their defence. It is the Committee's view that proceedings should commence by way of committal proceedings, as is usual with trials on indictment. Like the Director of Public Prosecutions, we recognise that proceedings for alleged war crimes are likely to be complex, protracted and expensive. Consequently, in the interests of fairness to the accused, the Committee has recommended that special provision be made to ensure that persons charged be entitled to legal aid. In the interests of justice, the Committee recommends that any investigations and subsequent prosecutions should proceed without delay. Accordingly, the Committee considers that additional resources might have to be allocated initially to the Special Investigations Unit and, later, probably to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Throughout the inquiry the Committee has formed and maintained a firm view that, in the interests of fairness and justice, the normal rules of evidence and procedure apply to anyone accused under the Bill, if it is enacted. Before I sit down, I wish simply to say that I am delivering this tabling speech as Deputy Chairman in view of the elevation of the Chairman, Senator Bolkus, to the Ministry. I take this opportunity, on behalf of Committee members, to congratulate him on that appointment and to record our appreciation of the work he has done as Chairman of the Committee and the work he previously contributed as a member of the Committee. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.18) —I wish to commence by adding my congratulations to those just uttered by Senator Hill to Senator Bolkus on his translation-that is the word I would use, rather than `elevation'-to the Ministry from the chairmanship of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. However, whatever semantic phrase one might use to describe it-- Senator Chaney —You are under the influence of Cumming Thom. Senator STONE —As my leader in this place says, I am already under the influence of the Senate. The Senate will be aware that the terms of reference given to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in this matter were extremely carefully and I would even say narrowly defined. It is partly for that reason that the Committee's first conclusion, reached under paragraph (a) of the terms of reference, states in paragraph 9.2 of the conclusions chapter of the report which Senator Hill has just tabled: The Committee is of the view that it is not possible to form a judgment upon whether the evidentiary value- I stress `evidentiary value'- of `evidence and related material believed to be available in foreign states' is likely to warrant the institution of any prosecutions without referring to specific cases. Of course the Committee was precluded from doing this. Senator Hill and I have, however, formed a general view about some part of that matter which has already been referred to by Senator Hill in his tabling statement. That view is contained in paragraph 9.9 of the conclusions, where it is stated: In the absence of any first-hand knowledge of the general body of `evidence and related material believed to be available in foreign states', and relying only upon the advice provided- to the Committee by the Director of the Special Investigations Unit- by Mr Greenwood, neither Senator Hill nor I were satisfied that the `evidence and related material . . . is likely to be of sufficient evidentiary value to warrant the institution of any prosecutions'. Senator Hill has noted that my own view goes rather beyond that. In paragraph 9.10 of the conclusions I have gone on to say that if, despite that prior reservation, prosecutions were nevertheless to be initiated under the proposed legislation, if enacted, I am particularly of the view that evidence and related material believed to be available in the Soviet Union or Eastern European countries-in other words, countries under Soviet influence-should be used only in the event that it is fully corroborated, not merely corroborated but fully corroborated, by material deriving from outside those countries. We are told that there is such corroborative material in some cases; but, of course, that is a matter for the courts to determine in due course should any prosecutions be brought. In the first instance it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine before launching a prosecution. As to the second term of reference, term of reference (b), I would like to draw particular attention to paragraph 9.12 of the conclusions of the Committee's report. In chapter 5 of the report the Committee considered some of the types of evidence and related material believed to be available in foreign states and some of the problems which might be encountered in its collection. The Committee concluded-and I quote from that paragraph of the report: In the main, problems arise out of the doubts surrounding eye-witness testimony in this context. . . After all, in the case of events which occurred some 42 to 48 years ago there is the question of the ability of witnesses, especially those on behalf of the defence, to travel to Australia, and the possibility that even if such witnesses, including witnesses for the defence, were to travel to Australia, they might still be subject-I would even go so far as to say almost certainly would be subject, but the Committee did not go quite that far-to improper pressures. `Improper pressures' is a kindly phrase, meaning threats against the witness and/or members of the witness's family in the country from which the witness originates. The paragraph continues: . . . the need for independent interpreters- of course there is no argument about that- the importance of cross-examination, and the need for access to, and the authentication of, documents. I think those are all extremely important considerations which would need to be very much in mind before the Director of Public Prosecutions were to initiate a prosecution under the War Crimes Amendment Bill, if enacted. I have no special comment to make about the third term of reference, term of reference (c), other than to note, as Senator Hill has, that paragraphs 9.16, 9.17 and 9.19 of this segment of the conclusions propose amendments to the present Bill in order to take account of particular matters referred to in those paragraphs. Coming to the final term of reference, (d), I note in particular what I think are four extremely important paragraphs in this segment of the conclusions of the report. I pay tribute here not merely to members of the Committee generally but to Senator Cooney in particular for his contribution to these paragraphs. Paragraph 9.23 states that the Committee notes that witnesses from the Soviet Union, Hungary and Yugoslavia have not previously travelled to Western countries in order to give evidence in trials arising out of allegations about war crimes. Senator Crichton-Browne —That's right; they won't this time either. Senator STONE —That is, not even witnesses for the prosecution and, of course, certainly not witnesses for the defence. Senator Crichton-Browne has interjected to say that they will certainly not do so this time either. I suppose the Committee had to have in mind and did have in mind the testimony it had from Mr Greenwood, the Director of the Special Investigations Unit, suggesting that in his opinion there would be a change in this circumstance should trials for war crimes be launched under this Bill. Well, we must wait and see. In paragraph 9.24 the Committee states that it is of the view that it is crucial that both prosecution and defence should have an unrestricted opportunity to examine and, where appropriate, cross-examine any witnesses and that this should occur in front of the jury; in other words, that evidence should not be taken on commission in foreign countries in relation to crimes of such extraordinary importance and singularity as these but that witnesses should be brought to this country and subjected to the formal procedures of testimony in our courts and cross-examination by counsel for the defence. In paragraph 9.25 the Committee went on to say that it is therefore of the view that prosecutions should not begin until agreements have been concluded between Australia and each country from which evidence is to be obtained, including those with which Mr Greenwood has already exchanged letters; those countries being the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Hungary. Without disrespect to Mr Greenwood, those letters could not be held to be binding agreements. The Committee went on to say that both prosecution and defence witnesses should be able to travel to and give evidence in Australia-that is to say, we should have the agreement of those countries to that effect-and to have their evidence tested in the usual way. Finally, in paragraph 9.26, the Committee states that it is also of the view that in the overall interests of justice prosecutions should not proceed until the Government is satisfied that any defendants in such prosecutions will have access to defence witnesses and be able to visit such sites and examine such archives as is reasonable in the preparation of a defence. At the risk of labouring the point, I stress the extreme importance that I and all other members of the Committee attached to those four paragraphs and, of course, particularly the final three of them which are, so to speak, recommendatory paragraphs so far as those handling these matters, and particularly the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, are concerned. The only other paragraph on which I want to touch briefly in speaking to the final segment of the report dealing with term of reference (d) is that to which Senator Hill referred; namely, 9.43 in which it is recommended that if any prosecutions are to be brought under this Bill if enacted, special provisions be made to ensure that any person charged with having committed a war crime who lacks sufficient means properly to defend his case be entitled to receive legal aid, if necessary quite outside the normal provisions of the standing legal aid schemes. I close with some remarks of a more general nature. As honourable senator's are aware, the Opposition has given support in principle to this Bill, basically on the ground that crimes of the kind with which the Bill purports to be concerned are of such a serious nature that the fact that they may have been committed 40-odd years ago should in itself be no barrier to their prosecution. However, from the outset the Opposition has harboured considerable doubts about many aspects of the proposed legislation. Those doubts were referred to in the other chamber when the Bill was debated there and will no doubt be referred to here when it comes before the Senate. Having had the benefit of participating in the Committee hearings, having read the many submissions put to the Committee and having spent two days listening to a range of witnesses in public hearings before the Committee, I know that many witnesses expressed very considerable fears about the consequences of this Bill, if it is enacted-not merely, in some cases, for the ethnic communities but, more generally, for the cohesiveness of the Australian community as a whole. The doubts that I referred to earlier have been greatly strengthened. The Committee has unanimously proposed a number of amendments to the legislation, to which I referred very briefly earlier. I hope that the Government will accept those amendments. If it should do so, and in any case, there will be further opportunity to consider this Bill, both in the normal second reading stage and in the committee stage. As Senator Cooney wishes to speak, I shall conclude my remarks. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.33) —This report from the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is very comprehensive. Members of the Committee will agree that it was put together in a very short time. Perhaps we could go in for some mutual congratulations. Senator Hill and Senator Stone have already spoken. Senator Giles and Senator Powell-I hope that Senator Powell will speak later-did a lot of work on this report. In that context I join both Senator Hill and Senator Stone in passing on my congratulations to Senator Bolkus, who has moved into the Ministry. He chaired the Committee with great distinction. Under his guidance it has been a very outstanding Committee. He took over from Senator Tate, who, likewise, was a chairperson of great distinction. On the question of evidence, the Senate sent to us a difficult question. We had to assess evidence without going into any details. That was quite proper because in going into details the sort of material that may have come out might have prejudiced people whose reputations are entitled to remain intact until it is proved that they should be otherwise. So it was very proper that we should not consider particular cases. On the other hand, it is very difficult to consider the merit of evidence without seeing what evidence is available for any specific case. That point has already been made by previous speakers. The overall situation as I see it with regard to the evidence is this: the nature of the evidence is such that a lot of it may come, from what we can gather from Mr Greenwood, from Eastern bloc countries. My view on that is that the proper people to test that evidence are the 12 good people on the jury. Given our common law tradition and given the institutions of this country we must have faith in the institutions that have stood the test of time. My view is that the evidence, if put forward by a responsible prosecutor, should be tested and either accepted or rejected by the jury. We were given the task-a proper task-by the Senate to assess the general nature of the evidence but there is a danger in that task in that the legislature, unless it is careful, will fall into the trap of performing a function which is properly the function of a jury. I am a great believer in the separation of powers. I think that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary should be kept separate. In that context it is absolutely essential that the judiciary be kept quite separate from the other two arms of government. It is for a jury, properly instructed by a judge, to decide whether any witness should or should not be accepted. My view is that the legislature must exercise caution in saying, `We think evidence from a particular place is so tainted that it should not be put before a jury'. Clearly there are great difficulties, as Senator Hill and Senator Stone have both so properly said. But, taking all that into account, ultimately the decision on what evidence should be accepted is a matter for a jury. If that protection is there, if that exercise is undertaken by a jury and a judge and jury are employed in this context, then in my view the prosecutor, exercising his or her function appropriately, should put whatever evidence is available before that jury to be tested. There is some danger in our labelling evidence as coming from a particular source and saying that simply because it came from that source it is not fit to be put before a court. If we go down that path there is considerable danger that the legislature and perhaps the executive may start exercising functions which are properly the functions of a judge and jury in the judicial area. This question must be faced. But before it gets to that point, given the open nature of our society, great publicity will fall on anybody who is accused. That is a problem not only in this context but also in any criminal context. There is perhaps an increasing danger, particularly with the media providing an outlet to the public as a whole when any incident arises, that people will be grievously prejudiced simply by the fact that they are named and charged. Some circumspection must be exercised in the way the evidence becomes available. So there are two points. Firstly, I repeat: it is very important that the arms of government be kept separate. When we look at the evidence we should look at it not in a way that would usurp the function of the judge and jury. The facts are for members of the jury. It is for them to decide whether evidence, no matter what its source, is to be accepted or not. That is a function that the Senate, as a body, must be forever careful of. The other point which has been faced properly here today is the question that we always face of quite prejudicial results following the simple allegations that are made when they become public. I think the report has kept both those issues in mind. It did not face the overall question of whether or not trials should go ahead. That is a matter properly for the Senate and will be debated when the War Crimes Amendment Bill comes before the House. But on the technical questions with which the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs dealt and on the question of the sort of evidence that was available and the sorts of procedures that should be available, I think the Committee has dealt with them very well. I think the procedure is absolutely essential. The procedure that should be adopted for these trials is exactly the same procedure that will operate no matter what trial is carried out in Australia. I think that is proper. It is essential that there be committal proceedings. It is essential that any witness who gives evidence should be put before the jury because the jury has to assess the credibility or otherwise of that witness. If that procedure is in place then, as I say, where the evidence comes from becomes a matter of quite minor importance. I congratulate the Committee again. I congratulate Senator Bolkus, wish him the best in his Ministry and thank him for the task he has performed in the Committee in the past. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.43) —In common with all those senators who are not on the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I have not yet had a chance to look at this report. Having listened carefully to the comments made by a number of the members of the Committee, through the members of the Committee here in the Senate this morning, I do want to say that I am very grateful that the Senate did choose to send the War Crimes Amendment Bill to the Committee and I am grateful for the evident careful consideration which the Bill has been given by the Committee. This is a Bill which excites passions in a number of different directions. There are people who, quite properly, have a passionate concern about the bringing to justice of people who may have engaged or who did engage in war crimes of a particularly foul kind. One can understand the deep feelings of revulsion and concern that people have that such people should be brought to justice. Equally one can understand the deep and passionate concerns of people who see this as an opportunity for other injustices to be done to people who would not have a chance to defend themselves properly against people who might bring forward evidence which could be fabricated for all sorts of reasons. I think one can very easily understand the concerns of the sorts of people who have apparently come and given evidence to this Committee and the concerns that they have expressed certainly have my sympathy. In those circumstances there is a particularly difficult task for this Parliament to determine what is the appropriate form of legislation. I think this is a classic illustration of where a careful public examination of some of these issues, in addition to the normal processes of debate which can take place in the House of Representatives and the Senate, is of inestimable value. It enables the Parliament to display to the people of Australia the real issues which lie behind the legislation and the concerns which there are about the legislation, away from the suggestion of partisanship which almost inevitably colours debate in this place. Once the Government adopts a position, once the Opposition adopts a position, the arguments that are brought forward are seen as an attempt to justify those positions. I simply want to record my view that it is this sort of difficult legislation which particularly repays careful examination of this sort. I have little doubt that the Government will very carefully examine not only the majority views of the Committee but also the minority views which we have been told have been expressed by a number of Committee members. I make it quite clear to the Senate that the Opposition certainly will be examining the report very carefully in terms of looking at its own approach to the Bill, the need for amendment and so on. This is a case where it is worth noting-and that is the reason I enter the debate now-that often the question of dispatch to a committee is also dealt with on a partisan basis. Attempts by the Opposition to get a more non-adversary, Opposition-Government approach to the reference of Bills to committees is something we should not lose heart about and we should not lose sight of the desirability of that objective. The simple fact is that governments generally are not interested in seeing Bills go to committees, for reasons that I, as someone who has been a member of a government, can completely understand. It is true of Labor governments and of Liberal-National governments. We need to pick up the work which has been done in the past on seeing whether we can expand committee consideration. What has been said in the Senate today is an illustration of its value to the Australian community and the law-making process. Again I express my support for the procedures that have been followed in this case. I hope they will be multiplied in other cases. I do not seek leave to continue my remarks. I understand that the report will be available for debate in the Senate again this afternoon although, again, most of us will not have had an opportunity to absorb in that time what is, I am sure, a complex report. Again, I thank all members of the Committee for what has obviously been a most conscientious exercise on behalf of the Parliament. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(10.46) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 16 December 1987, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.47) —On the surface, the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill is about preparing Australian Airlines for sale as a public company. But, in fact, it is a monument to the incompetence of the Hawke Labor Government. It is a shrine to which airline users have come to bewail their losses after five years of absolute incompetence on the part of this Government. The Government's performance with regard to the airline industry can best be summarised by the amendment which I will now move on behalf of the Opposition, which sets down all our major criticisms of the legislation and the Government's performance to date. I move: At end of motion, add: ``but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) its hypocrisy in introducing legislation similar to that passed under the previous coalition Government to convert the then Trans-Australia Airlines into a company and which this Government repealed; (b) its failure to take into account the recommendations of the advisory group on Australian Airlines' future capital requirements; (c) its failure to decide now whether or not to privatise Australian Airlines; (d) creating continuing unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines' employees as to their future; and (e) its continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure''. That amendment sets down the major criticisms of this Government. I will now proceed to develop the arguments surrounding those points. Let me first just observe some of the perambulations of the Government in recent times with respect to the personnel, the key players, who have found themselves on the stage over the last several years when dealing with aviation matters. I will deal first with the recent removal of Minister Duncan from the transport and communications portfolio to some outer rim of the Ministry in some other Department. We all know the reasons for that. We all know that, as a left-wing Minister, he has found it extraordinarily difficult to be involved with Senator Evans as the senior Minister in charge of transport and aviation matters. We know of the absolute incompetence Mr Duncan showed in dealing with aviation matters on the floor of the House of Representatives. We recall his misunderstanding, his lack of knowledge and appreciation of the Amann contract affair, in which he caused enormous embarrassment to the Government, and to Senator Evans in particular. We now find that Mr Morris, who was formerly banished to the outer rings of the Ministry, has been recalled to the Department of Transport and Communications, although after the July 1987 election he was removed from that very position. Does this not clearly demonstrate the lack of control, understanding and competence of the Government when it has to go searching back through its personnel on the outer rings of the Ministry, to retrieve somebody who has at least some understanding of aviation matters at a time when the industry is being reorganised by this Government? During the period Mr Morris spent away from transport he was, I believe-no-one would ever know it-given the portfolio of housing and the aged. While he was in charge of that portfolio we heard no words at all. What gives us any confidence that, notwithstanding his experience in transport and aviation, he will be able to come back and deal with such sensitive matters as have now been thrust upon him by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? It just shows how bereft of talent is the Labor Government when it has to recall Ministers who have made no impact in any other area of government to take over a position in which the Government finds itself to be in dire political trouble? That is the essence of the case we will be putting down today about this long overdue legislation. Let us now go through the history of this sorry catalogue of volte-face and somersaults on the part of the Government. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Hawke Labor Government, when in opposition, had much to say about what the Fraser Government was doing in aviation matters. I remind the Senate that in 1981 the Fraser Government passed legislation through the Parliament in exactly the same form as that which is now proposed by this incompetent Hawke Labor Government. What did Mr Morris, who was then the shadow Minister for Aviation, have to say? I will quote from Hansard the very words he used in the House of Representatives in 1981 when he was criticising the Fraser Government about this matter. I remind honourable senators that that is the same Mr Morris who is now back in the Department of Transport and Communications, supporting Senator Evans who, of course, has very little understanding of any of these matters. I will quote what Mr Morris said in 1981: The formation of TAA into a public company is an ill-conceived, expensive and unnecessary gimmick. Senator Chaney —Who said that? Senator MESSNER —That was Mr Morris. He is now Minister in charge of this legislation. He was the shadow Minister in 1981. Perhaps I should just quote one or two more of Mr Morris's words at that time: The legislation constitutes a squandering of public resources by the Prime Minister . . . I have to say that the only public resource that has been squandered is the time this Government has wasted over the last five years in not putting in place the legislation which we passed in government in 1981. The honourable member for Swan, Mr Beazley, became Minister for Aviation in 1984. He is now the golden haired boy of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), being groomed for the deputy leadership of the Party in the light of Mick Young's resignation. Senator Chaney —They will be down to Nick Bolkus as Deputy Leader. Senator MESSNER —Heavens above! The only reason why Senator Bolkus is in the Ministry is the deal done between the Left and Right of the Labor Party. The Prime Minister had to shuffle around everybody in the Ministry to find a senior Minister who would accept Senator Bolkus under his wing, because Ministers have no faith in Senator Bolkus because of his representation of a particular area. To make the point crystal clear, I emphasise that the very words used by the present Minister for Transport and Communications Support, Mr Peter Morris, to support his attack when in opposition against the Fraser Government, have now been politely forgotten by this Government because it has now adopted the very views that it decried so heavily in 1981. Mr Morris was not the only one. The most significant point arises as a result of the discussion in the Parliament in 1984, when Mr Beazley was the Minister for Aviation. As I said, he is one of the rising intellectual giants of the Labor Party who we expect to take over the reins of power to run this country into the twenty-first century. Let us hope that we do not hit a brick wall on the way! What did Mr Beazley say when he was moving to repeal the Fraser Bill in 1984? Senator Chaney —He didn't do that, did he? Senator MESSNER —He sought to repeal the very legislation the Government is now supporting. It was only three years ago that the former Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, the putative Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, took this action. Senator Chaney —Tell us what he said. Senator MESSNER —Let us see what he had to say, remembering that it was only three short years ago. He said: It is the Government's view- that is, the Hawke Labor Government- that there is nothing to be gained in setting up TAA as a public company. Senator Chaney —That is not Mr Beazley talking. Senator MESSNER —It is Mr Beazley, who is now the Minister for Defence. At that time he was the Minister for Aviation, the fount of all knowledge on aviation. Senator MacGibbon —Do you think Cabinet solidarity has now disappeared? Senator MESSNER —There is no Cabinet solidarity when the Labor Party has to fiddle around to put Nick Bolkus in the Ministry and move everybody around. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! He should be referred to as Senator Bolkus. Senator MESSNER —I beg your pardon, Mr Acting Deputy President. In referring to the repeal of the Fraser Government's legislation, which has now been adopted by the present Government, Mr Beazley said: Nor can we justify to the taxpayer the very significant costs that would be incurred in such a transformation. This Government will retain TAA in full public ownership as a statutory authority. That is what the then Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley, said. How can we trust the Hawke Labor Government on anything it says? Senator Chaney —They do not know what they are doing. Senator MESSNER —Yes, Government members do not know what they are doing. A classic example of the lack of trust people have in this Government was demonstrated in the Adelaide by-election two weeks ago, when people indicated that they did not believe what the Prime Minister had said about charging for telephone calls. They knew the Prime Minister would proceed with time charging of telephone calls, no matter what he said, because they know that they simply cannot trust him. That view in the Australian community is reinforced by the points I am now making about examples. The Government claimed it would not introduce a capital gains tax, assets tests on pensions or a tax on lump sum superannuation payments, but it has since introduced those measures. I shall proceed further in raising points about the Government. I believe we must set down the test by which we would judge the Government's actions in the aviation area. It is clear that the Government is hopeless. Factional manoeuvring within the Government reeks and reminds one very much of the last days of the Roman Empire when the emperor's crown was up for sale to the highest bidder and the highest bidders took over the crown for a few weeks before they were deposed by a person prepared to pay more. That is the situation in the Labor Party at present. The party is cracking down through its factional rifts in such a way that it is destroying itself at the base, and it knows it. The Labor Party knows, from the result of the Adelaide by-election, that its own previously solid supporters are deserting it in droves. The reason is obvious. They do not trust the cracking foundations of the Labor Party any more. In the aviation area the expense to the taxpayer of five years of ministerial bungling and incompetence has meant that those consumers, namely, users of airlines, have suffered cost increases greater than they would otherwise have experienced had the Government proceeded in 1983 with the legislation enacted by the Fraser Government in 1981. The costs cannot be measured, of course, but they are obviously enormous. Some idea of the cost to the consumer can be gleaned from the actions of other governments overseas where deregulation has occurred, where competition has been encouraged and where lower fares have been introduced and, accordingly, many more people have been able to travel on airlines than would otherwise have been the case. That is a benefit to the consumer. It would have resulted in benefits to our economy by allowing people to move around faster. Perhaps the worst example of Government incompetence is what has been observed in tourism in this country in recent times. On the one hand, the former Minister, John Brown, has been parading around the country generating some kind of enthusiasm for tourism-and some may say he has done a reasonable job-but on the other hand, the Government has taken no account of the problems that will be generated as a result of increased tourism in this country. There have been no improvements in flight scheduling and generally lower fares have not been available to consumers across the Australian community to enable them to take advantage of new tourism opportunities, whether here or internationally. Consequently, the airlines have simply not been able, because of the lack of competition, to match the challenge that has been thrown out as a result of increased tourism opportunities. Honourable senators should acknowledge that one of the great tragedies of the past several years of the Government's inaction in opening up the Australian Airlines to competition has been the demise of a fledgling embryonic third national airline based around East-West Airlines. We now know that that company has been absorbed into Ansett Airlines of Australia, but at the time of its creation its charter was to be an effective operator in the low-cost budget area of tourism. Senator Chaney —But that is serving the people of Australia and why would the Government want to preserve that? Senator MESSNER —It is serving the basic Australian consumer and offering more opportunities for Australians to travel more cheaply throughout the length and breadth of this country where new tourist facilities have been established. It was a grand idea and one that should have been fostered by this Government, but it destroyed that opportunity by not allowing competition to develop, by not enacting and keeping in place legislation that was passed by the Fraser Government in 1981, and by removing that legislation from the statute books in 1984, which led with absolute certainty to the demise of East-West Airlines and consequently destroyed the hopes of the average Australian consumer of being able to travel cheaply around tourist facilities in this country. Senator Chaney —Hawke fiddled until East-West was taken over. That is the truth. Senator MESSNER —Absolutely. As my colleague says, Hawke fiddled until East-West was taken over by another airline. This Government had the magnificent opportunity laid on a platter for it by the Fraser Government in 1981 to develop an alternative airline scheduling operation in this country which would have provided cheaper fares and facilities for Australians. This Government stands condemned on that issue alone. Consequently it should hold its head in shame at its lack of action over that time. I shall refer to two matters to ensure that the record is properly understood about some of this Government's actions. I refer honourable senators to one of the provisions of the Bill referred to by Senator Evans in his second reading speech. He said that matters such as Loan Council borrowing limits, government oversight of industrial relations arrangements, Remuneration Tribunal determination of board member and senior executive salaries, and restrictions on superannuation arrangements for Australian Airlines will remain but will be further considered. One of the strong arguments that was put against the legislation introduced by the Fraser Government in 1981, emanating from the Minister now subservient to Senator Evans, that is, Mr Morris-he was then the shadow Minister for Transport-was that those things were not included in the original legislation by the Fraser Government and, therefore, the people of Australia would not support the changes which the Fraser Government was then proposing. But this proposed legislation incorporates none of that. It does not tell us in detail what the Hawke Labor Government proposes to do about employees' superannuation or about industrial relations matters. It does not say anything about what limits will be established by the Loan Council for borrowings, and what arrangements will be initiated for executive salaries. The Bill says nothing about that, yet it now has the full support of the Hawke Labor Ministry which includes Senator Evans and particularly Mr Morris who was then the shadow Minister, decrying the Fraser Government on those matters as well. Senator Chaney —Do you think the departmental officials must be getting confused by these conflicting instructions they keep getting? Senator MESSNER —There can be no doubt about that. Let us remember, of course, that the future for airline development in this country and, in fact, the infrastructure for many public owned authorities that provide services to Australians is one of a very great shortage of capital. Yesterday's Australian contained headline articles where Senator Evans apparently is saying to his own Caucus that $1 billion of capital is yet to be raised to look after transport authorities owned by the Commonwealth Government. Somehow that money has to be raised. Senator Evans is obviously trying to argue within Caucus that the only way to raise the money to modernise our aircraft, our ships and so on is to privatise the transport authorities and to allow the development of a denationalised industry. That is obviously what this Bill is all about. Yet those borrowings have blown out in this country; the total Australian debt over the five years this Government has been in power has risen from $30 billion in 1983 to $105 billion in 1987-88. That has brought with it huge costs borne by the taxpayer in repayment of capital and interest on loans to the extent now that every Australian-and the Budget supports this-is paying 10c out of every $1 of tax he pays to the Commonwealth Government just to keep the interest running in respect of the loans which the Commonwealth has entered into: 10 per cent of our taxes go to paying the interest on those loans. Senator Chaney —The way this Government is going they will not be able to afford to catch buses let alone aeroplanes. Senator MESSNER —That is quite right. It is a horrifying situation that we face as we approach the twenty-first century. We are paying more on interest and servicing costs for loans on past debts to maintain our past spending by this Government than we do on education, health and defence. Clearly the Government deserves condemnation on the grounds that it has generated this debt, and that it has led us into this financial mess. It is now forced to the reality of the very truths which the Liberal and National parties were espousing at earlier elections but certainly over the past seven or eight years concerning the need to privatise our enterprises because of the capital demands imposed upon them in the future. Some sections of the Labor Party have come lately to the realisation that that has to happen. Senator Evans obviously has, judging from his articles in the newspapers in recent days. Senator Chaney —Those reports he has leaked are very powerful. Senator MESSNER —These are leaked, are they? I thought he must have bought space in the Australian newspaper yesterday. Senator Sanders —It is a good ad. Senator MESSNER —It is a good advertisement, is it not? This is the only way he can sell his Caucus, by leaking documents of this size and stature to the Australian Press. Senator Chaney —It is the cheapest way to distribute things. It is the cheapest way to get messages to Caucus. Senator MacGibbon —You presume Caucus is literate and able to read. Senator MESSNER —It is certainly the cheapest way of getting messages to the Caucus, but I point out that not all Caucus members are illiterate because in yesterday's Melbourne Herald newspaper an article headed `Evans takes on Left over Government sell-off' demonstrates that there is at least one literate left wing member, John Langmore, the honourable member for Fraser, in the other place. Yesterday he claimed that an increased public borrowing requirement was no more dangerous to the economy than private companies borrowing capital overseas. He then goes on to say: We can fight back. There is talk around the corridors of privatisation being dropped before the ALP National Conference . . . Senator Chaney —What do you think will happen to travellers while the Labor Party squabbles about privatisation? Senator MESSNER —Here is the Labor Party fiddling while the consumers burn. That is the situation. Let me just finish on this point because it is quite illuminating. The reason that Mr Langmore said that we-meaning the left wing-will win over the Evanses and the Hawkes of this world is apparently that suddenly they have had a rush of blood to the head and they are saying they will destroy this issue before the ALP National Conference in July because they want to avoid humiliating the Prime Minister. Do not worry about the consumers. All we are worried about is how good the silver bodgie looks. It is a matter of whether the Prime Minister will look pretty or not; or whether he will burst into tears again on television. The fact is that the Labor Party is united apparently in one view and that is that the Prime Minister cannot be humiliated. Do not worry about the consumers. Do not worry about the airlines. Do not worry about the tourism industry. Do not worry about the balance of payments. Do not worry about the international debt. Do not worry about the taxes that we have to pay to repay the interest and the capital. Just worry about the humiliation of the Prime Minister at the ALP National Conference. I do not know whether the Government will end up proclaiming this Bill; possibly it will not in the light of this kind of conflict. But I will say to the Senate that this Bill has the wholehearted support of the Liberal and National parties, and the amendment I moved sets down all the points on which we had argued against the Government, not just this week or last week but over seven years concerning airline policy. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.15) —I am a person who came here from the United States of America, that bastion of free enterprise and capitalism. Incidentally, I take this opportunity to show to one and all my certificate of Australian citizenship dated 4 July 1979 in case anybody had thoughts of making an issue of my citizenship. I wonder how many other members of this chamber actually have a piece of paper saying that they are an Australian. Senator Tambling —Why did you choose 4 July? Senator SANDERS —I thought it was a fitting date. It annoyed the United States Consulate no end. The point I make is that I came from the United States and, having been conditioned by the Eisenhower years, when I first arrived here I thought, `My God, nationalised airlines, nationalised railways and a nationalised shipping service!'. I was aghast at this intrusion of government into what should be the province of free enterprise. But over the years I have found that it is actually a good thing, especially in Australia which has a small population, because Australia has always been controlled by a few monopolies. Generally they were British, now they are Japanese with some help from the Americans. We find that Japanese are actually influencing our government to the extent of trying to unseat the Unsworth Government in New South Wales because of its woodchipping policy. So we are controlled from outside this country. We are controlled by foreign interests. I suppose that Rupert Murdoch and Sir Peter Abeles are home grown capitalists, but I think it is a very good thing that Australian Airlines is a government run instrumentality and it is a good thing that the Australian National Line, Telecom Australia and a number of other organisations are government run. Even though Australian Airlines does make money, some of the organisations do not. Does defence make money or does running a sewerage plant make money? Of course not. The point is that these are governmental responsibilities which should be taken by a responsible government and up until now anyway the governments of Australia have been responsible enough to undertake these tasks. Senator Cook —Services to the community. Senator SANDERS —Services to the community, as the Minister says. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his elevation to the ministerial benches, and I will be coming around to talk to him about Kakadu in a minute. The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill is in fact not the thin end of the wedge in the move towards privatisation; it is the thick end of the wedge. This is it. Senator Messner —Hear, hear! Senator SANDERS —Senator Messner says, `Hear, hear!'. This is privatisation coming at us. Of course the Opposition, to its credit, has always said it was in favour of privatisation; it has always been open about this. The Australian Labor Party, up until now anyway, has said, `No, we are against it'. But the Hawke conservative Government-the Opposition for some reason I do no understand objects to this-has not gone that way. Mr Hawke is implementing all the Opposition's policies and all it has to do is just sit back. Senator Messner —He is not doing as well as we would have. Senator SANDERS —I think he is doing better than the present Opposition could have. There is very little opposition to his policies. If those who are now members of the Opposition were trying to implement them, those on the Government side would be over here and they would be yelling and screaming. The Hawke conservative Government, perhaps because of the pragmatism which says, `Look, it is better to have us in government than that other lot; so let us do whatever we want', is getting away with things that Fraser could not possibly have done. Senator Messner nods in agreement. So we have privatisation. What will this lead to? It will lead to Hawke's buddies, Sir Peter Abeles and Murdoch, an expatriate who is now an American, taking over the entire airline industry. Do honourable senators think that they would let Australian Airlines go to anyone else if it went private and was sold? Just as they killed off competition from East-West Airlines Ltd they would buy up Australian Airlines. We would have not a two-airline policy, which is bad enough, but a one-airline policy. People would fly when the airline wanted them to. People would belly up to the ticket counter only to be told they will go when the airplanes go. The consumers would not have a look in. There would go the charter fares and cheap fares, as were provided by East-West, that Senator Messner was talking about earlier. Once Abeles and Murdoch have their tentacles into the entire airline system, which is what they want and what Hawke is trying to give them, we can kiss air travel in Australia goodbye. That is a shame because this country needs air travel. In fact, this country pioneered air travel. Australia was where Kingsford-Smith and people like him demonstrated the efficiency of air travel, but over the years government bureaucracy strangled the development of air travel. We have a Department of Transport and Communications which still has the attitude that the only safe airplane is one in a hangar with the doors welded shut. It does not want the planes to fly. The Government imposes restrictions. There are far too many restrictions on the operations of Australian Airlines, but I do not think this Bill will do anything about that. Of course, I am not alone in saying these things. Astute journalists have made similar comments. An aviation correspondent, Tony Harrington, writes: The Federal Government is putting the finishing touches to a bill which would give Australian Airlines greater commercial freedom and help smooth the way for privatisation. The Canberra Times-that excellent newspaper which has some very insightful columnists on its staff, some of whom actually come here to rest their weary selves in our galleries and use our desks to write their columns, probably because it is too noisy in the other chamber-carried the following article under the heading `Airline privatisation decried': Government discussion papers on privatisation show that Qantas and Australian Airlines should not be privatised, according to a member of the caucus committee studying the privatisation of the airlines. This is a reference to the self-same Mr Langmore who was quoted earlier. The article continues: ``The papers show absolutely clearly it would be the wrong thing to privatise [the airlines],'' the Member for Fraser, Mr Langmore, said yesterday. The papers-on Qantas, Australian Airlines, Australian National Railways and the Australian National Line-were to be discussed this week by the three members of the caucus ad-hoc committee established in November to contribute to government policy on privatisation of government transport enterprises. They expect to report to caucus within four weeks. ``Why privatise Qantas and Australian Airlines when they are making money?'' Mr Langmore asked. ``Qantas is one of the more efficient international airlines in the world. It would be foolish to privatise it.'' It certainly would be. Senator Messner —What about the consumer? Senator SANDERS —The consumer certainly will not benefit from privatisation if Murdoch and Abeles take over the whole works. Senator Messner —They are ripping off all the profits and driving the prices up. We want cheaper air fares. Senator SANDERS —We certainly do. We need more competition, but we do not need to privatise Australian Airlines. We need complete deregulation. If Opposition senators were for free enterprise they would agree with that stance but, no, I think they want to protect Murdoch and Abeles themselves. I turn to the amendment moved by Senator Messner. Once again we find ourselves in the invidious position of actually agreeing with the words but not their meanings. Senator Messner's amendment states: `but the Senate condemns the Government for: (a) its hypocrisy in introducing legislation similar to that passed under the previous Coalition Government to convert the then Trans-Australia Airlines into a company and which this Government repealed; Certainly the Government is hypocritical. Hypocrisy seems to be its stock in trade. So, yes, we can support the condemnation of the Government because of its hypocrisy, but of course we do not really want Australian Airlines converted into a company as that would then lead to privatisation. So we are in a bit of difficulty there. Paragraph (b) of the amendment states: its failure to take into account the recommendations of the Advisory Group of Australian Airlines' future capital requirements; We certainly agree there. We do believe that Australian Airlines should be made viable. It should be allowed to compete, and it should have the wherewithal and the material resources to compete successfully and give the consumers the service they require. Paragraph (c) states: its failure to decide now whether or not to privatise Australian Airlines; I think the Government should decide on that issue, and I think it would benefit the Australian people, and in fact the Australian Labor Party itself, if it were to stick to its policies and say `No privatisation'. So we agree that the Government has failed to decide whether or not to privatise. Paragraph (d) states: creating continuing unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines' employees as to their future; If it did say that there would be no privatisation, the employees would certainly understand their future. Paragraph (e) states: its continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure''. Over and over again I and other members of the Senate have noted the Government's poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure. So we agree with the words, but we do not agree with them in the way they are meant by the Opposition. I think we will actually support the Opposition's amendment, moved by Senator Messner, but not for the reasons he would like us to support it. We agree with the words, but we do not agree with the meanings as he would have them; we agree with the meanings that we believe they have. What can we do? Instead of this Bill we should force the Government, if the Government will not do this itself, actually to give Australian Airlines the capability of competing, such as by removing the Loan Council borrowing limit. To deal with the staffing problems, it should have Remuneration Tribunal determination of the remuneration of board members and senior executives. In general I think the Government should attempt to trim the bureaucracy which surrounds Australian Airlines, or indeed any other function of government. Bureaucrats have about a five-year productive working span. Believe it or not, bureaucrats are enthusiastic at the beginning of their term. Some of them, when they leave school, even have ideals and they work hard, but after a while they settle into the same old rut and they know that if they make a noise they might not get promoted or they will get shunted sideways. Of course they will always get promoted. We have Parkinson's law to thank for that, and the Peter principle. I am not making any allusions to the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, who is the only front bench member of the Government in the chamber at this time. But we have the Peter principle, which shows that people rise to one notch above their level of competency. Senator Tambling —Does that mean that you will be Leader of the Democrats? Senator SANDERS —Well, I seem to be the only person here speaking for them. At this moment I am the de facto Leader of the Australian Democrats. We are a very democratic organisation. The point is that bureaucracy can strangle any viable organisation. The bureaucracy of Australian Airlines should not be allowed to get in the way of the operation of the airline. Therefore, operational personnel should be given far more leeway and should be kept from being stifled by the bureaucrats. The Hawke conservative Government will reap the justified wrath of the electorate if it once again ignores party policy and sells off the people's airline. Senator Cook —Is that the sour grapes of wrath? Senator SANDERS —`Wrath' is one of those contentious terms. I would not pronounce it the way Senator Cook does, but it is grapes of wrath. The conservative Government of Prime Minister Hawke will certainly suffer, because people like their airline. People do want to have their own airline. If people believe in that airline I think they will rise up and take it as another indication of the Hawke Government's inability to keep its trust either with its people or with its own party. It would be another promise broken, another policy area forgone. It would be similar to selling uranium to France. It would have an electoral backlash. I think the Government is astute enough to realise that. I do not know why at the moment it has this lemming-like tendency towards jumping off the cliffs of self-destruction, but it seems to be making all the wrong decisions and this certainly is a wrong decision. I would like to think that we could save the Government from itself by opposing the Bill. We will oppose it. It is unfortunate that the Opposition will support it, which of course will mean that it will pass. I think this Bill will cause irreparable damage to Australia's transport policies. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.29) —The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 is testimony to the administrative incompetence of this Labor Government. It shows quite dramatically once again how out of touch it is with the needs and aspirations of the Australian community, because if there is one thing the Australian community wants it is cheap and efficient air travel. From a national point of view, we need cheap and efficient international travel. This Government has set about perverting the whole of the efficiency of the transport system in this country by the way it kowtows to the bully boys in the union movement and the featherbedding that is inevitable with that and the way it has messed around in repealing this Bill. I find it quite incredible that only a few years ago in this chamber this Bill was repealed, and now this Government is bringing it back. As Senator Messner said, the Bill was brought in and passed in 1981 under the Fraser Government, and one of the very first acts of this Labor socialist Government, motivated purely by ideology at the time, was to rescind that Bill. Now, a few years later, all those people over there are going to vote for a Bill that they voted against then. They did that in 1984 not because of any economic argument and not because of any rational argument of any sort whatsoever; it was simply an ideology. People such as Senator Cook, chanting a mindless ideology, a socialist dogma, had to remove it because they did not like the idea that Trans Australia Airlines (TAA), as it was then, should be sold. But it is part and parcel of so many things on the learning curve of this Government. It is now busy doing all the things that the Liberal Party was doing when in government and has told the Labor Party to do all the time it has been in government. Look at some of the changes that have taken place. I cannot cite them all, but look at some that have taken place in the Government's foreign policy area, in the way it has moved away from supinely supporting the Soviet position when it was in opposition to taking a more realistic view of the facts of life in the international world. Look at its bank policy and the recognition of foreign banks and their admission into Australia, which was Liberal Party policy implemented by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government after opposing it for years. Look at the need for restraint in government spending, which is sadly not marked in any way at all by any success to date; but if it keeps trying it might be able to control a little bit its big spending habits. Again it is Liberal policy of responsible government. Of course, we come to this one, the conversion of Australian Airlines to a public company so that the public company can be sold and we can get rid of the two-airline Act and can inject some real competition into the Australian marketplace in the way of fares so that we can do something for the poor, long-suffering public. That is the aim of this Bill, and no matter how the people over there squirm about it, the Government is going to sell Australian Airlines and it is going to change radically the two-airline Act because it is compelled inevitably by the facts of life to do so. Senator Messner —Not if Senator Burns can help it. Senator MacGIBBON —Well, Senator Burns is going to squirm and he will just have to vote. He will have to run with the Minister on this, however much it hurts him before his mates in Queensland. We have here a government that is more incompetent than any we have seen in the Federal Parliament since the closing days of the Whitlam Government. It is a government that is tortured by its internal factions; it is a government that lacks consistency in its policies; and it is a government that elects people as senior office-bearers in the Ministry not on a basis of merit and not on ability, but simply on factional deals cut to keep people quiet. It cuts a deal on anything that suits the numbers in the various factions. It is not concerned with the quality of the decision; it is not concerned with the merits; and it is not concerned with the economic or intellectual arguments that might prevail. It is simply jobs for the boys, keeping Bill happy today so that Joe will be happy tomorrow, and the devil take the country as a consequence. Because the Labor Party has messed around in such an incompetent way, we have lost at least five years, and probably more, of planned improvement in the Australian airlines system. How the repeal of the Bill in 1984, the repeal of the repeal which is taking place today-which the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia wholeheartedly support-must stick in their craw. I suppose that is why we do not have one Labor speaker on the speakers list for this Bill. The list reads: Senator Messner, Senator Sanders from the Australian Democrats, myself from the Liberal Party, Senator Chapman from the Liberal Party, Senator Michael Baume from the Liberal Party, and finally the Minister will come in, but not one of his colleagues over there. Senator McKiernan —And Senator Cooney. Senator MacGIBBON —Senator Burns will not get up and defend this Bill, will he? None of the other senators from the Labor Party will come in and defend this Bill. They are hiding their heads in shame at the hypocrisy of this Government and at the inconsistency and sheer incompetence that is being manifested today. I want to go on to deal with the business of the lost time for the Australian public. Four points are apparent. The first is the erosion of Australian Airlines, the old TAA company, within the Australian airline industry. It is now in a very sad state. The second point is the almost total dominance of the Australian transport field-not only the airline field but also road, freight and passenger transport-by Ansett Transport Industries. More important than those two points is the removal of East-West Airlines Ltd, which was the third competitor injecting some competition into the cosy duopoly existing between TAA, as it was, and Ansett. Most importantly, the Australian public for the last four or five years has had to pay-it has had no choice in it-very much higher air fares than it should have paid. Sadly, it will go on paying those higher fares for quite a few years to come because while the ALP has had a change of heart on this matter and is now moving to sell Australian Airlines, restitution for those lost years cannot be made and the position cannot be recovered in the short term. I want to dwell a little on those four points and enlarge on them before I move on in my speech. The erosion in the market-place of Australian Airlines is very significant. That airline is totally undercapitalised. It does not have the money to buy the new equipment it needs to stay in business. It cannot stay in business when it is faced with a very efficient airline, as Ansett is, operating the latest equipment, which costs far less to operate and maintain and in fuel costs than the equipment that Australian Airlines has. Australian Airlines, as it is structured at present, simply cannot maintain its present position; it is going downhill all the way. This shows that this Government cannot run anything, least of all an airline. It cannot even handle the money that is given to it by donors trying to buy favours from it in an election campaign without breaking the law and farming it out illegally into other accounts. Senator Burns —What about the action by you? Senator MacGIBBON —If Senator Burns wants to talk about the by-election in Adelaide I will come to that later. Late last year Australian Airlines was driven, out of necessity, to cancel the Airbus order. It had no option but to cancel a $650m contract to buy new Airbuses to upgrade its fleet. This is testimony to the fact that it does not have any money. It is so bankrupt it cannot fulfil orders it made years ago. Not only could it not face the cost of buying those aircraft but also it could not face the cost of the training programs and the new plant and equipment it needed to support those aircraft on the ground. The airline has to have new equipment if it is to stay in business and it cannot do it while it is languishing as a statutory authority under the Government. The Government, to give it its credit, recognises that it has to convert Australian Airlines to a public company, fatten it up and then sell it so that the airline can survive. The consequence of all this on Australian Airlines is that the morale of the company is at rock bottom. I know quite a number of employees of Australian Airlines both in the air crew and in the administration. The morale has been diminishing for years and, frankly, I do not know how the people keep on going. It is a credit to the resilience of the staff that the company keeps going. A second important point is the almost total dominance of Ansett Transport Industries that this Government has brought about in the Australian transport market. Ansett is one of the best airlines in the world and I am proud that it is an Australian company. It is successfully managed, it is aggressively managed and it has followed an aggressive policy of growth. There is nothing wrong with that at all. It does not matter how much Senator Burns squirms on this, it is quite proper for a commercial enterprise to make a profit and to grow. One company is now in a position of great dominance in the Australian airline industry. This position is not going to be reversed in the short term. The consequence is that Ansett will continue to dominate the market for the next decade or two. Any effective competition coming into the market is going to have a very hard row to hoe. It is going to be very hard to take on Ansett. Again, this reflects on the lack of foresight and the total incompetence of this Government. It has delivered Australian Airlines into a situation where it can offer no effective competition which would bring about lower prices. More important than those two considerations is the very serious loss of East-West Airlines in the Australian airline industry. East-West was an innovative, alternative airline and it believed, as I believe, that there is a very great potential in the low cost travel market in Australia. Everyone in this chamber flies a lot. We all fly too much as passengers around the place and we tend to overlook or even be unconscious of the fact that despite the air-mindedness of Australians very few Australians actually fly as passengers. I forget the figure but it is astonishingly low. A great many more people would fly if fares were at a more reasonable level. That was the great virtue of East-West Airlines. It was developing a new market but it was obstructed at every turn by Australian Airlines and Ansett which used every recourse that was open to them at law to block East-West's routes development. But it was coming along and it showed promise of being in time an effective third airline, injecting long overdue competition into the Australian market-place. The company has now been bought by Ansett. It has effectively been removed as a competitor in the two-airline situation. While Ansett will use it as a separate company for a while it means that if any new company comes into the Australian airline industry and wants to compete in the low fare market Ansett will be able to turn around with a sub-company that it owns in the form of East-West and virtually drive that company out of business. Ansett could run East-West in competition at a loss, and a new private enterprise company simply could not go on not making a profit. This reinforces once more Ansett's present great monopoly position. That just demonstrates how out of touch this Government is. Mr Hawke does not give a damn about the travelling public of Australia. All his working life he has travelled with a first class ticket in his hip pocket. When he was a flunkey for the Australian Council of Trade Unions-or whatever that body is in Melbourne that calls all the strikes-he would fly around with a first class ticket paid for by the union movement. In the five years he has been Prime Minister whenever he wants to go anywhere he hops on a Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft. The plight of the ordinary Australian who lives in a very big country and who is faced with very high air fares is lost on him. It is lost on his Ministry and on all those school teachers and union officials who now hold Labor Party seats in this Parliament. Senator Messner —He is just out of touch. Senator MacGIBBON —The Government is totally out of touch-not only incompetent but also out of touch. It does not realise that Australians want to travel. If one looks at the international market one sees that Australians are great travellers. They go overseas. They do not go from Brisbane to Perth; they go from Brisbane to Singapore or Brisbane to London or Brisbane to Honolulu because the fares on the overseas routes now are far cheaper pro rata than they are on the internal airline services. Again, the cheapness of flights on the international airlines is a consequence of the basic competition in that environment. It is not a cosseted environment. There is a great demand in Australia for cheap air fares. This Bill, I think, is going to produce quite a bit of suffering within the Labor Party. It is not for me to comment at length on that. The Party and the Government have clearly lost their way. They have been bullied by the Prime Minister and the ALP machine men from New South Wales and Sydney. After the Adelaide debacle they are now exposed to ridicule before their colleagues in the Party. These are signs that the timorous left wing and the Centre Left are now wanting their say, as Mr Langmore did yesterday. It is a little late in the day for that because the Party has been virtually destroyed in the eyes of the public by the way it has run in all directions on a whole range of issues. The way in which the Government somersaulted by introducing this Bill is proof of what I am saying. The consequence of this Bill is inevitable. The Government will have to sell Australian Airlines. It must sell it because if it stays within the Government's control as a statutory authority it will wither on the vine. It cannot get the money it needs to re-equip and survive. Furthermore, it will not operate in a way that enables it to meet efficiently the competition from Ansett Transport Industries. The reasons why it will not do so, even with the best manager in the world, is there are no hungry shareholders pressing the board of TAA, Australian Airlines, whatever one wants to call it, for a profit. Without that profit motive, and the pressure for a profit all of these socialist ventures fail when they are faced with any real opposition. The consequence of selling Australian Airlines is that we can then get rid of the two-airline Act. The two-airline Act is necessary because we have a government airline which can afford to run at a loss and a private enterprise airline like Ansett which cannot. The only way one can get Ansett or any private operator to stay in the market is to level the playing fields by putting boundaries around the commercial operations in the form of a two-airline Act. Historically, there was a good basis in the 1950s to have that two-airline Bill, but the industry has grown up. One of the things that led to the Australian Government being involved in commercial enterprises in the early part of the century was the fact that capital was short in this country. Capital is not short any more. People can raise money quite readily overseas, as the great takeover battles in the last decade have shown. The need for a government to start an enterprise or a business because it alone was able to raise money overseas to get that business going for the benefit of the Australian community has now passed. It passed decades ago. There is no argument at all for the Government to be involved in any commercial enterprise that can be done by private industry. That is not a matter of ideology; it is a matter of simple commercial common sense. But simple commercial common sense is a commodity which is quite alien to the Australian Labor Party. The two-airline Bill must go so that there can be competition between the major carriers. I was always opposed to the two-airline Bill. I voted against it when it was introduced in 1981, so I do not need any comments from Senator Walsh or anyone else in the Labor Party who tries to impute a changed position to me. I opposed that Bill in 1981-the current Bill that is in place-on the ground that it provided no commercial competition between Ansett and TAA, as it was then. I forecast at the time that it would lead to a blow-out in air fares, and that has come to pass. The solution to the problem is to put Ansett and Australian Airlines on equivalent structures commercially so that we can get rid of the two-airline Act and allow them to compete in the market-place. Before I close I must reflect on the exquisite irony of this issue for the Government. Members of the Government are blundering around and in the process they are destroying the old TAA. The fact that this Bill was rescinded four years ago, the fact that TAA has languished and run down in the market-place and the fact that they have allowed the private enterprise company, Ansett, absolutely to dominate the market, is full of irony. The proudest boast of the Labor Party was that it created TAA. Of course, when it created TAA in 1945 it legislated to provide a monopoly. It did not want any other airline to operate in Australia so it legislated against what was then Australian National Airways (ANA). ANA took on the Government in the High Court, and that monopoly provision was defeated. We then had the golden age of the Menzies era. Australia has never been more prosperous and has never grown faster. Menzies and the Liberal Party, in their wisdom, recognised the need for competition in the market-place. That led to the original two-airlines Bill, whereby TAA operated against ANA, as it was then, and later against Ansett. But now circumstances have changed and the need for the two-airline Bill is no longer there. What does the Government really think it is doing? What does it see as its purpose in government? Is it the aggrandisement of the Prime Minister? Is it the adulation of the Ministry? Is it jobs for the boys-putting people like Senator Cook into the Ministry and Senator Grimes into an ambassadorial position in Holland? I think it is. I think it is very sad that such a short-sighted view of government is manifested by this Labor Party. I argue that it is the business of government to serve the Australian community, not a narrow section like the bully boys in the union movement or the friends in industry of Mr Hawke and Mr Keating. The business of government is to serve the Australian community. Today we are talking about the field of transport. This is a vast country. We have a requirement for cheap and efficient internal travel. We have a requirement for cheap and efficient international travel because we are one of the really great trading nations of the world. We are a very great distance from our markets. Yet the Australian Labor Party has done more to destroy Australia's transport capability than any other party in our history. It has cuddled up to and cosseted the union movement. We have seen Australian shipping priced out of existence. We cannot man Australian ships. We cannot get goods across the wharves because of the Labor Party's support for the union movement. It costs up to three or four times as much to get a container across the wharf in this country as it does in places like the United States or the United Kingdom. Internally we have had a government that has blundered around and destroyed the competition that we were starting to develop in the Australian airline industry. It has left us with a legacy of high fares. We have a government that cannot administer the Department of Aviation. It is only a few years since Mr Dick Smith wrote his famous book entitled Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom which accurately listed the problems that he had had as an honest citizen trying to operate a helicopter in Australia. The Government set up a puppet inquiry through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. That inquiry received 800 submissions. I have served on committees in this Parliament for 10 years. I have been on inquiries which had a far broader base than the narrow aviation base of the inquiry into Dick Smith's Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom. I would think that the maximum number of submissions received by a parliamentary inquiry is about 60 or 80. Eight hundred were received by this House of Representatives inquiry into the Department of Aviation. Characteristically, the Committee did not find much but most significantly the Government did nothing. The Department of Aviation is still as badly and as incompetently administered as it ever was. The Liberal Party and the National Party support this Bill. We greatly regret that the Government has been so stupid that it took it three or four years to realise the enormity of the ideological mistake it made in rescinding this legislation. We put the Australian public on notice that it is being governed by one of the most incompetent governments that we have seen. This is a government that has no consistency in its actions, a government that cannot think ahead, a government that cannot get in touch with the reality of what is going on in the Australian community today. We regret the five years that have been lost by the repeal of this legislation and its reintroduction today. We regret that the Australian public, the Australian economy and Australian business has had to suffer the unnecessary high imposts caused by the lack of competition in the airline fields. In this matter, as in so many other matters, the Australian public is being bled dry by the incompetence of this Government to handle our economic affairs. (Quorum formed) Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.57) —The Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987 is a clear demonstration of why the people deserted the Australian Labor Party in droves at the recent Adelaide by-election. It represents five years of Hawke Labor Government incompetence writ large. It demonstrates how the Hawke Labor Government is completely out of touch with the needs of the Australian people. This legislation takes exactly the same form as the Australian National Airlines Repeal Act which was passed by the far-sighted Fraser Liberal-National Government in 1981. Senator Messner —In 1981? Senator CHAPMAN —In 1981, some seven years ago. Senator Chaney —Why are we doing it again? Senator CHAPMAN —We are doing it again because this Government overturned that far-sighted initiative of the Liberal and National parties to convert the then Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) to a public company. Before this conversion was implemented the present Government, in 1984, passed the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Act which retained the then TAA, now Australian Airlines, as a statutory authority. The Government is now reversing that decision and is restoring the position which was established by the Fraser Government. The legislation we are debating today shows that the Government should be held in contempt and subject to utter condemnation for repealing that Fraser Government initiative. It has taken 4 1/2 years for the Hawke Labor Government to come to its senses, to realise that the 1984 decision and the legislation consequent upon it was wrong and that the Liberal and National parties were right in their handling of domestic aviation policy. We are now wasting the time of this Parliament, and in particular, today of the Senate to restore the position to that which applied under the Liberal and National Party Government, which it created with some foresight, as I said, seven years ago in 1981. Senator Messner —You were a member of that, weren't you? Senator CHAPMAN —I was a member of the Fraser Government and I was very proud to support that legislation. Senator Colston —You were thrown out, too. Senator CHAPMAN —Yes, as I have just said the legislation was thrown out by this Government in 1984, much to the detriment of the airline industry. As a result we have wasted 4 1/2 years for the airline industry and 4 1/2 years for the long-suffering travelling public. The reversal of the 1981 Fraser Government initiative in 1984 was introduced purely for doctrinaire, ideological reasons. It is interesting to refer back to what the then Minister, Mr Beazley, said on that occasion. He has now moved on to be Minister for Defence and, as of yesterday, Leader of the House. It is no wonder that he experienced some difficulties in another place yesterday in handling the Government's legislative program, as I understand it, when we look back and see what he said in 1984 and compare it with what the Government is now doing. In 1984, when introducing the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill, he said that it would: remove any doubt that Trans Australian Airlines will remain a statutory authority of the Commonwealth . . . It is the Government's view that there is nothing to be gained in setting up TAA as a public company. That is the very thing the Government is now doing in this legislation. Senator Chaney —They seem very confused. Senator CHAPMAN —They have experienced a great deal of confusion. There is no doubt about that. They have completely reversed their position. Mr Beazley went on to say: We see no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation of transforming the Commission into a company when it can operate just as efficiently and with full accountability to the Government and the Parliament in its present form . . . This Government will retain TAA in full public ownership as a statutory authority . . . the balance will move away from what the airlines want to what the consumers want. What have we seen over the last 41/2 years as a result of that decision by the Hawke Labor Government to repeal the legislation that the Fraser Government, with such foresight, introduced? We have seen nothing but confusion in the industry. We certainly have not seen anything that consumers want. This Bill completely reverses the stand then taken by Minister Beazley. It demonstrates the foresight of the Liberal and National parties and, in contrast, the cant and hypocrisy of the Hawke Labor Government. This reversal and counter-reversal over the last 4 1/2 years has cost the industry and the public dearly. All the benefits to be achieved by this legislation could have been realised back in the early 1980s as a result of the legislation of the Fraser Government had it not been repealed in 1984 by this Government. Australian Airlines would have had several years of commercial freedom in which to improve its operation and implement the necessary investment, productivity and efficiency reforms which have not been possible under the current provisions. In the years following 1981 the loss of benefits which could have been achieved by the 1981 legislation had it remained in place has had a dramatic effect on consumers. When the Fraser Government left office in 1983 we had a third airline bursting at the seams to get into the market to provide some competition for the existing two airlines, the then TAA, now Australian Airlines, and Ansett Airlines of Australia. As a result of the legislation which the present Government passed in 1984 there have been delays in the implementation of an effective competitive system which has sabotaged the potential of East-West Airlines Ltd effectively to enter the market as a competitive airline and provide some competition for the other two. The opportunity for East-West to be viable and the opportunity for a competitive system have been blown out of the water as a result of the confusion and delay for which this Government is directly responsible. (Quorum formed) I welcome the presence in the chamber of some members of the Government so that they can hear what a hash their Government has made of aviation policy in Australia over the last few years. As I was saying when it became necessary to call that quorum to bring some of them into the chamber to listen to this very important debate, because none of them seem interested in participating, the legislation which the Fraser Government put into place in 1981, which was in operation when it left office, would have allowed greater competition in the industry; it would have allowed deregulation to proceed; and, indeed, it would have allowed East-West Airlines to provide some competition to the two then existing airlines to the benefit of Australia's air travellers. But that has been blown out of the water by the confusion and failure of the present Government to proceed over the past 4 1/2 years with instilling further competition and deregulation into the industry. There is no doubt that people want cheaper air fares. They want competition in this industry in Australia and then they will take the opportunity to travel not only for business purposes but for tourist and holiday purposes as well. The Government is now talking deregulation, but it is sadly five years too late. This Government stands condemned for what this failure has cost Australian air travellers as well as what it has cost the proposed Australian Airlines company and its ability to compete in 1988. Massive amounts of Australian taxpayers' money have been squandered during the intervening period since 1981 as a result of this Government's incompetence. As a result of this lost time Australian Airlines may now find it difficult to become viable as a public company; indeed, it is quite possible that the only way Australian Airlines can survive is either for the status quo to be maintained-that is for it to be maintained as a statutory authority much to the detriment of air travellers-or for this new company to require substantial government subsidy for an indefinite period, much to the taxpayers' detriment. Should this be the end result, let there be no doubt in anybody's mind who should bear the responsibility: it is this Hawke Labor Government. In contrast to the Government's about-turn, the Opposition has had a consistent approach and, hence, we support this Bill. But so that nobody remains in any doubt as to the implications of the Bill, I also fully support the Opposition amendment to it. This amendment highlights the failure of previous legislation under this Government and explains the reason for the recent poor performance of Australian Airlines. It also flushes out the real intention of this legislation-the eventual privatisation of Australian Airlines. Let there be no doubt about the Government's belated conversion to privatisation. Senator Evans, the Minister responsible for this legislation, has reported to the Australian Labor Party Caucus that Australian Airlines will require a capital injection of some $250m in 1988-89 and a further $50m in 1989-90. Consequently, he has apparently recommended that 49 per cent of Australian Airlines should be sold to the public as a means to raise these funds. The Opposition has been consistently emphasising the wisdom of privatisation to raise capital and inject some profit motive and general efficiency into Australian Airlines. But this Government now appears to be incapable of delivering on privatisation especially with the Left gaining ascendancy in more recent times. If we have any doubt about that we need only look at the election of Senator Bolkus to the Ministry in the last couple of days. It is interesting to note the last question which Senator Bolkus placed on the Notice Paper. It was on the Notice Paper yesterday before he became a Minister and, therefore, was no longer in a position to place questions on the Notice Paper. Question No. 154 states: Senator Bolkus: To ask the Minister for Transport and Communications-What are the details of amounts paid by the Commonwealth to Ansett Transport Industries and its various air and road subsidiaries during each of the last 5 years by way of: (a) fares for travel; (b) charges for the conveyance of postal materials; and (c) freight for transportation of general cargo. So let there be no doubt where Senator Bolkus stands on this issue. He is totally opposed to the private sector. He asked an intimidating question of the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans). That hostility to the private sector which is so evident in the Labor Party today only reinforces the difficulty which this Government will have in proceeding with its privatisation plans for Australian Airlines. The implication of this possible failure with regard to privatisation is that taxpayers will be asked to fork out the $1 billion for which Senator Evans is looking, to maintain not only Australian Airlines but also Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian National Line and Australian National Railways. Most Australians realise that we cannot afford to add this $1 billion figure to our deficit, be it real or be it disguised as it was in the last Budget. We have to be realistic and accept that this Government will not be able to deliver on privatisation, nor will it be able to find the funds from the public purse. This then implies that these vital industries will be undercapitalised and suffer long term degradation. The consequences of that will mean that there is no real competition in the Australian airline industry at all, again to the detriment of the long-suffering travelling public. This prospect will also have devastating negative flow-on effects through the rest of the economy. One particular industry that will be directly adversely affected is tourism. The importance of this is highlighted in the report on Australian industry trends by the Bureau of Industry Economics released last week. In part this report comments on tourism and confirms two things which everybody on the Opposition side of this House has known for a long time. The first confirmation-I hope that even the Government would concede this-is that tourism is Australia's fastest growing source of income dollars. When an industry expands at the rate of 32 per cent, as tourism did in the September quarter last year, then that is real growth. Set that potential against otherwise difficult economic conditions and the necessity to add every possible form of encouragement and incentive to the industry should become clear even to the most short-sighted member of the Government. The second salient point raised in the Bureau of Industry Economics report is that airlines are failing to capitalise on this potential. The report states that airline flights simply are not adequate to cope with the increase in tourism. Once again, this is an indication that there is inadequate competition in the airline industry in Australia as a direct result of the way in which this Government has fumbled this important industry over the last five years. It is not good enough to consider this subject in isolation. Tourism is a direct reflection of any total travel system and ours is simply not good enough. Apart from inadequacies of flights there are other failings such as inadequate accommodation and insufficient training of hospitality staff to service the demands of our tourist industry. The Government, again, as well as being responsible for the failure of our airline industry to be competitive is also directly responsible for the failure to provide incentives and support for the establishment of adequate training schemes in the hospitality industry. After 10 months my home State of South Australia is still waiting for the Federal Government to allow a hospitality traineeship to get off the ground. When I recently inquired of the Minister for Employment, Education and Training (Mr Dawkins) as to why this delay had occurred, the Minister's office misled me because it told me the scheme had failed to get off the ground because agreement had not been reached between the South Australian Liquor Trades Employees Union and the Australian Hotels Association. That statement was designed deliberately by the Minister's office to mislead me. In fact, the South Australian Liquor Trades Employees Union and the Australian Hotels Association have come to agreement on the terms of the traineeship but the Federal Government's bloody-minded stance on the conditions required to gain subsidies for the scheme has held it up since April last year. It is worth noting the conditions the Government is seeking to impose on the union and the Hotels Association for eligibility for this subsidy. The Government insists on including 17-year-old trainees in the scheme in a State where anyone under 18 years of age is not allowed into a drinking establishment. That is one area where industry and the union have reached agreement, yet the Government is quite deliberately holding up the scheme by insisting on an unrealistic condition which cannot be met in South Australia because of State law. Secondly, the Government is insisting that 19-year-olds be paid $200 a week under this traineeship scheme yet the union and the employers have readily agreed that the rate of pay should be $190 a week. By now, 60 trainees were to have been involved in a pilot scheme and South Australia's technical and further education colleges would have implemented study programs. We have had 10 months' delay because of the totally unrealistic conditions the Commonwealth is seeking to have applied in an area of industry with massive growth potential. We could well ask: Why? It is again a clear demonstration of the incompetence of this Government and the way it has lost touch with the needs of the Australian people. Perhaps it is not so surprising that the Government has an inability to cope with such a self-made dilemma, because if airlines cannot deliver goods or people in the first place, all the training and accommodation in the world will not help. We need an end to the arrogance which presumes that the Government knows what is best for its people and we need a lot more sympathetic and helpful consultation with segments of the tourist industry. How can a government which charges its own citizens to get back into their country-another example of the way this Government has lost touch-even claim to hold a sympathetic understanding of the needs of people, and the tourist industry in particular? The new backdoor revenue spinner of charging people a re-entry fee to Australia is not odious just to the 96,000 Australian travellers who thus far have refused to pay it; understandably it is odious to our international carrier, Qantas, which is going to carry much of the debt, and to the other 29 international carriers which are likely to be facing stiff fines because they do not want to be honorary backdoor tax collectors for this Government. If one is super-rich and can afford to travel into Australia aboard the QEII one does not have to pay the arrival tax but if, like the vast majority of people today, one travels by aircraft into and out of Australia, one should beware of Australia's cash curtain. Even Australians cannot get in and out of their own country unless they pay for the privilege. These days we do not have `fortress Australia'; we have `tollgate Australia'. This is the mentality of a government which claims it has the interests of the public at heart and, of course, the interests of the airlines and the tourist industry serving that public, in particular. What a lot of nonsense! There can be no doubt that this Government has lost touch with the Australian people. Tourism is not alone in suffering the inefficiencies of our airline system. Business travellers suffer equally. Travel in Australia is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It would be ridiculous to give two car manufacturers, one of them government-owned, the entire car market. It is equally ridiculous to cling to the idea that competition would be bad for the airline industry. Yet this is what this Government has done ever since it has been in office. It repealed the legislation of the Fraser Government which would, over time, have opened the way to greater competition and a better service for all Australians. Now, some 4 1/2 years later, it is reverting to that Fraser Government initiative. After years of being clobbered, Australian business needs every form of incentive and relief it can get. In particular, the tourism industry should be getting top priority. Improved airline arrangements, without which none of the rest works, are a matter of urgency. Let us be in no doubt what this legislation ought to be seeking to do. It redresses a grave mistake which the Hawke Labor Government made in 1984. It is to be hoped that this will return us to a more flexible, innovative and competitive airline system, which will be to everyone's benefit. Let us hope it will not result in a drain on the public purse but will assist, rather, in advancing the economy, particularly in the tourism sector. The Australian public must regret that these opportunities were not taken up when the time was right after 1981, and especially after this Government came to office in 1983, as a result of the innovative legislation of the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government. The Liberal-National Party Government set the agenda for this issue. It is another example of where we are right and the Australian Labor Party is wrong, wrong, wrong. This inefficient and incompetent Government has messed up aviation over the last 4 1/2 years. This has cost the public dearly through the absence of adequate competition and, hence, the lack of cheap fares. The Opposition and I support this legislation which will restore us to the situation which the Fraser Government introduced. I also support the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Messner. In conclusion, I urge the Government, when this legislation is passed, to get on with the job of ensuring that we have a competitive and efficient airline industry for the benefit of all Australian travellers. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(12.22) —We have heard a series of speeches from the Opposition, talking about the glories of the past. It is very appropriate that the Opposition celebrates the glories of the past because all its glories rest in the past. That is no fault of those opposite because the Australian people, over the last few years, have entrusted correctly their future to the Australian Labor Party, brilliantly led by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). That has to be remembered. There was a recent by-election in Adelaide which the Opposition won. It is to be congratulated on that win. But what those opposite have done is erect that single win into a proposition that they are now the government of this country-which is not right at all. If a general election were held to morrow-and this is generally recognised-this Government would be returned with the same, if not an increased, majority. That is what has to be remembered. A by-election does not elect government. General elections elect government. This Government was elected on 11 July last year. It gained the confidence of the people and still has that confidence. If we went to the people tomorrow we would win again. The Opposition has to fly with something. It has to be an opposition. I understand that. Those opposite rail against, criticise and blackguard the Government-and that is part of the exercise in this chamber. I understand their position; it is very difficult. The front page of this morning's Australian Financial Review is headed, `Markets rally as trade surplus hits a record'. The markets are up again. That is another indication of the glory with which we have gone ahead. The article says: The unexpectedly good trade news also thwarted the Federal Opposition's ability to open the new parliamentary session with an attack on the Government's handling of the economy. That is right. Those opposite are saying, `We really cannot attack the Government on the economy'. Those opposite then say, `You have done the right thing. You are about to pass this legislation but you should have passed it earlier'. That is what their arguments amount to. Senator Michael Baume —You should not have repealed it four years ago. Senator COONEY —That is again an indication that the Opposition lives very much in the past. Senator Michael Baume —You wasted four years. Senator COONEY —Senator Michael Baume claims that the Government has wasted four years. Who has wasted the time? Four senators so far have contributed to this debate, all of whom have said they support the legislation, but they talked about what they did when they were in government many years ago. I can understand that. Nostalgia is a passion we all live with, and if one has nothing else to live with one returns to it all the time. This debate is about nostalgia. Senator Sanders has said it is a move towards privatisation. I have read the Bill and the explanatory memorandum from start to finish and I found no reference to privatisation. The Bill seeks to create a structure that one hopes will make this efficient airline even more efficient and will enable it to remain in the public sector to compete, as it has already nobly competed, and to compete even better, against the other airline. The structure proposed is directed not towards privatisation but towards making public assets even more efficient than they currently are. The corporate structure that is being set up will enable people to make decisions without going through what are perhaps lengthy procedures that are currently required. This will make for efficiency and better management in the public sector. I challenge honourable senators who will follow me in the debate, particularly the redoubtable Senator Michael Baume and the redoubtable Senator Crichton-Browne, to show where the legislation proposes at any stage that there should be privatisation. The legislation will simply set up a mechanism to allow the airline to remain in the public sector-I see Senator Burns in the chamber; he will agree that this enterprise should stay in the public sector and he will contribute to the debate later-to allow it to be conducted with more efficiency than is currently the case and to continue the profitable exercise that it has continued to operate over the past three years. It is an enterprise in the public hand that has made profits of more than 20 per cent for at least two of the past three years. It is worth while remembering that point. One of the two points being made on the Opposition benches is that the Bill is a precursor to privatisation. However, the Bill and the explanatory memorandum do not refer to privatisation. The legislation is about efficiency. The other point is that the Bill is being used, as a legitimate parliamentary tactic, in an attempt to beat the Government around the head for alleged wrongs in the past. For example, Senator Chapman has said that the Government has neglected tourism. That is nonsense. The number of tourists visiting this country now compared with the number under the Liberal Government is so large that it does not bear comparison. One can simply move around airports of this nation to see the number of Japanese who are now visiting Australia. Where could one point to tourism in the days of the Liberal-National Party Government? It is nonsense to suggest that the Government has not encouraged tourism. The numbers of tourists at airports and tourist resorts is an indication of the Government's actions. Senator Michael Baume —You encourage tourism by devaluing the currency. That is your greatest policy activity. Senator COONEY —The Opposition is claiming that the economy is not well run and that tourism comes around by devaluation, as if to indicate that devaluation in those circumstances is a great evil. What is wrong with devaluation if it has led to increases in tourism and increases in exports? Our economic record would have been disastrous had there not been devaluation, so what is wrong with that? Senator Messner —You increased the deficit. Senator COONEY —Senator Messner did not mention previously the fact that the balance of payments is turning in Australia's favour. I quote from the Australian Financial Review of today: Australia's current account deficit shrank- the word `shrank' means that it lessened- from $694 million in December to only $428 million in January, the smallest monthly deficit since April 1984 . . . . . . The Reserve Bank's trade-weighted index, which measures the value of the $A against the currencies of Australia's major trading partners, rose from 52.8 to 53.1, its highest level in nearly four months. That is further evidence that the economic course being pursued by the Government is the correct one. Senator Messner —How much is the debt, and how much is it going up each month? Senator COONEY —There is no doubt that Australia's overseas debt is much greater than it should be. That is because of the balance of trade over the years, the sorts of commodities Australia has sold and the history of this nation. That issue has been debated here again and again. It is because in the past Australia has relied too much on commodity exports instead of value-added exports. To take up Senator Chapman's remarks, the Government has increased tourism and increased the export of value-added goods. The Government will increase them more. It has a comprehensive plan for this nation. For example, the Government will direct education as it should have been directed in the past, not in any harsh manner, but simply to enable people of this nation to become better skilled, better educated and better able to cope with the demands of the world-something that was not done until the Labor Government came along. As one considers the record of the Government in various areas, one notes that it comes out in glowing lights compared to what would have been the situation had it gone down the path that we had been guided on by the previous Liberal Government before the success of the Hawke Labor Government. I have already indicated that the Bill is a technical measure that will simply put Australian Airlines into the hands of a public company, owned wholly by the Australian Government and through it the Australian people, so that it can be better conducted. As I have said before, that is not to suggest that it has not been well conducted until now. It indicates that the public sector can trade and trade well, and that the public sector can be improved by certain steps and procedures. The Bill is a step in that direction and is what it is all about. The rest of the debate has been a huff and puff trying to score against the Government in the light of one by-election, which really signifies nothing other than that the people, given a chance to say to a government that it has to raise its game even more than it has already, have said, `Look, you are there to govern in the interests of the Australian people; you are not to take our resounding endorsement of you in July last year as any reason for doing other than pressing on in the way you have been going; don't let your game go down'-and that is quite proper. The message has been taken on board by the Government and it will continue in the next 2 1/2 years, which is the balance of its term, to govern wisely, courageously and in the interest of the Australian people. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(12.35) —There are two possible reasons for the Government's introduction of this Bill, which is, of course, to restore Fraser Government legislation which this Government wiped out four years ago. One reason for the Government's restoring this measure is simply incompetence. The Government did not know what it was doing four years ago, and to that extent, I suppose, it could have said, `Forgive us for we know not what we do'. To some extent, Senator Cooney's speech was something of that order. He certainly did not know what he was doing when he was making his speech, so one could not expect the Government to know what it was doing in 1984 when it withdrew this legislation that it is now reintroducing. Of course, it was Fraser Government legis- lation and, therefore, by definition among the doctrinaire elements of the Labor Party there was something disgraceful about it. The fact that it was doing the right thing, the sensible thing and the proper thing for the people of Australia and the users of airline services in Australia was beside the point. So doctrinaire are elements of this Labor Government that that legislation had to go. Now four years later-four wasted years-the measure is being reintroduced by this Government. Incompetence is one possible reason why the Government is restoring this legislation. The second is that restoring this legislation is part of a deliberate pattern of abandoning traditional Labor Party policies and pinching large slabs of Liberal Party policies because they are better, they are in the public interest and, as Senator Sanders said earlier-one of the few sensible things he has said in this place-Mr Hawke has done many things that Mr Fraser could not do. One of the reasons Mr Fraser was prevented from introducing many of his strongly held policies was Labor opposition, particularly in this chamber, which opposition was supported by the Australian Democrats. It is now clear that the Labor Party has set out on a determined campaign to abandon what were long and strongly held traditional Labor Party policies, and this is the latest example. It seems to me that in this instance what we have here is a combination of both incompetence, as evidenced in 1984, and the abandoning of traditional Labor Party policies. The ones who suffer, of course, are the people of Australia, particularly the airline travellers of Australia. That is the reason that I strongly support Senator Messner's amendment in relation to the proposed legislation. Naturally I supported the legislation when it was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1981. I was proud and honoured to support this legislation then because it was right and proper just as it is right and proper now. Senator Messner's amendment to the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill is: but the Senate condemns the Government for- (a) its hypocrisy in introducing legislation similar to that passed under the previous Coalition Government to convert the then Trans-Australia Airlines into a company and which this Government repealed; (b) its failure to take into account the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Australian Airlines' future capital requirements; (c) its failure to decide now whether or not to privatise Australian Airlines; (d) creating continuing unnecessary uncertainty among Australian Airlines' employees as to their future; and (e) its continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure. Let us look at the first element of the two factors involved in the Government's introduction of this proposed legislation. The first one is incompetence. The Government has simply made a mess of air travel in Australia since it was elected to office in March 1983. We have witnessed not an increase but a reduction in competition under this Government. East-West Airlines Ltd was recently knocked off because it was threatening to increase the volume of competition, particularly on major usage routes and in areas where internal tourism was a vital factor and where that company was encouraging Australians to take their holidays in Australia rather than use the cheap fares that are available for overseas travel. More important, under this Government's mistaken and incompetent policies air fares in Australia have risen at double the rate of increase of international air fares during the term of this Government. I shall quote the Senate a couple of examples. In December 1982 a one way economy fare between Melbourne and Sydney was $117.40. By last December it had risen to $171, which is a 45.6 per cent increase on the Sydney to Melbourne route. Senator Maguire —Outrageous. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I hear an interjection from a member of the Labor Party that this is outrageous. It is an interesting figure when one compares it with what has happened to the international economy fare for Sydney to London. That fare has increased not by the 45.6 per cent that has been experienced in the Australian internal fare but by 23.1 per cent. That is only half the increase of the busiest trafficked and, therefore, one would think, the most economically efficient route in Australia-Sydney to Melbourne. I have quoted only one example but there are plenty of others. The Adelaide to Perth one way economy fare has risen from $237.10 to $342 under this Government, which is a 44.2 per cent increase. One should compare that again with the Sydney to London international fare, which has increased by only 23 per cent; again it is just about half the increase. If one takes into account the minimum fares and special discounts one receives when travelling overseas, one notes, for example, that the Sydney to Singapore minimum fare has increased by only 15 per cent while the internal fare on the major trunk route in Australia has increased by 45 per cent; that is three times the increase experienced for overseas travel. Certainly there are some minimum fares in Australia but they are not as readily available as with overseas air traffic. The minimum fares for Sydney to London have increased by 25.9 per cent as against the 44 and 45 per cent increase in internal air traffic. Why has this happened? Is it because of a lack of competition? Is it because the Government's policies have brought about a situation when one possible challenger-East-West Airlines Ltd-to the two airline system ended up in its being wiped out or being dismembered under the policies that this Government has maintained. These policies have not led to a stronger, more virile Australian Airlines. Although I have a great deal of time for Mr Strong-and in the early days of Australian Airlines there was certainly a lift in its effort and capacity-that lift seems to have diminished a little now. There is no doubt in my mind that Australian Airlines is now facing a difficult competitive future. If the sort of legislation now being reintroduced had been allowed to remain in 1984, I believe we would have been on a much better basis for the Australian airline industry to be providing effective competition and, therefore, cheaper fares and better service to the airline users of Australia. Surely that should be the objective of government policy, not the doctrinaire nonsense that required this Government to cancel this legislation in 1984 which it is now belatedly reintroducing at this time. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. The PRESIDENT —Honourable senators will notice the presence in the chamber today of television cameras and lights. In consultation with party leaders and independent senators, I have granted the usual permission to television networks represented in the Parliamentary Press Gallery to film the proceedings in the Senate for half an hour today, commencing at Question Time. The purpose of the filming is to enable the television networks to obtain footage to illustrate television news items concerning the Senate. The filming will cease at 2.30, at which time the television lighting will be turned off. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications on maritime matters. Is the Minister aware of the chaos in Sydney container depots, where there is now up to a 9-week backlog that is threatening to put some small companies out of business? Is he aware that this backlog appears to be getting progressively worse, and has he heard allegations that some importers have had to pay bribes to tally clerks to get their cargo unloaded? If so, have these allegations been investigated? Does he agree that industrial disputes and restrictive union work practices, particularly in relation to working hours and limits on the number of unpacks, are greatly exacerbating efforts to move the backlog? What action has the Government taken, or is it a matter which is within the responsibility of the Unsworth Government? Senator Robert Ray —Gareth has the brief. Senator CHANEY —I am happy to refer the question to Senator Evans. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the delays which have arisen in Sydney in the unpacking of containerised import cargo. I understand that a meeting has been arranged for later this week between depot operators, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, waterfront unions and shipping companies to consider means of temporarily increasing container unpacking capacity so that the present backlog, which is serious, can be brought under control. Also, the Department is assisting several importers in the clearance of urgent consignments. The problem with unpacking containers illustrates the difficulty the waterfront industries often have in flexibly responding to fluctuating cargo throughputs. The waterfront strategy which this Government has been developing for the last 15 months and which was the subject of a two-hour meeting this morning between 13 Ministers and representatives of all relevant waterfront industry groups-including users, the stevedoring industry, the unions plus the Inter-State Commission (ISC), under whose auspices the current strategy process is continuing-of course addresses these issues and in particular it involves the commencement of a series of hearings by the Inter-State Commission, commencing in March. It can be expected that arrangements at container depots will be an important area of the ISC's investigation and certainly will be a matter which it will be addressing in its report, now expected in July, covering options for structural change on the waterfront. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his reply, but the point of my supplementary question is that he did not address himself at all to the serious allegation that we have got to the point where bribery is required to move cargoes. Does the Minister have any information on that and what action, if any, is being taken on it? If he knows nothing about the matter, will he investigate it? I also asked him about the extent to which industrial disputes and restrictive work practices are causing these difficulties and are matters which ought to be able to be resolved without the complex procedures which apparently are required. Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the latter part of the question, there is no doubt that the industrial difficulty associated with the closure in December of the Consolidated Cargo Services (New South Wales) Pty Ltd depot has been a significant contributor to the present situation on the waterfront. But there have been other contributing factors, including a significant increase in import containers in the November-January period of the order of magnitude of some 20 per cent, and also there is the smaller but nonetheless not insignificant matter of the closure of the Darling Harbour wharves for a period to allow for the Tall Ships visit. As with so many other things on the waterfront, industrial disputation issues are a factor in the efficiency problems which do continue to be a cause for concern for the Government, but those industrial disputes cannot be wholly placed in the responsibility of the trade unions. They are very often contributed to by managerial practices of long standing which are acknowledged to exist. There are many other inefficiencies apart from those resulting from industrial disputation which are acknowledged by the industry itself to be the product of longstanding managerial practices and other inefficiencies associated with the structure of the waterfront, and a substantial effort needs to be made to overcome these problems. The whole question of the waterfront will remain a central feature of this Government's micro- economic reform strategy and, as I have just indicated, it is very squarely on the Government's agenda, as demonstrated by the very lengthy and productive meeting which was held today and which will, I understand, be the subject of a Press statement to be made by the Prime Minister later today. As to the remaining part of Senator Chaney's question, I am aware of some allegations being made about bribery being involved in the movement, or non-movement, of containers on the wharf. I am concerned about those allegations. I have nothing in the nature of hard evidence at the moment but I do propose this afternoon to take up with either the Minister for Justice or the Attorney-General himself the question of an appropriate response to such allegations, possibly in the form of a police investigation. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a former distinguished President of the Senate, Justin O'Byrne. On behalf of all senators I wish him well, particularly on this visit to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the Minister reaffirm that the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Electoral Commission are investigating the matter of the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd donation to the Australian Labor Party, without any political interference? Has the Minister been informed of when the Federal Police report will be delivered? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Melbourne Herald quoting `Federal Police sources'? Finally, has the Minister, or to his knowledge any other Minister, authorised the Federal Police to background the Press on this investigation? Senator ROBERT RAY —I made it very clear yesterday, but I will reaffirm it today, that there will be no political interference in this investigation or in any prosecution. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator ROBERT RAY —I respond to honourable senators by going back to the very start. This investigation was initiated by the Electoral Commission, as it quite properly should have been. It is the Electoral Commission that is, if you like, the custodian of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It initiated an investigation not into one or two individuals, or any individuals in particular, but into an apparent failure to disclose a donation exceeding $1,000. The matter was put in the hands of the Federal Police without reference to any Minister. That investigation is proceeding. When it is concluded decisions on any prosecutions or any other disposal of this matter will be determined by the Electoral Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. At no stage will this Government or any Minister in this Government seek to interfere in that process. I am asked whether I have any knowledge as to when the police report will be made available. I have no idea when it will be made available but, given the fact that both yesterday and today Press releases and people in general have expressed an interest in the timing of this matter, I will consult with my colleague Senator Tate and we may institute inquiries simply to ask about how the investigation is going. I would not like it to be thought in this chamber, or anywhere else, that establishing the timing of such an investigation was political interference. The third thing that Senator Black alludes to is a report in today's Melbourne Herald, part of which states: The key to the case according to the Federal Police sources is the movement of the cheque and covering letter. I do not believe everything that is written in the Press, and I am not about to impugn the integrity of the journalist who wrote the story. But I do not always find that every article is true in every case. If that were the case, we might as well remove the libel and defamation laws. They are not always accurate. I hope in this case that that report is inaccurate because, given the great reputation built up over many years of the Federal Police, I would regard it as intolerable if members of the police force were at any time backgrounding the Press as to the progress of this investigation. I think I would be joined by everyone in this chamber in condemning the leaking of details of police activities in this area. Finally, I was asked whether any Minister authorised the Federal Police to do so. I did check this one matter, and one matter only, with Senator Tate, and Senator Tate assures me that he did not authorise any backgrounding of the Press by the Federal Police. I know that I certainly did not. If I did it would be laughed out of court because I have no authority in this particular matter. But it is disturbing that while an investigation is under way the people associated with that investigation are backgrounding certain journalists as to its progress. I find it hard to believe that that has occurred, given the history and given the integrity that has always been exhibited by the Federal Police. Senator BISHOP —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. With superannuation being a matter of major concern and the fear that is spreading among people nearing retirement, will the Minister advise the Senate whether the hurried departure from the Parliament of three senior members of this Government, of whom Mr Young is the most recent and enigmatic, was prompted by their own knowledge of what the future holds for taxation on lump sum superannuation? Will the Minister give an assurance that people who have used superannuation as a form of compulsory saving for their retirement will have the same good fortune as Mr Young in maintaining their right to receive their lump sum entitlement in full? Further, does the Government plan to make any changes affecting the taxation on superannuation, lump sum, investment income or otherwise, and, if so, what are those changes? Senator BUTTON —I suppose the honourable senator is referring to the departure of Senator Ryan, Mr Hurford and Mr Young. Senator Robert Ray —But not Sir James Killen, Mr Fraser and all the others who jumped ship before we amended the superannuation scheme. Senator BUTTON —Precisely. I see the political point in the honourable senator's question, but I am quite satisfied that Senator Ryan, Mr Hurford and Mr Young left Parliament for reasons other than consideration of their superannuation entitlement, either actual or potential. I can say that, and of course the honourable senator can make the point-unhappily, it is a free country-that she seeks to make in her question, and I have no doubt she will. In so far as the Government is said to have the superannuation issue on the agenda, no decisions have been made by the Government. If I can provide a more helpful answer, I will certainly put her question to the Treasurer and see whether he can add anything to what I have had to say. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I refer the Minister to the purchase by Australian Meat Holdings of Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Australasia) Ltd meatworks. Borthwicks has two abattoirs in Queensland and one in Portland, Victoria. The matter is presently in the hands of the Trade Practices Commission and, accordingly, I do not ask the Minister for any details about it. However, I do ask him whether he is aware of the matter. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator COOK —I have to plead innocent. I never actually prompted that question. I do know, however, of Senator Cooney's longstanding interest in the meat industry. I think he has been a distinguished legal representative of some of the major players in this industry over the years. He has asked me whether I am aware of the takeover. Yes, I am. I understand that, as he has said, the matter is at the moment before the Trade Practices Commission. There is an expectation of an outcome of that at some time later this month. I think the 28th has been mentioned as a date on which there might be a decision. In all of those circumstances, as I think the question anticipates, I can only agree, if the question does anticipate, with that anticipation that it would be much more useful for me to wait until there has been an outcome before I comment. Senator HAINES —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I preface my question by referring to an article headed `Stop handouts, Minister warns' in a recent edition of the Adelaide Advertiser, in which the Minister is quoted as saying: This country is seriously in debt. It has a trade deficit. It has a lot of very cosy arrangements in business and industry which it can't afford and it's got to get rid of those . . . If it doesn't do that, this government will slip backwards-- Senator Button —I said `country', not `government'. Senator HAINES —This country will slip backwards. He went on: instead of going forwards and that means we won't have the money to spend on all the things the traditional Labor supporters and people like myself think money should be spent on. Do these cosy arrangements include such things as accelerated depreciation allowances, tax free superannuation and life fund profits, transfer pricing and negative gearing? If the Minister does not include these costly measures, will he say what those measures are that Australia cannot afford and has to get rid of in order not to become, and again I quote the Minister, `a poor white country in the South Pacific'? Senator BUTTON —What Senator Haines has quoted sounds familiar to me. I probably did say most of those things, although I certainly did not say that the Government would slip backwards; I said that the country would. Senator Stone very kindly interjected and made the point that both might slip backwards together, but that is a prospect which one has to face up to in this political business. It is an easy question to ask but an almost impossible one to answer if the honourable senator is asking me to pass judgment on a whole range of issues like accelerated depreciation, negative gearing and so on. The honourable senator then asked me to list a whole range of cosy arrangements. There is such a thing as telegraphing one's punches, but I certainly would not want to list a lot of cosy arrangements which I think exist and which I think governments have to tackle. To identify them as cosy arrangements and things which ought to be tackled might not be the best way of going about it. Senator Macklin —Give us one cosy arrangement. Senator Stone —Like the motor vehicle industry plan. Senator Messner —Like time charging of telephone calls. Senator BUTTON —If I stayed here talking for a while members of the Opposition would get sufficient interjections to have a list to take back to the electorates. Senator Michael Baume —You wanted our tax policy. Why don't you come clean? Senator BUTTON —I was not enunciating a policy when I made these remarks, not at all. During the last election campaign Senator Michael Baume enunciated a policy of health which he backed away from and he, to use Senator Haines's question in conjunction with Senator Stone's interjection, went down the tube because of his failure properly to enunciate that policy. Senator Haines well knows that I was talking on a radio program in Melbourne and it is certainly not my view that it is my job or anybody else's to enunciate on a radio program in answer to questions all the things the honourable senator has in mind. I will try to help the honourable senator over time, to answer a number of points which she makes. I disagree with her first suggestion of what she takes to be a cosy practice. I think it is a very difficult argument but it is certainly not easy to say that accelerated depreciation arrangements are necessarily a cosy practice. I think it is sufficient for my point to say that if I have to argue all these things with her and identify my own position we could go on here forever and I do not intend to do that. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. It refers to the drug RU 486, the abortion drug which is manufactured by the French chemical company Roussel Uclaf. Is the Minister aware that the Roussel company announced last year that because of possible adverse medical-legal consequences in the United States it would not market the drug in that country `for any reason' despite its approval by the pro-abortion Population Council of New York? Is the Minister aware that the Roussel company has obtained the assistance of researchers who enlisted the support of the World Health Organisation for testing this drug on, amongst others, Australian women and also of the State Family Planning Commission of China, primarily for abortion of living foetuses? Does the Minister support the intention of the Department to give permission for the importation of this prohibited import for trial on Australian women? Is this not a case of a new French test in the Pacific, this time of a weapon of chemical warfare against the unborn? Is it appropriate that this matter should be decided behind bureaucratic closed doors? Will the Minister give an assurance that an opportunity will be provided to Parliament for full debate on this subject and its determination prior to approval being given for the importation of the drug for that purpose? Senator COOK —I am aware of the drug RU 38-486. Senator Haines —You are very up with it today. Senator COOK —Thank you very much, Senator. I hope that remains the case and your interjections reflect your interest. I counted in Senator Harradine's set of questions I think about eight different questions, some of which I cannot answer today. The premises on which some of them are based invite me to draw a conclusion before I answer. I do not know that the premises are accurate but I can say-- Senator Harradine —Say why they are not. Senator COOK —I am saying I do not know whether I can say that the premises are accurate and therefore I will not deal with those questions in which the premise suggests the answer. However, I will say that for the drug RU 38-486 the Roussel pharmaceutical company has been granted approval to conduct a clinical trial in cases where foetal death has occurred in utero during the second and third trimester, that is, during the last six months of pregnancy. What I am saying is that the Roussel pharmaceutical company is enabled to conduct a clinical trial of that drug and that an Australian investigator has also been approached by the World Health Organisation to study the legal termination of early pregnancies using that drug in combination with another drug. Dr Blewett's Department is in the process of examining the available scientific data. Approval has not been granted at this time. All Australian trials are subject to State and territorial legislation and to approval by the ethics committee of the institution where the trials are conducted. I should also say on the subject of this drug that it is meant to address a real and severe medical problem; that is, that in the second and third trimester if the foetus is dead it is not always expelled. If there is dead tissue inside it can give rise to infection. That is in itself a real problem. The purpose of the clinical trial is to examine that tissue. Whether there will be a full debate in this Senate I guess is pretty much up to Senator Harradine but I will take that part of the question on notice and reply to it in more detail when I have a chance to do so. Senator HARRADINE —I must rise to ask a supplementary question. My question was not addressed to the use of the drug to evacuate the uterus of the dead unborn in the second and third trimesters. That was not my question. My question was addressed to the question of the permission likely to be given by the Department for the drug's trial as a method of abortion of living foetuses. I want an assurance, and I am sure that the Parliament would need an assurance, that there will be a full debate on this particular matter before permission is granted from persons behind closed doors. Senator COOK —Senator Harradine's supplementary question has the key words `the Department is likely to give permission'. I think I replied to him in the first case that that is an assumption that cannot be made. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Minister confirm that a general review of the arrangements governing the taxation of superannuation is under way? Will the Minister also confirm that it will be essential for the Government to obtain substantial revenue from decisions resulting from that review if it is to be able to finance any significant cut in the corporate tax rate and, still more, cuts in the personal taxation rate such as the Prime Minister has recently promised? Finally, will the Minister advise Mr Unsworth accordingly? Senator WALSH —It is a pity that I do not have the Budget Speech here with me, because I cannot remember every line of it, but there was in it a sentence or two which said something to the effect that a review of business taxation will be undertaken and completed before the 1988-89 Budget. I think it went on to say that the review would be looking at both the business taxation base and the business tax rate. Why Senator Stone should suddenly develop an acute interest in the specifics of what is being reviewed when it was spelt out, I would have thought fairly clearly, in the Budget Speech last year is, of course, directly attributable to the fact that the National Party thinks that it can get some advantage politically in the coming New South Wales election. The statement was made by the Treasurer at that time. Everybody who is at all interested in the matter has known about it for five months or whatever it is since the Budget came down. I have nothing to add to the statement. Senator STONE —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I understand that the Minister's response boils down to his saying that the answers to the first two questions are yes and yes respectively. However, he has not responded to the third; namely, will he advise Mr Unsworth accordingly. Senator WALSH —I have nothing to add to what I said before. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I refer to reports that the Liberal Party in Queensland has launched a campaign calling for increased education funding in Queensland and is seeking funds from the public for its so-called task force. Is it not a fact that the shortage of places in tertiary institutions in Queensland directly results from the low priority given to higher education by successive conservative Queensland State governments and by the funding policies of the Fraser Government? Since the Hawke Government was elected to office in 1983, has Federal funding for higher education been biased in favour of Queensland and, if so, what are the details? Senator WALSH —I did not know that the Liberal Party in Queensland was seeking funds from the public for this reason. I suppose I am pleased that it is seeking funds from the public, because what the National Party in Queensland always does when it wants money is to demand that the Commonwealth Government gives it to it. For example, in October, I think, I received a letter from Mr Harper, the Primary Industries Minister, who, according to my Queensland contacts, is one of the brighter members of the Queensland State Government, telling me that he had attended a meeting at Wandoan, that there had been a drought there and that therefore additional funds should be made available under the rural adjustment scheme for this disaster at Wandoan which was not specified. The envelope, by the way, was addressed to me, the letter began `Dear Mr Keating', and the policy area is within Mr Kerin's portfolio. Notwithstanding that, some Department of Finance officers rang Mr Harper's office twice and asked for the details of this alleged natural disaster at Wandoan. On both occasions Mr Harper was not there, but his office promised that he would call back, which he failed to do on both occasions. A couple of weeks ago I received another letter from Mr Harper, which this time was correctly addressed. It was a rather curt note stating that it was about time that I did something about the administrative inefficiency in my office and/or the Department of Finance. Honourable senators can imagine what sort of reply that got. To return to the question proper, my advice is that applications for tertiary places in Queensland increased by about 9 per cent compared with the figure for last year. That is not at all surprising, of course, because the year 12 enrolment figure has gone up appreciably. Offers have increased by about 3,000 over and above those that were available last year. After the first round of offers there were still vacancies in science, agricultural science, engineering and some teaching courses. In regard to the latter part of Senator Colston's question, it is true that tertiary education, secondary education and possibly primary education, have long been neglected in Queensland, which by 1983 was reflected by the fact that the higher education participation rate in the 17 to 24 age group was only 80 per 1,000, compared with a national figure of 86 per 1,000. Since 1983 it has increased to 98 per 1,000, compared with the national figure of 102 per 1,000. So there has been both a significant increase in Queensland and nationally and some closing of the gap. Queensland has also received a higher proportion-namely, 22 per cent-of the additional places which are being made available this year than the figure for the population of the State as a proportion of the Australian total, which is 18 per cent. Finally, in the technical and further education area, in which the State retains funding responsibility, the participation rate in Queensland is only three-quarters of the national average and would, of course, be even less were it not for the substantial Commonwealth capital funding that has been provided since 1974. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, led by the President of the Assembly, Dr Rozic. On behalf of all senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and trust that their stay in Australia is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to revelations by former National Crime Authority (NCA) commissioner Max Bingham in the Age last Thursday that the National Crime Authority was forced to cancel important drug-related investigations because of interference by Queensland police. I remind the Minister that in answer to a question I asked on 26 October last year in relation to corruption in State police forces he denied that the operations of the National Crime Authority had been compromised. Why did the Minister not then inform the Senate that an NCA undercover drug investigations team had already had to be withdrawn because of interference by Queensland police? Was Mr Justice Stewart not aware of the white-anting when he briefed the Minister, as Mr Bingham clearly was? If not, why not? Or did Mr Justice Stewart advise Senator Tate of the matter and did the Minister therefore again mislead the Parliament when he said the work of the NCA had not been compromised? Senator TATE —I cannot recall the answer given on 26 October. I would like to consult the Hansard, but my recollection is that it was to do with the question of Mr Parker's admission that he was a corrupt-- Senator Newman —You answered about Mr Parker. I didn't ask about Mr Parker. Senator TATE —I am trying to recall something that apparently happened on 26 October. I do not have the Hansard in front of me, but as I recall I answered a question from Senator Newman in terms of the impact of Mr Parker's role as liaison officer between the Queensland Police and the National Crime Authority. I think it may have been in relation to the question of witnesses who may have been put in jeopardy. I cannot answer the question without the Hansard in front of me in relation to that and I will take that part of it on notice. As to the so-called revelation attributed to Mr Max Bingham, a former member of the National Crime Authority, the response which I have cleared with Mr Justice Stewart is as follows: As the Senate is aware, it is not my policy to discuss the operations of the National Crime Authority publicly. From the outset I have been kept fully briefed by the Chairman of the Authority on developments in the matter and I do not believe that the public interest will be best served in this instance by further public comment. I undertake to inspect the Hansard record and give a fuller answer to Senator Newman. Senator McKIERNAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Finance been drawn to the transcript of an interview with the Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, by Vincent Smith on Adelaide radio station 5DN on 4 February 1988? In that interview did Mr Howard propose financing out of growth a reduction in expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) to a level equal to that of the late 1960s without cutting programs? Has the Minister examined this proposal and will the Government consider implementing it? Has this proposal been suggested before by Mr Howard or any other politician? Senator WALSH —I have seen the transcript. It is a fascinating piece of reading. It reminds one that Mr Howard started off with his real expenditure and revenue policy in about March last year and it included a consumption tax. That was the real policy-a consumption tax to pay for the reductions in income tax that the Liberal Party proposed to offer. Of course, we all know that within a couple of months that was knocked right out of the ring by the vandals from the north-the Queensland National Party. So he was then left with a phoney policy which was going to cut $11 billion off expenditure, most of which was unspecified. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. As someone who was involved in the discussions relating to tax policy last year, it is within my knowledge that what Senator Walsh is saying is totally inaccurate. It is totally inaccurate with respect to the Opposition. Senator Robert Ray —What point of order are you rising on? Senator Chaney —My point of order is that the question was put in order by the questioner by relating alleged facts about Opposition policy to what the Government might implement. That is the reason why I did not take a point of order with respect to the question. I congratulate Senator McKiernan for being a little cleverer than some of his colleagues whose questions have been ruled out of order. My point of order is that the question was put in order by that subterfuge, and the Minister is now replying in terms of statements about the position of the Opposition in March last year which are quite inaccurate. The Minister can have no basis in fact for what he is saying. I ask you to rule that in answering that question the Minister should confine himself to whether or not the Government is in a position to implement or intends to implement the measures which were outlined by Senator McKiernan in his question. To the extent that the Minister simply thinks that he is free to have a canter over his fictitious accounts of what the Opposition policy was or might have been in March of last year I ask you to call him to order and to restrict him in that way. Senator Robert Ray —On that point of order, Mr President: I think it is intolerable that you be put into the position of having to arbitrate on matters of truth between Senator Chaney and Senator Walsh. My point of order is that Senator Chaney's point of order is just a device by which he can get up and make a minute speech and nothing more. It is a trend that has developed in this chamber. It is becoming more and more repetitious and should be dealt with either by this chamber or by the Procedure Committee of this chamber to prevent someone from rising on a point of order without even quoting the point of order in the Standing Orders. I make the final point that it is not up to the President to determine who is telling the truth; that is up to everyone in this chamber to adduce himself. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Walsh was asked a question which was clearly within his portfolio. The only standing order that would apply is that the Minister shall not debate the matter. I believe that the question is in order. I have no power to direct the Minister as to how he should answer a question. I ask him to continue. Senator WALSH —I was saying that the next step was Mr Howard's proposed $11 billion in expenditure reduction. Senator Walters —That is untrue. Senator WALSH —Senator Walters says that that is not true. She had better write a letter to the Weekend Australian. In the 6 and 7 February issue, in an article written by Robert Hadler, it stated: It is true that Mr Howard never directly used the $11 billion figure. It was calculated by this writer on the basis of speech remarks made late last year. But Mr Howard did confirm that the $11 billion figure published in the Australian newspaper was an accurate calculation based on his remarks. That was the tax and expenditure policy phase mark 2 or 3. In Adelaide, as the transcript to which Senator McKiernan referred shows, we had a mark 3 or mark 4 version, depending on how one likes to name it, when Mr Howard said there would be no expenditure cuts at all but that expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product would be reduced to 23.1 per cent. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister is now debating the question. I ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I remind the Minister not to debate the question. Senator WALSH —I do not believe that I am, Mr President. I am stating the facts. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator WALSH —The facts are shown in the transcript to which the question referred. Mr Howard said that he was proposing no expenditure cuts at all but that he was proposing that expenditure would be reduced to 23.1 per cent of gross domestic product by holding expenditure constant in real terms over a period of three to four years. Whether that three to four years is correct is impossible to say in the absence of a given rate of GDP growth but at a GDP growth rate of about 3 per cent it would take about five years for that 23.1 per cent figure to be reached. The final part of the question asked whether the proposal had been suggested before, that is, the proposal to hold expenditure as a proportion of GDP constant. I am not sure whether it has been proposed before. I very clearly remember undertakings being given in the period Mr Howard was Treasurer-not perhaps given by him but by Mr Fraser-that expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product would be reduced. But the record of actually delivering on that proposal when Mr Howard was Treasurer was not very good at all. Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his statement on Business Sunday: The whole issue of Telecom's charging, its regulation and so on is in the melting pot still. Will the Minister say what particular matters remain in the melting pot? For instance, does he agree with the Prime Minister that the whole question of business usage of the system is up for examination? Senator BUTTON —The remarks which the honourable senator has referred to have been frequently quoted, and frequently misquoted, although not by Senator Panizza. I am not saying that. In the same program to which the honourable senator referred I said that the Prime Minister had said that the question of Telecom Australia time charging was not to be continued with by the Government. I said that the issue, as the Prime Minister subsequently said, was dead. I said that on the program. I went on to say that the whole question of the regulatory environment for Telecom, which includes methods of Telecom charging and regulation, was in the melting pot. What I simply meant by that was that, as is well known, the Government, as part of the process of structural reform, is looking at a number of industries such as transport, communications and broadcasting. My colleague Senator Evans has reviews going in respect of all those matters. Those matters are under continuing review. But in so far as any specifics of those reviews are concerned, particularly the one Senator Panizza asks me about, we will have to wait and see the outcome of those reviews before one can say anything definite about them. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. What measures are being taken in the Office of Local Government in response to the Government's equal employment opportunity policies? Senator REYNOLDS —The Office of Local Government is encouraging the development of equal employment opportunity (EEO) within local government. The Commonwealth has provided funds for a number of equal employment opportunity projects under the local government development program. These include $40,000 to the EEO Advisory Unit of the New South Wales Department of Local Government, which has an excellent record in regard to its efforts to promote equal employment opportunity within local government. There is also a study being undertaken by the Municipal Association of Victoria which has identified reasons for the under-representation of women as elected representatives of local government and suggested ways of encouraging more women to stand for local government. Very appropriately, that book is entitled Getting the Numbers. The sum of $47,000 has been made available to the Municipal Officers Association of Australia to undertake an analysis of women's employment in local government and publish the findings. At the 1986 annual conference of local government Ministers agreement was reached in regard to resolving in principle to move towards the establishment of equal employment opportunity within Australian local government. They agreed to implement appropriate EEO measures in a manner which was appropriate to each State and to place this topic on the agenda of future Ministers' conferences for ongoing debate to ascertain what achievements had been made. The conference also recommended that the Commonwealth local government development program should accept equal employment opportunity as a priority for funding. I am pleased to report that in November 1987 EEO representatives from New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria established the national local government EEO steering committee to provide an ongoing forum in local government. It is to meet three or four times annually. The second meeting will take place in Melbourne next week and I hope that all States and the Northern Territory will participate. Unfortunately at this stage the progress made in regard to equal employment opportunity in the non-Labor States is, to put it mildly, negligible, but we would anticipate that as they learn from the Labor States more will be done in regard to equal employment opportunity within local government in Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. The Minister will recall that debate on the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 was adjourned from the last session of this Parliament so that industry bodies could make representations to him about their very serious concerns with the Bill. Is the Minister aware that in recent weeks representatives of Australian Consolidated Industries (ACI) and of eight other industry bodies have endeavoured to see him to discuss their concerns about the Bill? Why will the Minister not see them? Is the Minister also aware that his junior Minister, Mr Barry Jones, is also refusing to see any of these industry bodies and, indeed, cancelled a meeting with one of those bodies which was scheduled for 4 February? Was the Minister responsible for that cancellation? Senator BUTTON —I honestly cannot help Senator Lewis with the last part of the question as to why Minister Barry Jones made the appointment and then cancelled it. It certainly had nothing to do with me; it may have had something to do with his own arrangements. I recall that the legislation was adjourned in the last session of Parliament in order that industry bodies might make representations to the Government and there has been a lot of those representations. As of yesterday I wrote to a number of industry bodies making the point that, as far as I was concerned, the legislation would not proceed until the representations had been fully considered and the consultative process had run its proper course. From my own recollection I am unable to say whether ACI particularly sought an appointment with me about its particular problem which relates to soda ash. I have been briefed on both Customs' and my Department's discussions with ACI about the particular difficulty which it has, but I am unable to recall whether the company made an approach to me specifically to see it. However, I am always prepared to see ACI about any of its problems, some of which are large and some of which are small. But it may be that it was considered inappropriate because various officers of the Bureau of Customs were seeing a number of industry groups about this issue and ACI was probably most sensibly treated in the same way. I do not think the legislation will be brought back until such time as many of these issues are resolved satisfactorily. I think many of them arose from a lack of understanding of the purpose of the legislation, but some of them I regard as very genuine concerns. Senator WOOD —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of a newspaper report in the Australian of 8 February concerning the possible siting of an American base in Cape York Peninsula? What licence has the Australian Government given to the United States of America (USA) for it to survey Australian territory for siting foreign bases? Is the Minister aware that this USA proposal is intimately connected with Star Wars? Has any American official contacted the Australian Government concerning new foreign bases in Australia? Has the Government expressed a view concerning any possibility of new bases in Australia? If so, when will the Parliament be informed? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am aware of the newspaper report referred to by Senator Wood. No approach has been made to the Australian Government by the United States Government regarding the proposal canvassed in the report. No views have been expressed on the proposal by the Australian Government. The possibility that the proposal is connected with the strategic defence initiative is, therefore, immaterial to this Government. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is it a fact that Australian productivity in the manufacturing sector is generally substantially below that of our trading competitors? Is it also a fact that in the year 1985-86 our productivity actually fell and this financial year it is expected to rise only slightly? Does this mean that instead of catching up we are dropping further behind our trading competitors in manufacturing productivity? Do we badly need a boost in this productivity in order to increase manufactured exports and import replacement, including the necessary investment which often depends on expected productivity? Has the Minister seen a recent statement by the Australian Council of Trade Unions concerning productivity-related wage rises in which the ACTU said that there is no useful scope for the continuation of trade-off bargaining? Is this attitude one that is likely to lead to our desperately needed rise in productivity and consequent recovery from our very serious economic situation? Senator BUTTON —I will deal with the last part of the question first. I would not want to say anything here which prejudices discussions between the Government and the ACTU about the current wages system. It is the Government's view that by and large the second tier wage negotiations were a considerable success and I think are widely recognised as such in many industries in terms of productivity gains. Senator Harradine —How many have got it? It is unjust as not everybody has got it. Senator BUTTON —I guess that is a point. Where gains can be established, then there has been success, I think. There are some areas where gains have not been established and, accordingly, there has not been success. I do not say that that is an exclusive position, but I think that is generally the picture. I am asked the question: Do we need a boost in our productivity? The answer to that question is undoubtedly yes. I would have given the same answer last year, five years ago and 10 years ago. I just hope that I or my successor here, whoever he may be-will not be giving it in five or 10 years time. I hope he will not have to give the answer yes in five or 10 years time. But I suspect he might because we live in a highly competitive world. A lot of countries and a lot of industries are giving a great deal of attention to the question of productivity. I do not know what survey or comparative study Senator Hamer is referring to when he asks about comparative-- Senator Lewis —Your own Department predicts a growth of half of one per cent this year. Senator BUTTON —I am just dealing with Senator Hamer first. I am not sure from what survey or material Senator Hamer draws those conclusions. I would have thought that those conclusions are probably wrong, but I am happy to have them examined if the honourable senator would like to put to me the actual study or survey to which he refers. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Justice aware of a statement reported in today's Age by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Peter McAulay, that he supports the death penalty for terrorists who commit murder? Has the Government any intention of acting in accordance with this opinion? Senator TATE —I have, indeed, become aware of several reports actually published in the media today which apparently report a Press conference which Commissioner McAulay gave yesterday. Several statements are attributed to him concerning the death penalty. To put it in perspective, Mr McAulay did make it clear that in his view most murders committed in Australia arising out of domestic friction were not the sorts of murders which, if the murderers were convicted, should lead to the execution of the criminals concerned, but he did make some remarks about the possibility of the introduction of the death penalty in those cases of murder which were associated with terrorist activity. In so far as he made that comment he was expressing his own personal view and his view in that regard is certainly not shared by the Government. The introduction in 1973 of Commonwealth legislation to abolish the death penalty followed a worldwide trend against capital punishment. The Government then was of the view that it should act to heighten public regard for the sanctity of human life; moreover-and honourable senators will be aware of this well-worn argument-that capital punishment allowed no room for corrective action where a person had been mistakenly convicted; and in the absence of statistical support for its deterrent value it could not be justified. The Australian Institute of Criminology put down a report entitled `Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice-Capital Punishment', in February 1987. That very interesting trends and issues paper indicated that the preponderance of evidence suggested that the abolition of capital punishment had not resulted in any significant increase in murder rates in Australia or in other countries. I assure Senator Zakharov that the Government does not propose to reintroduce capital punishment for Federal or Territory offences, as it does not consider it justified in principle or to be in the community's interest, having regard to such matters as deterrence and public safety. I take the opportunity to welcome Mr McAulay's appointment as Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. I believe that he will bring to the management of this pre-eminent law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth a lot of skill and expertise which will help it as it grows into its full stature. I know that Mr McAulay has the full support and confidence of the commissioners of the other Australian police forces and, indeed, of Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority. In that respect, I am sure he will be able to do an excellent job. Senator TATE —Yesterday I was asked by Senator Tambling: Which Ministers, other than himself- that is, referring to me- have either given instructions or directions or have received information from the Australian Federal Police or have had access to information deriving from the AFP in relation to their current investigations into the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd undisclosed financial donation to the Australian Labor Party? I had inquiries made last night and the answer is that no Ministers have given such instructions or have been involved in that regard. In case there is any inference that I may have given any instructions or directions, I have not, nor would I in any operational matter. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Puplick proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The need for new and constructive arrangements to be developed between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales, following the admission by the Premier of New South Wales that the Labor Party is out of touch with the people of Australia and that his Government has lost the confidence of the people of New South Wales. 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 PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.03) —I propose that the following matter of public importance be debated: The need for new and constructive arrangements to be developed between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales, following the admission by the Premier of New South Wales that the Labor Party is out of touch with the people of Australia and that his Government has lost the confidence of the people of New South Wales. We are watching, in the State of New South Wales, the gruesome death throes of the Wran-Unsworth Government, a bunch of archetypal Australian Labor Party apparatchiks, a government with a record whereby half its members end their political careers living at the taxpayers' expense in expensive sinecures while the other half end their political careers living at the taxpayers' expense in Her Majesty's prisons. Yesterday, Mr Unsworth, the Simon of Cyrene of the Labor Party, who has been condemned to carry its cross for the last few paces, gave a speech to the Labor faithful. We are told that it was a speech written by Graham Freudenberg, a noted wordsmith. If it was, Mr Freudenberg must have cringed as he heard his words regurgitated by the Premier of New South Wales, because it was a speech given by a loser, sounding like a loser, to a bunch of losers. What exactly did Mr Unsworth have to say in this speech? He said, among other things: The Labor Party, at all levels, must be perceived not just as the true Government of the people, but the true voice of the people . . . It is not that it must be the true voice of the people provided it is perceived to be the true voice of the people. He said: We will go among the people-our people-and we will not only talk to the people, we will talk with the people and listen to the people. What a marvellous condescension from the Premier of New South Wales! He said, `We will go amongst the people'-not so much like a missionary but like an infectious disease. The Premier of New South Wales again felt it necessary to relieve himself of his frustrations by attacking the Labor Federal Government. We see the report on the front page of this morning's Australian, `Unsworth to PM: Lay off super'. The Age today says: In his second day of pointedly distancing himself from the Federal Government, Mr Unsworth said that `one of the things I want to put an end to is the suggestion that there might be a tax on superannuation funds'. Mr Unsworth yesterday criticised the Hawke Government, claiming it must accept some responsibility for the flagging performance of the NSW Government in the lead-up to the state election. So, the flagging performance of the New South Wales State Government was admitted to by the Premier of New South Wales. We were told in the same report that Mr Hawke told the Federal Caucus that the Government in New South Wales was in some difficulty. Is it not interesting that the Age newspaper report says that this is the second day of `pointedly distancing himself from the Federal Government'. Yet on 20 January, the Australian Financial Review reported: The Federal and NSW Cabinets held a historic joint meeting in Sydney yesterday, setting the scene for an election campaign in which Labor will make as much mileage as possible from the Unsworth-Hawke-Keating team. Well, the Unsworth-Hawke-Keating troika appears to have lost a couple of wheels since it was attempted to give it a little trot in January this year. Senator Messner —Only January. Senator PUPLICK —As Senator Messner says, it was only in January. It only takes the loss of a major by-election and a small turnaround in the polls for Mr Unsworth suddenly to realise that there are some mates not worth having, they are too expensive to have. And the mates he does not want to have at the moment are the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the whole rigmarole that allegedly constitutes the Federal Labor Government. Is Mr Unsworth alone in his complaint that Labor has lost touch with the people of New South Wales? Far from it! Mr Clyde Cameron, a former Labor Federal Minister, speaking in Adelaide the other day, complained that the Labor Party ought to be careful of becoming the `creature of rich businessmen and that there was evidence to support a strong suspicion that some Labor Ministers were already playing footsies with millionaires such as Abeles, Anderson, Rivkin, Bond, Packer, Murdoch, Singleton and Laurie Connell'. If the Ministers are not playing footsies they are using public money to bail these people out whenever trouble comes along. If Labor is not bailing them out it is simply making life easier for them with all its other legislative changes. Mr Cameron is not alone. Mr Uren, another former Labor Minister, when speaking in August last year, told the New South Wales Young Labor Council that the Prime Minister was leading a government which had betrayed Labor's traditional supporters and the Party's rank and file. I am delighted to see Senator McMullan sitting in the chamber. I certainly welcome him because he is another person who has been recently reported as having told the National Executive of the Labor Party that there was resentment among wage and salary earners, due to the pressure on their living standards, pressure that has been created exclusively by the policies pursued by the Wran-Unsworth Government in New South Wales and the Hawke-Keating Government in Canberra. He told them that the Labor Party was not sufficiently concerned about or focusing its attention sufficiently on the needs of ordinary Australians. If the Prime Minister thought that simply translating Mr McMullan into Senator McMullan would get the National Executive off his back, he has another think coming, because Senator McMullan's putative successor in the Labor Party's bunker is a certain Mr Hogg, and Mr Hogg has gone on the public record as saying that Mr Hawke and senior Cabinet Ministers have become `isolated and insensitive' to the electorate-and that is certainly the case. Mr Unsworth says he wants to move among the people. The first thing he is doing is inflicting himself on the poor citizens of Rockdale by actually going to live amongst them. He has decided, as today's Age states, `Poll forces Unsworth to move house'. One must give Mr Unsworth some credit-at least he is moving into a traditional Labor electorate. It is interesting to note the factional unity in this matter that otherwise exists. Senator Richardson and Senator Childs are present in the chamber. They do not agree on very much, but they do agree on the necessity to move out of Labor electorates and into blue ribbon Liberal electorates as quickly as possible, moving from Kogarah to Killara or, in Senator Childs's case, moving up to Scotland Island, where he knows he is sufficiently isolated from plebeian Labor voters because one cannot even get to the place unless one has a private boat. This is indicative of the whole approach of both the Left and the Right in New South Wales. The one thing they do not want to do is to maintain contact with the ordinary Labor voters and ordinary people of the State. I shall discuss some of the particular matters that simply demonstrate in a range of areas, including the environment, the celebration of Australia's bicentenary, legal rights of people, the economic state of New South Wales and the various skeletons in the closet, the way in which the Labor Party has ensured that it no longer represents the interests of ordinary people. I say `ordinary people', not `ordinary Labor voters', because the Labor Party is as out of touch with those ordinary Australians who never vote Labor as it is with those who traditionally vote Labor. The Labor Party no longer represents anything except its own party factions or its own rich and powerful mates. It no longer represents either traditional Labor voters or traditional Australians battling for decent standards for themselves and their families, their economic well-being, the physical security of their communities and the advancement of their State as a whole. We have seen the shabby, shoddy way in which the Labor Party has gone about disposing of public land in New South Wales-not in returning it to the people of New South Wales for parks and recreational purposes, but selling it off to rich developers who will make large sums of money from obtaining Commonwealth land on the cheap and reselling it to other people who can afford to pay high prices. The Liberal and National parties in New South Wales have made it clear that a caveat emptor situation exists. Anyone who buys that land at Balmoral has been told by Nick Greiner and Tim Moore, the shadow Minister for the Environment, that a New South Wales Liberal and National Party government will not connect the power or the sewerage or water supplies to any of those sites. We will ensure that that land continues to remain in the hands of the people of New South Wales and not some friends of the Labor Party in New South Wales. Senator Chaney —They are privatising public land, are they? Senator PUPLICK —They are not only privatising public land; presumably they expect the sort of private return that they normally obtain when deals of this type are made in New South Wales. We have seen the way in which areas, even those with World Heritage listing such as Lord Howe Island, have been shamefully neglected by the Labor Party at Federal and State level. We have seen the way in which the birthplace of the nation in terms of European settlement, the Kurnell Peninsula, has been raped by people who have been allowed to get away with developments on that peninsula, contrary to the wishes of the people of the area and environmental advice. We have seen how easily they turn upon people who do not toe the line on all sorts of Labor plans. We have seen, after all, the Harris-Daishowa incident and how one day Mr Loosley could write to the company thanking it for the marvellous donation, and how the next day Mr Unsworth could stand back and describe the donation as dirty money. The only difference between clean money and dirty money to Labor Party members is that clean money is what is put in one's pocket without telling anybody and dirty money is money other people have to know about when it is handed over. Yesterday, in the Caucus, Senator Richardson, as the great organiser of various factions, told everybody how important the environmental movement is and how important the green vote is in New South Wales. However, the headline in today's Sydney Morning Herald was, `Labor's anti-greenies come out of the woodwork'. It is not so much that they are coming out of the woodwork as the fact that somebody kicked over a stone and there they were. People who otherwise have immediate access and are courted by Senator Richardson and his mates, such as Mr Phil Toyne of the Australian Conservation Foundation, are now condemned in the Labor Party Caucus. Mr Toyne was described as `an ice charlatan'. All of a sudden, friends become enemies and enemies become friends, clean money becomes dirty money and mates in the Labor Party in Canberra become people the Labor Party does not want to have around during an election campaign. One should consider the hypocrisy of the State Labor Government when the bicentennial celebrations were being planned, and how the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in New South Wales, Mr Gabb, could say that he would not have anything to do with the bicentennial celebrations. He said he would boycott the celebrations. In appealing to those who are sensitive to the Aboriginal cause in New South Wales, Mr Unsworth said that it was perfectly proper for Mr Gabb to boycott the celebrations. However, during the course of the visit, Barrie Unsworth stuck closer to the Princess of Wales than a blowfly at a barbecue. If he had got any closer he would have been committing a criminal offence. The Labor Party was parading itself around the place as the party of great initiators during the bicentennial celebrations, the party that brought the great spectacle to the people of New South Wales-but the Minister had to be given permission by the Premier to boycott the celebrations. By attempting to become all things to all men, the Labor Party in New South Wales has become nothing to anyone. It has attempted to extinguish the legal rights of people in New South Wales. Changes to the workers compensation system, which is of critical importance to traditional Labor voters and people in the lower socioeconomic stratas of society, represent changes to the rights of those people at common law and are nothing short of scandalous. Mr George Petersen, a former member of the Labor Party, who has held a seat in Parliament for many years, made the following statement when the new Labor Government legislation was introduced: I oppose the legislation because it represents the most massive attack on the rights of New South Wales workers by any Government, Liberal or Labor, in my nineteen years in this Parliament. It is a complete reversal of Labor's policies and practices since Jack Lang introduced workers compensation in 1926- for which he was expelled from the Australian Labor Party. Senator Peter Baume —Who was it that said that? Senator PUPLICK —It was George Petersen, former Labor member for Illawarra. We oppose that legislation. The economy of New South Wales has been driven into the ground by the State Labor Government. On a number of occasions Senator Stone has drawn attention to the way in which the last New South Wales State Budget was the most irresponsible Budget in its public expenditure brought down in the past couple of years. He quoted extensively from the work done by Mr Les McCarrey of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) in Western Australia, indicating how bad Labor budgets have been. In our Dateline News Digest of today it is indicated that the cost of business visits to Sydney increased in the past year by 25 per cent-more than any other major city in the world. That is a result of the policies put in place by the Wran-Unsworth Government. We have seen that retail sales growth in New South Wales has been among the most sluggish. The number of residential dwelling commencements-something of absolutely imperative significance to low income people including traditional Labor voters in New South Wales-over the past 12 months decreased by a massive 13.8 per cent while the numbers were up, for example, in Victoria. Adult earnings in New South Wales have grown far less quickly than in the remainder of the country. The consumer price index has gone up much faster in New South Wales than in the remainder of the country. The unemployment rate in New South Wales has in the past 12 months grown at a greater rate than the national average. We have a whole series of indicators by which this Labor New South Wales Government can be judged. We have not yet started to explore all the ramifications of the latest example of political interference in the New South Wales judicial system, revealed by the Tina Wong case. That scandal has yet to be explored, but it will be explored. The truth will be told about this in the same way as the truth was eventually told about the Brereton business, about the Farquhar business, about the Jackson business and about all the other scandals and political interference in New South Wales. If there is one thing that ordinary people resent more than anything else, it is not just the assault upon their standards of living but the assault upon their parliamentary and judicial systems. They know that justice in New South Wales is a tradable commodity under the Labor Party Administration and will remain so until steps are taken to clean up that whole system. My colleagues Senator Peter Baume and Senator Brownhill will be drawing attention to a large number of other matters in respect of this matter of public importance. Tomorrow we will again have the opportunity to debate the scandalous assault which this Labor Government in New South Wales, aided and abetted by the Labor Government in Canberra, has made on the health and welfare systems of the people of New South Wales. But perhaps just to prove that the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes, I should bring to mind two last sad relics. The first is the way in which Laurie Brereton, once upon a time the golden haired boy of New South Wales, was chucked out of his ministerial office the moment he looked as if he was becoming a political embarrassment to the Government. I give the final word to the most discredited politician in Australia's recent history, Neville Wran, who said this: No government that has been in office for 11 years deserves another try. The Wran-Unsworth Government does not deserve another try. It is going to get a trial but not another try. That cannot come quickly enough to install in New South Wales a Liberal and National Party Government which will not only clean up the Augean stables that that State has become under Labor, but also will restore real contact and real hope to the people of New South Wales and Australia generally. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(3.23) —Today we have seen the first of what no doubt will be a number of instalments in the saga of the New South Wales election over the next couple of weeks. I do not think I heard anything new over the past 20 minutes or so and I suspect that nobody else did either. Nonetheless we will all ritually come in here over the next couple of weeks; I will listen to insults from the other side of the chamber and, as usual, I will answer them with wit and charm. I want to begin by looking at the perspective from which Senator Puplick made his speech. It seems to me that if one looks around Australia and starts with Queensland, Madam Acting Deputy President, one recognises that the Liberal Party is not in government. It is a National Party Government-it is not a Bjelke-Petersen one any more but it is a National Party Government. When we move south of Queensland, we find that in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia there are Labor governments. In fact, what does the Liberal Party rule as we enter our bicentennial year? The Liberal Party has government in the island State of Tasmania and a share of government, if you like, by the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory. If one adds it all up, that means the Liberal Party can claim government over something like 450,000 people out of Australia's 16 million. The Liberal Party in Australia in 1988 is an irrelevance. (Quorum formed) I am always grateful to those who want to try to stop my speaking because it demonstrates that whatever I am saying must be doing some damage. As I was saying, at the moment the Liberal Party speaks from the perspective of a party that governs something like 450,000 out of 16 million Australians. At the national level the Liberal Party is more than an irrelevance; it is non-existent. The Liberal Party is a rump. The conservative parties are now in a similar position to that of the Labor Party of the 1950s. They are alone, they are involved and they are going nowhere. Similar to the Labor Party in the 1950s, it must also be said that they are wracked by internal division. In the Liberal Party today we have the wets and the dries. I might say that the wets are a little more in evidence in the Senate chamber than the dries at the moment, although Senator Boswell from the National Party will no doubt make up for all of them with his arrival. The Opposition is dreadfully split. Senator Boswell —Tell us about last Saturday and the Adelaide by-election. Thirteen per cent! Senator RICHARDSON —There are leadership contenders all over the place. How can one forget last night when Andrew stood up, in a better suit and a much nicer tie than John Howard, and made his pitch. We wonder how many he was to win over. Is there any authority in the Party? We must remember the performance of John Howard. Last July the Labor Party won its historic third term, and that had never happened before. Senator Boswell —It will not happen again, either. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Boswell, in his own peculiar and particular style, has interjected. He was referring to the swing against us in the Adelaide by-election-the end of the world swing in the Adelaide by-election. I recall looking at the polls at the end of 1986 and members of the Opposition gleefully telling me that everything was all right, things would go back to normal in Australia and that the Labor Party was on the way out. We dipped at one stage to 41 per cent, but come the time of the election eight months later, there we were winning another election and increasing our majority. When the crunch comes, when the pen actually goes to paper and the people of Australia vote, they will take a long hard look at you lot and they just will not wear you. Now that it has happened three times in a row, I think members of the Opposition must be prepared for a lot more. The voters repelled a divorced coalition. I can take Senator Boswell back to that coalition, because he remembers that. He had a bit to do with it, as I recall, because it was the Queensland Nationals who took the Nationals out of the coalition, was it not? As I recall, they did not like their leader. I keep hearing that they are going to promote Senator Stone. I hope they do, if only to alleviate the boredom in the Senate. Anything new would be better than the existing leadership. I want to refer to remarks by some Liberal Party luminaries who have commented on the state of their Party in recent times. If one does not like the state of the Labor Party in Australia, one should ask the Liberal Party President-and the national President of the Liberal Party is not an insignificant person-what he thinks. What did John Elliott, from Elders-IXL Ltd, say about the Liberal Party? He said, `We didn't deserve to win'. That was yet another pitch from one of the extraparliamentary contenders, another one after John Howard's mantle. I quote a prominent Liberal from the House of Representatives: The overwhelming decision of the electorate was that it was not prepared to accept Howard, his policies, campaign or his people. Hear, hear! At least one Liberal has got something right. The coalition failed to understand last July, and it is incapable of understanding it now, that the Australian people still care about some social values. As well as balance sheets and dollars there are other things in the world about which they care. They care, of course, about the environment. Before I finish today I will remind Senator Puplick of some of the things he has not done within his own party about the environment. I note that he said that somebody from the Australian Conservation Foundation was attacked, verbally, in our Caucus room yesterday. That is true. I would have to concede that there are some people in the Australian Labor Party who do not like the green movement. But the difference between this side and that side over there is that nobody over there likes the green movement. They have all spent years attacking that movement. Their policies totally reject any environmental ideals. Given that Eden is becoming such a big issue for all of those opposite because of the Harris-Daishowa (Australia) Pty Ltd matter, why do we not ask Senator Puplick whether or not he supports Nick Greiner when Nick Greiner says that if the Liberals win, the 80,000 hectares of national parks just dedicated in the Eden region will go? Why do we not ask him whether he supports logging in those parks? Will he take the position he has on the tropical rainforests of north Queensland? Will he tell us that next August he might let us know if he has got his party to agree to anything? The reality is that the electorate will always reject the politics of greed. They will reject the Liberal Party's line for the rich. We heard Senator Puplick refer to Clyde Cameron, who attacked some people in the Labor Party for being close to millionaires. All I have to say is that the Australian people have shown often in recent times that they know where the Labor Party stands. They have stuck with us through thick and thin because they will always reject the approach of the Liberal and National parties. Senator Boswell —They rejected you out of hand two weeks ago. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell, Senator Richardson has the call. Senator RICHARDSON —Senator Boswell is a most unruly fellow. As we have heard before, and as I have said, we will no doubt hear a lot more of this in the next few weeks, the Labor Party has ruled New South Wales for 36 of the last 47 years. That is what the people of New South Wales have thought about the matter. Now we hear Senator Puplick, of all people, talking about ordinary people. We are going to take up a collection on our side and issue Gregory's street directories to all the Liberals in New South Wales so they can find the western suburbs. They have suddenly discovered there are votes in them, but they have yet to discover where they are. I would hope that, unlike Rosemary Foote and others who could not even find their way across the Gladesville bridge, just a few Liberals will venture out west, if they are game. I suspect that not too many of them will be game when the crunch comes. In Nick Greiner's New South Wales Inc. there are only two rules: the survival of the fittest and the survival of the richest. They are the rules under which he seeks to conduct affairs in New South Wales. We saw last year in the July Federal poll, and we will see the same thing when the State election comes around this year, a fair go from the Labor Party and dog eat dog from the other side. In the end I am sure that people will make the same decision that they made last time. Nick Greiner does not offer any new program, any new approach; it is all the old program, the old approach that we saw from John Howard last year. It is pretty hard to find out just what Greiner stands for. There are no policies; there is no chance that one can pick up a book and find a policy. All we know is what Nick Greiner does not want, because he spends a lot of time whinging and whining. There is nothing positive; everything is negative. In the next few weeks there will have to be a change to all of that if he wants to win. He will also have to explain how he balances his freeze in government spending with the $1.2 billion worth of promises he has made over the past few months. Just how will he make the two parts of the equation add up? Perhaps he will turn to a Liberal Party apparatchik for help? We have heard attacks on Labor Party apparatchiks. I recall that only last June when there was some figuring going on in the Liberal Party's back rooms, when the abacus was out and they were adding up their proposals for a Budget to go to the people with, the person who had the abacus was Jim Carlton, a former Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. What happened? As usual, he got it wrong-horribly wrong-and of course when that effort was seen, when that fraud was exposed, the Liberals backed off and the people backed off them. Let us have a look at the effect on health services Nick Greiner's coming into government would have. You will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, that the conservative government in Queensland has already introduced a number of charges in public hospitals, and the coalition in New South Wales would follow the same path. The Opposition intends to push more and more people into private health funds. It intends, so we are told, to get right away from Medicare. It will satisfy the demands of the Australian Medical Association. For all the talk of dirty money and clean money, might I say this: it is all right for Nick Greiner to write to doctors in New South Wales and say `Send me some money', because Nick Greiner intends to run the hospital system, the whole health system, for those doctors. Why would they not send him money? He is saying to them, `Charge what you like, do what you like; it will be all okay'. But I do not think the people of New South Wales will wear that approach. Obviously Nick Greiner wants to move towards the United States system, where something like 40 million people are not covered by health insurance and where the cost of the privatisation of health care has been enormous. If there is to be no coverage, no access for ordinary people to medical care, the prescription that Nick Greiner and the Liberals have for New South Wales will be, as always, as I said, the survival of the richest. Some issues other than health are worth mentioning in the few minutes I have left. Nick Greiner has loudly trumpeted the user pays principle in the area of transport. This means that the people in those suburbs that the Liberals cannot find without the aid of a street directory are the people who will suffer. How much does old Nick care for the battlers in the western suburbs? Under his scheme, the cost of a weekly train ticket between Sydney and Blacktown would jump from $16.70 to $33.75. That is what he wants to give ordinary people-the ordinary people to whom Senator Puplick refers. The cost of a ticket from Sydney to Bankstown for the same period would double from $12 to $24. If a person wants a ticket from Sydney to Wollongong or Gosford he is real trouble. It will go from $21.90 to $44.26. That is what the Liberals want to give New South Wales under their user pays principle. They reject the belief that the transport system meets an essential need of ordinary people. There is a requirement for community services. Their proposals go back to the elitist principles upon which the Liberal Party was founded and which today it still embraces. Nick Greiner also says he wants no frills suburbs. This is an interesting point as far as Senator Puplick is concerned, because he professes an interest in the environment. The concept of no frills suburbs means that we will go back to the old days. We will not have any more of those underground utilities, no more power lines underground; they will go back on top of the street because it is much cheaper. We do not need wide streets and wide footpaths; we will go back to the old days and have narrow ones. Why do the Liberals want to do all that? It is because once again the houses and the suburbs in which they will be built will be a long, long way away from Nick Greiner and the Liberal Party. There is just no way that even a street directory will ever get him into those suburbs. I think that quoting the man himself is by far the best way to show this. In a celebrated interview recorded in the Penthouse magazine-that well known working class magazine!-in October 1983 Nick Greiner said: I have no plans to solve the unemployment problems the Government has. He has never spoken a truer word. Since July 1987 unemployment in New South Wales has fallen from 9.3 per cent to 7.5 per cent. That is the record for jobs in New South Wales. That is what the Unsworth Government is delivering. For the first time since the Liberal Party-induced recession of 1982, unemployment in New South Wales is lower than the national average. It continues to go down. New South Wales now has the second lowest rate of unemployment in Australia. One hundred and three thousand new jobs were created in New South Wales in the last year. That is what Barrie Unsworth has done for New South Wales. New South Wales has had a growth rate of 4.4 per cent-virtually double that of the rest of Australia. That is what the Unsworth Government has done for New South Wales. Only a Labor government can protect jobs. Only a Labor government can create them. Only conservative governments destroy them, and their records suggest that they destroy them very quickly, at the rate of several thousand a week during the last year of the Fraser-Howard Government. Nick Greiner's proposals will destroy jobs. He does not offer us a new government or a new program; he offers us only a change for the worse. Let us consider the feelings of the ordinary people, such as the wage earners. The Liberal Party has opposed every wage increase throughout the whole of the 1980s. For the whole of this decade the Liberal Party has never wanted to offer workers in Australia any wage increases at all. Poverty is the prescription it offers them. It is the only thing it knows for the people who live on the other side-give them poverty, feed them nothing. The Labor Party fortunately has a different view. Our view of what we have to do for the commuters, for the sick, for the disabled and for the pensioners is very different. If Barrie Unsworth said anything the other night, I think he said this: `We do not have a problem in knowing where we stand. We do not have a problem in having the right policies. We do, however, need to improve our communication, and that is something upon which we are working'. But one would hope that communication is not the only thing upon which governments are won. In the end the people of New South Wales, and indeed the people of Australia, who have a pretty fair record of making the right choice, will do so again. When the crunch comes, they will support the party that looks after them and not the party that believes in only the two rules that I mentioned earlier-survival of the fittest and survival of the richest. That is what Nick Greiner wants for New South Wales, and that is what New South Wales will never want from Nick Greiner. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(3.43) —The Australian Democrats, of course, support the proposition submitted to the Senate by Senator Puplick on behalf of the Opposition. It is essentially in two parts. The first suggests that we-namely, we as a Senate and we as a nation-recognise the need for effective co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States in order to best serve the interests of Australians. That is the very essence of our federal system. We would not disagree with that. The second part acknowledges that the New South Wales Government has lost touch with the electorate and is about to lose office. Certainly, the Australian Democrats agree with that. We go further, however, and suggest that, tragically, the Australian Labor Party and all its governments seem to be equally at fault and equally to have lost contact with their electorates in each of the States in which they are presently in government. What is implied, of course, is that when the coalition comes to power in New South Wales in several weeks time things will suddenly change for the better. Well, the Democrats have some reservations about that. Two significant things will happen in New South Wales on 19 March, when we go to the polls to elect our new State Government. The first is that there will be a change of government, and we are fairly confident that that will happen. But the second is that the balance of power in the Upper House will pass to Australian Democrats and Independents. In short, the people of New South Wales will again call upon the Democrats to keep the others honest, in the same way as they have depended upon us to perform that role effectively in the Senate. What we really have before us now is a trumped up excuse, in a pre-election climate, to throw some stones at the New South Wales Labor Government. We have no objections to that. We have some stones to throw at the Labor Government in New South Wales as it departs after a disastrous decade. We, like the coalition, believe that Labor has had it in New South Wales. As I have moved around the State in recent weeks, I have sensed that voters believe yet again that is is time for a change. Certainly, the prospect of a Greiner-led coalition government does not seem to have set hearts pounding, but they most definitely want to end the present undemocratic centralist regime. It seems reasonable to ask why the people of New South Wales are going to change their Government on 19 March. It comes down to the fact that the arrogance and deception of the Hawke-Wran-Unsworth governments have created a yawning gulf between Labor governments and the people who elected them. There is in fact a huge gulf. The voters of New South Wales especially, but one could also add those of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and of Australia at large, are now seeing through the contemptuousness of Labor governments. This contempt for the people is nowhere better illustrated than in the crude and destructive changes made to the electoral processes in New South Wales in recent months. The Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Bill and the cognate Election Funding Bill are an outrageous attack upon democracy and the rights of Independents, interest groups and minor parties to participate in New South Wales State elections. It is now law, having been rushed through the Parliament by the Government in the final days of the last parliamentary session. Significant clauses affect the conservation movement and its desire to influence elections by campaigning for the environment, to mention only one of the impacts of this crude Act. Here are just some of the effects of this Act: First of all, it is now an offence to distribute on polling day electoral material that was not registered and approved by the Electoral Commission. I will repeat that: It is now an offence, in a democracy, in Australia, to distribute on polling day electoral material that has not previously been registered with the Electoral Commission. Electoral material cannot be registered for distribution if the group does not have an endorsed candidate. Furthermore, electoral material is defined in extremely broad terms and must be registered with the Electoral Commission eight days prior to polling day. Senator Peter Baume —So, interest groups can distribute nothing. Senator McLEAN —Interest groups can distribute nothing in support of candidates with whom they identify without contravening the Electoral Act, and this is in a democracy, in Australia, in 1988, bastardised and distorted by a Labor Government in NSW only a few months ago, and done in the early hours of the morning in the last few days of parliamentary session. The registration of a political party has been made much more difficult. The number of members now required to register as a political party has doubled to 200, which must restrict groups of concerned citizens in organising to take advantage of an election to air an issue. The very essence of democracy has been truncated, and quite deliberately. The fielding of candidates has become extremely difficult for groups or minor parties. It now takes $750 to register to become a candidate for the Legislative Council-$750 to contest an election as an ordinary citizen. It costs $500 to nominate to contest for election to the Legislative Assembly. Amazingly-this is truly amazing-the Act now prevents the use of the word `independent' in association with another political party. In other words, one cannot run as an independent Labor candidate, an independent Democrat or an independent something else. Quite clearly, the intention of this is to cut off at the knees the source of the Australian Labor Party's greatest difficulty, its own disaffected who leave and choose to run on matters of principle as independent Labor candidates or as independent something else. And this is in 1988 in one of the great democracies, so-called, of the world; namely, New South Wales, Australia. Is it any wonder that there is a conspiracy theory raging out in the community? Even though the Democrats do not support the conspiracy theory as it is propounded by Peter Sawyer, we do understand why it should have emerged in the context of such draconian laws at the State level in Australia. Of course these, running in parallel with proposals such as the Australia Card, have aroused the growth of suspicion in Australian voters. The Australian Democrats Leader in the New South Wales Parliament, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, MLC, led a valiant but unsuccessful assault against this legislation. We were certainly grateful that the coalition Opposition expressed equal abhorrence. I quote the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Legislative Council, the Hon. Ted Pickering, who said: This is yet another attempt in a series of efforts by the Government to undermine the role of the Upper House-recent attacks have focused on Upper House committees, and now they have extended their attack to try to destroy the democratic integrity of the Legislative Council-- and the processes by which it is elected. This is not, of course, the only area where the New South Wales Government has demonstrated contempt for the institution of parliament. In an attempt to answer a question from a constituent concerning access to national parks in New South Wales, my Democrat colleague Elisabeth Kirkby recently requested a copy of the relevant regulations from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. She heard back from it only today that it is not able to provide her with those regulations or indeed any information at all; that it had been instructed by the Minister, Mr Carr, that it was not to give any information to any member of parliament or the representative of a member of parliament. This was advice that came to an elected member of the State upper House today. So much for New South Wales Labor's contempt for the electorate and for parliament. The Labor Party in New South Wales has been inconsistent as well as extraordinarily contemptuous. The Wilderness Bill 1987 was but one example. A Democrat amendment in the interests of Aboriginal land rights referred to as the Uluru lease back mechanism and in line with stated Labor policy was negated by the Government. Yet now, in pre-election days and with new found love of the wilderness, Mr Carr is promising to amend the legislation in line with the very Democrat amendment which the Government previously disregarded. Really, this blatant political inconsistency is extremely transparent. Not only has the New South Wales Labor Government been contemptuous and inconsistent but it has also been inept. Let me give just one example. Already its workers compensation legislation is in serious strife. The New South Wales Government, in its arrogance, chose to ignore the advice of both the unions and the legal community. South Australia's effective model, which greatly reflects the contributions of Democrat Legislative Councillor Ian Gilfillan, was equally ignored in the enacting of its present form of workers compensation. Of course, it has been very much the style of the New South Wales Government to railroad through sloppy, poorly drafted legislation and then attempt to keep it afloat with a myriad of tangled and confusing regulations. As a result, its workers compensation legislation is in desperate strife, and it is only one example. Indeed, the Australian Democrats agree that the Unsworth Government is out of touch and must and will go. Finally, I would like to return to the first proposition that is before us; namely, the glaring need for effective State and Federal co-operation. Where such co-operation is absent the community can pay an enormous cost. I will illustrate this point. Just today I received a phone call from a Democrat in Kyogle, which is one of the safest National Party seats in the State, who cited the fact that in the Kyogle Shire there are 371 timber bridges that are more than 50 years old. Numerous school buses carrying hundreds of children daily use these bridges, exposing the young passengers to real danger. For years the community-as I said, in a safe National Party seat-has not been able to convince the State Labor Government to seek from the Federal Government the $1m or $2m necessary to rectify this potentially disastrous situation. As evidenced by the article that appeared on page 3 of the Northern Star of Tuesday, 16 February, voters in this electorate-and I would imagine in many others-endorse the need for better and closer co-operation between Federal and State governments. It would seem that the coalition parties, by raising this matter of public importance, besides providing themselves and the Australian Democrats with the opportunity to offer fair and strong criticism of the present New South Wales Labor Government, are also promising when in government to strive hard to keep close to the people and to forge strong and effective relations with the Federal Government. I am interpreting that as the promise that is inherent in these propositions. The Australian Democrats, who will almost certainly hold the balance of power in the New South Wales Upper House after the election on 19 March, give their assurance that they will give their total co-operation in forging a better and more democratic future for the people of New South Wales. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.58) —It is a pleasure to follow Senator McLean in this debate and to commend the sentiments which he has expressed in support of the terms of this matter of public importance. The matter reads: The need for new and constructive arrangements to be developed between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales, following the admission by the Premier of New South Wales that the Labor Party is out of touch with the people of Australia and that his Government has lost the confidence of the people of New South Wales. The Labor Government of New South Wales has lost the confidence of the people of that State. It is to all intents and purposes finished. It no longer has public acceptance or acceptability. Labor in New South Wales has the smell of electoral death about it. It is a stale and tired Government recognised as such be everyone who cares to look. The citizens of New South Wales have lost patience with Labor; they have lost faith in the Labor Party and its Ministers and the people of New South Wales want a change. The Labor Government has lost its capacity to develop or carry out any arrangements with the Commonwealth. That makes this matter of public importance a proper one for discussion here today. The desire for change that we recognise emerged some time ago and has been reflected in opinion polls for some months now. The opinion polls have shown consistently and continuously that Labor is finished in the premier State of Australia. It is not at all surprising that it should be so. Governments have their beginning, they have their maturity and they have their old age. Labor in New South Wales is now an aged Government. Senator Puplick —It is a senile Government. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes. It has run out of steam and run out of ideas. It has grown in arrogance and that could not have been demonstrated better than when Senator Richardson this afternoon talked about Labor having `ruled'-that was his word-for so many years. Why did he not say `served' the people of New South Wales? Senator Richardson did not say it because he meant what he said. It is indicative of the arrogance of a Labor Government in New South Wales and of the people who ran the Labor machine in that State. The Government has been characterised by its patronage and its cronyism. All these things have disgusted the citizens of the State. They have made the Government the object of concerned pity from the rest of the country. New South Wales Labor has other disabilities besides the poor quality of its government. It has been tainted by corruption for years. The smell of that corruption-the corruption around the Australian Labor Party and the Labor machine-is with the Party and its State parliamentarians. The people of New South Wales know and understand this. How much has to happen before a government gets into such a sorry state? It has taken many scandals and quite a few years in New South Wales. John Dowd first raised awkward questions about corruption in New South Wales a decade ago. His allegations were denied. Labor attacked John Dowd personally and mercilessly for the allegations. But as the years have passed and as events have unfolded, most of John Dowd's claims have been vindicated. Not only did they have substance, but he was right-not once, but again and again. What he alleged about corruption in New South Wales has come to be revealed as fact. Not only that, but the confirmed corruption has moved further and further into the Government of the State of New South Wales during the period that Labor has served as the Government. No one has ever explained properly why the Labor Government intervened to prevent one of its members, Mr Brereton, going on trial early in its term of office. Senator Puplick —The first act of the Government was to squash that prosecution. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Puplick says it was the first act of the Government. It intervened to make sure that one of its members did not go on trial after he had been committed for trial. No one has ever explained why that was done. No one has ever explained why a Labor Premier for so long and so fiercely protected Mr Rex Jackson. The people of New South Wales remember Mr Rex Jackson. He was a Labor member of the Parliament of New South Wales. He was a Labor Minister in the Labor Government now coming to its death. He was caught using his official office for corrupt purposes. His Labor Premier tried to deny the substance of the charges and to blacken the names of those who were exposing Mr Jackson. But it did not work and eventually he was charged, convicted and sentenced. The people of New South Wales remember, too, that the Labor Government at the time decided that Mr Jackson's legal bills would be borne by the public-the taxpayers of New South Wales-until the public outcry forced a retreat from that position. The people of New South Wales remember Mr Mochalski, too. He was a Labor member of the Parliament. He had to resign in the face of scandal, but because he is yet to face trial I will say no more about him or the circumstances surrounding his resignation. The people of New South Wales remember the police commissioner, Bill Allen, promoted inexplicably over many more senior police by a Labor Premier against all advice. The people of New South Wales remember the subsequent resignation of that police commissioner in disgrace, associated with corruption. The people of New South Wales remember the extraordinary extensions of term for the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Murray Farquhar. The people of New South Wales remember the outrageous Cessna-Milner judgment he made, and the absolutely astounding things that occurred during his last days as Chief Magistrate. The people of New South Wales know that that particular Labor crony, Mr Murray Farquhar, has been charged, convicted and sentenced and has served his prison term for corrupt behaviour. The people of New South Wales remember the case of Kevin Humphreys. They remember the rorting of Labor Party branches. They remember the Enmore conspiracy case. They remember Labor's reluctance and slowness in investigating the death of my former friend and a former Liberal candidate, Donald Mackay. They also remember the abuse that was heaped upon the Mackay family by the former Labor Premier of New South Wales when they complained about the slowness to investigate this matter. The people of New South Wales remember the criticism of Labor's Mr Grassby by Mr Commissioner Nagle, but since that matter has yet to be concluded elsewhere I will say no more about it. The people of New South Wales remember Mr Tom Domican. They remember Wings Travel. They remember the Labor Premier, Mr Wran, being fined $25,000 for contempt of court-a contempt of a court of New South Wales committed while he was Labor Premier of the State; and so on. But there are recent events, too. There are the events associated with the resignation of Labor Minister Mick Young. Honourable senators will recall that the Labor Party in New South Wales received money from a woodchipping company last June as a campaign contribution and honourable senators will know that the Labor Party used that money for a different purpose. That matter, and whether Labor officials in New South Wales have committed any offence, will be the subject of a police report soon. But what is clear is that the money was given to the Labor Party and that the Labor Party accepted it. It is also clear that the Labor Party misapplied that money in a manner which enabled Labor to avoid the disclosure requirements of the electoral law. Senator Puplick —Its own electoral law. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, its own electoral law, as my colleague says. It is acknowledged by Labor officials that this is what happened and it is acknowledged that they are to blame. But at the same time we have had the extraordinary spectacle of the Premier of New South Wales launching a vicious attack against the donor company-the people who made the money available. The Premier accused them of environmental vandalism, pillage and rape. He described the money which they gave as filthy money, and with a flourish he had the donation returned. Then the people of New South Wales became aware that the company had made further donations to the Labor Party. This time it was to Mr Akister-one of Mr Unsworth's Ministers-to help in his forthcoming campaign. I forget how much it was, but I think I have seen in the newspapers that it was $5,000. This was a substantial donation-and to another candidate. The Premier of New South Wales, having described the donations from this company as filthy money on one occasion, has not required these latest donations to be returned. The people of New South Wales call that hypocrisy. Instead the people of New South Wales have seen the Premier and the Government of our great State using the people's money for expensive advertising of State services. This advertising is in the run-up to an election-improper advertising. We have seen advertising which is a blatant attempt to buy votes with taxpayers' money-advertising which is also often untruthful. Some of the advertisements are for the much vaunted Healthline-something to do with how good the State hospitals are. Well, it is just pathetic. Senator Brownhill —Absolutely pathetic. Senator PETER BAUME —Just try to use the hospitals in my State! I think my colleague Senator Brownhill may have something to say about that later. But the people of New South Wales who use the hospitals and who try to get access to them know what the situation is. We know what happens when we are in need of services-whether it is hospitals, police, transport or any of the other State services. We know what the situation is and we know who has had the stewardship of our State, who has `ruled the State', as Senator Richardson cares to say-`served the State', we would rather have him say-for over a decade now. The people of New South Wales know that these advertisements were crook. The people of New South Wales know the advertisements were untrue and they know that their funding was a scandal. It is yet one more scandalous activity by a corrupted government now in its death throes. Mr Clyde Cameron, Mr Hurford and Senator McMullan have all had things to say about the performance of Labor. But now we find the Labor Premier of New South Wales starting to attack his Federal Labor counterparts. He attacks them over the proposal to introduce time charging for telephone calls. He is now attacking his Labor colleagues over some superannuation matters. He has admitted and acknowledged what the polls have been saying for months, namely, that his Government is trailing badly, that the people do not like him as Premier and that they are sick of the Government which he leads. The people of New South Wales are sick of his Government. The people of New South Wales do not like Barrie Unsworth. The people of New South Wales wish that he would live in the electorate he purports to represent. The people of New South Wales want a change of government. They want it soon. What the Premier must do now is call the election which, by rights, we should have had last December. He has delayed, hoping for help from the bicentennial celebration. But the people of New South Wales are not to be bought off with a few fireworks or even with a splendid bicentennial day. The people of Adelaide have already delivered a stinging rebuke to the Labor Party just one week ago. The people of New South Wales will do the same as soon as they are allowed to vote. The Premier is correct to admit that his Government is out of touch. Neville Wran is correct in trying to help New South Wales Labor to lift its game. It needs to. But today they are up against a clean, young, dynamic, vigorous, determined and tough Opposition which is ready for government and ready to govern. It is time for change in New South Wales, and a change for the better in every way. The people of New South Wales are sick of patronage, cronyism, Tammany-Hall government and factional dictatorship. The people of New South Wales are fed up with corruption. In Nick Greiner we look forward to new arrangements between the Commonwealth and the State to benefit the whole community. It will be clean and straightforward government, eager and ready to achieve, and the sooner it comes the better. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.13) —In March there will be an election in New South Wales. The Opposition has introduced this blatant electioneering matter of public importance today which has been characterised by Opposition speakers attacking personalities. But we welcome the opportunity to remind Australians, and particularly the people of New South Wales, what the real issues, the important issues, are. One must start with the most important background fact. When this Government came to power we had the Fraser inheritance of galloping unemployment and the worst recession since the Depression of the 1930s. The Labor Government set about healing the community. In co-operation with the trade union movement through the accord we were able to put in place constructive arrangements which contrast so much with the confrontation of the Fraser years. We were also able to co-operate positively with the States and local government. No better model of co-operation between a national government and the State governments exists than the co-operation between the Unsworth Government and the Hawke Government. The people of New South Wales have been the beneficiaries of that approach. I accept that we are on the threshold of the State election campaign, which means that we have to examine what the alternative might be. It is quite proper to consider what a Greiner-Murray coalition government would be like. The coalition, including Senator Peter Baume, has ignored the fact that it would not be a Greiner government; it would be a Greiner-Murray government, with the National Party holding 40 per cent of the coalition membership. The task of the Federal Government has been made very difficult in recent years. That is ignored by Senator Puplick, who blames everything on the Hawke Government. He ignores the crisis in world commodity prices and the automatic reduction in our balance of trade balance sheet. Despite these problems, the people of New South Wales have benefited from two Labor governments working in co-operation with each other. I remind the Senate of the advantages this co-operation between two Labor governments represents to the Australian people, particularly the people of New South Wales. The first and unassailable achievement of the Hawke Labor Government was to create one million jobs since it came to office, attacking the problem of poverty and providing people with creative employment. The number of people in full time employment has increased by 652,000, a 12.6 per cent increase. The significant factor for New South Wales is that that has contributed the bulk of new jobs over the past year. The level of employment in New South Wales in January was a remarkable 6.2 per cent higher than a year earlier. More than half the jobs created over the past year were in New South Wales. That is a tribute to the co-operation between the Hawke and the Unsworth Governments. The New South Wales unemployment rate fell by 1.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent over the year to January. An improvement in school retention rates has been another achievement resulting from the co-operation between governments. It gives the lie to the statement contained in the matter of public importance introduced by the Opposition that we are not in touch with the needs of young people. There was a miserable 36 per cent retention rate for year 12 students when the Fraser Government left office. It is 50 per cent under this Government. It will soon be 66 per cent. We set out to change the situation that existed whereby our young people were not being trained for the future. A number of training schemes have been designed to encourage people in every way to increase their skills. We have only just started. We have declared that this area is a priority. We need a sympathetic government with similar approaches in New South Wales to continue that program. We do not want the user pays principle of the Liberal Party in New South Wales threatening the progress we have made. I mention the family assistance package. One of the priorities both of the New South Wales Labor Government and the national Labor Government is to eradicate poverty amongst young families and young people. The family assistance package will help almost 600,000 families and the 1.2 million children who could be in poverty. There is an income test threshold of $300 for families with one child, with $12 for every additional child. The other significant features of the package are rent assistance and a child disability allowance. Families with three children and one bread winner with a wage of $300 to $330 a week, renting privately, will be better off by $51.60 to $66.50 a week. There may be people listening to this broadcast who do not realise that they are entitled to this assistance because it is a recent initiative of this Government. Such assistance does not occur with conservative governments. They have shown, in government and out of government, that they are not concerned with alleviating poverty. This Government is concerned not only about young people-it has shown how in touch it is by the measures I have outlined-but also about our elderly. Pensions are now just on 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, which represent an 8.1 per cent real growth in pensions since we came to power. It contrasts with the 2.4 per cent decline which occurred under the Fraser Government. In the area of housing we have spent $2 billion over the last year alone and $5.3 billion over five years. It is because we knew that housing would get Australians working that we made it a priority of the Hawke Government. Our housing program is a testimony to co-operation. Once again the Unsworth Government, and before it the Wran Government, has given priority to that tremendous housing program. I just want to mention another issue that is of particular concern to a lot of women and that is really threatened by the user pay principles of the Liberal Party and the National Party. From 1984 to 1988 we have created 20,000 child care places which is more than all the previous Federal governments combined. I am pleased to say that in January the Unsworth Government announced that it is allocating another $5.2m to make sure that an additional 1,500 children will receive the benefits of that program. I could go on detailing the advantages, but I just want to mention one other advantage. Senator Richardson referred to the fact that the average person on $400 a week has effectively had a tax cut of $14 from Labor governments. He pointed out that the Liberal Party had opposed increases to wage and salary earners over the last decade on every occasion. The wage and salary earners in New South Wales have to realise that a Greiner Government would follow the same Liberal policies of trying to resist wage justice for the people who are entitled to it. In an election context, I think it is important to consider how a Greiner-Murray Government would be set up. As I said, Murray would be the Deputy Premier in a theoretical coalition government. I use the word `theoretical' because I do not believe it will be a reality, but one has to look at this matter because most people do not know about Mr Murray. They do know that Mr Greiner has been associated with the frog as a symbol. If he is the frog, then I am afraid he has a very large toad behind him in the National Party presence of Mr Murray who is the Russ Hinze of the New South Wales National Party. He is nowhere near as sophisticated as my colleague Senator Brownhill. Mr Murray has represented the most primitive attitudes of policy. I would like to mention the conflict we can expect. With 40 per cent of the National Party in the coalition, added to the other New Right figures in the Liberal Party in New South Wales, no matter what Mr Greiner says we will find that the conflict that is being kept to some extent behind doors will be out in the open if that coalition were ever to be elected to office. Senator Puplick very significantly did not deal with the environment issue on which he is the shadow spokesman. I can understand why. If he talked about New South Wales coalition parties, he would find that the record has been one of complete squabbling. I will refer to a couple of quotes of what has been said by various leaders of the coalition Government, the people who Mr Greiner has carefully packaged. But the ugly face of any coalition is Mr Murray and some of the conservatives who would make up a coalition Cabinet. I will quote Mr Wal Murray when he opened a Northern Tablelands campaign in May last year: The National Party won't have a bar of wilderness legislation. It is unnecessary; it is divisive-- Senator Knowles —Mr Acting Deputy President, as there are no New South Wales Government senators even bothering to listen to Senator Childs in this debate I draw your attention to the State of the House. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Yes, I notice that there are very few people on my left as well. There is no quorum. Ring the bells. Senator Knowles —That is not for you to judge from the chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Well, I just did. If you want to do something about it, you know what to do. (Quorum formed) Senator CHILDS —I was hurting the Opposition because I was referring to the real statements made by real members of the Opposition in New South Wales. I was drawing attention to the primitiveness of the National Party leader in New South Wales and I was quoting his opposition to the wilderness legislation. I will quote from an article in the Australian of 18 October 1985. Nick Greiner, the Leader of the Liberal Party-this is the other half of the coalition team-stated: The National Party has what I might choose to call a blind spot on national parks which, representing the electorates they do, simply reflects the attitudes of their constituents. Mr Greiner is trying to win votes from the urban middle class people but it would be very doubtful what would happen with a conservative government. Earlier today somebody reminded the Senate of what the President of the Liberal Party said of the Liberal leadership eight months ago. He said, `They did not deserve to win in the last election'. What I am suggesting is that- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(4.28) —I rise to support Senator Puplick and Senator Peter Baume in this matter of public importance. It is very interesting that members of the New South Wales Labor Party have not got enough people to speak in the debate and so have had to call in Senator Beahan from Western Australia. Is it any wonder? It is the case because the State Government in New South Wales is in its death throes. The Premier of New South Wales has been like his Federal counterparts, lurching from one crisis to another. With each disaster has come the ever growing reality that Mr Unsworth is headed for political oblivion. As each day and week pass the Premier knows that he has to announce an election date. He talks about the campaign; indeed, he hosted a candidates dinner in Sydney the other day. He talks about elections, but he is so frightened of the prospect of defeat that he has not been able to muster the courage to announce the execution date, which Senator Childs tells me will be in March, but we have yet to hear about it. The matter of public importance today highlights the New South West Premier's admission that he and his Party have lost the confidence of their members. To anyone following New South Wales politics that has been patently obvious for some time. The former Premier, Neville Wran, knew it only too well and he got out. He did not want his record spoilt by defeat at the polls. Nowhere is the Labor Party more out of touch than it is in rural New South Wales. To the people living outside the metropolitan areas the Labor Government has all the popularity of a blowfly in a butcher's shop. Senator Puplick talked earlier about how close Barrie Unsworth was trying to get to our royal guests. We have been talking about blowflies getting close to things, but this Government is no more popular than a blowfly in a butcher's shop. The rural sector of New South Wales is the most important sector in the Australian economy. The farm sector generates approximately one million jobs throughout the national economy and thus supports about three million Australians. Every dollar which agriculture generates creates an estimated $3 or $4 in the wider community and every job created in farming generates another two jobs in our towns and our cities. Yet for years people in rural Australia, particularly in New South Wales, have been treated as second class citizens. While Sydney gets better roads, country areas have had cutbacks; while Sydney was getting its multi-billion dollar Darling Harbour extravaganza, country hospitals were without doctors; and while Sydney students were getting language laboratories, improved science blocks and multifaceted gymnasiums, country schools were pleading for even temporary accommodation so that students could actually have lessons under cover. While Sydney people have been getting improved rail services, more frequent and faster train services to country towns have been abandoned and entire railway tracks have been sold off or removed. While country towns have been drying up and dying as one small business after another is forced to close, the New South Wales and Federal Labor governments have shrugged their shoulders and said, `Sorry, we cannot help'. There is no better example of the neglect of rural New South Wales than the timber industries. The Australian Labor Party's deep and meaningful relationship with the green movement knows no bounds, it seems. Mr Unsworth is determined to snatch the title `greenie of the year' from the Federal Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Richardson. The big difference is that Senator Richardson at least gives the appearance of understanding, or tries to tell us he understands, the issues involved in the environmental debate. Mr Unsworth continues to demonstrate his abysmal ignorance. Let us take as an example the Tumut-Tumbarumba region of New South Wales. Mr Unsworth apparently has not got a clue about what goes on down there and from today's newspaper reports it seems that he is not likely to learn. He claims that he is unable to go to the Tumbarumba area because of death threats. Apparently he thinks the town is full of axe-wielding mass murderers out to get him because he has threatened their livelihood. I can certainly understand why Mr Unsworth might think he is not popular in that region. It is very likely that people in the town and throughout the southern timber regions have some reason to want to have discussions with the Premier. But how offensive and how out of touch can one man get? He claims-and I emphasise that-that he and his Party are out of touch with people. Is it any wonder, when he accuses them of being potential murderers? What a slight that is to the town and the local police of the area. Senator McGauran —All Labor voters. Senator BROWNHILL —That is right. The way Mr Unsworth has emasculated police stations in rural towns, he has every reason to think that there might not be any police around to help him. There are so few fully manned rural police stations that are able to provide a 24-hour service. I can only suggest to Mr Unsworth that he get a thicker hide and check that the knives in his back are not coming from his own Party. Strangely, it was only a matter of days ago that a rally was held in Tumut. It was called by timber workers in the area who, very understandably, are worried about their jobs, security for their families and the future of their town. Mr Unsworth managed to say later that he could not understand why anyone would want to have a rally down there. He said that the softwood forests of Tumut and Tumbarumba were safe for 100 years and that the Government was not in the business of closing down softwood plantations. What he neglected to say-because he did not understand it and did not even know-is that over 50 per cent of the area is planted with hardwoods. There are 73,000 hectares of hardwoods presently available for milling and 70,000 hectares of pine forests. In Mr Unsworth's own State, in a seat held by one of the Government's supposed high-fliers, the Minister for Transport, the Premier does not even know what is being grown and what people do to make a living. Mr Unsworth's words of assurance to the timber industry fall on empty ground because the industry remembers his predecessor's words in 1983 when Mr Wran made the statement that no jobs would be lost to the timber industry in northern New South Wales. Since that promise, 760 jobs have gone. The industry also remembers another broken promise-Mr Unsworth's own assurances. Again in 1983, he said to the people of Grafton that he would look after the timber workers and see that their jobs were not endangered by any more national parks. That was only four years ago. What sort of memory has the Premier of New South Wales? It is no wonder that the people of the Burrinjuck electorate are frightened and want answers and guarantees that their jobs, their families and their communities are safe, that the towns will not be closed down to appease the conservative lobby. It is no wonder that at the next election Mr Sheahan will be told convincingly that he has lost the confidence of the people of the Burrinjuck electorate. Even some of Mr Unsworth's Federal colleagues have started to question this passionate greenie vote buying. Senator Puplick mentioned earlier that that is what Senator Richardson was doing. Mr Jim Snow, the Labor Party member for Eden-Monaro, who conned his way back into this place at the last election on the premise that one can fool some of the people some of the time, has started to question the wisdom of shutting down whole towns. The State member for that area, Mr Akister, the other Labor Party front runner, has also had constituents thrown out of work because of the Premier's greenie policies. Mr Akister has an even bigger battle on his hands than has his colleague in Burrinjuck. Towns such as Nimmitabel and Bombala have just about been gutted. Mr Snow has seen the writing on the wall. His Federal electorate includes 80,000 hectares of recently declared national parks in the New South Wales south coast hinterland and he shares similar boundaries to Mr Akister. Timber workers, after all, formed Australia's first primary industry. They are one of the few sections of the rural community that has always been solidly Labor. But what does this astute Premier do? He puts them all out of work then wonders why he is losing their support. The vision of the man really is quite astounding. Mr Unsworth's wooing of the rural New South Wales vote has not been restricted to timber areas. A recent New South Wales Government study has come up with the suggestion that the Western Lands Commission be taken over by other sections of government, so losing its autonomy. The biggest fear amongst rural land holders is that it will be taken over by the Department of the Environment and Planning. Environmental lobbyists have long wanted to get their hands on the 40 per cent of the State encompassed by the western division. Land holders fear that if this happens, there will be an expansion of the national park syndrome, more wilderness areas and further restrictions on pastoral operations. Graziers in that area could well see the day when they will need to undertake an environmental impact study every time they wish to move a mob of sheep. It is just another example of the degeneration of rural New South Wales at the hands of the Labor Government. The abuse of rural people seemingly is endless. I make a point about the long-running doctors' dispute in country areas. Only last week, a young woman from rural New South Wales who had a baby seven weeks prematurely was forced into a situation reminiscent of something out of a television soap opera. The baby needed medical attention and the hospital in which the baby was born had the appropriate equipment available. But because government grants which provided the staff to operate the machine had been withdrawn, the machine sat idle. The mother faced the prospect of having her baby transferred to Adelaide or Melbourne while she remained in New South Wales. If this is how the system is working in New South Wales and if this is what the latest $6m worth of advertising campaigns, telling us how terrific things are in the New South Wales hospitals, are all about, heaven help us all. What about students in New South Wales? Students living in rural areas are also being squeezed and tossed around by the Unsworth Government. New South Wales country students struggle all through high school and when they finish they like to go on to further study. For years, the technical and further education (TAFE) system had a block release study system that provided rural apprentices with an opportunity to get trade education at the same standard and of the same quality as city apprentices. It worked through rural apprentices being given the opportunity to travel to Sydney TAFE colleges several times a year for blocks of concentrated study, in order to qualify for a trade. This year, metal fabrication apprentices throughout rural New South Wales have had that opportunity taken away. They no longer have that system available. Instead, they are being offered places at TAFE institutions, in some cases several hours travel away from home, to which they must travel once a week. How does the small business in downtown Bega or Cobar cope with providing study time for those people? A Bega small businessman, Mr Max Pearce, wrote to his local State member, Mr Akister, for help. In the thoroughly useless reply Mr Pearce got, his local member said he `appreciated the difficulties this will cause you and other employers' and he promised to look into the matter. It is a pity that the local member was not more in touch with what his own Government was doing. Where was he when this resolution was passed through Cabinet? Why did he not know what his Government had decided? How does that help Mr Pearce get his first year apprentices educated this year? How does the employer afford to keep an apprentice when half the apprentice's working week is spent sitting on a bus travelling 100 kilometres to a technical institution? Mr Unsworth says that the Labor Party is out of touch with the electorate; and he wonders why. I cannot let this matter of public importance pass without talking about the shemozzle that the New South Wales Government's gun legislation has caused. When rallies in small country towns can attract thousands of people, something is wrong. Rallies have been held all over the State. One cannot say that it is just farmers whingeing when so many are complaining. It is a classic shooting in the foot approach that the Labor Party has taken on this issue. Even other Labor States have said that the New South Wales approach is inappropriate and a knee-jerk reaction to recent incidents. How well the New South Wales Government has thought through this issue can be demonstrated in the number of times the Premier has amended his original concept of the gun laws. As one weakness after another is exposed, he rewrites the Bill. One question he has not answered, which I know the police force would also like answered, is how the police will be expected to enforce the legislation. How will the police investigate the holding of weapons and seize weapons? Will police launch Hollywood-style raids on private homes? Where will the manpower come from to do that? Who will foot the bill for the estimated $800m compensation for the weapons handed in, and how will the weapons be disposed of? If the Premier were genuine in his matter he would have supported the National Party State member for Gloucester in the New South Wales coalition, Wendy Machin, when she called for an inquiry into the causes of violence last year. Such an inquiry would have been a far more appropriate approach to the problem than a knee-jerk panic performance in which the State Premier has engaged. The Federal Government is out of touch with the electorate. The Adelaide by-election made that fact clear. The Unsworth Government is equally out of touch, and the electors in New South Wales will show that clearly in the coming New South Wales election. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia)(4.41) —I suppose I should not be surprised that the debate so far has had little to do with the substance of the motion and that almost every contribution to it-- Senator Puplick —Have you run out of New South Wales senators? Senator BEAHAN —I shall explain that in a minute. Every contribution to the debate so far has been a direct criticism of the New South Wales Government, although the motion claims that the Federal Government is out of touch, and that is what Barrie Unsworth was talking about in the quotation that is referred to. Barrie Unsworth was talking about the Federal Government being out of touch and the Labor Party having to get its act together. I am not a New South Welshman and I do not intend, therefore, to comment on the part of the motion that refers to New South Wales, but I am interested in the accusation that has been made as a central aspect of the debate, and that is the accusation that the Labor Party is out of touch with the people of Australia. It is also implied that it is particularly out of touch with its own base. I shall also deal with the Adelaide by-election and some of the claims that have been made about it. Although I am touched by the Opposition's concern for the well-being of the Australian Labor Party and the Opposition's desire to bring the Labor Party back into touch with its own base and everybody else in Australia, I find it surprising that the Opposition should have the gall to make such accusations, having substantially lost the last general election, losing four seats while the Government gained four seats. Senator Short —It is your own colleagues who are making the accusation that you are out of touch. Senator BEAHAN —I am referring to the fact that the Opposition is using that accusation against us and supporting it. It is not often that the Opposition supports Barrie Unsworth, but it has done so today. I am defending the accusations that Opposition members are making through him, or that he is making through them. Nevertheless, I find it surprising that, having lost the last general election, the Opposition has the gall to make such statements. I am also surprised-having been told by the Liberal Party's national President, Mr Elliott, that the reason it lost the last election was that the Liberal Party was unfit to govern and unfit to present its case to the electorate-that the Opposition has made those accusations. If the Government has a problem communicating with people, one can imagine the extent of the problem the Opposition has. It has no contact and no credibility with anybody in the community. That was proved in the last election; it was not disproved in the Adelaide by-election, as I shall demonstrate shortly. At least the Government has policies. What does the Opposition stand for? What are its policies? At least the Government has spokespeople who are recognised. At least the Government has unity. Who are the Opposition's spokespeople? Is it Elliott, Howard, Peacock, or perhaps Macphee? The Opposition has so many spokespeople and so few policies. It has had so many presentations of those few policies that they have become confusing, and that has affected its credibility. This was evident at the last election. The Opposition also draws a very long bow in basing its point of view on one by-election result and on a much exaggerated interpretation of comments by Premier Unsworth and others. The Government was, of course, not happy to lose the Adelaide by-election, but that must be taken in perspective. I remind honourable senators that by-elections always involve swings against governments and that many factors contribute to such swings. Timed calls-- Senator Short —Will you support timed local calls? Senator BEAHAN —The matter of timed calls and the fear campaign that surrounded it, which was mounted by the Opposition dishonestly and against its own principles, was one factor. It needs to be noted that the estimated additional swing in traditional Labor areas is an average of 2 per cent, which can be further discounted when one considers the average swing in strong Australian Labor Party seats in 1987 and the average swing in weaker Australian Labor Party boxes in 1987 votes. I estimate it to be about one per cent. Honourable senators should not fall for the hyperbole that has followed the analysis of the by-election result because a number of factors need to be looked at. The Opposition cannot take much solace from that result. I also draw attention to the hypocrisy of the Liberals in their opportunistic opposition to timed local calls. The user pays principle, along with drastic reductions in public expenditure, deregulation and privatisation-in a purely ideological way-are all central to the philosophy of the Opposition and Opposition members regularly espouse those philosophical positions. Mr Elliott has spoken of $3 billion cuts. Mr Howard has spoken of drastic reductions in government expenditure to the levels of the 1960s. He has also spoken of the need for extensive deregulation of transport and communications. Senator Alston at least had the honesty to apply those philosophies in his strong support for timed local telephone calls and also for the abolition of the cross-subsidisation policies of Telecom. Senator Short —Will you support timed local calls? Senator BEAHAN —I do not, although I certainly support cross-subsidisation. Yet for short term, politically expedient reasons, John Howard reversed this position, a position that was substantially based upon the philosophy that he has represented over a number of years. The Liberals were totally misrepresenting their position for short term political gain. Despite the Adelaide by-election result, Mr Howard cannot afford to be sanguine. The result was certainly not good for him. Polling carried out by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls for the Australian Labor Party, which I have seen, shows that Howard's public approval rating has dropped to a low 39 per cent, but what is more interesting is that the dissatisfaction rate increased from an already high 43 per cent to an abnormally high 50 per cent. In many areas a dissatisfaction rate of that level would be regarded as terminal, and one would get rid of the source of dissatisfaction quickly. I suspect moves are already afoot to do that, if Mr Elliott's frequent pronouncements are any indication. Senator Short —That swinging voters are 89 per cent against you is pretty terminal. Senator BEAHAN —I shall not make excuses for that; I have said that it is a multi-faceted matter and I shall not go into the reasons for it. However, I have said, firstly, that the Opposition can take no solace from the result and, secondly, that one can usually expect swings in by-elections so the Adelaide result is not an indication of what would happen in a general election. If a general election were held tomorrow, it would be interesting to see how well the Liberals fared. Senator Short —It was a swing of more than twice the normal swing. Senator BEAHAN —It was not a swing of more than twice the normal amount. Average swings in Adelaide are higher than the average for Australia, and swings in recent years, including State swings, have been of the order of 8 per cent. But let us consider the accusation that the Government is not addressing the needs of its base supports-which is the point I wanted to reach, the comments about the Adelaide by-election being an aside. When moving the Address-in-Reply last year I indicated that the Hawke Government can claim a remarkable range of achievements despite very difficult economic constraints caused by external factors over which it had no control. It is true that in this climate working people, that is average Australians, have had to tighten their belts, and they and the unions which represent them have shown commendable responsibility in doing this. Nevertheless, it is true that the Government has taken initiatives in areas of social infrastructure which are both substantial in themselves and carefully directed towards those in greatest need. For example, consider the question of employment. If the question of employment can be dealt with by any government, it overcomes a lot of other problems that occur in social welfare and other ameliorative policy areas of government. We have increased jobs by more than one million. The rate of increase over the past five years has been 15.8 per cent, which is more than 3 per cent a year and double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. The introduction of Medicare has given people a secure system of health care which is equal to all. We have increased public housing by 42 per cent. I want the Opposition to take all of these things into account in relation to what it has been saying about the Government being out of touch with ordinary Australians and about the Government not understanding their needs. One should also examine taxation reforms. The redistributive effect of taxation reforms, that have been brought about by the Hawke and Keating initiatives is, in my opinion, far reaching and gutsy in a way that has not been experienced before in Australian political history. I believe most Labor governments would not have had the nerve to do what the Hawke and Keating Government has done, and no Liberal government would have had the desire to do it. What the Government has done is to effect a massive redistribution of resources of wealth from the wealthy to those who are in need. I direct the attention of honourable senators to a few of those initiatives which have created the sort of wealth which can be redistributed through the social security system. The fringe benefits tax, which was so soundly attacked and opposed by the Opposition, is now working and is taking away some of the rip-offs that occurred before, and it is equalising the system to some extent. The capital gains tax, which no Liberal Government would ever think of introducing, is working and is essential for the proper and equal distribution of wealth in this country. The substantiation rules, the disallowance of deductions for entertainment allowances and a number of other initiatives are significant but I will not go into them because time is limited. We have increased social security funding in real terms despite very difficult economic circumstances. With careful targeting that has been successful. The family package is a good example of a very carefully targeted Government initiative in the social welfare area. Rent assistance, particularly for families with children, is another very well targeted social security package. The easing of poverty traps is another. Pensions have increased under the Hawke Government by 8.3 per cent to the point that now they are over 24 per cent of average weekly earnings and they are indexed so that they will maintain that level and gradually move towards our policy of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In education, substantial increases in the number of children completing full secondary education have been achieved from 36 per cent in 1983 to 50 per cent in 1987, with a commitment to 65 per cent by the first half of the next decade. I could also refer to initiatives for women in the environment that was dealt with in the debate before this. They are nevertheless certainly constructive elements of policy which are directed at our base but also at the broader needs of the Australian community-the ordinary, every day and average Australian. There is no way that honourable senators can deny that. The Government has taken a sane, sensible consensus approach in industrial relations which has given a fair deal and is far different from the dog eat dog approach that the Opposition stands for. But overriding all of this is a record of economic responsibility which is both reshaping the economy and providing-- Senator Messner —Doubled the debt in New South Wales in five years; trebled it federally. Senator BEAHAN —If Senator Messner were here before or listening to the debate he would realise that I am talking to the substance of the debate, which most people were not. I am talking about what Mr Unsworth is reported to have said about this Government's policies and this Government's lack of touch. I am talking to the debate. Very few senators have been, but I am not surprised by that given the circumstances surrounding us. Overriding all of this is a record of economic responsibility that is reshaping the economy, providing hope for the future and permitting the sorts of social initiatives that I have listed. I admit that it is difficult to convey this to the people against a backdrop of commendable wage restraint, which the Opposition, incidentally, is pledged to increase. The screws will go on much tighter under an Opposition government-it has made that quite clear. The Opposition stands for wage cuts not wage indexation. It stands for a decentralised wage systems with a dog eat dog approach, not for a centralised and sensible system by which people can get a fair deal. Against a backdrop such as that, it is difficult to convey the advantages of these and other aspects of what we would call a social wage. Yet the benefits are real and this Government has achieved them. How can it be argued that we have not addressed our traditional constituency, that we are not taking care of ordinary Australians? More important, does anyone seriously believe the Opposition would show the same care, the same finesse and discipline? It certainly shows no sign of it in its Opposition pronouncements, insofar as one can ever get policies out of them because there are so many different points of view about what is said. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. The debate on the matter of public importance has concluded. Before I move to Government Papers, could I just say that earlier this afternoon I made a remark from the chair which obviously offended, and because it did offend I apologise for that remark. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.57) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In July 1986 the then Minister for Transport, Mr Morris, directed the Bureau of Transport Economics to undertake a study of the possible impact of the closure of Tasrail. The Tasmanian Government was not consulted prior to this report being commissioned, and no reference was made to the Tasmanian Minister's office or input sought on the terms of reference. This cavalier attitude caused unnecessary harm and anxiety in Tasmanian rail circles and could have been avoided if the Minister had clearly spelt out at the time that the future of Tasrail was guaranteed. No-one would have objected to a commercial evaluation of the operations after a number of years, but the terms of reference must have been positively frightening to the workers of that organisation. I quote: . . . the Bureau of Transport Economics should undertake a comprehensive study into the effects of closure of the Tasmanian rail system. Thankfully, the inquiry found that, for several reasons, it was not practicable to close down Tasrail. In the summary of the report, the increased economic efficiency of Tasrail is detailed. Since 1977-78 when Australian National Railways took over the then Tasmanian Government railways, there has been a 75 per cent increase in freight task; an improvement in labour productivity of about 220 per cent; and a reduction of the operating loss by 54 per cent in real terms. The report says that on balance the economic analysis suggests that there is not a strong case in support of the closing of Tasrail. However, there would be a great impact on Tasmanian welfare if Tasrail were closed because it directly employs about 900 people and is a major provider of apprenticeship training in Launceston, Devonport, Hobart and Burnie. If Tasrail were closed, 870 employees would be out of work and it would cause many problems to the Tasmanian road system. The infrastructure would be severely damaged and would require injections of Federal and State funding because of the drastically increased road haulage; some products such as sulphuric acid would have to be shipped by sea because they cannot be safely carried on the roads. There has been a large influx of trucks hauling cement, limestone, logs and coal, and it would mean that those industries would have to completely restructure their operations to remain competitive. Tasrail customers would also have to pay a significantly higher freight cost. It has been stated that Tasmanian industry would have to find an extra $14.4m to cover the increased cost of transport in the 1988-89 year under the medium growth forecast outlined in the report. Such as large figure, because of the scale of Tasmanian business and industry, should alone support the maintenance of the Tasmanian rail system. I am relieved that the Federal Government has at last decided not to move towards the closure of Tasrail, and I commend it for that as that would have been a quite irresponsible decision to take given the recommendations outlined in the report. However, one must have some concern about the Government's long term commitments to the Tasrail system. These commitments must be categorically given by the Minister in the chamber at the moment, the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. It must be made clear that the position and livelihood of Tasmanian railway workers and ancillary staff involve the State. There is no basis for the Commonwealth withdrawing its support. As the report notes, the improvement in financial efficiency within Tasrail over the last 10 years is a result of co-operation between management, unions, customers and the Tasmanian and Federal governments. This review caused unnecessary alarm in Tasmania and the Government should have raised the terms of reference and handled the whole issue with sensitivity, mindful of the fact that it was dealing with a very significant employer and component of the Tasmanian economy. I commend those who took part in formulating the report, and I hope we can get a long term commitment from this Australian Labor Party Government. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.02) —I would like to supplement the remarks made by my colleague Senator Watson. I would certainly wish to give credit to the Federal Bureau of Transport Economics for the thoroughness with which it has undertaken this inquiry into the Tasmanian rail system. However, I think its recommendations needed to be much more decisive. I believe that that could have been, and should have been, the case. The railway service in Tasmania was in fairly poor shape at the time Australian National Railways took it over but now the tracks, the locomotives and the wagons are in first-class condition. More than 96 per cent of the total track is now without any speed restriction. It is as good as, if not better than, any track anywhere in Australia. There is now a complete stock of 52 locomotives, which is the best supply there has ever been, and they are in better condition than they have ever been. The wagons have been rebuilt or reconditioned throughout, and there is now no build-up of wagons requiring attention. The organisation's business has shown a compounding increase of 6.3 per cent per annum. That is a remarkable increase for any form of business. The work force is down to 876 at present. The reduction in that work force has been a remarkable operation inasmuch as these curtailing deals usually involve a lot of hardship for employees. In this case the amount of industrial trouble created has been remarkably small. There has been some; there are one or two people in the railways staff who believe that they have to keep ringing the gong to let their workers know they are there, but apart from that the changes have been made very amicably, very reasonably and over a period of time. The worst feature as far as I am concerned is that the average age of Tasrail employees is now getting too high. It does need an influx of younger people or all at one time there will be an enormous run of older staff leaving. It must be remembered that the railways themselves take the heavy freight. There is no question that Tasmania could not operate without a railway service, and this was not adequately stated in the report. It would just not be sensible to try to operate without a railway service to keep the considerable volume of heavy transport off the roads. Road maintenance would probably cost something in the order of $50m or $60m a year extra if we tried to put this traffic on to the roads, to say nothing of the disagreeable nature of it compared with the ordinary commercial and tourist traffic that already exists. An interesting figure for comparison is Tasrail's recovery rate. Ten years ago Vicrail was getting a 60 per cent return on every dollar that it spent; today it is 30 per cent. Ten years ago Tasrail was getting 30c in the dollar recovery; today it is getting a recovery rate of 70c in the dollar. This has been a fantastic recovery. I believe great credit should be given to the manager, Graeme Templer, and the staff generally for the work they have done. I support the comments made by Senator Watson and again give credit to the thoroughness with which the job was done. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.06) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I believe that the annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation is a most disturbing document. Looking back on the comments that I made last year, it was fairly clear that the year under review in this report was going to be difficult. I would also say that the following year will also be very difficult. Some of the statistics are very worrying, and the actions of the Government at a time like this have also been worrying. In 1985, 69,000 loans were insured but this has dropped to 39,000, reflecting a substantial downturn. Net premiums written in 1985 totalled approximately $19m, and that has dropped to approximately $11m. In 1985 there were $2m worth or claims and, in 1987, $25m worth of claims. These trends are most alarming. Gross operating profit in 1986 was $12m, while the gross operating loss in 1987 was $5m. So it goes on. The problem in the housing area is considerable. Whether we are in touch or out of touch, the ordinary people we have been talking about are finding that the cost of housing has become absolutely prohibitive. The number of claims is going up and up. Just over 1,100 claims were paid out during the year. These claims have been lodged by people for whom the dream has become a nightmare. The losses are very considerable and the Government's attitude in all of this is to try to make this organisation one of its milking cows. The report shows that in November 1986 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) determined that the Corporation should pay a dividend of $3.4m in respect of the 1985-86 year while he directed in May 1987 that the Corporation transfer $10m from its general reserve to capital. The Treasurer determined that $10m of the Corporation's capital be then repaid to the Commonwealth. At a time when the Corporation's reserves were likely to face the severest drain ever, the Commonwealth decided to rip out $10m to bolster its otherwise parlous financial position. The Corporation's total assets are falling rapidly. Its capital and general reserves, which totalled $27m in 1986, are now down to $12m and it is almost certain that this will be another year of heavy losses. I do not know how much lower we can let this go before we start to get very worried about the operation itself. The Corporation is not being run in a commercial way. It is one of these Government enterprises that need to be commercial; it is competing in a commercial area. The actions of the Government make it very chancy and I am disturbed that in spite of the comments made at this time last year all that has happened is that the position has become considerably worse and it is likely that next year's annual report will also review a bad year. I would like to comment on the fact that Jim Fitzpatrick retired in June 1987 and that his place has been taken by Peter Bartlett, both of whom I know very well. I trust that by next year this position will be clarified much more, but I do urge the Government not to treat this as just another milking cow and not to keep on pulling money out of it when reserves are essential. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I rise today to make a few remarks about the annual report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority, which is known by its more common name of TUTA. The Authority has had a large impact since the passage of legislation to establish it in 1975. There is little doubt that in the industrial sphere TUTA has had a beneficial impact on the trade union movement as a whole. According to this report the 1982-83 financial year saw some 474 courses conducted by TUTA, with 9,748 people participating. These figures rose to 769 and 16,265 for the year 1986-87. Over the year 1985-86 there was a rise of 9 per cent in the number of training days and a rise in the participation rate of about 3 per cent. Some 178 unions were represented in these courses, and this figure is for Australia-wide. Although each TUTA centre is represented in the capital cities, courses were conducted in 64 major regional centres. So the reach of TUTA courses to the average member of the rank and file is considerable. The comment that so often comes from the ignorance of the conservatives in Australia is that such programs are just an excuse for trade union officials to get together. In fact, the figures show quite clearly that this is not the case. Only 6 per cent of the total number of training days were taken up by full time trade union officials. Nearly 60 per cent of the total student training days were taken up by job representatives. It is pleasing to see the useful variation of courses offered. Whilst the basic courses for new job representatives are much in demand and consume slightly over half of the training days available, other more specialised courses were also made available. Ten courses were conducted for Aboriginal workers, comprising 30 days of training and catering for 218 Aboriginal workers. Attendances by women unionists represented 26 per cent of attendances at regional centres. Of these, 651 attendances were at 31 basic courses designed for women workers seeking to play more active roles in their unions. The remaining 3,148 attendances for women workers were for TUTA courses. The proportion of participants from non-English speaking countries was about 9 per cent, and basic courses were conducted for Vietnamese and Spanish speaking trade unionists. Whilst it has been customary for the conservatives in this country to attack the trade union movement, I am firmly of the opinion that an articulate, rational and competent trade union movement is essential for a democracy like the one we have in Australia. Furthermore, it is essential to give ordinary rank and file workers the opportunity to be made aware of the role of their unions and to the ability effectively to participate in the decision-making processes of the unions. Finally, it is pleasing to see that TUTA is adapting to the need to help migrants in the work force understand the trade unions and how they operate. Obviously the role of women workers is essential to our economy, and that too is recognised by TUTA courses. The benefits of TUTA's work in helping to establish a healthy and well balanced trade union movement in Australia are considerable. I commend the work of TUTA and I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(5.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to point out that over the last five years Commonwealth expenditure on all roads, whether they be national highways, arterial roads or local roads, has taken place under two programs. The first is the Australian land transport program (ALTP) and its predecessor the Roads Grants Act and the second is the Australian bicentennial road development program, or the ABRD program as it is known, the report of which we are presently debating. Both the ALTP and the ABRD program have been funded from taxes paid at the bowser by private motorists and other road users. The ABRD program has received 2c per litre from sales of petrol and diesel fuel since the program began in January 1984. Arrangements under the ALTP are somewhat more complex. When the program began in July 1985 a certain proportion of fuel excise was earmarked or dedicated to the ALTP, and the legislation establishing the program contained a provision that this proportion would be indexed so that the proportion of fuel excise dedicated to roads would keep pace with inflation. Unfortunately, that has not happened, and this is the sad tale of woe. Senator Messner —Another broken promise. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes, that is indeed a broken promise by this Government. The local authorities in Queensland are very concerned and very worried about funding for roads. I attended a meeting last Friday morning in Brisbane of representatives of 111 local authorities from the State of Queensland who were all very concerned about the real value of road funding allocations. They pointed out that the fuel tax revenue has dropped from 67 per cent in 1984-85 to a mere 27 per cent in 1987-88, which they said is the lowest percentage for more than 50 years. That is a very long time. We know that the ABRD funding program is nearing completion. As a matter of fact, that is how the report starts off. However, I am sorry to say that this Government seems to adopt the attitude that there are no votes in roads, particularly roads in rural areas. Senator Boswell —They never worry about the farmer. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —That unfortunately is one of the complaints that we have, particularly those of us who represent a big State such as Queensland which has a large rural area. Roads provide lines of communications between people, centres and States. Of course, they are the arteries for transport of people and produce. The further out one lives in a big State such as Queensland the more fuel one uses. One feels that more of the funds that are raised through the Australian bicentennial road development and Australian land transport programs ought to be given back to people using the roads. But this is not the way in which the programs have worked. The roads further out are getting worse and worse. I must say that the highways between the towns and cities are being improved. Around the cities one sees a tremendous amount of road works. I do not know whether honourable senators who fly into Canberra have a look at the beautiful roads that are being built just outside Canberra. As we came in from Sydney the other day I could see this gorgeous four-lane highway being built and I thought of the problems attached to road works out in the country areas of Queensland. I believe the users of fuel should be able to expect a fairer share of fuel tax revenue. Motorists unfortunately have become the milking cow for the nation. The milk that the Government gets from them in the form of money does not all go back to the cows that are milked, I am sorry to say. We need good roads. We need good roads throughout Queensland. Councils need funds to keep their gangs employed. We need good roads for tourism in Queensland, for transporting of grain harvests, for transporting of cattle and for all the big transports that are used. The maintenance of existing roads is a real headache. I feel quite sure that everybody in the Senate, particularly senators from both sides of the chamber who represent Queensland, would hope that when the present ABRD program finishes the Government will see its way clear to make more funds available for roads. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. We are debating the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation at a time when the ABC is in crisis. That is not just a statement from the Opposition but it comes from the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation itself. A Press release dated 10 February, only a week or so ago, by Mr Bob Somervaille, the Chairman of the Board, was issued with agreement of the Managing Director, Mr David Hill. It said: The Board also: declared that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation can no longer adequately fulfil its obligations under the Charter set down by Federal Parliament. That is bad news for Australia because everyone in this country knows the very great degree to which Australians depend upon a reliable, independent broadcasting service from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The Corporation serves not just metropolitan listeners, who may represent in a sense minority listeners in the whole community, but also those audiences in the far flung parts of Australia, in the rural areas and in the outback and beyond. It also, of course, represents a substantial part of the development overseas of a regard for Australia in that the ABC is also responsible for the Radio Australia programs which as we all know present Australia in a very good light and, indeed, are very important to the development of Australia's image overseas. It has come to the point now where it behoves the Government to make at the earliest possible opportunity a firm statement about the future funding directions of the ABC. This is another case of the Hawke Government fiddling while the whole ABC, in this case, burns down. Very little attention is being given by this Government to the needs of the ABC. One has to look at only one or two numbers to understand the depth of the problem. The ABC is approximately $120m in backlog in the capital development programs it needs in order to keep up with modern developments. That $120m has to come from somewhere. The Government apparently is reluctant to enter into any definite program as to the future directions of the ABC. What this means virtually is that the ABC's capital investment and equipment are falling down around its ears. One does not have to visit too many branches of the ABC-I am thinking particularly of television-to understand the depth of the problem. The fact is that equipment is breaking down almost continuously and is not being upgraded because there is simply a lack of money available from the Federal Government. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia would like to see a firm statement from the Government as to future funding. There are many options and we do not have time to canvass them now, but clearly it behoves the Government to look at those things and to make a firm statement as to the future direction of the ABC in the interests of all Australians. The ABC is a national institution of very great importance in this nation. It behoves the Government to ensure its success and continued viability and to ensure most of all that it operates with an independent and even-handed program policy in regard to the presentation of current affairs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The time allowed for consideration of Government Papers has now expired. Debate resumed. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(5.27) —This is an important report and also, I think, a very valuable one. I congratulate the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the work it has put into it. It was given only a short time to prepare a report on this complex subject and I think it has served the Senate very well. It is a credit to both the Committee itself and I suspect even more to the Committee staff who normally do the great bulk of the work in preparing such a long and complex report as this. As most honourable senators will be aware, I am very much in favour of referring complex Bills such as the War Crimes Amendment Bill to a committee for consideration where there can be public input, questioning and cross-examination of witnesses. I think out of it much better legislation results. The fact that this Committee has been able to report so promptly and has not significantly delayed the Bill is to the credit of the Committee and also shows the way in which much more Senate legislation should be handled. The Committee made a number of recommendations on the subject. It was dealing with only one aspect of the Bill, a point I will come to in a moment. The aspect it was dealing with was the quality of the evidence on which the alleged war criminals were to be charged. Since much of this evidence will come from communist controlled countries, Eastern Bloc countries, there are real problems here. The KGB is certainly not above skilled forgery. The Committee has recommended that any witnesses from these communist controlled countries should give evidence in court before a jury and be subject to examination and cross-examination if necessary. The Committee also felt that there should be no prosecutions for war crimes unless the Government was satisfied that the defendants would have access to defence witnesses, were able to visit the sites of the alleged crimes and would have access to documents needed for their defence. Finally, the Committee recommended that legal aid should be given as necessary to ensure a fair trial. We must recognise that these trials, if conducted, will be extremely expensive. There is no way an ordinary defendant could afford to conduct a proper defence of his own unless he was extremely wealthy. These three recommendations were the unanimous view of the Committee. They should, I believe, be accepted by the Senate and by the Government. There is a problem in this regard. If they are accepted, as they should be-and I do not see how anyone can seriously argue that any of those requirements are not necessary and appropriate to ensure a just outcome-I think it is quite possible that no cases will be brought to trial. That may be the outcome; I do not know. Even if they are adopted, that does not mean that the Committee has solved all the problems. There are two other areas of serious doubt in this Bill which the Committee has not examined because it was not given the task of examining them in its terms of reference. I refer to one area which is mentioned in passing in the report-the definition of war crimes; the ones that could be prosecuted in our courts. They range from murder and rape to wounding and being, by act or omission, in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in or party to the commission of such crimes. The war criminal can even be prosecuted if what he did was required or permitted by the law in force when or where the act was committed. These requirements, I believe, should have been examined by the Committee and will have to be examined very carefully by the Senate, because they appear to me to go far beyond what could usefully or properly be prosecuted in an Australian court under a retrospective law. In evidence to the Senate Committee, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC, said that the definition of serious war crimes would permit lodging of charges in circumstances that would be quite inappropriate and that he had decided to narrow the investigations to murders and mass murders. This seems sensible, but I am afraid that it does not entirely eliminate potential problems. I will give one extreme example. What about an Australian pilot bombing Germany as part of a force that raised a fire storm in Hamburg or destroyed Dresden? Can he be charged? It would be no defence to say that he was acting under orders. We may find that we have created for ourselves a terrible monster. Another aspect which is seriously questionable about this Bill that was not canvassed by the Committee report is the question of whether it is appropriate for war crimes to be confined only to those committed in the Second World War, which ended 42 years ago. What has happened about all the other wars? Since 1945 there have been 70 wars. Ten are still going on now. We have taken in migrants from many countries in which wars were going on. For example, what happened in Pol Pot's Kampuchea was worse than anything that happened in Hitler's Germany. We have taken in 14,000 Kampuchean refugees. Are any of them war criminals? I do not know; I am sure that the Government does not know. This Bill does not allow us to deal with them, if we are serious about it. Because of the special problems of extradition, the problems of evidence, the problem of whether people get a fair trial, it is normally not appropriate to send alleged war criminals back to the country in which the crime was committed. What we are doing is giving Australian courts the power retrospectively to try these offences which were committed in foreign countries by people who are now Australian residents. But if we are doing that because of special circumstances, it seems to me that it should apply to all war criminals and not just ones of a particular war that ended 42 or 43 years ago. I think it is important that we get this right. One could make a case for saying that the whole business of war criminals is too difficult; we will extradite people when we are satisfied that they will get a fair trial, otherwise it is not our business; our laws do not extend beyond Australia and we cannot deal with them. Alternatively, we could argue that because very serious crimes are involved and because the extradition process relating to the country in which the offence was committed is not usually workable, we have to try them in our own courts. Surely that argument should apply to all war crimes, not just to the particular group that happened in a war that ended 43 years ago. This Bill has very serious defects and I think we have to tackle them. I am sorry that the Committee, because it was not given the power by the Senate, did not continue its excellent investigation into the other very doubtful aspects of this Bill so that we could have an informed debate on it. I am sure this Committee report will enable us to have a very sensible debate on the problem of evidence. I wish we could have the same amount and quality of material before us when we debate the other questionable aspects of the Bill-that is, the definition of war crimes and why this Bill is limited to one particular war when there have been 70 wars since 1945 and many migrants have come from areas where those wars were going on. I think it is illogical for us to do this. The Bill is extremely difficult, complex and potentially socially very divisive. We must be quite sure that we get it right or do not touch it at all. The passage through the Senate of an unsatisfactory, defective Bill would be very damaging to the Australian people. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.36) —As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, whose report we are addressing today, I simply want to make a few very brief comments. As a member of this Committee only since the election last year-a new member and a non-lawyer-I would like to comment on the process, which other speakers commented on in the debate earlier today, which was undertaken by this Committee. There was a very short time frame in which the Committee had the opportunity to address the issues. Those issues were limited, as has already been said, by the terms of reference which were given to the Committee. It was my feeling from the very beginning that the limitation of those terms of reference might be so stringent that, in effect, the Committee might be unable to make any real contribution to the issues surrounding the War Crimes Amendment Bill as a whole. As it turned out-and I would like to thank fellow members of the Committee and certainly the staff of the Committee-I believe that the public hearings, the evidence that was brought before us by way of other submissions, and the deliberations of the Committee itself, meant that in spite of the very restrictive nature of the terms of reference, we have been able to give a considered judgment. It is one which I think will be of assistance not only to the Senate in its deliberations but also to the community, which we recognise has a great deal of concern-as rightly there should be-about a very sensitive piece of legislation. It is quite an experience for a non-lawyer to serve on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Senate. It gives one a strong sense of being not only a politician but also a legislator. I would like to stress those aspects of the report which lay great emphasis on the Committee's belief that the due processes of the legal system as we know it in Australia are very well served to be the jurisdiction for the trials which might take place as a result of the passage of this legislation. Given that fact, the Committee felt that it was worth while to make some recommendations-all of which have been well canvassed in this debate-for, perhaps, caution in relation to evidence which might be brought forward in relation to war crimes as they would be defined under this legislation. We were very careful, however, not to get into the exercise-which Senator Cooney warned us about earlier this morning-of having any kind of breakdown regarding what is a very important separation of powers between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. It was a very fine line to tread. We were urged by some witnesses to take a stronger line, and that the Parliament should give direction to the judiciary in this circumstance. I, for one, resisted that advice quite strongly. However, we have come up with some cautionary notes which, as other speakers have said, will be of interest in the debate which is yet to come. One recommendation is that special provision be made for legal aid in the event of prosecutions proceeding under this legislation. That is something which the Parliament as a whole, and governments of whatever colour which might be in office while any such trials are taking place, need to take very seriously, not just from the point of view which the Committee was addressing, that is, the point of view that anybody involved in these trials will need to be supported-it will be a very expensive process-but also from the other end, the point of view of the situation facing legal aid in Australia at the moment where funds are very limited. Resources are very stretched. Further limitations which are very discomfiting to people working in the area are already in place. This may be one of the major challenges ahead of us subsequent to the passage of this legislation. I draw to the attention of the Senate this recommendation which will need to be met and which future governments will have to take on board. I have considerable sympathy with the comments made by Senator Hamer with regard to the restrictive nature of this legislation. He tells us that there have been 70 wars since 1945. I urge people to look at the report which gives a very clear background to the arrival of this legislation before the Parliament, involving a special set of circumstances and particular reference to a particular period in which Australia was officially at war in certain theatres of war. I do not believe that it would be beyond this Parliament or any government to bring before the Parliament future legislation should similar concerns arise with regard to people living in Australia who may have been involved in crimes of any sort in any other war. As officially we do not appear to have been at war-we do not appear to be at war now-since 1945 we would have to use terminology other than war. So it is an ongoing concern. It has been an experience of considerable interest to me as a member of the Committee. I congratulate the Committee staff for the work that they have done and thank them for the backup and support they have given the members of the Committee. I also congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Bolkus, on his elevation to the Ministry. It will be quite a challenge for the Government to provide the Committee with a new member of such stature as Senator Bolkus. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.42) —in reply-I think I will be closing the debate on this matter so I will also take the opportunity to thank the staff of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for the excellent work they have put in to helping us produce this report within a very tight time frame. Having met the time constraints of the Senate we have perhaps set an example to other committees and, I would like to think, helped the Senate in its deliberations. I also thank all the Committee members for the way in which they constructively approached what I believe was a difficult task. Certainly I found it one of the most difficult tasks I have had to face during my years in the Senate for the reasons that were well put by Senator Chaney in the debate this morning. It is a highly emotive subject with a great deal of stress on both sides of the debate. Those who suffered from the Holocaust obviously are still very much entitled to expect those who are guilty of offences relating to it to be brought to justice. I can quite understand that. In many ways I support that sentiment. But, on the other hand, there are those within our community who fear that they may well become the subject of some sort of show trials who may have suffered a great deal in the war. They and their communities are deeply concerned about this prospective piece of legislation. Their stress and concern were certainly brought forward to the Committee. So it was not an easy task. I feel confident that we have put before the Senate and before the Government the concerns that they have expressed and also, I believe, some constructive solutions to lessen those concerns. I wanted to use this opportunity to make a few personal comments. Senator Hamer, in my view, was quite correct when he pointed out today that our Committee certainly was not dealing with all the difficulties that the Senate faces in relation to this piece of proposed legislation. Certainly there remains outstanding the question of the selectivity of the Bill, the fact that it relates only to a particular period and to particular regions within the world. He is quite correct in saying that many others have suffered from war crimes in many wars and why do we selectively choose a particular war and a particular designation of criminal. I think his case is well made out. It is a case that has not as yet been adequately answered by the Government. I hope that the Government will seriously address his concerns. The other area Senator Hamer raised which is also outstanding-both areas are outstanding because they were beyond the terms of reference given to our Senate Committee-is that of the definitional problems, the crimes with which these people might be charged. They were dealt with to some extent in the evidence before the Committee. I hope that the Government and its draftsmen will look at that evidence and realise that there are major problems with the definitions as set out in clause 6. If the Government is to proceed with this Bill we would hope that many of those problems would be overcome before the Bill returns to the Senate. A couple of areas cause me particular concern. The longer this inquiry went on the more concerned I became. Firstly, it became apparent that trial or prosecutions under this Bill will continue only for a limited period. I think it was Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who pointed out how resources are limited and that a matter like this can be ongoing unless it is restricted in some way. What concerns me about that is that there are obviously, therefore, going to be a limited number of prosecutions during this specified period. Not necessarily the worst of the criminals, if I can put it in those terms, are going to be prosecuted but rather those who are easiest to prosecute. That may be because there are those on whom evidence is readily available or more accessible or because witnesses happen to be in Australia as opposed to being in Eastern European countries or the Soviet Union, or for a number of different reasons that do not relate to the seriousness of the offence. I, for one, am one senator who will be most concerned if what happens as a result of this proposed legislation is that there will be a limited number of show trials in order that this Government can show that it is treating the matter seriously and those who may have committed the more serious of the crimes, if I can put it like that, are absolved simply because the Government has not the resources or the time to get around to the more difficult cases. That, in my view, is not justice. I am concerned that it may occur in this case. The second area that causes me considerable concern is that, although we were not permitted under out terms of reference to look at specific cases, I gained the impression as the inquiry went on that perhaps in terms of chiefs and Indians those who were being examined as possible defendants in these cases very much fall within the category of Indians. As I said, the definitions are extremely broad. What they could mean is that someone who had the task of locking the wagon doors in the railway yards for the poor, unfortunate persons who were being sent off to slave camps could well fit within the category of a war criminal under this Bill and may well be prosecuted under the Bill. That would cause me concern. I hope that those who are being prosecuted are those who have had the independence to make decisions or who have acted in a sort of extra-abhorrent way rather than those who, as I said, I would describe as simply the Indians in this terrible process that took place as part of our history. But I am concerned on the basis of what was put to us. It is rather those who fall within that latter category who will be the subjects of these show trials. If that is so, again I, as one senator, express considerable concern. Having said that I want to make it quite clear that I do not believe time absolves those who have committed horrible crimes. Because these crimes were committed a long time ago, over 40 years ago, I do not believe that these people should escape justice. If we have mass murderers in this country who have come to this country after the last World War, I would like to see them brought to justice. I do not believe that they should be extradited to Eastern European countries and to the Soviet Union. For one reason I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe they should be tried in Australia and, therefore, to provide a mechanism whereby that can happen is perhaps a good course of action to take. What we have tried to do in this report is to stress that justice is a two-way street and in the hype of these trials that is going to develop-in many ways they will become media trials with extremely emotive evidence of what happened in these horrible scenes in Europe at the time of the last World War-we must also remember that we have a responsibility in terms of justice to those who are put on trial. We stress in this report that for those who are put on trial that must only occur if this Government can first be assured that they are going to be given a fair opportunity to put their defence. What that will mean in these cases where the evidence is in the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries is that this Government must first be satisfied that these defendants will be able to go to these countries and examine and determine their witnesses. Honourable senators must remember that the defendants would not have seen these people for over 40 years. They should be assured that they are there and that those who are critical to their defence are able to come to Australia to give evidence. The Government should be assured that they have access to archives in these countries in order to prepare their defence and that they have access to sites necessary in preparation of their defence. In other words, they should be treated as criminals would be in any other criminal case in Australia and accorded the same standards of justice that we would apply to any other defendant in a criminal case in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —For the information of honourable senators, I present a letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in response to the Senate's resolution of 24 November 1987 concerning the work of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. With the agreement of honourable senators, the letter will be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Dear Mr President Thank you for your letter of 27 November conveying the Senate's resolution concerning the deaths of Aboriginals in custody and supporting the work of the Royal Commission. The Commonwealth is determined to do all that it can to prevent further deaths occurring. On 10 September 1987 it convened a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for police and corrective services. That meeting considered a draft code of practices and procedures designed to prevent further deaths in custody. A meeting of the Australian Police Ministers Council on 27 November commended the draft code and urged its implementation on an interim basis pending further consultations with Aboriginal communities and legal services. The draft code addresses the matter of the safety of Aboriginals in detention. It urges that the detention of Aboriginals should be avoided where possible. Where this is not possible special measures should be taken for closer supervision, ready availability of medical assistance and the presence of a friend or companion where an Aboriginal prisoner is at risk. In addition, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has endorsed the amendment of procedures and conditions attaching to the granting of bail. The implementation of reforms should reduce the numbers of Aboriginals under detention. All State administrations are now fully alert to the problem and, although the recent deaths to which you refer are regrettable, I am aware of several incidents in which prompt action has prevented deaths in custody. I appreciate the deep interest and concern of the Senate in this matter, and take this opportunity to assure you of my personal commitment and the Government's determination to improve the circumstances of Aborigines in respect of the criminal justice system. Yours sincerely Gerry Hand Senator The Hon. Kerry Sibraa President of the Senate Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(5.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill is the centrepiece of the Government's child support scheme. The common experience of many Australian families over the last 10 years or more has been that separation of parents leads to a dramatic and sustained drop in living standards for the custodial parent and children. For many custodial families this has added the trauma and distress of poverty to the difficulties experienced because of the breakdown of the marriage. Experience around the world shows that there are three elements essential to the eradication of poverty for sole parents and their children: Flexible and effective programs to assist the sole parents get and keep jobs; effective assessment and collection of child support providing the custodial parent with security that child support will be received regularly and on time; adequate public income support integrated with labour market measures and child support. The government is committed to ensuring that by 1990 no Australian child need live in poverty. The child support scheme is central to achieving that objective. Other programs in the social security and employment education and training portfolios complement the child support scheme by helping to meet the Government's objective of adequate support for Australian children by 1990. Under the first stage of the child support scheme we will effect fundamental reforms to Australia's child support system. We will make the legal right of children to be supported by both their parents a real right. We will turn what for most children is an empty promise into solid regular financial support. The child support scheme will also substantially reduce Commonwealth expenditures on pensions and benefits. Seventy per cent of children of separated parents do not receive regular cash maintenance. Over half of the estimated 800,000 children in poverty in this country are in sole parent families. This scheme will increase the number of families receiving maintenance, increase the level of that maintenance and will ensure that it is received on a regular basis. The enforcement of child maintenance has been recognised as a significant social problem in major Western countries, like the United States. While those countries have adopted various collection mechanisms, the problem has continued and they are interested in the approach we are about to adopt in this country. We are indeed fortunate to be in a unique position to be able to use our family law, taxation and social security powers under the Constitution to integrate a national system. In addition to the Child Support Bill 1987, it is necessary to enact two other pieces of legislation to give full effect to the first stage of this scheme. The recently enacted Family Law Amendment Act 1987 will provide for child maintenance obligations to be given priority over all commitments of non-custodial parents, other than those necessary for their own support. That Act will also put an end to the practice of maintenance being essentially nothing more than a top-up to social security benefits by preventing the courts from considering social security eligibility when making orders that relate to maintenance. A further Bill, which it is proposed to bring before the Parliament later this sitting, will amend the Social Security Act 1947 to provide for changes to the way maintenance is treated in the social security system. I turn now, to outline briefly the essential features of the Child Support Bill. Effective collection of maintenance has never been achieved in this country. The only way to ensure that children receive the support to which they are entitled is by a collection system that does not depend on voluntary payment. The deduction of maintenance automatically from salary or wages guarantees, in the vast majority of cases, that regular financial assistance is provided. The Bill will establish a Child Support Register which will record details of maintenance liabilities that will be enforceable under the Bill. There will be a Child Support Registrar who will be responsible for the administration of the Bill and the keeping of the Child Support Register. Under the Bill, the Child Support Registrar will be the Commissioner of Taxation. The Registrar will administer the Bill through a section of the Australian Taxation Office to be known as the Child Support Agency. A Child Support Agency within the Australian Taxation Office is best equipped to perform this task for three reasons- the Tax Office has an existing relationship with employers, who under the scheme of the Bill will be required to deduct maintenance from the salary or wages of liable employees; the Tax Office can best trace those persons who seek to avoid their obligations under the Bill; and the Tax Office has substantial experience in the enforcement of financial obligations. The Bill is drafted in such a way that all child maintenance liabilities that are payable on a periodic basis under a court order or a registered maintenance agreement are registrable on the Child Support Register. The Minister for Social Security's statement on 24 March last year outlined the parameters that would be applied to limit the population to be covered by the scheme. The Child Support Agency will collect periodic child maintenance that relates to children of parents who separate after the commencement of this Bill, or-where the parents have not cohabited-to children born after that day. In all cases where the person receiving the maintenance is in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit, the Child Support Agency will be able to collect the maintenance. The Child Support Agency will take over the functions of State collection agencies. It will collect any orders lodged with those agencies on the date their functions are taken over. It is proposed to establish these parameters by regulation so that if in the future there are sufficient resources to extend the scope of the scheme, it will not be necessary to amend the Bill. A significant feature of the Bill is that in the vast majority of cases maintenance will be deducted automatically from the salary or wages of liable parents. The effect of this automatic withholding is that regular payments are assured to custodial parents. The Government rejects the suggestion that automatic withholding be imposed only when default in payment occurs. Overseas experience is that a default will almost certainly occur in the two years after an order for payment is made. Stigma attaches to automatic withholding if it is imposed upon default and this would detract from the success of the scheme. The enforcement of child support has been recognised as a problem in the United States since the mid-1970s. Those States that have adopted less effective collection mechanisms to overcome this have found that the problem has continued. In some cases, it will simply not be possible to impose automatic withholding and in these cases the liable parent will be required to pay the maintenance directly to the Child Support Registrar. The Bill also provides a statutory mechanism which ensures the payment to custodial parents of moneys paid over to the Registrar. The Bill contains strict secrecy provisions for Commonwealth officers and employers regarding any information obtained through their involvement in the scheme. It is intended that family privacy will be protected to the greatest extent consistent with ensuring regular support for children. The Bill provides comprehensive appeal and objection rights to all parties affected by the registration of a maintenance liability covered by the Bill. Since the Minister's announcement of 24 March last year, the Government has decided to extend the scheme to cover spousal maintenance where that maintenance is payable in conjunction with registrable child maintenance. In addition spousal maintenance will also be collectable by the Registrar in respect of individuals who are 45 years of age or over and in receipt of an income tested pension, allowance or benefit. This additional category of maintenance is an acknowledgment by this Government of the difficulties that persons in this age bracket may have in securing a satisfactory form of income support. Spousal maintenance will also be collectable where the order or agreement has been lodged for collection with a State collection agency and the Child Support Agency takes over those functions. The revenue effect of these measures was estimated for 1987-88 budget purposes to be net gains of $7.6m in 1987-88 increasing to $192.8m in 1989-90. Finally, I would mention that the Government intends to improve on this first stage of the child support scheme with the introduction as soon as is practicable of a system of formula assessment of maintenance obligations. Effective collection of maintenance is only part of the problem. Levels of child support awarded by the courts or agreed upon by parents have been consistently inadequate when compared to the real cost of raising children. The provisions of the Family Law Amendment Act 1987 giving child support a priority over all other commitments of the parents, other than those necessary for their own support, will in part redress this problem. The Child Support Consultative Group, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Fogarty of the Family Court, will be soon advising the Government on elements of that formula. The child support scheme is a major initiative of this Government of which Australians can be proud. It may be the forerunner for other countries to examine in addressing the real problem of child poverty. I commend the Bill to the Senate. In doing so, I present the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The Acting Clerk-Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.57) —I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of two papers in the list of papers just tabled by the Acting Clerk. Leave granted. Senator BOSWELL —I move: That the Senate take note of the Proclamation dated 19 January 1988 made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Regulation amendment as contained in Statutory Rules 1988 No. 2 and made under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Just a few seconds ago the Acting Clerk of the Senate tabled a proclamation in the Senate which will stop logging in the World Heritage area under the World Heritage legislation of 1983. This Labor Government has sold out the people of north Queensland. It has destroyed between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs by that proclamation; it has destroyed an industry worth $33m; and it has ripped the soul and the livelihoods from many people living in the World Heritage area. The workers of north Queensland who work in the logging areas have every reason to feel that they have been betrayed by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) which they traditionally support in both Commonwealth and State elections. This Labor Party has deserted the working men and women of north Queensland. If there is a lesson to be learned, the Labor Party should have learned that lesson in the Adelaide by-election two weeks ago. Clearly, the electorate said to the Labor Party, `You no longer represent us any more. We cannot trust the Labor Party to look after our interests in this national Parliament'. Therefore, they deserted the Labor Party in droves. What is happening now is that the Labor Party is representing trendy minority groups-feminists, conservationists and a mishmash of other minority groups. It no longer represents the working man and woman of Australia. Honourable senators have only to look at today's Sydney Morning Herald to see that many of the Labor Party people are jumping for the lifeboat. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell, is very vitriolic in his attack on the policies of the Labor Government. Even the honourable member for Bowman, Mr Sciacca, who is in my area, is saying that he no longer wants any World Heritage area listing on Stradbroke Island. He wants to protect the jobs of his constituents. The honourable member for Hinkler, Mr Courtice, has said that he wants jobs in the sand mining areas of Byfield, and so we can go on. The change is already happening in the Labor Party. Members and senators realise that they are fighting for their political lives. They can see that the winds of change are blowing. They can see that their majorities will be halved and that they will be removed from this Senate and from the House of Representatives as the people realise that they are no longer represented by the Australian Labor Party. I want to say something to the present President of the Labor Party, Mr Mick Young. Now that he has got time because of his retirement from the House of Representatives, I say to him, `Mick, go down to the local pub. Go down to where there are some working class people and nominate them for the House of Representatives because there are no workers in this Parliament.'. I just did a quick exercise today on the front bench of the Labor Party: Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, lecturer in law; Senator Bolkus, lawyer and research officer; Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commence, barrister; Senator Gareth Evans, barrister and solicitor; Senator Walsh, member of the squattocracy; Senator Cook, member of the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council and a union hack; Senator Robert Ray, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Communications, also a union hack; Senator Richardson, General Secretary of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales; and Senator Reynolds, the Minister for Local Government, lecturer in law and married to a lecturer in law. Senator Reynolds is supposed to represent north Queensland, the people who work in the northern areas of my State. She has neglected them. The only person who represents the working class people is Senator Devlin from Tasmania. At least he was a good waterside worker and he represents the workers of Tasmania. This Senate is devoid of any people who represent the working people of Australia. It there were some senators here who could represent the people in the $16,000 to $23,000 income bracket, those senators would be able to tell the front bench of this Labor Party what it would be like to go on the dole and what it would be like to tell one's children, `Sorry, son or daughter, I have not got a job. I cannot give you any pocket-money. I cannot pay the rent or the grocery bill. The Labor party has taken my job. It has destroyed me. It has devalued my house. It has destroyed the town you live in-and I voted for these people last election'. That is why the Labor Party needs some working class people to tell it what it is like in the $16,000 to $23,000 income bracket, a position that none of those opposite have ever been in. I am terribly worried about the people of north Queensland. They did have a working class member of the ALP in Senator Harradine but the Party threw him out. He would have been a good representative of the ALP and would have told honourable senators opposite what the people in the $16,000 to $23,000 income bracket feel-but he was thrown out. The whole exercise of world heritage listing in north Queensland is nothing but a sham to attract the greenie vote. In the Government's lust for power, it has given no thought to the people of my electorate in Queensland who will be devastated by the proposal. Despite this, the Government has pushed through and declared an 877,000 hectare area of Queensland. I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate the shabby way this has been done. Senator Richardson issued a Press release and said, `There shall be no more logging in north Queensland'. He did it by Press release-not by going to this Parliament. Senator Richardson then said, `If you do not stop logging there will be no compensation. There will be no compensation if you disobey my Press release'. That type of action might be all right in the right wing of the ALP in NSW but it definitely does not cut any ice in the Parliament of Australia. So, by Press release and pressure we built up such a case that Senator Richardson had to go to the Governor-General to seek a proclamation-not because he wanted to but because he was forced by Press release. He went to the Governor-General when Parliament was in recess so that we could not debate the issues. He was not man enough to bring forward the proclamation while this Parliament was sitting. That is not the way for the ALP to carry on. The Labor Party has admitted that Senator Richardson spent $300,000 on consultancy fees-$300,000 of taxpayers' money for socio-economic reports and environmental impact studies. Yet Senator Richardson admits in a Press release that none of these reports has been brought before the Parliament. He is not in receipt of any of the eight consultancy reports that he requested. He has said to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), `I want you to destroy between 2,000 and 3,000 people's jobs. I do not have any scientific evidence or any socio-economic impact studies to say how we will replace those jobs. I do not know where we will place the people. I do not even know whether the forest husbandry that the Queensland Government was using when it was taking only 10 trees per hectare, every 40 years, is detrimental or degrading to the forest. All I want you to do is list the 877,000 hectares because the Labor Party is going to win votes in an election'. That is what the whole, cynical exercise is all about. If Senator Richardson had any scientific proof, he should have presented it to UNESCO before he sought listing. He should have put the proclamation before this Parliament and let the elected representatives of the people of Queensland debate the issue before he asked UNESCO to list. But in his haste to list this area he has not done any of those things. He has gone to UNESCO and said, `List this area without any scientific or socio-economic reports and without the matter being debated in the Parliament'. He has put UNESCO in an untenable position. I have written to UNESCO and have said, `You have the right to protect the environment of the world but you also have a duty to protect the living standards of my people in Queensland'. Senator Richardson has done neither of those things. It is a cynical exercise to win votes and destroy the livelihood, hopes and aspirations of the people in north Queensland. It is a disgusting exhibition. The people in Adelaide reacted against it. The people of Port Adelaide, in another two weeks, will again have a chance to tell the Government what they think of the Labor Party's destroying 2,000 jobs. The Labor Party, that is supposed to represent the working man and woman of Australia, is destroying between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs. Let me talk about some of the reports that have been listed. Eight consultancy reports have been requested by the Government but only two reports have been listed. There was a report from the Anthropology and Sociology Department of the University of Queensland and the School of Australian Environmental Studies at Griffith University. That report was scathing. The study identified massive loss of jobs, a decline in business, the creation of economic and financial uncertainty and increasing strains among families within the proposed world heritage listing area. That was a report requested by the Government. It was an interim report and I will table it in Parliament. The findings have been backed up by the release of an independent report by Professor Percy Harris, a Professor of Economics at the James Cook University in north Queensland. The report identified a number of problems, including loss of employment, from migration of population, decreases in the value of capital assets, a drop in the use of local government facilities, a loss of community identity and social disruption of the local community. The only other report that has been listed was the tame cat report of Dr Aila Keto, President of the Rainforest Conservation Society of Queensland. The Labor Government paid her $13,000 to produce the report. Fancy accepting that as a report with any credibility. She is a biochemist, not a forester. She has no ability to make any professional judgment on the World Heritage listing. There are two reports that have been devastating to the World Heritage legislation, yet the Government has ignored them. I am glad that Senator Walsh is in the chamber because he will have to foot the bill for something between $60m and $100m. That is what the compensation will cost the Government if it meets its commitments. Senator Walsh is on record as saying that he does not have a clue what it will cost. The Government has ignored consultancy reports and the Parliament of Australia and, by Senator Walsh's own admission, he has no costings of the World Heritage listing. The Labor Government has an open chequebook approach. I blame Senator Richardson, who has such a pragmatic character that he does not worry about anything except winning, and winning at any cost. He has said, `I want to win elections and if it costs $100m of the taxpayers' money, I am prepared to pay that price'. That is what Senator Richardson thinks of the working-class people of Queensland and Australia. The proposal is a sham to win votes. Of course, the Labor Party claims that it tried to consult the Queensland Government and that the Queensland Government would not talk to it. I shall put on record what happened. Approaches were made to the Queensland Government on the World Heritage area and it was indicated that 877,000 hectares would be listed, and that that was not negotiable. The Queensland Government was told that if it wanted to discuss compensation and jobs, the two Governments could work together, but that was the extent of the talk between Senator Richardson and the Premier's Department in Queensland. It was a gun at the head attitude. This Government indicated that it did not want to consult the Queensland Government on what areas would be listed. It said it was prepared to talk about compensation. It is no wonder that the Queensland Government said, `If that is your attitude, we are not prepared to talk to you about anything and we will fight it out in every avenue and every area we can'. There are no reasons, no environmental impact studies and no reports to suggest that husbandry of the forest by the Queensland Government was damaging the Queensland rainforests. The timber industry has been operating there for more than 100 years. It was set up to take away the excess of timber for farms, but the Queensland Government reduced the forest take from 190,000 cubic feet to 60,000 cubic feet on its own volition to sustain logging in the forest. This Government has ignored all the scientific approaches. Independent foresters were prepared to give their own opinions, but everything has been neglected. No one has looked at any scientific evidence. No scientific reports have been presented to the Government because Senator Richardson has said that he will not receive them until February, yet the listing has taken place. UNESCO has been asked to do the listing. I advise UNESCO to be careful as it is not protecting the environment but being used as a tool to win seats for the Labor Party. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(6.17) —After that tirade of abuse and misinformation by Senator Boswell, I fell I must set the record straight. In the first place, Queenslanders should be proud, as all Australians are proud, that the area has been listed as a World Heritage area. It is an important listing. Many people on the face of the earth would be happy if their areas were listed as World Heritage areas. Very many of the people of Queensland are happy about the listing, so Senator Boswell does not represent even the majority of people in his own State. Senator Boswell —I polled more than 7 per cent of the vote. The National Party has 38 per cent of the vote, and you get 7 per cent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! I ask Senator Boswell not to interject while Senator Sanders is speaking. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The same argument occurred in Tasmania over a World Heritage listing. Even the Robin Gray Government now admits that the listing of the area has provided a great economic boom and resulted in massive tourism. It has revived the town of Strahan, as it will revive other world heritage listing areas. Listing of a World Heritage area helps the tourism industry. I have just been talking to two people who came from Cape Tribulation, an area with which I am sure Senator Boswell is familiar. They said that property values in areas included in the listing have been increasing because people are now realising the potential of tourism in the preservation of those magnificent areas. Honourable senators have heard much about jobs. Senator Boswell referred to 2,000 jobs. I do not know how he arrived at that number of jobs. I know how the number of jobs was calculated in Tasmania. If there were 30 jobs involved, the number was increased by a multiplier, and then multiplied again, to give a vast number. Let us look at what is happening in the whole forestry industry not only in Queensland but around Australia. In the past 20 years jobs have been lost. The industry is in a shambles because of overcutting in all States, including Queensland. Rainforests timbers are running out. One can no longer buy specific species of timber as one used to be able to do. One must now buy a mix. The industry has cut out all the valuable sawmilling timber and is now cutting timber that it would not have considered cutting 20 years ago. The forests are being depleted of commercial stock. The forest industry is in ruins in many areas. In areas I have visited it is suggested that the mills may run for only two or three years and then the jobs will definitely be lost. It makes perfect sense to stop while there are still trees left to attract tourists, and to divert people from the sawmilling industry into the tourist industry. Some of those people may have difficulty getting jobs, but new job opportunities will open. Instead of being an area that people will leave because there are no employment opportunities, people will be flocking there to build facilities for tourists. It is time we took a good hard look at what this World Heritage listing really means. It will mean that once again Australia will be on the World Heritage map. We already have the World Heritage areas of the Franklin River in Tasmania and the Great Barrier Reef, which is a major attraction, and now we will have the wet tropics. The wet tropics are unique in the world. They deserve saving and should not be sacrificed on the altar because it might cost a few hundred temporary jobs. What we have here is a remnant of a once vast forest. It is a vast treasure-house of scientific information, of tree species and of genetic engineering for the creation of pharmaceuticals and new chemical products. It is a museum of the past. Some of these tree species go back 200 million years. They were dinosaur fodder. It is a tribute to the Labor Government that it has seen fit to preserve this area because it sees its value. The arguments raised by Senator Boswell were emotional but not based on any scientific fact. I understand the emotions of some people from that area. They feel that they have been deprived of their sovereignty, but I think, as time goes on, they will recognise that this World Heritage listing will be the best thing that has ever happened to north Queensland, as the other listings have been one of the best things to happen to Australia. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(6.22) —I was unimpressed by the tirade from Senator Bos- well-- Senator Boswell —I didn't think you would like it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Boswell, you are not even in your seat and I have warned you before about interjecting. Senator BURNS —I was unimpressed by what he said and also by the way in which he said it. I questioned his motives because I understand the way he operates and I have heard him speak in the chamber on other issues. I say thank God for the conservationists. They are the people who have put before this country the need to care about and preserve our environment. I am not suggesting that everything they say is correct. Some people talk about environmental extremists and that is the case. There are extremists in every area of pursuit and especially among people who have ideas that they try to persuade other people to accept. But then again most things of a progressive nature in this country and in other countries have come about because of people who had fairly extreme ideas and after being subjected to the fire of argument had to temper those ideas in order to come up with a more rational view. I believe there must be some balance in regard to the protection of the environment because we could protect it to the extent that all mankind would disappear. Senator Stone —Would you speak to Senator Richardson about that, then? Senator BURNS —But the trees may still be there. I would speak to Senator Richardson, but I am sure that his knowledge and the knowledge that he has at his fingertips are far greater than that contained in my mind and to which I have access at the moment. Senator Boswell said that the forest has been logged for the past 100 years. I would challenge anybody in this chamber or elsewhere to suggest that timber-getters and loggers in the past 100 years have given a damn about our environment or about the trees and conservation of any part of this country. All they were concerned about was cutting down logs and making a quid. They were not concerned about future generations or if there would be anything left. In more recent times people who have been trained as foresters in the area of forestry have some sort of balance about the issue. They want to look at managing the forest so that there can be some harvesting of timber, but the future will be guaranteed by protecting the forest generally, providing for regeneration and also examining the question of creating new forests by being involved in projects by forestry authorities in the various States. There has been a great hue and cry about all the jobs that are being lost. I suggest that there are many hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in this country because of the philosophy of the now Opposition, the then Government, in terms of rationalisation in industry. In championing the idea of trying to continue and enlarge the export of primary products and to keep Australia as a primary producer of raw materials to export throughout the world they have tried to trade that off by buying manufactured goods. Many of the people that I have represented over many years have suffered job loss in respect of that. I have not heard Senator Boswell utter one peep. All he is worried about and all he says is, `You have to compete and if you cannot do that, it is too bad, you will lose your job'. Senator Boswell talks about the Labor Party not representing the workers. He would not know. I speak from experience and I have done so over some 30 years. I also had experience in watching and being involved in the sandmining industry when sandminers would just knock down every bit of vegetation, ruin the whole ecology, and leave it like a billiard table. Not once did the sandminers consider the environment or care what would happen in the future to some of those pristine areas that will never be replaced on this earth. They were then forced to do something about it because of the activities of conservationists and the role played by the trade union movement and those progressive people in the Labor Party. I must say that Malcolm Fraser, probably in opposition to the National Party, finally took away the export licence for Fraser Island. So we now have Fraser Island somewhat intact, even though I think the trade-off was about exporting uranium. The facts are that trade unions that have been involved with members who have lost jobs in the manufacturing industry and other areas no longer say today, `We just have to have those jobs, that is it, no matter how efficient we are or how we operate'. They are now looking at ways in which they can become more efficient. They are looking at ways in which they with employers will be able to play a role in industry to become an effective enterprise that will enhance the economy of this country. Senator Boswell might make similar suggestions to people in north Queensland because if they are left to their own devices they will destroy every stick of rainforest in this country. The percentage of rainforest left in Queensland compared with what used to be is very small indeed. Areas of rainforest country have been destroyed. It has been destroyed not only by loggers but also by people who have cleared the land for pastoral or agricultural use. Senator Sanders was absolutely correct. As time goes on, they will find that it will be a valuable asset to this country for people who live here and for other people throughout the world who want to see what we have in Australia. Those jobs that will be generated as a result of the policy of the Labor Government in respect of rainforests will be permanent and ongoing jobs. I suggest we should all collectively try to assist those people who have found themselves without jobs and not try to create enmity and problems where a confrontation can take place. They should not create a situation where an orderly and reasonable Minister who goes to Queensland to talk about the problems, to try to create a situation of understanding, to give guarantees about assistance for those people, is attacked physically and has to return on the next occasion with some federal police to protect him. Senator Boswell —He is a wimp. Senator BURNS —That would not worry Senator Boswell because he was part of the National Party Government which supported the police when they used to get physically stuck into trade unionists and university students when they marched for the right to march and the right to express democracy. He talks about representing the workers and the ordinary people. He would not know how; he never will know how; and he has no desire to change. I suggest that anybody who listens to his diatribe about such things would reject his arguments out of hand. The decision to list that area was a brave and correct one. I wholeheartedly support it and reject all of the stupid, inane remarks made by Senator Boswell. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.30) —When this debate on the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill was adjourned earlier today I had outlined the fact that the Bill is based on two scores. Firstly, it clearly represents the incompetence of the Government in that it is reintroducing legislation that it wiped out four years ago, and the legislation that it wiped out four years ago was legislation passed by the Fraser Government. That surely represents incompetence in the first place; but in the second place, this Bill is a part of the Australian Labor Party's clear campaign of abandoning traditional Labor policies and instead moving in many areas-though not nearly enough-towards adopting those policies of the Opposition which clearly are to the benefit of the Australian people. This legislation is to turn Australian Airlines, the old Trans Australia Airlines (TAA), into a public company. When this Bill was introduced in December of last year the Minister for Transport and Communications, Senator Evans, said: 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 Australian for its future role by: establishing the airline as a public company; providing for reorganisation 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. That, in simple terms, is exactly reversing the legislation passed through the Senate by this Government in 1984 which of course wiped out a situation which the Fraser Government had created in 1981. Senator Evans went on: 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. So here we have this enormous endorsement by the Labor Government of the concept of having TAA, or Australian Airlines, operating as a company structure. The Minister continued: 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. The Opposition says `Hear, hear!' to all that. It said `Hear, hear!' to all that when in 1981 it introduced exactly the same legislation. It said `Hear, hear!' to all that when it opposed this extraordinary Government's decision in 1984 to cancel the legislation which created a public company structure for TAA as it then was. Of course in those days, when the public company structure legislation was passed by the Fraser Government, members of the Labor Party violently opposed the move, saying the most extraordinary and severe things which were totally contrary to what Senator Evans said when introducing this Bill. In fact, the Government's spokesman on transport in the House of Representatives, Mr Peter Morris, said: The formation of TAA into a public company is an ill-conceived, expensive and unnecessary gimmick. The legislation constitutes a squandering of public resources by the Prime Minister in his latest manoeuvre to head off yet another rebellion by Government back benchers. This is indeed extraordinary. I suppose one could say that we welcome the fact that the Labor Party is prepared to change its more asinine policies, but this is just a total reversal. I refer, for example, to the comments made by Mr Beazley less than four years ago when he wiped out the Fraser Government legislation which he is now embracing. I believe that is worth restating to the Senate to remind it and the people of Australia of yet the latest example of this Government giving up its basic Labor principles, its basic Labor policies, and instead adopting those policies which the Liberal and National Party coalition Opposition has been stressing are the best policies for Australia. Of course we have heard the nonsense expressed about the competence, the ability, of this Government's front bench and yet here we have another example, the latest, of that front bench and the Hawke Labor Government abandoning its long held policies and embracing those, which are of course the right policies, presented by the Opposition. Here we have a situation where legislation introduced and passed by the Fraser Government and wiped out by the Labor Government is now being restored. It is interesting to note the manner in which this restoration is taking place, because when in May 1984 Mr Beazley, who was then the Minister for Aviation, moved that the Australian National Airlines Commission Retention Bill proceed-in other words, legislation wiping out the company structure that was passed by the Fraser Government-he said that the legislation is to `remove any doubt that Trans Australia Airlines will remain a statutory authority of the Commonwealth'. Of course that policy does not exist now, so it is a big change, is it not? He said: Legislation was introduced in 1981 to repeal the Australian National Airlines Act with the specific purpose of setting up TAA as a public company. It was clear that the aim of the whole strategy of transforming TAA into a public company- that is, the strategy of the Fraser Government- was to sell it off to private interests. . . . It is the Government's view- that is, the view of the Hawke Government- that there is nothing to be gained in setting up TAA as a public company. It is the stated policy of this Government that TAA will remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth. That is what Mr Beazley said in 1984. I wonder why in this latest legislation where the Government is restoring Australian Airlines to public company status, going back to the Fraser Government law, that undertaking given by Mr Beazley in 1984 that it is the stated policy of this Government that TAA will remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth is not repeated? It is significant that the lefties of the Labor Party who are being kept under control at the moment because they have managed to do a deal to get Senator Bolkus elected to the front bench are clearly under constraint as part of that deal. No doubt they have been told to avoid attacking the Government on this issue, because the far left wing members of the Labor Party would certainly want to see a restatement of the policy that Australian Airlines should remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth. After all, if the Government wanted it could remain wholly owned by the Commonwealth, as it could at the moment by simply converting it from a statutory authority to a company in which the Commonwealth owns all the shares. But the absence of that undertaking is, I believe, of major significance in the current situation. In 1984 the Labor Government said, through its Minister: We see no reason to subject TAA to the turmoil and dislocation of transforming the Commission into a company when it can operate just as efficiently and with full accountability to the Government and the Parliament in its present form. Nor can we justify to the taxpayer the very significant costs that would be incurred in such a transformation. This Government will retain TAA in full public ownership as a statutory authority. In this it can remain an arm of Government policy to ensure that the best interests of consumers are served. We have had not one word of explanation by the Minister who introduced this legislation or by any of his acolytes who have got up and spoken-there has been only one so far and I believe that only one other is to speak-of why what was right in 1984 is now wrong according to the Labor Party. It would be very nice if the next speaker for the Labor Party, a representative of the Socialist Left, were in fact to tell us why what the Minister said in 1984 is no longer acceptable. It is incredible to me that in 1984 the Hawke Government was saying this through its Minister: . . . the Government wishes to pursue a logical and structured approach to the future of the Australian domestic aviation industry. We will not pursue change for change's sake . . . Our aims are to ensure that the interests of consumers are properly protected and that the aviation industry is provided with the stability necessary for its future development. The retention of TAA in full public ownership and as a statutory authority is an essential precondition to the achievement of these aims. According to the Government then, an essential pre-condition to TAA serving Australia properly was for it to remain a statutory authority. Can we please have from the Government some explanation of why that no longer holds? We did not believe it at the time and we said that it was a lot of nonsense. But would it not be decent of this Government, having taken a total reversal, a total change of policy, to explain why, to have the decency perhaps to apologise to the Australian people and to the Opposition for having rejected our original legislation, for having opposed it violently, for having then wiped it out when it got into office and for then having the temerity to come back without explanation, without justification and with the arrogance and lack of concern that I think is now the trademark or the hallmark of Labor administrations around this nation? We can look at New South Wales to see another example of that kind of arrogance. Here the Government is wiping out all its statements, all its explanations of why it was necessary to restore TAA as a statutory authority. That was in 1984, and now everything it said is proved to have been bunkum and baloney and at last it is following the right course. We just regret that in those four years the attempt to improve the environment and provide a decent environment in which the airline industry in Australia can proceed has been delayed. It was a waste of four years, while this Government decided first to show its incompetence and ultimately to face reality and to abandon its traditional Labor policy on this matter. As I said, we told the Government in 1984 that what it was doing was ridiculous. Mr Spender, who at that stage was our spokesman on this matter, said: The retention of TAA as a statutory corporation, with all the special treatments and guarantee of existence that that status confers on it, is at odds with an attempt to inject into TAA some of the efficiencies and disciplines of the private sector. That was the general approach we adopted then. It is the approach we adopt now. It is regrettable that the Labor Government is now belatedly adopting, as I said, a strongly held and long held policy position of the Opposition. Let us deal with this matter of privatisation. As I said, the prospect of the privatisation of Australian Airlines is now very real indeed. It has been raised by many media representatives. The absence of a guarantee that Australian Airlines will not be sold, will not be privatised, from this legislation-after all, there was such a guarantee in 1984-is, I believe, a significant admission by this Government that it does intend ultimately to sell off Australian Airlines, or at least a part of it, once again following the policy lead set by the Opposition. I suggest that the comments made by Labor speakers so far that there is no necessary prospect of privatisation or sale of part of Australian Airlines are clear and self-evident nonsense. The Opposition has for a long time advocated the sale of government assets to the private sector. In 1985, Mr Howard, in a National Press Club address, described the goals of privatisation as being two-fold: firstly, to achieve a more efficient balance between the public and private use of our resources; and, secondly, to improve the quality and choice of services available to consumers. In response, the Hawke Government then launched a vicious attack on the Opposition's privatisation proposals. In fact, in July of 1985 Mr Hawke himself commented that privatisation: is a one-off fire sale, a sale of the century, of your assets-the assets of the people of Australia. They would transfer them into the hands of a privileged few, to the cost of every one of us. Despite this, in his May 1987 economic statement, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced the sale of long term leases on all the Commonwealth's international airport terminals, the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard, the sale of a substantial portion of the Government Aircraft Factories in Victoria and the sale of surplus defence property. He announced the sale of part of our embassy site in Tokyo, Commonwealth Government offices in Sydney and Melbourne and other property. In addition, of course, there have been media reports indicating that the Government is planning to privatise 10 major statutory authorities, including Australian Airlines. Only very recently there was a front page story in the Australian to that effect. So here we have once again the reversal of long held Labor policies by this allegedly competent and efficient Government, the abandoning of its policies and the adoption, belatedly, of policies that the Opposition parties over many years have been stressing are vital for the good government of Australia. When we look at the reversal of policy in this case, we find that it is only part of a general reversal of policies on many matters where the Government belatedly has had to admit that the Liberal and National coalition was right all the time. For example, the Labor Party has congratulated itself on having introduced foreign banks, when in fact when in government Mr Howard, as Treasurer, had been advocating the entry of foreign banks since the release of the Campbell Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System that he had commissioned. Not only that; in January 1983 he had in fact called for applications for foreign bank licences. At that time Mr Keating, who now claims credit for introducing foreign banks, criticised the proposal, stating that Mr Howard was representing the interests of `foreigners at every opportunity' to the detriment of `the little Australian'. Mr Keating also warned against the `loss of national autonomy over the economy in areas such as the exchange rate, interest rates and money supply' that would be caused by foreign bank entry. Eighteen months later, perhaps one could say 18 months too late, the Hawke Labor Government introduced exactly what it had blocked the previous Government from doing, what it had opposed with vigour and what it had been so personally insulting to John Howard about when he sought to introduce it. This sort of cant and hypocrisy by this Government which continually rejects the policies of the Opposition, continually attacks them and then sneakily later on adopts them totally is represented in this legislation here today. Here we have, as I said earlier, legislation which simply restores legislation passed by the Fraser Government in 1981 which was wiped out by a doctrinaire, nonsensical Hawke Government in 1984 which at last has recognised that what is needed to improve this industry is this kind of legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(6.50) —The Senate is debating the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill 1987. In October last year Senator Gareth Evans released a statement announcing the Government's intention to deregulate the airline industry. The aims of this new policy were to increase airline responsiveness to consumer needs, to widen the range of fares and types of services offered and to increase competition and efficiency while maintaining Australia's world class safety record. The Bill now before the Senate is but a small part of that process. It deems Australian Airlines to be a company incorporated under the Australian Capital Territory companies code, thereby changing its status from that of a Federal government commission as it now is to that of an ordinary company with a share capital. The Bill also removes a number of government controls over the airline. Australian Airlines will be able to make its own expenditure decisions on all matters except those which are so significant as to require a further injection of capital by the Federal Government. It will be able to determine its own terms and conditions of borrowing, leasing, investment of surplus money, choice of auditor, provisions for dividends and risk insurance-just those modest, simple, obvious and natural things that any corporation seeking in any way to have a capacity to make proper commercial judgments has. It is claimed that this will give the airline flexibility to face the coming challenge of a deregulated domestic market. It almost certainly will and for that reason the Bill receives my support and the support of the Opposition, subject, of course, to the amendment that has been moved by Senator Messner. I do not criticise the Government's moves towards deregulation; I criticise it because it simply has not gone far enough. It is not possible to examine the shortfalls in this Bill without considering them against the background of the airline industry as a whole. Broadly speaking, Senator Gareth Evans's statement, Domestic Aviation: A New Direction For The 1990s, announced the end of the two-airline policy. He said that when this occurs at the end of the three-year notice period it will be open to anyone to start an airline to fly whatever routes he so wishes using whatever aircraft type he chooses and charging fees that he judges to be competitive. The two inevitable limitations were the constitutional inability of the Commonwealth to regulate purely intra-State airline services and that the Commonwealth would retain responsibility for safety regulation. The statement contained three other crucial limitations, each one of which, of course, has relevance to the Bill presently before the chamber. They were the Government's failure to announce that it would sell Australian Airlines to the private sector in whatever form; its continued restrictions on the role of international airlines in the domestic market; and the limitations on investment in Australian domestic airlines by foreign international airlines. I am not suggesting necessarily that they are a prescription that the Opposition supports but they seem to me to be matters that ought to be put on the table and debated openly and properly before conclusions are drawn. However, given the enormous infra- structure of Ansett Airlines, there seems to be no easy way of providing it with adequate and proper competition without in some way providing a competitor which has the capacity to compete with it on a financial basis. The crucial importance of the retention of these limitations within a general framework of a deregulated airline industry is that rather than increasing competition they close it off, leaving the Australian domestic market wide open to domination by Ansett. There are only three immediate ways that the Government can ensure that Ansett does not dominate the domestic market. The first is to ensure that Australian Airlines is as strong as possible and able to compete in the open market without having one hand tied behind its back; the second is the use of international airlines, particularly Qantas Airways Ltd, to carry purely domestic passengers on the domestic legs of its international flights; and the final way is to allow international airlines, whether Qantas or otherwise, to establish Australian domestic subsidiaries. These are not judgments or measures that we necessarily support but they are matters that ought to be raised and debated. It seems to me they are necessary at least in part in some form or mix if we are in the short term to have proper competition for Ansett. I turn now to Ansett Airlines. The position of Ansett is crucial to any decision about Australian Airlines if the Government is serious about wanting a flexible, competitive airline industry. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the dominance of the two major airlines in the current domestic market. Leave granted. The table read as follows- GROWTH RATES FOR SELECTED PASSENGER INDICATORS: FULL AIRLINE LICENCE OPERATORS, 1983-84 to 1985-86 Operator Revenue passenger-kilometres Carrier total 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86a Growth 1983-84 to 1984-85 1984-85 to 1985-86a ('000) % % Australian Airlines... 4,263 4,416 4,907 3.6 11.1 Ansett Airlines... 4,281 4,647 4,835 8.5 4.0 East-West Airlines... 352 506 622 43.7 22.9 Air Queensland c... 54 69 64 27.7 -7.7 Airlines of South Australia... 47 48 36 2.1 -24.6 Ansett W.A.... 441 449 462 1.8 2.9 Ansett N.T.... 52 53 57 1.9 7.5 Air N.S.W.... 196 209 260 6.6 24.7 Total... 9,690 10,397 11,243 7.3d 8.1d a. 1985-86 data provisional only. b. Australian Airlines experienced serious industrial stoppages in 1983-84. c. Much of Air Queensland's growth is attributable to transfer of some commuter services to airline standards. Data exclude SAL services. d. Percentage change in industry total. Note: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding. Sources: DoA 1984, p. 142; 1985b, p. 89; 1986a. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the Senate. Ansett and Australian Airlines each control slightly more than 40 per cent of the market at present but when one takes into consideration the regional airlines one sees that Ansett Airlines owns, controls or has an interest in airlines covering almost 60 per cent of the total industry. Ansett has shown throughout its history that it will swallow up competitor airlines or at least bring them under its influence. It has made acquisitions including MacRobertson Miller Airlines, which is now Ansett Western Australia, Air New South Wales, Ansett Northern Territory, Queensland Airlines and Butler Air. Ansett owned Airlines of South Australia until it ceased operations in 1986. Some of its services were taken over by Kendall Airlines. Kendall Airlines is partly owned by Bodas Pty Ltd, which is jointly owned by News Corporation and Thomas Nationwide Transport (TNT), the beneficial owners of Ansett. Bodas also owns Aeropelican, the Newcastle to Sydney commuter. Eastern Airlines is also partly owned by East-West Airlines Ltd, which is now being acquired by Ansett. However, I am aware that the Trade Practices Commission has said that Ansett has to divest some of the East-West operations. Nonetheless, it was the one airline that showed any potential to be a real competitor to the two major airlines we presently have. In Australia, the Ansett Transport Industries group owns Gateway hotels, Ansett Pioneer coaches, Ansett Wridgways and Diners Club. Ansett's overseas interests include Ansett New Zealand. Ansett owns 90 per cent of Transcorp, a newly established freight company running from Hong Kong to Sydney with a single Boeing 707. Ansett also runs airlines on behalf of the Cook Islands Government and Western Samoa. The company is also presently negotiating with the Uruguayan Airline, Pluna, on a joint venture to run domestic air services in that country. Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services is a branch of Ansett which has only recently been established. It will be leasing new Fokker F50 turboprops, Boeing 737s, Airbus Industrie's A320 Skystars and old F27s and 727s from the Ansett fleet. One has to remember that Ansett is jointly owned by Thomas Nationwide Transport, the biggest land transport organisation in the world, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, which is one of the biggest media organisations in the world. TNT has ordered 72 BAE 146 air freight jets from British Aerospace, tying up the company's total production in that line of aircraft for the next five years. I am not criticising the Ansett group by any means, I am just setting out the enormous capacity and infrastructure it has in Australia and the supporting infrastructure it has overseas. I am sure that its success can be attributed to a great deal more than simply the protection it has received under the two-airline policy of the Australian Government until now. There is certainly nothing wrong with Ansett being the size it is and being able to diversify. Under no circumstances would I suggest that that corporation ought in any way to be broken up. Against the backdrop of such an enormous and powerful company like Ansett, the Government must ensure that Australian Airlines is able to compete as effectively as possible if we are to have any hope whatsoever of a free and competitive aviation market. That, of course, is not likely to be the case if the Government remains moribund regarding privatisation. As was mentioned in the report of the May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation, Australian Airlines has always faced a number of constraints stemming from the fact that it is owned by the Government. It has had to obtain Cabinet approval to purchase new aircraft. It has had to obtain Loan Council approval to borrow. Australian Airlines must follow Federal Government purchasing policies and the salaries of senior management are set by the Remuneration Tribunal. Some of these constraints will go, as I mentioned, under the legislation. Some, of course, will be retained. The most crucial of these is the Federal Government's involvement in the provision of equity financing to Australian Airlines. The balance sheet in the 1986-87 annual report of Australian Airlines shows that total equity for the group from the Commonwealth Government is just over $186m. Actual paid-up capital is only $130m. Expansion has been predominantly debt financed, leaving Australian with a high debt equity gearing ratio and with the constraint of regular interest payments. Neil Smith, the airline's Chairman, said in April last year that the airline had been informed that it needed a capital base of at least $300m, which means that it needs an additional injection of another $170m. My guess is that that figure has substantially increased since April and it may well be heading towards $250m. The Chairman said that obviously the Government did not have $170m to play with. He suggested that the sale of shares to the public could provide Australian with the capital that it very badly needed. This is no ideologue talking. It is simply that the Chairman of the airline recognises what the Australian Labor Party (ALP) refuses to recognise-that is, that Australian Airlines needs capital which the Government is unable to provide. The Government can talk all it likes about flexibility of public company status, but if it starves Australian Airlines of the capital it needs, it will never be able to compete effectively with Ansett. Australian desperately needs an improved capital base for the improvement of its airline fleet. Australian, as we who regularly fly with the airline know, is still flying DC9 aircraft which Ansett was able to abandon years ago. It still flies the old F27 Fokkers which, again, have been hived off by Ansett to its regional airlines. Ansett is, naturally, ahead of Australian in purchasing the more efficient 737 aircraft, yet the technology on these aircraft is continually being improved. Areas of improvement to aircraft, as we all know, include aerodynamic design, weight reduction from better materials for aircraft construction, more efficient engines and better flight systems, which, of course, make for more precise operation of flights and improve efficiency, economy, safety and, most of all, profitability. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the improvements that are expected to be made in aircraft in the 20 years from 1972 to 1992. Leave granted. The table read as follows- KEY FACTORS IN THE ECONOMICS OF INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT (Index 1972=100) 1972 1982 1992 Aircraft payload ... 20.4 35.2 45.8 (tons) ... (100) (173) (225) Average stage ... 1,448 1,761 1,937 (km) ... (100) (122) (134) Average speed ... 661 672 684 (km/hr) ... (100) (102) (103) Load factor ... 51 58 64 (%) ... (100) (114) (125) Aircraft utilisation ... 2,190 1,970 2,200 (hrs/yr) ... (100) (90) (101) Fuel efficiency ... 862 1,366 1,819 (ATK/ton of fuel) ... (100) (158) (211) Sources: 1972 and 1982 from ICAO Circular ``A Review of the Economic Situation of Air Transport-1972 to 1982''; the Economist Intelligence Unit, Special Report No. 229 ``Transportation Oil Demand to 2000''; estimates made by the authors. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —In light of these changes, if Australian is to face problems in trying to get a mere $170m out of the Commonwealth, what possible hope is there of keeping up with and providing very real competition for Ansett when the Ansett group spends billions of dollars on aircraft? I find it the ultimate irony that those rabid left wingers of the ALP who normally have no end of energy for raving on about the evils of capitalism seem absolutely determined through their refusal to contemplate the privatisation of Australian Airlines to hand over aviation to a virtual monopoly. The very fact that they are starving Australian Airlines of capital, and that they are disallowing it from being a private company is guaranteeing, in a very real sense, the prospects of monopoly for Ansett Airlines. Why the Labor Party wants to place the ball and chain of public ownership around Australian Airlines is beyond me. I can only imagine that some of the hopeless romantics still cling desperately to the tried, failed and discredited notion that one can socialise the industry. Despite the fact that airline privatisation has occurred or is occurring in Britain, South Korea, Japan, West Germany, Spain, Italy, Singapore and Turkey, the old head in the sand socialists of the ALP still pine for the democratic socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It is epitomised in no better way than in their attitudes towards TAA, or Australian Airlines as it is now known. In another area of industry, even the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association has recognised that public enterprises will wither and die if they do not get the capital they need and they are not likely to get it from this Government or from any other government. Meanwhile, the members of the Government rely on the rhetoric of leaving the great institutions built up over the decades to our children. I note that the May report made the point that Ansett Airlines has consistently produced a higher profit and a better return on assets than Australian. So not only does Australian face a bleak future, thanks to the Government's ideologues, but it seems that it is even starting out behind the eight ball. Of course, I have been at pains to point out to a government committed to the deregulation of domestic airlines how hopelessly inadequate this Bill for the conversion of Australian Airlines to a public company is without those further steps of privatisation. Whilst discussing the inadequacy of the measures before the chamber, for the sake of completeness I touch upon the failure to include international airlines in the deregulation plans. In his airline statement, Senator Gareth Evans said that the Government would allow Qantas to interline. Of course, as we all know, this is the practice whereby airlines can carry overseas passengers on domestic legs. For instance, if a passenger purchased a ticket from Kuala Lumpur to Sydney, he could take a Malasian Airline System flight to Perth and then travel by Qantas to Sydney. This is an effort to overcome the ridiculous situation which currently exists whereby inbound Qantas flights from Europe to Sydney may offload passengers at Perth and then fly from Perth to Sydney three-quarters empty. While interlining of international passengers is undoubtedly an improvement-modest as it is-it still does not cover people who wish to make purely domestic journeys. No passenger wishing to undertake a purely domestic Perth to Sydney journey can board a Qantas flight. As we all know, there are people who buy tickets from Perth to Wellington and from Wellington to Singapore who are able to fly from Perth to Sydney in that roundabout way using Qantas. Of course, it is a very difficult route. We therefore have the ludicrous situation of about 17,000 empty seats each week on Qantas flights. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table indicating the level of unused Qantas seating capacity each week between Australian ports. Leave granted. The table read as follows- CAPACITY OPERATED BY QANTAS ON DOMESTIC SECTORS AS PART OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICES DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 1985 Sectors Seats per week Available Used (Rev. Pax) Unused SYD-MEL... 8,898 3,146 5,752 MEL-SYD... 9,715 3,086 6,629 SYD-BNE... 1,708 906 802 BNE-SYD... 1,798 927 871 SYD-PER... 685 276 409 PER-SYD... 685 287 397 BNE-CNS... 858 215 643 CNS-BNE... 865 247 619 TSV-DRW... 400 146 254 DRW-TSV... 408 140 268 ADL-PER... 440 198 242 PER-ADL... 458 216 242 Total... 26,918 9,790 17,128 Note: All figures are in term of seats per week (year round averages) Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —This is a ludicrous waste of resources. It equates to Qantas flying 40 empty aircraft around Australian skies every week. Of course, it denies Australians cheaper transport in a country in which distance has always been a national obstacle. Most of all it harms Western Australians, for the simple reason that we are farthest from most other parts of Australia. Qantas has indicated that it can carry passengers from Sydney to Perth for about $100 each way. We are presently paying $400 each way for an economy ticket. Qantas has carried domestic passengers before. For a period until 1976 Qantas could carry passengers from Darwin to Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne. This was not successful because the condition attached to being able to fly passengers from Darwin to these ports was that Qantas charged no less than a normal first class fare plus one-third. I think it made a profit of $12,000 in one year. International airlines carry domestic passengers in the United States. An inbound United Airlines aircraft from, say, Sydney to Los Angeles going on to New York can pick up Los Angeles-New York passengers. Rather than passengers going through Customs checks at the end of their journey all passengers are cleared through Customs at the first port of entry. Then they are able to travel comfortably and freely on all subsequent sectors as if they were domestic passengers. Despite the predictable opposition to such a proposal from Ansett Airlines I note that Ansett has been only too happy to enter the New Zealand market where the dominant competitor is Air New Zealand, which operates both international and domestic services. Ansett has also purchased 20 per cent of the Arizona airline America West and operates in a country where the artificial barriers between international and domestic flights have been removed. In its response to the May report Australian Airlines did not favour international airlines carrying domestic passengers. It was, however, quite happy to see it occur if the international airlines first sold their seats to domestic airlines and the domestic airlines were then able to on-sell them to the traveller. One can assume that the positions of Ansett and Australian Airlines did not spring from any matter of principle but simply from a desire to protect their own interests. It ought not to be forgotten that Ansett and Australian Airlines were the only organisations, to my knowledge, to forward submissions to the May inquiry supporting the present two-airline policy. International flights could never completely replace domestic flights. They face longer checking times, suffer very extensive delays and naturally do not operate as regularly. They are, therefore, never likely to be particularly attractive to business travellers. They may be attractive to families, tourists and students. The carriage of domestic passengers by international airlines would inject a very real sense of competition into the domestic market post-deregulation. It would improve the viability of international flights and improve the services to the smaller international airports, possibly leading to the establishment of more international gateways which would otherwise be considered not viable. I understand that this week alone 100 senators and members are waitlisted seeking to travel from Melbourne to Canberra next Monday to return to their place of work. But the airlines are not putting extra aircraft on because they have a monopoly. There is no stimulus to ensure that the airlines are compelled to put extra aircraft on and to compete because if one airline does not have to put them on the other airline does not have to put them on. The May report noted that allowing international airlines to carry domestic passengers may increase the number of departures from small international airports, as I have said. The alternative to not allowing this is that many international passengers will have to travel hundreds of miles to international airports, often then only to travel back over the same ground on an international flight. It may also result in more international flights stopping at two ports. If this were the case one could expect more flights to stop at Perth en route west. This would naturally increase tourism and mean that more Australians would see more of their own country rather than going overseas. Currently an economy fare to Sydney on Ansett or Australian Airlines costs $888 return. It is possible to obtain a reduced Apex fare of $577 return but this requires 30 days notice. Senator Gareth Evans —Come on, wind it up. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Evans clearly is desperately short of time for reasons which, admittedly, escape me. I have spoken about Qantas. There is no logical reason why this should not apply to other aircraft, irrespective of their flags. With the indulgence of the Minister I conclude by saying that if the Government stops and looks at its aviation policy it will see the dangers that it holds for the aviation market. Its policy of deregulation is sound but it is the buts which follow it which give the word deregulation such a hollow ring. It has said deregulation but not privatisation of Australian Airlines, and without any international carriers carrying domestic passengers and deregulation, but without the ability of foreign international airlines being able to invest in Australian domestic airlines. It has, as a result, virtually handed over the domestic aviation industry to Ansett Airlines on a plate. The tragedy is that one suspects that if the Government does not change course this will happen very shortly. In the event that it does happen there is no possibility of any other real competitor coming into the market. This Government ought to be condemned for not having the courage to move forward, in the way which I understand Senator Evans would wish, completely to privatise Australian Airlines, to allow it to have a proper capital base, to make autonomous decisions and, at this late stage if it is possible, to be really competitive with Ansett Airlines. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(7.18) —The Opposition highlights or tries to focus on what it believes is a departure by the Labor Party from its principled position on many things. But we are not a fossilised party. We are a party that thinks on its feet. We have a very good leader in the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), a good front bench and a thinking and thoughtful back bench. We will never be in a position where we will not be thinking about different ways to serve the people of this nation. I think Australian Airlines is the finest internal airline in this country. It would never have been brought into existence without the decision of the Australian Labor Party Government some years ago. It has an excellent standard of service. Reference has been made to the Fraser Government's legislation which was disallowed in 1984 and there has been some accusation about ALP doctrinaire attitudes. Again, what may have been appropriate yesterday is no longer appropriate today and what is appropriate today may not be appropriate in a week's time. We look at things on their merits as they stand and take the necessary and appropriate action at the time. The Hawke Government is an excellent manager of our resources and our economy. It sees this legislation as a first step towards a better and more efficient airline. That is the difference between this and the Fraser legislation. We want an airline to be proud of but an airline that is not on the road to privatisation. Senator Messner —It is not different. Senator BURNS —Senator Messner was kind enough to advertise to everybody that I very much oppose the privatisation of Australian Airlines. I would like to say to everybody in the community and put on record here and now that I have worked in opposition to privatisation. I shall continue to do so, subject to the restraints of democracy and majority decisions, obviously. Ownership appears to be critical in the minds of Opposition members. They talk about our being opposed to a commercial operation. I suggest that because the airline is owned by the Government this does not mean that it cannot be efficient. One could not by any stretch of the imagination talk about a socialised industry in the terms that are suggested by the Bill. What the Opposition talks about in terms of competition is the anarchy of competition in a restricted market where people vying for a market that is too small for two will destroy themselves, their shareholders and in the process badly damage possibly the other company or organisation that seeks to operate in that area. As one of the speakers opposite has said, the role of Australian Airlines should be to serve the people of Australia. I agree with that. It should do so as a Government owned enterprise, managed by an enlightened management, practising consultative processes with an excellent, caring work force. I believe that this legislation will enable that to occur. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(7.21) —It looks like the numbers are against us on the rhetoric of the second reading amendment that has been moved by the Opposition but that the numbers are with us on the substance of the Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Bill. So under those circumstances I shall bear with such fortitude as I can command the gales of rhetoric that have been coming across the chamber and respond very briefly, nonetheless, to indicate why the Opposition amendment is misconceived and sit down in order to enable the Bill to go through its remaining stages before we adjourn at 7.30 p.m. If I were to respond to every one of the hares or rabbits that have been set running during this debate it would, of course, take rather longer, but I think most of the contributions have not really been all that much to the point of this legislation and we can dispense with those formalities. The first element in the Opposition's attack on the legislation in the second reading rhetorical amendment is to decry the hypocrisy allegedly of the Government in introducing this legislation to incorporate Australian Airlines against a background of having, in 1984, acted to repeal similar legislation set in train but never brought to fruition by our predecessors. I do not think it is hypocrisy to take a position on one occasion and then change one's mind if further and better information and argument comes to hand and a better Bill with it. That is not a sign of hypocrisy; that is a sign of maturity in Government. It is a much better Bill this time than was the case before, as is evident from the fact that the then Government's Bill-that is, the present Opposition's Bill-although enacted in 1981 still had not been proclaimed by the time we came into office in 1983 because it was so riddled with technical faults and flaws involving as it did a fundamental change in the character of the organisation in the course of its transition to the incorporated status that it was simply incapable of implementation in its present form. The particular technical approach that we have adopted which deems the existing statutory authority to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act is an approach which involves the need to transfer assets, to assign contracts, to reformulate staff terms and to change existing loan guarantees. It is much more streamlined and sensible legislation and, as such, deserves the commendation rather than the jeers of the Opposition by comparison with its own meagre efforts of yesteryear. A number of different changes in the aviation environment have occurred since 1984 to alter the Government's approach and perspective to this, not least, of course, the deregulation decision-Senator MacGibbon, incidentally, does not seem to have caught up with this-made and announced in October last year. It will create a much more volatile and vibrant domestic aviation environment in Australia and one that makes it that much more crucial that Australian Airlines be strong and viable and a commercially successful entity in the way we believe this legislation will contribute. We are, secondly, attacked for failing to take into account the recommendations of the advisory group established last October which has not yet reported. I simply say that that is a totally half-baked assertion because there is no possible conceivable conflict between the passage of this legislation to allow for incorporation of Australian Airlines and any subsequent report we may receive from the advisory group which will simply go to things like the airline's capital requirements for the future and which are perfectly easily able to be accommodated within this particular corporate structure we are now promoting and achieving whatever those recommendations may be. We are, thirdly, castigated for our alleged failure to decide now whether or not to privatise Australian Airlines. I simply say that there is no need whatever to make that decision at this stage. There is plenty of time to debate the necessity or desirability of that particular matter. The question of ownership is quite distinct from that of commercialisation which is being achieved and advanced by this particular legislation. We are, fourthly, assaulted for creating `continuing, unnecessary uncertainty' among Australian Airlines' employees. This, again, is total nonsense. There is no uncertainty; the employees are perfectly happy as I understand it with the situation-certainly the trade union movement is happy. On transition to company status each staff member of the Australian National Airlines Commission will become an employee of the company on the same terms and conditions. All entitlements to long service leave and the like will be preserved. We are castigated, finally, for our continuing poor administration of Australia's aviation infrastructure. There are many replies that I could make to that, not least to recite some of the courageous and far-reaching decisions that we have taken, not least, of course, the deregulation decision which the Opposition, for all its free enterprise rhetoric, did not get around to doing in fully 23 years in government. I refer to the creation of the Federal Airports Corporation, the imminent creation of the Civil Aviation Authority and matters of that like. We have really been a pretty good all round Government when it comes to aviation and we have made some pretty spectacular policy improvements in the last few months. This legislation is a fine example of the contributions that can be expected from a Government of the maturity of the present Hawke Administration. With those remarks, I commend this legislation to the House. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SCHACHT(South Australia)(7.28) —I would like to take this opportunity in the adjournment debate to make a few remarks about a recent visit I made to Kampuchea. I want to place on record not just my impression but my thanks to the people involved in organising the visit. I also want to make some comment about the situation in that tragic country. I was very pleased to be able to accept an invitation from World Vision to join a delegation to visit Kampuchea in late January, early February this year. The Federal member for Dundas, Mr Phil Ruddock, was also part of the delegation, as were two other members of World Vision, Harold Henderson and Roger Walker. Mr Ruddock had visited Kampuchea two years ago. He warned me on my way there that it would be an emotionally wrenching experience. He, in no way, exaggerated that description. I have been involved in politics for 20 years, but that week in Kampuchea was the most profound in an emotional sense that I have ever experienced. I thank World Vision for giving me the opportunity to visit the country. It is difficult for Australian parliamentarians to visit because of the diplomatic situation relating to Kampuchea. One gets a number of impressions about Kampuchea. I certainly do not wish to be taken as an expert after spending only one week in the country, but I think I can make some comment about the state of the country. First, one is not visiting a third world country. It is more like a fourth or fifth world country. It would have to be, if not the poorest country in the world, then very close to it. People say that nine years after the end of the Pol Pot regime, the country has shown significant improvement. All I can say is that I am glad I did not visit nine years ago because if the country is in an improved state now it must have been an absolute hellhole in 1979-80. The impression of the country is overwhelming and quite numbing. To see people who are poverty stricken and suffering from all types of malnutrition and practically every known disease that people have ever heard of-leprosy, malaria, dysentery, cholera, typhoid, dengue fever and so on-and an infant mortality rate of nearly 300 per thousand, makes one realise that one is dealing with an extraordinarily tragic situation. One of the things Australians can be proud of is the fact that Australia is providing more aid to Kampuchea than is any other western country. That is a record of which the Australian people and the Australian Government can be very proud. The aid is provided through the operation of a number of non-government organisations, including the one I went with as part of the delegation, World Vision. Other Australian agencies such as Freedom from Hunger, the Australian People for Health Education Development Abroad, Austcare, Overseas Aid Abroad, and so on, are all operating there. I would like to compliment the Australian aid workers in that country. All Australians can be proud that fellow Australians have been willing to make the commitment to work in conditions that are not only threatening to their own health but also psychologically overwhelming. The fact that people work there for a year or two on these aid programs is something of which all Australians can be proud. Secondly, not only is the Government of Kampuchea appreciative of the aid Australia has given, but also the ordinary people understand that, as a country, we are making a major contribution of humanitarian aid to the well-being of their country. It has made the standing of our country very high. The Australian people and the Government can be congratulated for their effort in supporting voluntary aid programs. No visit to Kampuchea can be complete without seeing what are now termed in the west `the killing fields'. Although I had seen the movie, still photographs and documentaries, nothing prepared me for what I saw. I find it hard to describe the feeling when I walked into a nondescript shed and saw over 8,000 skulls neatly stacked in rows. Underneath were the rest of the skeletons and surrounding the shed were a hundred pits from which the bodies had been exhumed. It was really quite numbing. If that were not bad enough, I was taken later in the day to the Tuol Sleng interrogation centre which the Pol Pot regime established. That was the pits as far as human degradation and cruelty are concerned. The Tuol Sleng interrogation centre was once a school. The Pol Pot regime established it to interrogate political prisoners. In a period of four years nearly 10,000 political prisoners were interrogated and tortured to death in that centre. The purpose was to torture those people into signing the most absurd confessions that they were part of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plots or plots by the Vietnamese Government to overthrow the Pol Pot regime. There is even unfortunate evidence that an Australian was killed there. He was on a yacht with some Americans, sailing in the Gulf of Siam, when they sailed too close to the coast of Kampuchea and were taken in custody by the Kampuchean navy. They were taken immediately to this interrogation centre and forced to sign mad confessions that they were part of a CIA plot, before they were tortured to death. The Australian's photograph is displayed on the wall. When one goes through the centre one sees an extraordinary display. The man who ran the centre on behalf of Pol Pot was very methodical. He photographed every victim who was brought in. Those photographs were captured in 1979 by the Vietnamese army. They are now displayed around several walls of the prison. From time to time survivors of the Pol Pot regime go there to see whether they can find any record of what happened to their families. The man who ran the centre, Mr Duc, was not only interested in photographing people as they were taken into the centre, but he also liked to take photographs of his victims after they had been tortured, in many cases to death or near death. All around another room photographs of the most horrible kind are displayed. They are of people who have been beaten to death or have had limbs broken and were obviously suffering from malnutrition. There are photographs of the various methods of torture and drawings by the only known seven victims who survived the interrogation centre. Although it is gruesome to describe these details, they should go on the public record because the world should never forget that from 1975 to 1979 a psychotic maniac called Pol Pot had control of the country and in that time he killed approximately two million of his own people. The methods of torture included drowning, beating, crushing hands and electric treatment. The beatings went on for a long time until people were forced to sign absurd confessions. Once the confessions were signed, if the people did not die from their torture, they were killed and dumped in the death pits I saw outside Phnom Penh. The killing field and interrogation centre I saw were repeated all over Kampuchea. It is said that every village of any size and every town had its own version of what I saw in Phnom Penh-its own killing field. One cannot speak to any Kampucheans without finding that they lost some member of their families during the Pol Pot regime. Our interpreter was from a family of nine. Only he and his sister survived. His father was classed as an intellectual. He was a public servant and therefore, by definition, was an enemy of the Pol Pot regime and so was murdered. When Pol Pot came to power there were 1,400-odd doctors in Kampuchea. When he was kicked out in 1979, only 34 were found alive. It was the same with school teachers and dentists. Anyone with professional training suffered the same consequences. It was a profound experience to see these dreadful things. However, in one sense I am glad I did, because it made me aware that whatever problems we might have in Australia, there are people in the world who have suffered immeasurably more than we have. Australia's role in Kampuchea is well recognised by the Kampuchean people. Not only in the aid area, but also, politically, the efforts made by our Government, and particularly by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Hayden, are recognised by the people. Mr Hayden must take great credit for the efforts he has made. He is seen by the Kampuchean Government and the people as being one of the very few politicians in the world who have genuinely tried to get a solution. While I was in Kampuchea with the delegation I was very fortunate to have an opportunity to speak with the Prime Minister of Kampuchea, Mr Hun Sen, only two days after his return from Paris after the second round of talks with Prince Sihanouk. Despite the enormous difficulties and the tragedy of Kampuchea, there seems to be some hope that a political settlement will occur. One should not be overly optimistic when dealing with Kampuchea. Pessimism seems to be a major quality in dealing with this unfortunate country. However, there is some hope that settlement between the various forces will be reached. The two major factors that stop settlement being reached are the presence of Vietnamese troops in the country, numbering more than 100,000, and the fact that more than 30,000 armed Khmer Rouge soldiers under the control of Pol Pot and his supporters are still located over the border in Thailand. The Vietnamese say they will not withdraw until Pol Pot's army is disarmed. The people who support Pol Pot say they will not do anything until the Vietnamese withdraw. It is a vicious circle. However, negotiations in Paris are now leading to the stage where a settlement is possible. According to the Prime Minister, both he and Prince Sihanouk agree that Australia will have a role to play in the settlement of the Kampuchean dispute. It was suggested by both of them that when an international conference takes place, which they hope will be chaired by Prime Minister Gandhi of India, Australia will be one of the countries invited to participate. Following that conference, Australia may be asked to be party to an international peace keeping force to provide internal security in Kampuchea while a free election takes place to ensure that the result of the election properly reflects the free will of the people of Kampuchea. I believe that Australia will be invited to send a delegation to observe the election, either as parliamentarians or as Australian citizens; but if Australia is asked to participate in any way, I believe it should accept that invitation. It would be a final recognition that Australia has played a major and constructive role in resolving the Kampuchean dispute. I shall conclude by making a final comment about the future of Pol Pot and his supporters. I find it incredible that Pol Pot is able to live comfortably in Thailand with the support of a number of countries. It is disappointing that both China and the United States of America in their own ways have been providing support to keep the Khmer Rouge going in Kampuchea. That is done by provision of aid to the United Nations Border Relief Operation (UNBRO), which is an agency providing aid to the refugee camps along the Thailand border. A large proportion of that aid ends up in the refugee camps controlled by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge refuse to allow United Nations representatives into the camps to see how the aid is being used. Independent observers believe that much of the aid is used to feed and succour the soldiers of the Khmer Rouge. I find it extraordinary not only that China is following the policy of allowing that to happen but particularly that the USA is doing so. The American Administration trumpets its anti-communism all over the world and such is its justification for what it is doing in central America, yet in the past year alone more than $12m worth of aid from the United States of America was provided to the camps and much of that ended up in the hands of Khmer Rouge. It is extraordinary that the Reagan Administration, despite its anti-communist credentials, is providing assistance to the worst communist regime this world has ever seen and hopes never to see again. Only last year, when he was suffering from ill health, Pol Pot was given excellent medical treatment in a Bangkok hospital. I find that an obscenity when people of his own country are denied that type of medical attention, and were denied any reasonable medical attention when he was running the country. Last year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr Bill Hayden, raised the suggestion that an international tribunal should be looking at the crimes of Pol Pot against the Kampuchean people and against humanity. I fully support that suggestion. I do not believe there can be any moral basis for a settlement in Kampuchea unless Pol Pot and his closest supporters, who perpetrated the genocide against their own people, are brought to some sort of reckoning in a world forum. Although it will not bring back to life the two million people who died under his regime in Kampuchea, it will at least show the Kampuchean people that the rest of the world cares about what happened to them and will do everything possible to ensure that such a genocidal regime will not develop again on this earth. In conclusion, I say that my visit to Kampuchea was a profound experience for me. I thank World Vision for giving me the opportunity. I shall never forget what I saw, and the visit certainly makes me much more committed to do anything I can as a humble Australian politician to support a settlement in Kampuchea and to help the Kampuchean people to a just, prosperous peace. I thank the Senate for allowing me to put those comments on the record. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(7.46) —Before directing the attention of the Senate to some of the difficulties associated with anti-dumping legislation, I take the opportunity of congratulating Senator Schacht on his very moving address. It is a pity that more senators were not present in the chamber to hear it, because it illustrated the degree of difficulty and deprivation that can occur in a country not far from Australia. I take this opportunity of directing the attention of the Senate to a number of inadequacies in existing anti-dumping legislation, particularly deficiencies in the so-called fast-track mechanism. The anti-dumping laws are simply not offering adequate protection to industry from the unscrupulous dumping of products on the Australian market at prices significantly less than their normal value in their country of origin. It is recognised internationally, and documented in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) subsidies and countervailing code, to which Australia is a signatory, that such practices are contrary to the conduct of fair trade between nations. This Government is supposedly committed to a quick and effective anti-dumping system, but Australia still maintains laws and procedures which are protracted and which afford little protection. Australian industry needs a system that will swiftly and efficiently apply measures to promote fair trade. Currently, the incentive to initiate anti-dumping action is being eroded by the prospect of an expensive and drawn-out procedure with no guarantee of a satisfactory remedy even where a case is proven. I shall outline a particular case to illustrate what I have just said. The case concerns the dumping of peas from New Zealand on the Australian market. This action is of considerable concern in my own State of Tasmania, where nearly one-third of Australia's total pea crop is produced. The case commenced on 30 October 1985 when a complaint was lodged with the Australian Customs Service. On 31 August 1986, a preliminary finding was announced by Customs. Cash securities were requested. Early in 1987 a decision against the complainant was announced in the Federal Court and costs were borne by the complainant. In September 1987 a discussion on the draft of the Customs final report was held. In December 1987 the ministerial decision was announced. More than two years passed between the initial lodgment of the complaint and the announcement of the final decision. During that time New Zealand continued to export significant quantities of peas to Australia at less than the normal value. During that period the Australian industry shouldered the impact of the dumping of the product on its market and bore considerable costs to bring the case before the courts. After two years of investigation the final decision, published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 6 January this year, found that there was a case for the application of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act in respect of frozen peas exported from New Zealand. However, the industry was less than satisfied to find that duties would be backdated only for a period of 120 days preceding the publication of the notice. That is despite the fact that substantial shipments of peas came into Australia between August 1986 and December of last year. It appears that New Zealand has escaped any penalty from August 1986 to September 1987. The industry, understandably, feels it has suffered a loss as a result of this decision. The Government has not met its obligation under the Customs Tariff Anti-Dumping Act. One additional point that concerns me in this case further illustrates the inadequacies of the law. A countervailing action was also lodged in this case as the New Zealand exporters were benefiting substantially from an export assistance scheme. While the case was proven in this instance, little remedy has been forthcoming. As a result of negotiations, New Zealand has given an undertaking not to seek benefit from export grants between January and September of this year. I ask: Is this sufficient remedy, given that New Zealand exporters have been receiving export grants for the past two years? Anti-dumping laws are simply not giving fair and adequate protection to Australian industry. What is needed is a much more streamlined procedure for handling anti-dumping complaints. The Gruen Report, released in April 1986, stated: The (Anti-Dumping) Act should be amended to clarify its meaning and to ensure speedy and effective application of measures designed to promote fair trade . . . Despite such recommendations this Government has yet to take any positive action in this direction. In fact, the reverse has been the case. In August of last year the Australian Customs Service announced new investigation procedures for anti-dumping cases. While in the past maximum time limits for inquiries in the first stage of preliminary investigations have been 55 days, the maximum allowance is now 180 days. As a result, complainants can now expect an even longer wait before a decision is made. In the meantime Australian industry is suffering. It is time that the Government took some responsibility for this disastrous situation. I would be grateful if the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) could provide a response to the issues that I have raised in relation to this anti-dumping case. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(7.54) —in reply-That is a pretty tall order since I have not been listening to what Senator Watson said. However, I shall undertake to refer the substance of his remarks to the relevant Minister who, I presume, is Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I conclude my remarks by expressing my own agreement with Senator Watson's characterisation of Senator Schacht's remarks which were extremely important and were remarks of which this Senate and nation should take very clear heed. It was a tragic situation that evolved in Kampuchea over that terrible period in the 1970s. An unhappy situation continues to exist in that country. Through the efforts of Mr Hayden, in consultation and co-operation with all the South East Asian foreign Ministers and the great powers, Australia is doing its best to inject some rational possibility of solution into the situation. It is incumbent on all of us on a bipartisan basis to give him and the Government support in that objective. Senator Schacht's remarks contributed to our understanding not only of the present problem but also that which brought it about. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.55 p.m. The following papers were tabled. Acts Interpretation Act- Correspondence relating to extension of specified period for presentation of the following annual reports- Australian Heritage Commission Annual Report 1986-87. Australian National Gallery Annual Report 1986-87. Statement relating to furnish within specified period-Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Annual Report 1986-87. Air Navigation (Charges) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 327. Apple and Pear Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 292. Apple and Pear Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 291. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 4. Australian Citizenship Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 312. Australian Horticultural Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 8. Canberra College of Advanced Education Act-Statutes- No. 62-Staff Superannuation Amendment 1987, dated 21 December 1987. No. 63-Liquor (Repeal and Replacement) Amendment 1987, dated 21 December 1987. No. 64-Courses and Awards Amendment (No. 2) 1987, dated 21 December 1987. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Statement No. 1 of 1988-List of Names and Addresses of Agricultural Establishment for Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Christmas Island Act-Ordinances 1987- No. 12-Christmas Island Assembly (Amendment). No. 13-Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (Winding Up) (Amendment). No. 14-Public Holidays (Amendment). No. 15-Recovery of Maintenance Abroad. No. 16-Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 17-Wills. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act-Ordinances 1987- No. 5-Recovery of Maintenance Abroad. No. 6-Interpretation (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 7-Wills. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 298. Copyright Act-Declaration by the Attorney-General under paragraph 10a (1) (b), dated 1 December 1987. Crimes at Sea Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 286. Currency Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 300. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 297, 301, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321. Dairy Produce Levy (No. 1) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 325. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1987 No. 9, dated 14 December 1987. Determinations 1987- No. 83-Overseas Living Allowance and others. No. 84-Airconditioning Allowance and Temporary Rental Allowance. No. 85-Trainee Leader's Allowance. No. 86-Attendance Allowance. No. 87-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 88-Expense of Office Allowance. No. 89-Tindal Allowance. No. 90-District Allowance. No. 91-Temporary Accommodation Allowance. No. 92-Travelling Allowance and others. Dried Fruits Export Charges Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 11. Excise Act- Declarations (2) in respect of rebate and amount of rebate in respect of Bass Strait Oil, dated 10 December 1987 and 11 January 1988. Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 5. Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 295. Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 328. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 Nos 9, 10. First Home Owners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 287. Fisheries Act- Fisheries Notices- No. 77b-Variation of Fisheries Notice No. 77-Prohibition relating to trawling, dated 9 February 1988. No. 144a-Prohibition relating to trawling in the South Western sector of South Eastern Trawl Fishery, dated 27 January 1988. No. 198a-Amendment of Fisheries Notice 198-Prohibition relating to trawling in waters west of Australia, dated 20 December 1987. No. 200a-Variation of Fisheries Notice 200-Relating to the Prohibition on the taking of prawns off Northern Australia, dated 20 January 1988. No. 202-Revocation of Fisheries Notice No. 191-Prohibition of trawling off North Western Australia, dated 28 January 1988. Plan of Management-No. 14-South East Trawl Fishery, dated 27 January 1988. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 323. Foreign Fishing Boats Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 296. Freedom of Information Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 284, 285. Health Insurance Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 309. Statements (2) of particulars of Ministerial Determinations pursuant to subsection 106aa, dated 15 December 1987. Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act-Ordinance 1987-No. 1-Environment Protection and Management. Horticultural Policy Council Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 6. Horticultural Research and Development Corporation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 7 Insurance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 340. Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 339. Judiciary Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 302. Lands Acquisition Act- Land, etc, acquired for Aviation-Botany Bay, New South Wales. Statements (3) by the Minister describing lands acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1). Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 326. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 330. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 313, 314, 315. National Health Act- Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 310. Notice for the purposes of subsection 47 (2b), dated 7 December 1987. Navigation Act- Navigation (Orders) Regulations- Marine Orders 1987- No. 10-Part 26 (Equipment-Communication) Amendment. Marine Order 1988- No. 1-Part 91 (Marine Pollution Prevention-Oil). No. 2-Part 93 (Marine Pollution Prevention-Noxious Liquid Substances in bulk). Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Notice for the purposes of sub-section 13 (1a), dated 7 December 1987. Occupational Superannuation Standards Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 322. Oversees Students Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 311. Overseas Telecommunications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 299, 344. Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 12. Patents Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 331. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 293. Postal Services Act- By-laws 1987-Postal Amendment No. 7. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 333. Public Service Act- Determinations 1987 Nos 113-128. Determinations 1988 Nos 1-12, 14, 16, 17. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 294. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 303. Radiocommunications Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 332. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Determinations 1987- No. 21-Remuneration and allowances for holders of public offices, dated 11 December 1987. No. 22-Remuneration and allowances for holders of public offices, dated 11 December 1987. Satellite Communications Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 336. Sea Installations Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 1 Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 283. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determination made under the Health Authority Ordinance, dated 22 December 1987. Ordinances 1987- No. 68-Co-operative Societies (Amendment) (No. 4). No. 69-Health Authority (Amendment) (No. 3). No. 70-Schools Authority (Amendment). No. 71-A.C.T. Institute of Technical and Further Education. No. 72-Liquor (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 73-Long Service Leave (Amendment). No. 74-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 75-Seat of Government (Administration) (Amendment). Ordinance 1988- No. 1-Canberra Institute of the Arts. Regulations 1987- No. 18-Dangerous Goods (Amendment). No. 19-Canberra Sewerage and Water Supply (Amendment). Regulations 1988- No. 1-Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) (Solicitors' Cost) (Amendment). Sex Discrimination Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988. No. 3. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments (2) of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 5 January 1988 and 15 January 1988. Student Assistance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 288, 289, 304, 305. Superannuation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 290, 306, 307. Telecommunications Act- By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment Nos 79, 80f. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment Nos 50, 51f. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 50. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 Nos 335, 337, 338. Telecommunications (Interception) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 329. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Instrument under subsection 90 (4), varying the treatment principles, dated 18 December 1987. Wine Grapes Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 324. Wool Marketing Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 308. World Heritage Properties Conservation Act- Proclamation by the Governor-General declaring property pursuant to Subsection 6 (3), dated 19 January 1988. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 2 GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Acts and sections of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Customs Tariff Act 1987-1 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 351, 22 December 1987). Defence Housing Authority Act 1987-1 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 346, 18 December 1987). Migration Act 1958-Amendments of paragraph 67 (1) (c) made by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-1 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 348, 21 December 1987). National Health Amendment Act 1987-Section 5-1 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 348, 21 December 1987). Navigation (Protection of the Sea) Amendment Act 1983-All provisions other than sections 1 and 2, and Part III-14 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 8, 8 January 1988). Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987-21 December 1987 (Gazette No. S 347, 21 December 1987). Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Section 11-1 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 347, 21 December 1987). Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Act 1986-Section 4-14 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 8, 8 January 1988). Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983-All provisions other than sections 1 and 2-14 January 1988 (Gazette No. S 8, 8 January 1988). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1987-See-Migration Act 1958. Williamstown Dockyard Employees Act 1987-1 February 1988 (Gazette No. S 19, 22 January 1988). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Can the Minister confirm the report in the Sunday Telegraph of 24 May 1987 that the Main People's Congress in Sydney received approximately $100,000 from the Libyan Government last year via the Australian Islamic Foundation. (2) Is this funnelling of money in direct contradiction to the Prime Minister's statement at his press conference of 19 May 1987 that the Government would do all in its power to restrict the flow of funds from Libya to Australia. (3) Can the Minister detail what has been done to stop the flow of Libyan money into Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Main People's Congress referred to in Senator Puplick's question is located in Melbourne and not in Sydney. It is a matter of public knowledge that the Main People's Congress and the Basic People's Congress, a similar organisation located in Sydney, have received funds in the past from the Libyan Government. I am advised that these funds are primarily for organ- isational expenditure such as rent, office equipment, vehicle purchases and salaries. (2) No. (3) When the Government floated the Australian dollar, it removed almost all exchange control restrictions and requirements. Banks are not required to report the source of funds entering the country. Even if the Government were to decide to impose controls on the inflow of funds from individual countries it would prove extremely difficult to monitor and police such a decision given the scope for funds to be sent via third countries. (Question No. 21) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) (a) What conferences has the Libyan Government sponsored in the last five years to which Australian and Pacific Islanders have been invited; (b) how many people attended them, and (c) from which countries did they come. (2) (a) What military or para-military training programmes in Libya have South Pacific Islanders participated in during the last five years; (b) how long were these courses; (c) how many people took part; (d) which countries did they come from, and (e) what training was involved. (3) (a) How much Libyan money has been lodged in bank accounts for individuals or political organisations in the South Pacific including Australia in the last five years; (b) which countries are concerned, and (c) which political organisations have received money. (4) What other evidence exists of Libyan involvement (a) in Vanuatu; (b) in New Caledonia (c) with OPM representatives from West Papua/West Irian; and (d) with other Pacific Islands. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has sufficient information about the kinds of activity to which the honourable senator refers to justify the concern which it has expressed about the potentially adverse consequences of Libyan activities for harmony and stability in the South Pacific. The Government is not in a position, however, to make this information available. (Question No. 22) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What were the names and addresses of all companies which have successfully sought DIFF support for tenders for the supply of goods or services to Third World countries in the years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, given that in respect of answers to Questions on Notice No. 1488 (Weekly Hansard, 10 December 1986, page 3774) the Minister for Defence, referring to 70 applications made for DIFF grants, while naming the 19 companies which were refused grants, only named 11 which were successful. (2) Did the Department of Trade Submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Reviewing the Jackson Report cite 88 bids supported by the DIFF scheme (page 15); if so, what were the names of these companies. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The answer to this question, previously asked by the honourable senator as part (1) of Senate Question No. 1657 on 17 March 1987, was provided in Senate Hansard, 5 June 1987, pp 3703-3705. (2) The Department of Trade submission to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, made on 10 April 1985, did cite 88 bids supported by the DIFF scheme. The names of applicants provided with DIFF offers for the calendar years 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 were provided to the honourable senator in the previous answer referred to in (1) above. The applicants provided with DIFF offers in the two earlier years of the scheme's existence were: Clyde Engineering (1981) Versatile Toft (1981)-2 offers Pak Poy (1981) Hydro Systems (1981) Goodworth (1981) Australian Airport Consortium (1981)-2 offers These offers, combined with those for the period 1982-1985, total 81. The balance of the 88 referred to in the Department of Trade submission would be those made in 1986 up to the date of the submission. (Question No. 52) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 17 September 1987: What provision is made for bilingual or otherwise skilled staff in passport issuing offices throughout Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are no special positions provided for bilingual or otherwise linguistically skilled staff in passport issuing offices nor in post offices which now interview the majority of passport applicants. Passport offices deal with Australians from a very wide range of ethnic backgrounds and it would not be possible to provide for all the mother tongues of these citizens. The Telephone Interpreter Service is available to passport staff and applicants and notices to this effect are displayed in Passport offices. Staff in Passport offices with good language skills are encouraged to exercise their language skills both in interview situations and in dealing with foreign language documents. Multilingual staff in Passports offices, like other staff of the Department, are entitled to apply for payment of a language proficiency allowance. (Question No. 56) Senator Haines asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 22 September 1987: (1) What evidence does the Federal Government have of the incidence in Australia, on a state by state basis, of surgery to remove, infibulate or otherwise alter the external genitalia of women in a manner consistent with the documented cultural practices of a number of African and Middle Eastern nations, on the basis of claims under the Medicare Medical Benefits Schedule since 1980. (2) Is any medical (as distinct from, for example, cultural) justification required to be given by the surgeon; if so, what reasons were given in what proportion of cases, where Medicare claims were made for such procedures. (3) What was the breakdown by age of the women upon whom these procedures were performed. (4) Are any other indications (besides the incidence of Medicare claims) available to the Government of the prevalence of these practices in Australia. (5) What action has the Government taken or will it take to examine the occurrence of and to prohibit the performance of mutilation of female genitals by surgery, except in carefully identified cases of medical necessity, in the public and private health sectors and in the community. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Two Items of the Medicare Benefits Schedule relate to surgery to the female genitals-Item 6299: amputation of the clitoris; and Item 6302: vulvectomy, vulvoplasty or labioplasty. The major medical indication for such surgery is the treatment of cancer or the correction of congenital deformity. Both these Items carry the qualification ``where medically indicated''-that is, there is not entitlement to claim benefits if the surgery is not medically indicated. The qualification ``where medically indicated'' was included in the Schedule on 1 July 1985, specifically to address the issue of ritual female circumcision. Since that time, there has been no variation in the pattern of claims made for the two relevant Item numbers-6299 and 6302. This indicates that claims made under the Medicare Benefits Schedule are not related to the incidence of ritual female circumcision in Australia. (2) Notwithstanding that the existence of a Medicare Benefits Schedule Item has not encouraged or promoted the practice of female circumcision, I have arranged for the Health Insurance Commission to ensure that appropriate medical indications apply before Medicare benefits are paid. While this will not in itself diminish the practice, as traditionally female circumcision has been a ritual performed by non-professionals, generally older women from within the relevant communities, it will ensure that the costs are not underwritten through the Medicare Benefits Schedule. (3) A breakdown of the incidence of claims over recent years is as follows: Item 6299 Item 6302 1983/84 14 218 1984/85 12 253 1985/86 11 251 Figures for the years prior to 1983/84 are not comparable because of changes to Medicare at that time. Further breakdown of claims by States for the September 1986 quarter: Item 6299 State Age Group NSW Vic SA Qld WA Tas Total 0-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-45 . . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 46-85 1 1 1 1 1 . . 5 Total 1 1 1 1 2 . . 6 Item 6302 State Age Group NSW Vic SA Qld WA Tas Total 0-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15 . . 2 1 1 . . . . 4 16-20 2 . . 1 1 . . . . 4 21-30 12 2 . . 1 . . . . 15 31-45 18 6 1 12 1 1 39 46-85 7 9 1 1 2 . . 20 Total 39 19 4 16 3 1 82 These September quarter figures of 1986 are from a one-off test exercise on computer resources undertaken by the Department of Community Services and Health. No subsequent breakdown by States for Items 6299 and 6302 are available. It should be noted that for Item 6299: Amputation of the clitoris-no claims were made for patients under the age of 30 years. For Item 6302: Vulvectomy, vulvoplasty or labioplasty-no claims were made for patients under the age of 10 years. The majority of claims were for patients aged 30 to 50. This age breakdown is consistent with the medical indications for such surgery-that is, treatment of cancer and correction of congenital deformity. (4) From time to time, my Department and I have received representations concerning female genital mutilation practices, and attempts have been made to obtain as much information as possible about the situation in Australia. Attempts to elicit documented details from health authorities, general practitioners and interest groups have, however, not been successful. Much of the information concerning circumcision of female children is anecdotal. There is, for example, no record of children or women presenting to health services with any of the common complications of the more severe forms of ritual circumcision. (5) The issues involved are complex and sensitive and, in Australia, have mainly been raised in the context of child abuse. It is the view of Australian health authorities that steps should be taken to discourage the practice through a low key educational approach. The World Health Organization reiterated in 1986 that change should not come from outside campaigners but from within communities where female circumcision is still entrenched. In Australia, health and welfare authorities in several States are developing policies and programs to assist the process of change within their communities. The most appropriate avenue for such an approach is seen to be through health care providers and relevant community and religious groups. Primarily, of course, the matter is one for consideration by the States. Apart from education and persuasion, any preventive action by way of deterrence through prohibition would need to be taken through child welfare and/or criminal law authorities at State level. Such action should be on the basis of well considered strategies that take account of practicalities involved and any limitations that exist as regards the State's responsibilities for the welfare and protection of its residents. For its part, my Department will continue to monitor the situation regarding the practice of ritual female circumcision in Australia. The honourable senator will appreciate this answer is similar to that given her by Senator Tate on 26 May 1987, in response to the same question (Question No. 1653, page 2959/60). The present response incorporates relevant statistics and breakdowns, by age and State, of the September quarter 1986 figures for the appropriate Medicare item numbers. (Question No. 80) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 7 October 1987: (1) What steps does the Federal Government intend to take to expand the carcass trade, given that contrary to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, the live sheep trade has expanded to 8 million animals in 1986-87? (2) What has the Government done to actively seek alternatives to the live sheep trade? Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2). The Government supports the promotion of carcass exports, but will not place restrictive limitations on the live sheep trade provided professional animal welfare standards are maintained. This policy has been given practical expression through the establishment of the Sheepmeat Market Development Fund to promote the Australian sheepmeat trade to the Middle East, and to assist expansion into new commercial outlets. Since the first full year of fund operations in 1983/84, Australian sheepmeat exports to all destinations have increased from approximately 90,000 tonnes to about 164,000 tonnes in 1986/87, with much of this growth being achieved in Middle East markets. Over the 1983/84 to 1986/87 period, exports of live sheep from Australia increased from 7.2 million head to 7.9 million head. The occurrence of this moderate growth trend illustrates the continuing preference of many Arab consumers for fresh meat because of deeply seated cultural and religious traditions, notwithstanding the increase which has occurred in exports of sheepmeat to these markets. The report on live sheep exports by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare acknowledged that this preference was likely to persist for some time to come. (Question No. 84) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Does the Federal Government intend to fulfil its second replenishment to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); if not, why not. (2) Does the Government intend to contribute to the Special IFAD programme for Sub-Saharan Africa; if not, why not. (3) If the Government does intend to contribute, is it intended that this contribution will amount to the real value difference between Australia's First and Second Replenishment contributions to IFAD (A$6.4 million, 1986-1988). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, as announced in my press release of 8 November 1987, Australia will contribute $A8.48 million to the second replenishment of IFAD. (2) No. As noted in the abovementioned press release Australia will also be contributing $A335 million to the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA). The IDA is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank. Contributions to IDA represent the major form of Australia's multilateral aid to Africa. Donors have agreed that 45-50 per cent of IDA-8 resources will be allocated to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This means that, in effect, Australia will be supporting about $A168 million of IDA commitments to Africa over the next three years. (3) No. See answer to question 2 above. (Question No. 85) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Did Palau hold a plebiscite on 21 August 1987 to consider the acceptance of a Compact of Free Association with the United States of America. (2) Did such plebiscite obtain 73 percent support. (3) Does not the Constitution of Palau require a 75 percent majority to be carried; if not, by which process was this 75 percent majority dispensed with. (4) Does the Australian Government consider such process to be constitutional; if so, is it not possible for the Australian Government to by-pass the constitutional provisions of the Australian Constitution in the same way Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Yes (2) Yes (3) The Constitution of Palau was amended in a referendum on 4 August 1987 to enable a simple (rather than three quarters) majority to approve the Compact of Free Association with the United States. (4) The Australian Government considers that it is for the authorities in Palau to determine whether the referendum was in accordance with the provisions of the Palau Constitution. (Question No. 86) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Does the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific region provide a significant international regime for the protection of the marine environment in the South Pacific and for a treaty prohibition of the disposal at sea of radioactive wastes. (2) Is it a fact that the Australian Government has not yet signed the Convention. (3) Is this because consultations are required between the Australian and State Governments before such signature and ratification; if so, why are such consultations required. (4) What is the progress of such consultations and which State Governments are obstructing the process. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) When the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific region (SPREP Convention) enters into force it will provide a significant international regime for the protection of the marine environment in the South Pacific and a treaty prohibition on the dumping at sea of radioactive wastes. It also requires parties to control and prevent any pollution that might result from the testing of nuclear devices. The SPREP Convention will complement and re- inforce the treaty of Rarotonga's prohibition on radio- active waste dumping at sea in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The Convention and Protocols therefore meet important Australian interests. Australia played a prominent role throughout the negotiations which led to the adoption of the Convention and Protocols at a meeting of plenipotentiaries held in Noumea in November 1986. The Convention has the strong support of the South Pacific Forum. (2) to (4) It is essential that before Australia signs and ratifies an international agreement that Australian domestic legislation be consistent with our obligations under the agreement. There has for years been a system for consultations between the Federal and State and Northern Territory Governments on any treaty to which Australia is considering becoming a party. In fact, Australian domestic legislation is assessed to be already generally consistent with the requirements of the SPREP Convention, and consultations designed to confirm this (which began early last year) are now nearing completion. (Question No. 87) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October: (1) Is it a fact that the United States of America does not recognise coastal state jurisdiction over highly migratory species of fish, i.e. tuna, affecting the sovereignty of Pacific Island states over such produce. (2) What is the reason for this attitude of the U.S. Government. (3) What representations has the Federal Government made to the U.S. Government in order to overcome this problem. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (3) The United States Government does not accept that coastal states have jurisdiction in their respective exclusive economic zones over highly migratory species of fish because of the frequency with which the species move between areas of the high seas and respective national exclusive economic zones. In respect to tuna fishing in the South Pacific, the United States signed, on 2 April, a multilateral fisheries access treaty with twelve Members of the Forum Fisheries Agency under which it will pay US$60 million over a five year period to fish in the EEZs of parties to the treaty under mutually agreed conditions. As at 16 October, fifteen Members of the Forum Fisheries Agency have signed the Agreement. The treaty will enter into force when ratified by ten South Pacific parties including Papua New Guinea, the Federated States of Micronesia and Kiribati and by the United States. Australia made strong and sustained representations to the United States Government including at high political levels to help achieve this treaty and participated in all ten rounds of negotiations between the Pacific parties and the United States. The United States Senate unanimously agreed to the ratification of the multilateral fisheries access treaty on 6 November 1987. (Question No. 88) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 October 1987: (1) Is it a fact that the World Bank has been unwilling to provide funds to all Pacific Island Forum countries to assist in the implementation of the South Pacific Telecommunications Development Program; if so, has there been any World Bank involvement in this project. (2) What representations has the Federal Government made to the World Bank seeking a review of its decision. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There has been considerable discussion between the managerial staff of the South Pacific Telecommunications Development Program (SPTDP) and the World Bank concerning World Bank funding of telecommunications projects within the South Pacific region. The World Bank has advised the Director of the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC), the organisation under which the SPTDP has been established, that the Bank is willing to support telecommunications development in the South Pacific. However, the World Bank noted that there are important prerequisites to be met for the Bank to proceed with preparation and financing of a regional project involving several countries. These prerequisites are that: countries seeking financing must be Bank Members; the Bank needs confirmation from these countries that they desire to borrow from the Bank for such a project; there is agreement among the governments concerned on the role of the SPTDP in preparing and in implementing the project; and there is a statement of intent among those governments to cooperate in areas such as procurement, design, training and maintenance. As yet, these prerequisites have not been met. South Pacific World Bank members attending a July 1987 meeting of the management group of SPTDP (i.e. Fiji, Kiribati, PNG, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu) indicated that their governments were either not interested in seeking World Bank funding through the SPTDP or had not yet decided to do so. Consultations between SPEC and relevant member countries are continuing and have not as yet resulted in a final application for World Bank funding. (2) In light of the above circumstances Australia has made no formal representation to the World Bank on this issue. (Question No. 89) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Is it a fact that in the recent Referendum held by the French Government in New Caledonia the voters were asked to take one of two different coloured ballot slips, one colour indicating a desire for Independence, another indicating a desire to remain part of France. (2) Does such electoral procedure indicate that the ballot was not a secret one. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In the recent referendum held by the French Government in New Caledonia, voters were provided with two ballot slips, one yellow expressing a desire for independence and another blue expressing a desire to remain a part of France, as well as a single envelope. Voting took place in secrecy in polling booths supervised by magistrates sent from metropolitan France especially for the purpose. Voters were invited to place their preferred ballot slip in a sealed envelope before placing it in the ballot box provided. There were no instructions as to what voters should do with the other ballot slip. This was left to their own discretion. (2) No. (Question No. 90) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 22 October 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade aware of the August 1987 edition of Amnesty International's Trade Union Bulletin wherein abuses of human rights against trade unionists are listed as having occurred in the following countries: Burkina Faso Burundi South Africa Chile El Salvador Haiti Honduras Paraguay Republic of Korea Nepal Philippines Sri Lanka Czechoslovakia Turkey Algeria Egypt Tunisia (2) What representations has the Australian Government made to Governments in those countries in respect to such abuses. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes (2) Of the countries mentioned in Amnesty International's Trade Union Bulletin of August 1987, Australia has made representations concerning abuses of human rights of trade unionists to the Governments of Burkina Faso, Burundi, South Africa, El Salvador, Paraguay, Philippines and Turkey. (Question No. 130) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 20 November 1987: (1) In view of the leading role played by the President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias Sanchez, in attempting to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict in Central America, can the Minister say whether: (a) U.S. funds between $85 and $140 million have been withheld from Costa Rica since President Arias' initiative; (b) the Reagan Administration has imposed bans and restrictions on flowers, clothing and other Costa Rican exports to the U.S.; and (c) the U.S. Government in August 1987 and for the first time refused to intervene with American banks on Costa Rica's behalf. (2) Does the Australian Government agree with this sort of pressure placed on a Government which is earnestly pursuing the cause for peace. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) to (c). The United States Administration has denied that it is withholding economic assistance from Costa Rica, curtailing Costa Rican imports or refusing to intervene on Costa Rica's behalf with its commercial creditors. The Costa Rican Government, through its Ambassador in Washington, confirmed that United States economic assistance was not suspended but that delays occurred in the implementation of the 1987 program, largely due to technical factors related to concurrent negotiations involving multilateral financial institutions and commercial banks. Costa Rica's exports to the United States grew from US$451 million in 1983 to US$726 million in 1986-some anti-dumping measures have been taken and/or quotas have been imposed on a range of products (e.g. some agricultural products, flowers and textiles). The United States has supported efforts to provide Costa Rica with new loans. (2) The position of the Costa Rican Government is that disagreements with the United States over United States policy in Central America have not resulted in any sanction, reprisal or pressure against Costa Rica. The Australian Government has long supported the efforts of the Central American countries to achieve a durable settlement of their problems. (Question No. 138) Senator McLean asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 26 November 1987: (1) Can the term ``Health Screening'' be defined as services that are not reasonably required for the management of the medical condition of the patient. (2) For what medical services, other than pathology, can the term ``Health Screening'' be applied. (3) Are these same services, including pathology, often classified by the Health Insurance Commission (H.I.C.) as tools of diagnosis and management of an illness. (4) What criteria does the H.I.C. use to determine whether such services are ``Health Screening'' or tools of ``diagnosis and management of an illness''. (5) Does one of the criteria refer to the frequency of use of a particular service by a particular doctor. (6) Is it correct that services classified as ``Health Screening'' are not subject to a Medicare rebate, whereas services classified as ``diagnosis and management'' are subject to a Medicare rebate. (7) Does the H.I.C. notify in advance those doctors whose services they deem to be ``Health Screening'' and are those same doctors informed as to the reasons why such services are so classified; if not, why not. (8) Does the H.I.C. keep a list of doctors whose services are classified as ``Health Screening''; if so, how does a doctor have his/her name removed from the list. (9) What are the names and addresses of every doctor, in each State and Territory, who have in the past, or who are currently, on such a list and for what services are they on that list. (10) What guarantees, if any, can the Minister give to members of the public such that they will always receive financial reimbursement from Medicare for those services currently on the Medical Benefits Schedule. (11) What criteria does the H.I.C. use when deciding who, or which organisations, will be given access to individual patient records. (12) What safeguards are there to ensure patient confidentiality. (13) What medical qualifications, including areas of expertise, are required of medical assessors from the H.I.C. (14) Why is there no medically qualified arbitration system available to settle disputes between an individual doctor and the H.I.C. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Any examination or test conducted to obtain information about a patient which would not ordinarily be sought in reaching a diagnosis suggested by the patient's history and physical examination. (3) Yes. (4) The Commission's medical advisers identify multi system testing which suggests a screening process. Supporting clinical information is then requested from the treating doctor to satisfy the Commission's medical referee of a relationship between the tests in question and the management of the patient's condition which includes the establishment of a diagnosis. (5) Where a particular doctor has become a common factor in a number of claims which have been recognised as screening, the Commission has a responsibility to monitor that practitioner's servicing which includes his generation of pathology services. (6) Yes. (7) Upon identification of a doctor as a common factor in such claims, the Commission's medical advisers seek contact with that doctor (a) to explain section 19 (5) of the Health Insurance Act, 1973, and its application; (b) to ensure full understanding of the Medicare scheme; and (c) to allow the doctor the opportunity to warn patients that certain services may not attract Medicare benefit. (8) & (9) No. (10) The Health Insurance Act sets out to provide a benefit for medical services which are reasonably necessary to provide adequate medical care. the only limiting factor for services in the Medicare Benefits Schedule is that of patient need. The Act does not place an obligation upon doctors as to how they should practise. If a doctor chooses to provide services which are not necessary to provide adequate medical care, benefits are not payable. This was also the case prior to the introduction of Medicare. (11) & (12) Section 130 of the Act prevents the disclosure of individual patient claims' information by the Commission or its officers. (13) All medical advisers are well qualified and experienced in medical practice. The majority hold post graduate qualifications. The Commission also employs consultants in some specialities notably radiology and pathology. (14) There are a number of learned professional societies and Royal Colleges which are the arbiters of excellence in medicine and it is to these bodies that medical practitioners should turn for support in seeking acceptance of policy change for services currently precluded from benefit by section 19 (5) of the Act. My Department may also seek opinion from such bodies in the event of continued dispute. (Question No. 150) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, upon notice, on 14 December 1987: (1) What information can the Minister supply in regard to the violence presently taking place in the Jaffna Peninsula area of Sri Lanka. (2) Is the Minister aware of a specific incident which occurred on 16 and 17 October 1987 in the town of Urumbirai, in which elderly and sick people were shot by Indian soldiers in their homes, after the town had fallen and the young had fled; if so, have any representations about this type of abuse by a ``Peace Keeping'' Force been made to the Indian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The security situation in the Jaffna Peninsula appears to be slowly improving. The Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF) are now moving ahead with operations aimed at locating and disarming Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) cadres and cutting off their supply routes. Although the unilateral 48 hour ceasefire on 21-22 November called by the Government of India was allowed to lapse without extension in the face of continued intransigence by the LTTE, there have been relatively few clashes between the IPKF and the LTTE in the Jaffna area over the past month. (2) The full picture of the recent fighting in Jaffna is not known and it is difficult to comment on specific allegations or to distinguish propaganda from fact. It is clear, however, that there were unfortunately many civilian casualties, as would be expected from fighting in a heavily populated area. Both sides were responsible for civilian deaths. It was, however, the LTTE's choice to stand and fight a pitched battle in Jaffna town, with civilian casualties being the inevitable result. The Australian Government on many occasions has urged the parties to the Accord and all those who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the people of Sri Lanka to reject violence and work together to give the Accord the chance of success it deserves. (Question No. 158) Senator Coates asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 16 December 1987: Does the new logo for the Minister's department have a meaning; if so, what is that meaning. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The logo does not have a specific meaning. It was agreed upon after consultation among Departmental staff at all levels because they felt that it depicted the three former agencies unified into one body. Senator Walsh —On 23 October 1987 (Hansard, page 1171) Senator Teague asked a question without notice concerning the Halton Task Force on Training and Education. The Minister for Employment, Education and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No single definitive report has been or will be delivered by Mr Halton because of the wide ranging and complex inquiries undertaken by the Task Force. The media release of 15 October 1987 and accompanying proposal encapsulate the Government's consideration of the advice received during the inquiry. Advice received prior to the announcement of 15 October formed the first of a two phase consultation process. As a result of this first phase a proposal for the rationalisation of Employment, Education and Training advisory structures was developed. The aim of the second phase is to allow interested parties the opportunity to comment in detail on the proposals before the final decisions are taken. (Question No. 30) Senator Jones asked the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) What action can be taken by the Federal Government, in view of various media reports of 26 August 1987 indicating a decision the previous day by the Queensland Cabinet to allow a private road to cut through 30 kms of rainforest, a Crown timber reserve, and a pine plantation from an area north of Mareeba to a point on the main Captain Cook Highway between Cairns and Port Douglas, to prevent this decision being implemented in view of the Hawke administration's proposal to list the area in the proposed World Heritage legislation. (2) What evidence is available to the Federal Government of a link between the Queensland Government's decision to build the road and the activities of the companies Southedge Daintree Pastoral Company and Weymouth Pastoral Company Pty Ltd. (3) Is a Mr George Quaid a common director of both companies. (4) What is the major business activity directed by the two companies. (5) Is there any link established by the Commonwealth Government in its investigations between Mr Quaid, either of the aforementioned companies, the National Party in Queensland, the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation or the Premier of Queensland himself. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The route of the road to which the Senator refers has already been cleared. The future of the road will be considered in the context of the development of management arrangements for the proposed World Heritage Area. (2) I am advised that the road is being constructed by the Southedge Daintree Pastoral Company to provide access between the Company's tourist development near Round Mountain and the coast at Wangetti Beach. (3) and (4) I have no information on these matters. The information may be obtainable from the Queensland Corporate Affairs Office, Brisbane. (5) No investigation of these matters has been undertaken by my Department. (Question No. 99) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories: Is the Australian Government promoting kangaroo products for Expo 88 in Brisbane. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. Indeed whilst there will be a retail outlet attached to the Australian Pavilion the sale of kangaroo products, or any other products from native animals, will be prohibited.