Wednesday, 18 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. Any your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 87 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned. (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products: (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly 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 humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 194 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators in the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatization and de-regulation of the Australian Telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatisation, de-regulation, timed local calls, and directory assistance charging. And we, your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 58 citizens) and Zakharov (from 120 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its Advisory Committees which propose radical changes to the Constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which give more power to the Government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weaken the role of the Senate. by Senators Durack (from 799 citizens) and Panizza (from 25 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senators Hamer (from 24 citizens) and Patterson (from 12,074 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 550 citizens) and Gietzelt (from 30 citizens). Petitions received. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today for the disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance 1987, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 71 of 1987 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the withdrawal of the notice of motion. Leave granted. Senator JENKINS —I gave notice of my intention to move disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory Institute of Technical and Further Education Ordinance because of my severe reservations about the Government's provisions for the new Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Institute. Representations were made to me on this subject by many TAFE teachers and students, and by the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation. I wrote to the Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Gary Punch, requesting in particular reconsideration of the membership, powers and functions of the proposed advisory committee for the new Institute. The Minister has undertaken in writing to introduce by way of an amending ordinance most of the modifications to the Government's arrangements which I requested and he has promised to table that ordinance by the end of this sitting. I compliment the Minister for his willingness to consider my requests in the constructive spirit in which they were made. I believe that the new Institute of Technical and Further Education will be greatly improved by the more independent and more representative advisory committee created by these changes. TAFE teachers, students, administration and the Teachers Federation have expressed satisfaction with the changes. I am further delighted that the Minister has moved quickly and demonstrated his good faith by the early announcement of appointments to the upgraded advisory committee. I look forward to the formalising of these changes when the amending ordinance is tabled shortly. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-This matter has been before the Senate previously, when the Liberal Party moved disallowance of the same ordinance. We withdrew that motion after we had contacted the Minister, and the letter that he gave in relation to his undertaking was incorporated in Hansard at that time. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania) —On behalf of Senator Black, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts: (1) The role of the Commonwealth Government in the further development of the Australian tourist industry with particular reference to: (a) the environmental impact of tourist developments, particularly in coastal regions and national heritage areas; and (b) the co-ordination of foreign tourist development strategies between the States. (2) The role of foreign investment in tourist development and the net benefit to Australia of overseas tourism. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the successful conference on `Checking the Arms Race: Australia's Role in International Verification', held in Sydney on 13 to 15 May and which was opened by the Minister for Defence; (b) commends Scientists Against Nuclear Arms and People for Nuclear Disarmament, New South Wales, for organising the conference; (c) also commends the Government for its contribution towards a chemical weapons ban and the work it has done on seismic monitoring in preparation for a comprehensive test ban treaty; (d) notes the article in the Sydney Morning Herald, dated 17 May 1988, in which a British scientist and speaker at the conference, Dr Jeremy Leggett, suggests that Australia could play a significant role in setting up a multilateral satellite monitoring agency which will assist an agreement on banning anti-satellite weapons; and (e) calls on the Government to further extend its commitment to disarmament by considering other areas for action such as banning nuclear warships from Australian ports, strengthening the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, ending the mining and export of uranium, and holding a public inquiry on the function of the joint facilities in Australia to cover their role in verification and their nuclear warfighting functions. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises the valuable contribution made by ethnic broadcasting through the public radio system to both the diversity of broadcasting in Australia and to the cultural wealth of this country; (b) acknowledges that ethnic public radio provides an essential public service in disseminating important information to non-English speaking migrants; (c) notes with concern that the Government subsidy for ethnic public radio has fallen from $50 per hour of broadcasting under the last coalition Government, to only $34 per hour under the Hawke Government, and that this amount will continue to fall as new ethnic radio stations are licensed; (d) further notes the efficient use of funds by ethnic public radio, where in this financial year $688,000 will fund 400 hours of broadcasting on 30 stations; and (e) calls on the Government to clarify its position regarding funding to public ethnic radio. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) congratulates the Government of the German Democratic Republic for initiating and hosting the International Meeting for Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones in Berlin from 20 to 22 June 1988; (2) fully supports the aims of this meeting which are to promote and encourage the international disarmament process; and (3) urges the Australian Government to support this conference by sending delegation to the Berlin meeting. Senator DEVLIN(Tasmania) —On behalf of Senator Black, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts: The use by Australian sportsmen and sportswomen of performance enhancing drugs and the role played by Commonwealth agencies. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority-Annual Report 1986-87. 2. Pollution Control Authority-Annual Report 1986-87. 3. Canberra Development Board-Annual Report 1986-87. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Watson for the period from 10 May 1988 to 26 May 1988, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on Parliamentary business. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of all Opposition senators, I move: That the Senate congratulates Edward Statton, Executive Chef of the Parliamentary Catering Service, and all catering staff for their magnificent efforts in the preparation and presentation of the function held on the evening of 9 May 1988 and further congratulates all those associated with the entire successful opening of the new Parliament House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal contained in the Report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 15 March 1988, namely: `The construction of bus shelters on the landbridge between the new Parliament House and the provisional Parliament House'. Restoration to Notice Paper Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.12) —I move: That the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 be restored to the Notice Paper and be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TATE —I table a Government statement responding to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987 and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Cash Transaction Reports Bill was referred back to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for examination and report. The Committee tabled its report on 28 April 1988 and the Government is now in a position to respond to the report. Before proceeding to the report I wish to thank the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their efforts. The Committee received over 50 submissions and took evidence in Canberra and Sydney. Apart from the members of the Committee I also wish to thank, on behalf of the Government, all parties who lodged submissions and gave evidence before the Committee. The Government believes that its consideration of the Bill has been greatly enhanced by the views put to the Committee. I now turn to the Committee's recommendations. The principal recommendation is: That the operation of the Cash Transaction Reports Bill be reviewed after a suitable period of time, preferably not longer than 3 years, and that the review include the economic, taxation, privacy and law enforcement implications of the Bill. Certainly it is Government policy that all new initiatives should be subject to review to assess their effectiveness and efficiency. As the Committee itself concluded, the scheme of the Cash Transaction Reports Bill is novel and innovative. There is only one precedent for this type of legislation, the Bank Secrecy Act in the United States of America. It will take time for the Cash Transaction Reports Agency to be established and operational. Much work needs to be done to educate the private sector and the public at large on the requirements of the legislation. In order to ensure that there is a reasonable time in which the legislation can prove its worth, and I have no doubt that it will, the Government will require that the operation of the legislation be reviewed and a report tabled in Parliament no later than three years after the coming into force of the cash transaction reporting provisions. The Committee also recommended that there be certain technical amendments made to the legislation. In addition, the Committee referred to concerns of firms engaged in armoured vehicle cash carrying operations. Because of the special circumstances of such cash carriers, and because these firms maintain records sufficient to enable investigators to follow the money trail, the Government proposes to amend the Bill so as to provide a mechanism to relieve such firms from the obligation to report under clause 7. The Government proposes to move these amendments at the committee stage of the debate. Debate resumed from 29 April, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —Mr President, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89, Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89. The PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate that that course be followed? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.14) —As the Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Robert Ray) has just indicated, this morning we are dealing with not merely Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88 but also Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88. Cognately with those three Appropriation Bills we are dealing with Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89. Normally we would debate the Appropriation Bills separately from the Supply Bills, but without wishing to be in any way provocative, I think I would have to say that the mess into which the Government has allowed the business of the Senate to drift over the course of the past month or two has rendered it necessary to bring together the debate on these otherwise quite separate sets of Bills. The Opposition has agreed to their being debated cognately on this occasion because of the impossible legislative program now confronting the Senate. I think I am correct in saying that apart from these six Bills which we are now beginning to debate, there are already another 11 Bills on the Notice Paper-in fact, there are now 12 Bills because the Cash Transaction Reports Bill has been restored to the Notice Paper this morning on the motion of Senator Tate. There is also a whole raft of Bills to come from the lower House, including not least the referendum Bills which are to be debated in the House of Representatives this week and to which we, in this place, shall have to devote a great deal of time in the final two weeks of our own sittings. In these Appropriation Bills which I will discuss first, the Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures which are additional to the appropriations for 1987-88 made late last year under the original Appropriation Acts, Nos 1 and 2, and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act (No. 1). These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments which have been approved by the Government since the Budget, as well as requirements, in some cases, of an ongoing nature. As the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) noted in his second reading speech on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3), the principal factors underlying these requirements include certain unavoidable cost and price increases and other parameter changes since the Budget was prepared, in particular, the impact of the national wage case decision and the Australian Public Service office-based second tier pay agreement in the last few months. Of the additional appropriations in the three additional Appropriation Bills totalling $654.7m, the major amount of $501m is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3). It is fair to add that these additional appropriations in these Bills are offset in large part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Act Nos 1 and 2 and the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1987-88 which have resulted from a further scrutiny of the originally proposed appropriations in some areas since this legislation was first passed by the Parliament. The Opposition, of course, will not oppose these Bills, but with a view to expressing our concern at the state of the Australian economy, for which the Government's budgetary policies are considerably responsible, we shall move an amendment to the second reading motion for Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and that amendment will now be circulated. I should say in passing that in view of the fact that the Appropriation Bills are being debated cognately with the Supply Bills, we shall not move a separate amendment to the second reading motion on Supply Bill (No. 1) as we otherwise would have done. However, we ask the Senate to treat the proposed amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) as relating also and equally to Supply Bill (No. 1). I now read into the record the nature of the amendment which we will move to the motion for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88: At the end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate notes: (a) Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficit on the current account which increased by $1185 million during March 1988; (b) the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest levels in post-war Australia; and (c) the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulties''. As a result of the delays in coming finally to debate these Bills, we find ourselves, regarding paragraph (a) of the amendment, with approximately one hour and 10 minutes until we receive the balance of payments figure for April as distinct from the figure for March-- Senator Robert Ray —You want to rewrite your speech, do you? Senator STONE —No, I will not be re-writing my speech, Senator; but, as the Duke of Wellington said, it is a damned close run thing. The figure for March is cited in the first paragraph of our amendment. I know that many of my Opposition colleagues, and doubtless other senators also, will be discussing in the course of this debate specific aspects-in some cases very specific aspects-of the expenditure programs for which the additional appropriations are now sought. Therefore, I shall concentrate my remarks chiefly on the more general aspects of Australia's budgetary and economic position to which our amendment specifically relates. This Government is the highest taxing government in Australia's post-war history. Despite the now notorious trilogy undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the 1984 election campaign-namely, that, among other things, the proportion of taxation to our gross domestic product (GDP) would not in future years be increased above its 1984-85 level-we have actually seen further increases in both 1985-86 and 1986-87, and it is palpably obvious for anyone to see that we will certainly see a further increase in 1987-88. All the signs are that this financial year in particular the Government's coffers will be utterly overflowing with revenue derived from the new and increased taxes, together with the significantly enhanced level of tax enforcement in the past few years. In case my last comment should be misinterpreted in any way, I am not in the least questioning the need for the best possible tax enforcement on the part of the Australian Taxation Office. What I am pointing to is that the additional revenues which are accruing to the Treasury from that source should assist the Government in achieving what is today the most pressing need in the budgetary area-namely, cutting the level of tax rates in this country. On 15 September last year it was estimated that the deficit in the 1987-88 Budget would be $27m. In reality, of course, that deficit was $1,027m, because the figure was arrived at after taking account of what I think has previously been called in this chamber some creative accounting on the part of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). This was done by including as an offset to the Government's expenditures the receipts from a proposed program of major asset sales totalling $1,000m, which, in the view of many, should rather have been seen as a financing transaction rather than as a part of the Budget leading to the bottom line to be financed. However that may be, the fact is that today it is generally expected that the final outcome for this year's Budget will be very different from the figures laid down last September. Although we on this side of the chamber do not have access to the kind of detail and revision of estimates which the Government has at its disposal through its departmental structure, nevertheless all the dogs appear to be barking that we shall see at 30 June this year, or shortly thereafter when the numbers finally go up, a surplus in this year's Budget in the order of $1 billion to $1.5 billion-that is, $1,000m to $1,500m. I note in passing that the outlook for 1988-89 would appear to be even stronger with prospective surpluses in the next financial year of the order of between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion-$2,500m and $3,500m-being freely discussed without, I think, the slightest semblance of contradiction from the Treasurer or any other authoritative economic spokesman for the Government. I add in that connection also that those figures were being bandied around on the basis of no policy change assumptions and, in particular, even before last week's Premiers Conference, which, as we all know, has cut the prospective Commonwealth payments to the States in 1988-89 by some $650m. I think that no-one on this side of the chamber would question the need for the States in our federal system to have to bear their share of the problems of fiscal restraint which the whole of Australia is currently facing. Whether or not the level of that cut in the Commonwealth's prospective payments to the States in 1988-89 is exactly appropriate-on the Treasurer's figures, I think that amounts to a cut of 4.2 per cent in real terms-may be a subject for discussion on another day. I do not propose to go into that this morning. What one does notice, however, and what is worthy of remark, is that this further cutback of 4.2 per cent in real terms, after adjustment for inflation, in the Commonwealth's payments to the States in 1988-89 will follow a similar cut of no less than 4.7 per cent in real terms-at the moment that is still an estimate, but I imagine at this stage of the year it is a very good estimate -in the Commonwealth's payments to the States in the current financial year. In that connection, one should compare the cut of 4.7 per cent in real terms in the Commonwealth's payments to the States with the Commonwealth's approach to its own expenditure programs in its Budget-that is, the programs which are administered by its own Ministers-of bringing down a Budget which saw in overall net terms no cut at all. In fact, the Government budgeted for a very marginal increase of 0.1 per cent in real terms. When the Treasurer makes his economic statement on Wednesday evening next week, and later on the Budget itself, the eyes of many Australians, and certainly all informed Australians, will be focused upon the Treasurer's performance in cutting back the spending programs of his own ministerial colleagues in the Commonwealth's own Budget in 1988-89. I think it must be said that if there is to be any sense of fairness about the policies of fiscal restraint which the Government, quite rightly-I do not question the policy at all-is seeking to impose upon us all, including State governments, we will have to see an equivalent degree of sacrifice being accepted by the Commonwealth in its own spending programs to the cut which, last week, it imposed on its payments to the States. That, I think, will be something on which to focus on Wednesday night of next week. The Treasurer has said, publicly looking ahead to 1988-89, bearing in mind particularly in that regard that we are debating not merely the additional Appropriation Bills for the current financial year but also the Supply Bills for 1988-89, and been supported publicly in this by the Prime Minister also, that he will be aiming for a sharply increased surplus in the Commonwealth Budget for 1988-89. Again, I would like to put it on the record that the Opposition does not disagree with that objective. It is true, as the Treasurer and Government economic spokesmen have said, that the total public sector borrowing requirement in Australia today is still, given our economic circumstances, too high. What we do disagree with is the means which apparently the Government will be using to achieve that much enhanced budgetary surplus in 1988-89, namely taxing more and more in order to finance the still quite bloated levels of the Government's own expenditures and, I might say, doing so by, among other things, burdening not only individuals but also businesses with new incentive-sapping taxes such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. All of this is going on at a time when our balance of payments is still in a pretty desperate mess. I say that, of course, without knowledge of the figures for April which, as I have mentioned earlier, will be published in just under an hour from now. However, what I think we must all understand, I feel sure the Government Ministers also do understand, is that whatever those figures may or may not reveal, one month's figures or a few months figures do not change the overall picture. I will return shortly to what that overall picture actually is. At a time when, as I say, our balance of payments is still in a pretty desperate mess and when our external indebtedness, refered to in paragraph (a) of our proposed amendment to Appropriation Bill (No. 3), is still climbing, it is very disquieting that we should have this degree of complacency on the Government's part. After all, as paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment states, Australia at the end of the last calendar year in December had a net foreign indebtedness amounting to $86.77 billion. To refresh any memories that may need refreshing, that is more than four times the comparable figure of just over $21.3 billion of net external debt with which Australia was encumbered at the end of June 1983, just after the present Government came to office. In 4 1/2 short years the Hawke-Keating Government has presided over a more than quadrupling of Australia's net foreign debt. We are continuing to add to that already very high level of outstanding debt at a rapid clip. In reviewing Australia's credit rating in the international bond markets the international credit rating firm Moody's Investors Service Inc. stated in March: The pace of adjustment since 1983 has been steady but slow relative to several other OECD countries that have faced similar deficit problems. Moody's went on to say: A pertinent question is whether this gradualist approach to reform will succeed rapidly enough to prevent external borrowing requirements from reaching unacceptably high levels. What are we effectively doing about this? The balance of payments deficit this year was originally estimated in the Budget Papers at $11.5 billion. It is now probable that it will end up at the end of the financial year at somewhere between $10 1/2 billion and $11 billion. Time and again in this Senate the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has boasted about the big improvement in Australia's balance of payments deficit for this year which such figures would in his opinion indicate. He has talked about the deficit of 6 per cent of gross domestic product which we experienced in 1985-86, he has pointed to the reduction of that deficit to about 5 per cent of gross domestic product in 1986-87 and he has pointed triumphantly to the estimated 4 per cent or possibly a shade under 4 per cent of gross domestic product in the current financial year. The Opposition, on the other hand, has steadily pointed out that the improvement this year is due entirely to the sharp improvement in our international terms of trade and in particular to the sharp improvement in the international prices of many, indeed most, of our major export commodities. We pointed this out in the aftermath of the Budget itself, the do nothing Budget for 1987-88. We pointed this out again in the wake of the October crash last year of the international stock exchanges and, indeed, of the international foreign exchange markets. We also said that the pace of adjustment being pursued by the Government was simply not fast enough to deal adequately and responsibly with Australia's economic problems. I must say therefore that I was fascinated to see a couple of remarks that the Treasurer made, very relevant to those matters, in his opening address to the Premiers foregathered here last Thursday for the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting. I interpolate that these were not off the cuff remarks of the kind which the Treasurer may have been thought to have made when he delivered his famous banana republic comments on the John Laws radio program almost two years earlier to the day. They were part of a formal statement of position which is always made by the Treasurer on these occasions to set the scene, set the stage, before the Government moves in to debate with the Premiers what they should or should not receive from the Commonwealth in the year ahead. What the Treasurer had to say first of all about the balance of payments-I am quoting from a transcript issued under the authority of the Treasurer's office-was this: Exports are growing more strongly than the Budget forecast which was for 4 per cent growth-they are actually running at about 7 per cent. Despite that, imports are rising quickly as well-at about the same rates as exports. The problem is that what we- that is, the Government- call net exports-that is, the level of import competing and exporting products in excess of those imports-are not showing any change at the moment. Put another way, they are not contributing to the reduction in the current account deficit. At the moment- these are the words I want to stress- the current account deficit is being held-and reduced-by the fortuitous lift in commodity prices. If that were to change we would be left exposed and vulnerable again. I can only say that I am delighted to have the Treasurer finally concede the point that the Opposition has been making in this place for the past seven or eight months. I do not wish to short change the Treasurer's contribution to the debate. He went on further to say something else which the Opposition has been pressing upon this Government not only for the past seven or eight months but for a very long time beforehand. As recorded on page 15 of the transcript of the Premiers Conference, he stated in respect of our international debt situation: We cannot claim- that is, we in Australia- to be in control of our own sovereignty while we owe someone else $100 billion of gross debt. The figure was nearer $111 billion at the end of last December but I leave that aside. He continued: While that gross debt is there and is being added to, albeit more slowly than in the past, our position as a nation is not secure. Again I congratulate the Treasurer on the note of reality which at last has been allowed to creep in after two whole years, particularly the last nine months, of telling us rather different stories. While I am referring to the Treasurer's remarks in the course of last Thursday's Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting, let me refer for one moment-that is all the time I have-to the particularly vindictive actions of the Treasurer and this Government generally against the Government, and hence the people, of Queensland. The Commonwealth's offer to the States contained the following paragraph relating to borrowings by State authorities: The Commonwealth therefore proposes that the global limit on authority borrowings be $4,700 million in 1988-89. This represents a reduction of 11.2 per cent on the 1987-88 limit of $5,293 million. That is a reduction of $593m. The Commonwealth went on to say: . . . ABS statistics on the net borrowing requirement suggest that in recent years Queensland's net PSBR had been significantly below its global limit. Those considerations underlie the illustrative distribution of global limits set out in Table 2, which shows an initial reduction of $300 million . . . (Extension of time granted) I thank the Senate. The Commonwealth proposed that this reduction of $593m in the global funding limits of the State authorities be distributed by first reducing Queensland's share by $300m and then distributing the remaining $293m cut among all the States, including Queensland, the result being that the total cut proposed for Queensland would be $367m out of a total proposed cut of $593m. I do not have time to go into the full vindictiveness, the full discriminatory implications, of that proposal, which of course was the subject of argument last Thursday night, resulting, for the first time in my memory, in a disagreement at the end of the day and a refusal by the Premier of Queensland to accede to those kinds of standover tactics. Let me turn in the three or four minutes remaining to me to the Supply Bills which are also before us this morning. The purpose of these Bills is to seek interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988, by which date it is expected that the equivalent Appropriation Bills, which will form part of next year's Budget, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $8,689m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. Supply Bill (No. 2), which deals with the capital works and services, payments to the States, and so on, seeks interim appropriations totalling some $2,064m, again for 1988-89. Again, I point out that the Opposition will not be opposing these Bills. As I remarked at the outset, had they been discussed separately we should have moved a general amendment in relation to the second reading of the first of them, to express our dissatisfaction with the state of Australia's finances, including its external finances at this time. However, we have already so moved in the case of the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and, as I have said, we will not be duplicating that. I make the point also that at the committee stage of the three Supply Bills the Opposition will move certain amendments to the schedules of the three respective Bills, which relate in each case to the item Advance to the Minister for Finance. I thank the Senate. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(10.46) —This morning we are debating the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89, Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89. The Appropriation Bills actually appropriate an additional $654m for the purposes of the Government in the current financial year. The appropriations for additional funds have been offset by savings of some $566m on expenditure authorised by the previous Appropriation Acts for this financial year. The Supply Bills in fact are for the interim part of the next financial year. They appropriate amounts of money for the period from 1 July 1988 to 30 November 1988, until the full Budget is passed later in the year. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $8,600m for the ordinary annual services of the Government, and Supply Bill (No. 2) seeks interim appropriations of some $2,000m for expenditure on capital works and payments to the States. Capital works, of course, involve non-recurrent items and are the subject of Supply Bill (No. 2). The Government's economic strategy at the moment is to respond positively to the decline in our export prices which has occurred in recent years, in relation to prices that we have had to pay for imports. As a result of that so-called terms of trade collapse, the Government had to make some fundamental changes to its budgetary strategy, compared to the strategy of previous years. There has been a commitment to structural adjustment of the Australian economy, requiring a reduced balance of payments current account deficit, essentially to try to boost our external proceeds in relation to the payments that we make overseas. We have a priority of bringing foreign debt under control within that structural adjustment and to develop new export oriented manufacturing industries to provide an increase in foreign exchange earnings in the long term. The 1986 Budget and the economic statement of May last year began the process of adjustment, with substantial reductions of Commonwealth expenditures. This was done in order to reduce total domestic demand within the economy. The objective of that was to reduce the spill-over effect into imported goods. The policy was also to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, to reduce foreign borrowings by the government sector of the economy. The 1987 Budget has continued the policy of fiscal responsibility. I am pleased to note that as of today the estimate is that there will be a surplus of some $580m for the current financial year, as compared to a Budget figure last year of an overall deficit of some $27m. So, at present we are looking at a Budget surplus of $580m, and, of course, the final figure will be available in a couple of months. That compares with the financial outcome for last financial year of a total deficit of over $2,000m. It is very important to note that the prospective surplus this financial year is in fact the first in many years in the Commonwealth Budget sector. I was interested to hear the remarks of Senator Stone, who preceded me in this debate, because, of course, Senator Stone was the Secretary of the Australian Treasury, the head person there giving macro-economic policy advice to the Fraser-Howard Government for many years. In going through the Budget records before speaking this morning I noted that there were no Budget surpluses at all over the period of the Fraser Government, when Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition, and Senator Stone, now the Leader of the National Party in this place, were in charge of the economic affairs of this country. According to the records available to me this morning, during that time there was never a Budget surplus. Therefore, it must be placed on record that there has been a dramatic turnaround in the finances of the Commonwealth of Australia since Mr Howard was sacked from the Treasury portfolio in 1983. In the Budget this year there will be a cut in Government spending of 2 per cent in real terms. To simplify the economic jargon, that means that in fact Commonwealth spending will be rising 2.7 per cent less than the measure of inflation in the community. As to the likely result for this year and for last financial year, they are the only two consecutive real declines in total Commonwealth outlays, total Commonwealth Government spending, in the past 30 years. So, there has been a tremendous change in economic policy in recent years. Of course, within that period of 30 years we had the period when Mr Howard was Treasurer; he brought down five Budgets from 1978 to 1982 inclusive. Senator John Stone was his adviser in the Treasury. Never during that period were two Budgets in a row brought down where there were real cuts in government spending. In this financial year the Hawke Government has taken positive action to reduce Commonwealth Government debt. In fact, the Government will repay some $1,000m of Commonwealth Government overseas debt and the same amount of domestic bonds this year. Again, no other government in more than 50 years has made repayments of both external and domestic government debt. I believe that the Government's economic strategy is working, and I refer to the Government's move to correct the external imbalance, that is, the excess of our import payments over our export proceeds, without inducing recession or drastically attacking Australian living standards. The Government has pursued a strategy of restraint, with fairness in the community. It has distributed the burden of economic readjustment across all sectors of the community and, I am pleased to say, it has rejected the traditional conservative agenda of shifting the burden of economic adjustment on to the poor and needy sections of the community. The Hawke Government has not slashed government services to the needy and the disadvantaged and nor has it made unemployment a deliberate instrument of economic policy. Of course, that was the agenda of Mr Howard and his New Right acolytes at the last election in 1987; it was an agenda which was decisively rejected by the Australian people. It is what they did in government; in fact, the whole record of the Howard Treasury is one of trying to cope with an increase in cost of living, increases in the consumer price index, by regulating the level of unemployment in the Australian community. They did not see employment as a right of the people; they saw it as a residual in the economic equations, and accordingly they varied the level of unemployment in an attempt to reduce the rate of increase in inflation, as measured by the consumer price index-and that approach failed. The Liberal Government left office with 11 1/2 per cent inflation and unemployment in the 10 per cent range. It found that it had to create more and more unemployment to produce a given effect on the consumer price index-and as I say, that policy failed. This Government's policies are in contrast to the Liberals' policy of industrial and social confrontation. The Hawke Government has made a managed response to the problems in the economy and at the same time has made special provision to protect those persons most at risk during the period of slow growth in national income that we have experienced in recent times. I instance the family package announced last year, which has in fact provided a substantial boost to low income families with children. The scheme is targeted at households whose head is in the work force, and substantial payments of $22 a week per dependent child are made under that package. In contrast to that policy response to Australia's economic problems, we have had the Howard and Stone record during the period from the late 1970s to the early 1980s. Now we have claims by Senator Stone, Mr Howard and Mr Peacock that the pace of economic adjustment at present is not fast enough. Those three gentlemen insist that the Government should cut more deeply into expenditure. However, empty boasts and claims are easily made. The practice of policy implementation on the Treasury benches is much more difficult than the life of sitting on the back bench in Opposition. I must say that so far this Opposition has not really delivered the goods with its policies; it gives no cause for joy to the Australian people. This has been a very poor Opposition in terms of getting together policies and actually showing the Australian people that it is an alternative government with alternative policies. It is relevant to ask just how the Opposition's breast beating about the cutting of government spending compares with its own record in government. There is plenty of data on that very relevant question. We can go right back to the period when the then Mr Stone was sitting over the road in his chair in the Treasury, Mr Howard was in the Treasurer's office in this building, and Mr Fraser was the Prime Minister. It is interesting indeed to look at the record to see how their actions in that period compared with their rhetoric as political figures in running this country. It is particularly relevant to note that in 1978-79 in the first Budget that Mr Howard brought down as Treasurer, the Budget outlays-that is, Commonwealth Budget expenditures-as a proportion of Australia's gross domestic product were 27.0 per cent. In the last year that Mr Howard was Treasurer and when Senator Stone-who is moving amendments in relation to the legislation before us-was advising Mr Howard, Budget outlays were not 27.0 per cent or 28.0 per cent of gross domestic product: in fact, they were 28.7 per cent of gross domestic product. Therefore, in that span of five years of Howard Treasurership with Senator Stone advising him, Budget outlays, as a proportion of Australia's gross domestic product, rose by 1.7 percentage points. They did not fall. I well remember the rhetoric of the 1975 election campaign, as I am sure you do, Mr President. There was the `turn on the lights' syndrome; there were claims about small government and about cutting government expenditure back. However, the reality is that when Opposition members are on the Treasury benches they do not cut government spending; in fact, they allow it to increase. The record shows that over the five years of Mr Howard's Budgets government spending rose 1.7 percentage points against Australia's gross domestic product. It is also relevant to look at Australia's economic performance in that period under these people. As I have said, Senator Stone will move an amendment in relation to the legislation before us as it relates to the state of our economy. Let us look at what was happening when he was at the Treasury advising Mr Howard on how to run the Australian economy. In 1982-83, Australia's cost of living rise was a massive 11.5 per cent. In the March quarter of 1983, when this Government came to power and when Mr Howard was thrown out as Treasurer, the consumer price index was rising by an annual figure of 11.5 per cent. We had an unemployment rate in that recession of 1982-83 of 10.4 per cent. That was the record of Senator Stone, Mr Peacock and Mr Howard, who now come in here with quick fix solutions to the problems of the Australian economy. Their record was double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. In fact, in the last year that Mr Howard was running the Treasury 186,000 Australians were thrown on the industrial scrapheap and out of work as a result of Mr Howard's desperate gamble to try to reduce inflation by reducing demand in the Australian community. The final insult to the Australian people was the disclosure that the prospective Budget deficit of 1983-84, when the previous Government left office, was $9,600m. That sum was piled up, for this Government to deal with, by the spendthrift policies of Mr Howard, advised by Senator Stone at the Treasury. That is a record of failure and mismanagement. The previous Government left the Hawke Government to clean up double digit unemployment and a double digit cost of living rise. The Howard-Stone regime failed to deliver economic growth and employment opportunities. They were equally unsuccessful in their ideological crusade for smaller government. I have already pointed out the rise in gross domestic product accounted for by Commonwealth Government spending under that previous regime-a 1.7 percentage points rise in total outlays at a time when these members of the previous Government were going around the Australian community pointing to the virtues of small government and saying that they would bring it about. However, year in and year out they were adding to the proportion of gross domestic product taken by Commonwealth Government spending. In fact, Mr Howard, advised by the then Mr Stone, overshot expenditure estimates in every one of the five Budgets they brought down together. In every one of the five Budgets from 1978 to 1982 Mr Howard, as Treasurer, advised by the then Mr Stone, overshot the original expenditure estimate. That is the record of those gentlemen, and they now have the cheek and gall to lecture us here on how to run the Australian economy and conduct the Australian Government's finances. They left us with a prospective Budget deficit of $9,600m and we have turned it into a surplus in 1987-88. Three of the five Budgets brought down by Mr Howard, advised by the then Mr Stone, blew out beyond Budget projections. That culminated in the massive blow-out of $2,700m in 1983. That was the record on the fiscal front of the Howard-Stone team, and now they want to go back to the Australian people and say that they have the credentials and the runs on the board to manage the Australian economy in the future. I now want to consider the area of taxation, which I find particularly interesting in view of the amendment foreshadowed today by Senator Stone in relation to the legislation before us. Mr Howard, advised by the then Mr Stone, had little success in stemming the growth of total government receipts, and income tax receipts in particular. It is interesting to note that in 1978-79, the year of the first Budget that Mr Howard brought down as Treasurer, total government Budget receipts, as a proportion of gross domestic product, were 23.8 per cent. That is the figure in the appendix to the Budget Papers-23.8 per cent was the relationship of Commonwealth Government Budget receipts to Australia's gross domestic product in 1878-79. In 1982-83, the year of Mr Howard's last Budget-and again he was advised by the then Mr Stone, now Senator Stone and mover of amendments in the Senate on fiscal and macro-economic policy-Commonwealth Government receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product were not 23.8 per cent, the original figure; they were not 24.8 per cent; they certainly were not 25.8 per cent; they were in fact 26.1 per cent of gross domestic product. So after the talk at the time of the 1975 election about turning on the lights, cutting back the size of government and putting income back in the pockets of Australians, these people put their hands deeper and deeper into the pockets of the Australian taxpayers. In 1978, Mr Howard introduced a Budget which involved taxation and Commonwealth Government receipts totalling 23.8 per cent of gross domestic product. His last Budget produced a figure 2.3 percentage points higher. In preparing all of those Budgets right through that period he was advised by the present Senator Stone about how to conduct the Australian Treasury. It is also interesting to look at taxation receipts within that total revenue figure because they also rose sharply over the same period. From 1978-79 to 1982-83 Commonwealth Government taxation revenue as a proportion of the gross domestic product rose from 21.7 per cent to 24 per cent. Over that period of five Budgets there was a lift of 2.3 percentage points in the share of Australia's gross domestic product taken by taxation. Last year, on 7 October, in this place Senator Stone said that no purpose was served in examining the economic record of the Fraser Government. I simply pose the question: If the Fraser Government had had a successful economic record would Senator Stone have been so modest last October? It is a disastrous record not just in terms of micro-economic policy and policy outcomes but also in terms of taxation and government expenditure. Obviously Senator Stone is not proud of his record under the Fraser Government, and nor should he be on the basis of the facts that I have put to the Senate today. The credibility of words can be judged only by corresponding actions. The fact is that the economic policies of the Fraser-Howard Government as advised by Senator Stone failed. So there can be little credibility to the Opposition's criticism of the present Government's policies. It is interesting to note, for example, that Senator Chaney, who is present in the chamber, said on 21 September last year in his speech on the Budget that there is insufficient wage restraint in Australia. He seems to have forgotten the wages explosion in the last years of the Fraser Government. I well remember the wages explosion in the early 1980s. In fact, it is very interesting to look at the average weekly earnings for full-time adults in the period 1980-81 to 1982-83. For example, while Senator Chaney says that at present there is insufficient wage restraint in Australia the fact is that average wages rose by 14.2 per cent in 1980-81; in the following financial year, 1981-82, there was a 13.3 per cent rise; and in the following year, the last year of the Fraser-Howard Government, which was advised by the then Mr Stone, there was a 14.2 per cent rise in average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults. So in every one of those years there were double digit wage rises, yet Senator Chaney says now that there is insufficient wage restraint in Australia. However, when it was in government the coalition's record on the wages front and in the industrial area was one of total disaster and calamity for the Australian economy. On 7 October last year Senator Stone said in this place that real unit labour costs are too high. However, let us check the facts and look at the record when Mr Stone was sitting over the road in his big chair at the Treasury, advising Mr Howard on how to run the Australian economy. It is very interesting that in terms of the index of real unit labour costs in Australia in the 1970s there were increases and not decreases. If we look at the non-farm sector, which is what the economists look at because the farm sector is heavily affected by seasonal conditions, the index of real unit labour costs rose from 105 points to 107 points while Mr Howard was Treasurer. By comparison, in the first four years of the Hawke Government since 1983 the index has fallen from 107 points in 1982-83 to 97 points in 1986-87. Real unit labour costs have fallen in every year of the Hawke Government. That can be contrasted with the period when Mr Stone was advising Mr Howard on how to run the Australian economy, when they rose significantly. I turn now to the question of taxation and particularly the whole question of consumption taxes. The Alice in Wonderland quality of Liberal Party thinking is maintained in its new tax policy. In recent years Mr Howard has repeatedly promised to scrap the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. In fact, I think his famous quotation is that he would scrap the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax `lock, stock and barrel'. Mr Howard went to the Australian people time and time again with the statement that he would scrap those taxes `lock, stock and barrel'. However, it seems that, as a result of recent policy discussions within the coalition, a watered-down version of the capital gains tax will now be put to the Australian people by the Liberal Party. I hope that I am not saying anything that is incorrect; that is my interpretation of the coalition's new tax policy, that there is to be a version, albeit watered-down, of the capital gains tax. I understand that there is also to be a version of the fringe benefits tax in the coalition tax policy. Despite all the statements about scrapping the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax lock, stock and barrel those very taxes now miraculously appear in the coalition tax policy. It is yet another reversal on the taxation front by the coalition. I would like to find out what is proposed in relation to the other element that was dealt with in our tax statement in 1985, that is, the termination of tax subsidised lunches in restaurants. What is the coalition's policy on that? Time and time again the Government was castigated in this place and in the House of Representatives for ending that tax rort which was available to highly privileged people in the Australian community-a tax rort that cost over $300m every year just to allow a certain section of the community to eat lunches in restaurants at taxpayers' expense. I would like to hear what the coalition will do about that. Will it restore that tax rort? Will it bring back the free lunch, that great rort within the Australian tax system? We do know, whatever the decision in that area, that the Liberals are planning a new tax directed at ordinary Australians because the Liberal Party has said that it will rationalise the Australian sales tax system. I have been a student of sales tax in a professional sense for many years and on my interpretation the only way that one can significantly rationalise the Australian sales tax system is to expand the sales tax base. Essentially only two areas are left in terms of physical products into which the sales tax base can be expanded, and they are food and clothing. As I see it, that is the only way that the Liberals could significantly rationalise sales tax. Food and clothing are the only significant areas of the Australian economy where substantial revenue could be gained from a rationalisation of the sales tax system. Of course, historically both of those areas have been tax exempt for many years. As a result of this so-called rationalisation of sales tax by the coalition we could find that a whole range of items in the Australian community could be subject to an indirect tax, including a loaf of bread, a bag of flour, a meat pie at the football-which Senator Walsh is so fond of talking about-and children's shoes. That is the inescapable conclusion. If one looks at the fine print in Mr Howard's major statement on taxation to Parliament on 12 March 1981 one sees that not many areas remain to be taxed. Unless one taxes services, the intangible elements of the Australian economy, to rationalise sales tax significantly one must tax food and clothing. I make it clear that the party of which I am a member, the Australian Labor Party, is not in that game. We will certainly not go down the road of placing a tax on a loaf of bread or a meat pie and a whole range of food items and clothing including children's shoes. Those items are all up for grabs. Senator Messner —You tax food now. Senator MAGUIRE —That is a very good point. Senator Messner makes the point that we tax food. In fact, I think Opposition speakers came up with about three items. They parroted off orange juice and, I think, potato chips and soft drinks. They are the only three food items they could think of. Snack foods and the like are about the only items that are taxed. But the Opposition is considering putting a tax on such things as a loaf of bread, meat pies and flour-all the staples of the Australian community. That is what will come out of the Opposition's rationalisation of the sales tax system. The Opposition will not be able to get significant revenue unless it moves into the food and clothing areas. One has only to read Mr Howard's speech in the House of Representatives in March 1981 to reach that conclusion. He made it very clear then that if one is to get significant revenue from a sales tax in this country, one has to move into the substantially untaxed areas. That is what it is all about. These people will hit staple items in the community. They say that they will not have a consumption tax but they will have a disguised consumption tax in the form of a sales tax on food and clothing which will seriously disadvantage ordinary Australians. Of course it will disadvantage ordinary Australians; they spend all their income. They cannot afford to save their income and therefore be exempt from the tax. They have to spend all their income in their daily lives. It is very difficult for people to put aside savings when they are on low incomes. We have to be very vigilant in scrutinising the fine print of the Liberals' hastily cobbled together tax policy to ensure that they do not move down this road of putting a massive sales tax on the staple items purchased by the Australian community. I am delighted that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has ruled out a consumption tax being levied by the Labor Government. I utterly and totally repudiate consumption tax and a further expansion of the sales tax as proposed. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(11.17) —I rise to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bills and I do so in order to address the body of my speech to a subject to which I have devoted considerable attention since I have been in this place-that is, funding for people with disabilities. Before I do so, I point out that I had the pleasure of hearing a couple of comments made by Senator Maguire about the tax policies of the Liberal Party of Australia. I suggest that he take time to read that policy. I wish to correct some of the comments that he made. For a start, there is no mention of entertainment tax. As Mr Howard quite categorically stated, there will be no entertainment tax in our new tax policy. Senator Maguire then went on to try to discredit our tax policy by bringing up the old furphy of consumption tax. Senator Maguire —I was talking about the free lunch. You are going to bring back the free lunch; $300m worth of rorts. Senator CALVERT —There is no mention of free lunches and you know that Mr Howard himself said that there would be no entertainment tax whatsoever. Senator Maguire —You do not know what you are talking about. For three years you have been saying that you would bring the free lunch back. Senator CALVERT —Senator Maguire does not know what he is talking about either because he went on to talk about consumption tax and there being no tax on food. We all know that there is a tax on orange juice and on other items at the moment. Senator Maguire —What about bread? You are going to tax bread, aren't you? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator CALVERT —I just wish to make the point that Senator Maguire has misrepresented the Liberal Party tax policy in two ways. He tried to say that we would bring back the free lunch when in fact the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said that that was not the case, as did Mr Peacock. Also he is trying to bring up consumption tax again when all that has been said by the Opposition is that we will rationalise sales taxes which are already in existence anyway. Some people see them as a consumer tax because they are being applied at the moment to orange juice and that sort of thing. I return to the subject which I raised initially-that is, funding for people with disabilities. Whilst I believe that this Government has tried to claim that it is doing the best for people with disabilities, in actual fact it has deceived these people into believing that they are receiving more funds, when they are not. I stress that my prime motivation is to ensure that the many valuable programs that are operating throughout Australia at the moment should receive adequate funds to ensure their survival. I know that this is a sentiment which is shared by honourable senators on both sides of the House. I note that Senator Tate is in the House and I know that his thoughts turn particularly to the disabled and those people in need. I have sought to bring this matter before the Senate before and I have been accused of trying to beat up the situation. It has also been said that the situation that I have portrayed is incorrect. I was very interested to read an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 26 April this year which quotes the Executive Officer of the Association of Rehabilitation Facilities, Mr Kevin Burn. The article said: Some handicapped people in sheltered employment could be left in the cold under Federal Government funding proposals, rehabilitation chief Kevin Burn believes. He said there was concern about the ability of the Government to meet the cost of its new work ideas for the physically and intellectually handicapped. It is very interesting to note that the sorts of comments which I have been airing for some time are now being reported throughout Australia in the Press. There is concern-and it is very real-about the viability of such programs. As I said earlier, and perhaps this has not been the intention, the Government has been making more funds available in some areas, but has been taking them out in others. One can put more into the pot but, unfortunately, if one is taking it out all the time, the soup becomes a bit thinner. Therefore the people who are supposed to be receiving these benefits are not getting what they should. In dealing with this subject, it is appropriate to consider the guidelines issued by the Department of Community Services and Health with regard to its programs for people with disabilities. In its pamphlet, the Department goes to great trouble to spell out the aims and objectives of these programs and I think it is again appropriate that I take this opportunity to share with my colleagues the Department's assessment of its disability services program. That assessment says: The disability services program can fund non-profit community based organisations and State and local government authorities to provide a range of services for people with intellectual, physical, sensory or psychiatric disabilities, provided these services meet with ongoing support needs. Services which can be assisted include accommodation support, respite care, advocacy, information, support and employment, competitive employment training and placement, independent living training, recreation and print disability services. These are all worthwhile programs and ones which deserve support. But the key to the Department's guidelines is in its wording: provided these services meet with ongoing support needs. It is clear to me and it becomes even clearer as I delve into the matter that there are a good number of programs which are providing such services which have an ongoing demand for their assistance and which are very supportive in their role. But if present trends continue, these will miss out altogether. The present position is that in some cases the intellectually handicapped and sheltered workshops have not received funding for the current financial year, even though we are nearly at the end of it. Only last month I received letters from some areas, particularly in Tasmania, where they had had no indication of what their assistance would be for maintenance and equipment this year. Nobody can deny that in the community services area requests for funds have by and large always exceeded the available allocations. But in recent years less money is being made available to many segments which are providing funding for disability services. Largely this has coincided with a number of innovative demonstration projects. These projects themselves have proved to be very successful and I congratulate the Government on its initiative in bringing them forward. But as I said earlier, it is another case of trying to get more out of the same pot, more out of the same amount of money, and all this is doing is creating problems in other areas. If the Government is to honour its ongoing commitments, the existing projects must suffer. I think that was brought about by replacing the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act with the Disability Services Act. I believe that it has caused a lot of trouble. The Government, in trying to do the right thing, again has fallen into a trap. Section 3 (c) of the Disability Services Act states: to ensure that services provided to persons with disabilities- (i) further the integration of persons with disabilities in the community, and complement services available generally to persons in the community; (ii) enable persons with disabilities to achieve positive outcomes, such as increased independence, employment opportunities and integration in the community; and (iii) are provided in ways that promote in the community a positive image of persons with disabilities and enhance their self-esteem. That is a very fine and positive outlook to adopt; but in fact what the bureaucrats are doing, using the guidelines set down in the Act-I saw such a case only the other day-is taking the less intellectually and physically handicapped people from a sheltered situation, in supported employment where people support them, and their friends, and placing them in the community, where they are at risk. To do that they have to be provided with minders, welfare officers, whose quite significant salaries have to be paid for. In achieving that end, all the Government is doing is taking away the available funds that could be used to provide the services that are needed in existing areas such as sheltered workshops. Whilst the Government's intention has been laudable and the Act's intention is laudable and praiseworthy, in fact the system is just not working. It is creating more demand on the funds that already exist. Because extra funds are not available, the present organisations do not have the money they need to carry on. When equipment and maintenance funding requests are not met and the cost has to be met by the organisation, thus depleting its funds, that can affect the financial viability of that facility. We must bear in mind that quite a few organisations provide essential products to our community. A supported employment centre which I visited a couple of months ago provides brooms and brushes for the local zinc company. Those items are not provided by anyone else. The people providing the service are deaf. Under the new Disability Services Act and the way it is interpreted by the bureaucrats, it was thought that it would be a good idea to take those people from that centre and move them into the zinc company's premises. That fits in very well with the Act's intentions. It could be seen that those people were being placed in the work force, thus achieving the Government's aims. But all it did was create a union situation. Those people who were taken from the environment which they were used to felt that the sooner they got back to their own premises the better. Builders and the like place great reliance on cupboards and timber products produced by sheltered workshops, all of which need money for equipment maintenance. That is one of their most essential requirements for funds so that they can keep their machinery up to scratch. When we are nine months into the year and they still do not have any commitment to funding for that equipment, the viability of their operation is affected. In an effort to resolve some of the matters which have raised themselves during my deliberations, I have taken the opportunity in this chamber to ask a number of questions of the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook). It is appropriate that I take this opportunity to take Senator Cook to task for some of his comments. While Senator Cook may claim that overall expenditure has grown over the years, what he fails to say is that the number of services throughout the country has increased by 141 per cent over the last 10 years-that is, 1976-77 to 1985-86-while the grant moneys being made available to groups have increased by only 50 per cent over the same period. If we look at these figures over the industry as a whole and, therefore, the actual expenditure which is being put into disabled programs, we see that in real terms it has decreased by some 83 per cent or $86m over the same period. Unfortunately, I could not attend the Estimates committee hearings, but Senator Walters asked quite a few questions pertaining to funding on my behalf. As yet, I have not received a reply. I suspect that what has been made known to me by members of those groups is true. The Minister stated that capital funding has not been severely cut. He went on to clarify that by saying that it has been cut, but not severely. We need to make the point that the financial resources of those groups are not such that they can afford to absorb cuts. Any cut, regardless of its size, is a severe cut. The Minister also stated that the Government has never been able to provide, nor indeed is it committed to, automatic entitlement for service provided. That is a total abrogation of the Government's responsibility to assist under the Act, for the Act gives a much broader definition of those individuals who should be assisted. Don Grimes, a former Minister, was responsible for the Act. It is well known that he said that, under the new Act, when it replaced the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, recipients would not be any worse off; in fact, they would be better off. That is not the case. I have received letters from sheltered workshops and supported employment areas which show real concern about what is happening. When the Act was enacted, the present Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) put out a news release which stated: The Government's newly-introduced Disability Services Act recognises that `People with disabilities have a right to be part of the community-to fulfil their aspirations in terms of employment, day-to-day living, and recreation. That is fine. The news release went on to say: This means that people with disabilities have greater opportunities for improvements in their quality of life as a result of the Government's initiatives. As I said earlier, those are very good initiatives and aims, but what is happening is that the Government is coming up with all these new ideas and very little extra funds. Therefore, the whole thing is falling apart. It is a very serious situation. A great deal of the capital funds which have been made available over the last few years has gone into accommodation services. Those accommodation services have grown extensively, due to the deinstitutionalisation principle adopted by the Commonwealth and the States. What this means in effect is that the number of accommodation services which can be made available is decreasing and that there are few institutions available for the up and coming disabled who are now approaching the service providers with a need for such accommodation. The costs associated with supplying these services have simply not kept up with the demand and this has been at the cost of existing services. I firmly believe that this Government cannot take an attitude where `no funds' can be used as an excuse. For too long the needs of the disabled who are least able to present their case have been ignored. In my State of Tasmania, I have been made aware that centres are awaiting money for essential equipment and maintenance and that these funds simply are not available. Quite clearly we have a situation where the expectations of the disabled in Australia have been heightened by the new disability services legislation. This increase in expectation has flowed through to families and to those providing these services. However, the large waiting lists which are now being experienced by these groups are testimony to the underfunding and, in some cases, the defunding which has occurred over the past decade. I would suggest that probably most senators on both sides of the House would at some time or other have had something to do with disabled people, particularly the intellectually disabled. I never cease to be amazed and impressed by the wonderful feeling that the disabled have for each other and the affinity that they have with the people who come to visit them. The people who work in these situations-the volunteers and the paid workers who control these organisations-have a great pride in what they are trying to achieve. They, too, have a great affinity with the people they are working with. I am told that the young people who are working in supported employment areas cannot wait to get back to work. Intellectually and physically handicapped people who believe that they are doing their bit for this country-in fact, they are doing it very well-almost queue up to get back to work after a holiday period. Work is one way in which they can show their self-esteem and create some pride for themselves. As I said earlier in my speech, they are almost in a club situation in which they rely on each other so much for support. It is very distressing to me to read in letters that I have received-and I will quote from a couple of them-that the lack of funding could mean a drop off in services and an increase in the waiting lists. One letter said: When equipment and maintenance funding requests are not being met and where this cost is being met by the Service, the depletion of the organisations funds could well affect the financial viability of the facility. The letter went on to say: . . . a large number of disabled employees in Supported Employment and other services are going to be severely disadvantage if the Government do not provide adequate funds to meet the stated goals. This is a very serious state of affairs. A letter which I received from the Society of St Vincent de Paul stated: . . . expectations of the disabled in Australia have been heightened by the New Disability Services legislation as it has for their families and service providers. It went on to say: The large waiting lists are a product of under-funding and defunding . . . People, particularly the intellectually handicapped, who cannot be catered for under these schemes, naturally cause problems at home. It is a sad fact that the pressures they bring to bear on their families because of their disabilities result in some cases in marriage break-ups. These are some of the concerns that the people running these organisations have been putting to me. I think that the people who are involved with the Disability Services Act should take note of what is being said by concerned people in the community who do not believe that the legislation is achieving what it set out to do. It should also be realised in regard to the service of programs for the disabled that the Federal Government has always provided and probably will continue to provide a very small share of funding towards the cost of disability services. Those who operate such programs are being asked to adhere rigidly to a set of guidelines-in many cases, this arrangement has not received widespread approval from within the industry-in order to receive Federal funds. To sum up, the Government is really providing only between 20 and 30 per cent of the total amount of money required to run most of these services. Yet, it wants 100 per cent of the say. The people who are providing the bulk of the finance and assistance are the volunteers or the paid managers. The 70 to 80 per cent of the money that is provided to keep these services running comes from volunteer organisations that initially get their money from the public, from the taxpayer. There is no doubt that the man in the street parts with that money in a much easier fashion than he does when he has to pay the tax man. Nevertheless, the responsibility is on organisations that collect the charity dollar. We know that there is a lot of competition for that dollar, whether it is for disabled people, overseas aid or the myriad of other charities that seem to be growing at a greater rate than the available money is. We have a situation in which people in volunteer organisations who have been giving their time for nothing are being told by this Government and the people in charge of community services what they have to do, and they face very strict guidelines-all because the Government provides 20 to 30 per cent of the funds. The word would soon get out amongst the voluntary groups if the amount of money were reduced and the supported employment services and other services folded. Who would blame these people for that when they are giving their time for nothing? The effect on the morale of the volunteers is another aspect of this disability services legislation. What we are seeing is a new direction. The bureaucrats keep on telling the people who are doing the work, `Trust us-everything is going to be all right'. In fact, it is not all right. We have arrived at a situation where there is real concern amongst the institutions right around Australia. As I said earlier, this concern was picked up initially by Kevin Burn, who is the Executive Officer of the Association of Rehabilitation Facilities. Quite a large article on what he had to say was published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph. I think this Government should keep in touch with this important aspect. Organisations such as the ones I have spoken about have every right to be concerned. Organisations in Devonport which are actively involved in private enterprise type operations provide work for dozens of intellectually handicapped people, some of whom make very fine articles of furniture for a very captive market. These organisations are actively involved in tendering for work. As well, funds are being raised by charitable methods. As I said earlier, the whole situation will fall in a hole if volunteers withdraw their labour because we have interfered with charities. In conclusion, I do not think we need point out to the Australian taxpayer the fact that the Government, for its part, should seek to work in close cooperation with all charitable organisations throughout Australia. The Government should take another hard look at the level of funding it is providing. It should encourage all of the different organisations that came under the old Handicapped Persons Assistance Act and which now come under the new Disability Services Act to extend their activities. It should give them an incentive to continue in the way that I think we would all like them to continue. Also, the Government should encourage those volunteers who give of their time and effort in such a good fashion and in the true Australian spirit of mateship. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(11.45) —We are discussing the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and cognate Bills. The Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment, paragraph (c) of which states: (c) the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulties. Of course, this is a typical Opposition response. When we asked the Opposition what it would do of course it went all funny as to which particular public service it would cut. The Opposition will not tell the Australian people which public service it will cut to make this the major emphasis of its policy. What we do know is that finally it has adopted a tax policy that seems to be a confused muddle; at worst, it signifies a deep conflict within the coalition parties. All political parties understand the problem of fiercely opposed views on which a compromise, which means all things to all people, is worked out. However, the Opposition has taken this to an art form. The Opposition has got it to the stage where, when one looks at its policy, one finds that it says that it will not have a consumption tax, that it will rationalise the existing indirect tax system. As Senator Maguire has adequately pointed out, this is a Clayton's consumption tax. The Opposition throws out a sop to its own constituency by announcing a watering down of the capital gains tax. However, the Opposition makes it impossible to administer. When it comes to tax loopholes we know that the Fraser-Howard Administration was a past master at showing people how, if they were wealthy enough and skilled enough, they could avoid taxation. The Opposition goes on to say that the fringe benefits tax will be made more flexible. However, it then says that this will be by way of a tax on employees rather than employers. The Opposition goes back on its policy of wiping out the assets tax but says that it will make that test more generous. The Opposition further says that it will help families. It does not say that it will help all families. Of course, the obvious inference will be that it will help the families it has always helped, that is people who are rich and comfortable. Therefore, the Opposition has a tax policy that means everything to everyone or nothing to anybody. I believe that the Opposition tax policy reflects the turmoil in its own ranks. As Chairman of Estimates Committee A I would like to refer to another manifestation of this attempt by the Opposition to play politics. I do not dispute the Opposition's right to be political when it comes to Appropriations. What I would like to point out is that in regard to the particular proposed additional expenditures we have a reservation expressed by Senator Bishop, Senator Alston and Senator Chapman. I want to go through that reservation briefly to indicate that the Government senators did not support this position and, indeed, do not view with concern the number of matters they listed. The report itself was three pages but there were five pages of reservations from the Opposition. I want briefly to go through and show that most of the issues raised are really make weight issues to try to create a sham problem. For example, the first point raised in the Opposition reservation regards the expenditure on resource planning. The reservation document stated: The Director of Resource Planning, Mr F. Kovachevich, admitted $200,000 had been `lost' and then `regained'. According to Mr Kovachevich the mistake was made by the Department of Finance. Two days after the hearing on 12 April the Department of Finance wrote to the Committee stating that their records showed that the information given by Mr Kovachevich was incorrect. At the subsequent committee hearing on April 19 1988 the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce presented a letter which denied the substance of the Department of Finance's letter and held to its original view. That simply means that there was an amount of $200,00 and a mistake was made to the extent that an amount of money was allocated to a program area rather than as an administrative expense or running cost. It is a simple matter of that nature. This was indicated very clearly. I think the simplest way to clarify this is to refer to page A65 of the 19 April Estimates Committee A transcript and seek leave to incorporate Senator Bishop's questions and the answers given by Mr Palfreyman. Leave granted. The transcript read as follows- Senator BISHOP —At the beginning of questioning by this Estimates Committee last week I asked a question concerning the loss of some $200,000. The evidence given by your officers was, very simply, that the money had got lost. Subsequently we have had an indignant letter from the Department of Finance asserting: We request that you contact the Chairman of the Senate Estimates Committee A seeking to have your comments withdrawn and providing a more reasonable explanation for the transfer of funds. Subsequently there was a letter from Mr Palfreyman, from your own department, saying that the initial explanation stands. Can we have some comment on the apparent disagreement as to what happened with the $200,000 and who is correct? Mr Palfreyman-In answering the question last week, Mr Kovachevich, who is my Director of Finance, indicated that there was a need to transfer $200,00 from program funds to administration funds and that resulted because of an error by the Department of Finance. Perhaps he should not have pointed the finger as such, because it certainly provoked that Department. I am not able to speak for it. However, I draw your attention to the Department of Finance letter which seems to us to indicate that, when we told it about the error in the Budget documents, that occurred at a much later point in the process, and by the time it was picked up the Department could not do anything about the Bills, and so forth. My office has advised me that that advice occurred the day after by telephone and in writing the following day. So from our viewpoint we believe that changes could have been incorporated. Having said that, I emphasise that we are not talking about new funds. We are really talking about a transfer from the program budget to the administrative budget for this program. Senator BISHOP —The language is fairly strong. The Department of Finance stated: Our records show that this assertion is clearly incorrect. That is, there was an error. I note that you say that, as soon as the error was discovered, you notified the Department and a broadsheet detailing the break-up of all new policy funds was provided to the Department of Finance on 3 September 1987. Was there an accompanying letter with that broadsheet? Mr Palfreyman-Not that I am aware of. Senator BISHOP —Was a minute kept of the telephone advice to the Department of Finance? Mr Palfreyman-I did not ask my officers, but I assume that that is the case because they have been quite precise in their reply. Senator BISHOP —But there was no letter stating, `I write to confirm my advice of yesterday that you are in error'? Mr Palfreyman-No. In that sort of climate things happen fairly quickly. Senator BISHOP —Perhaps in light of all this you might have to protect your back a little more carefully and write a letter next time? Mr Palfreyman-We do not feel terribly defensive about this matter. It is a normal transactional thing at this time of the year. We disagree with the view that Finance has put forward. Departmentally, we are sorry that it has had to come out in this way and involve the time of the Committee. Senator BISHOP —The Department of Finance was fairly vociferous in its objection to your saying that it was an error. Mr Palfreyman-I cannot speak for the Department of Finance. Senator BISHOP —Nonetheless you feel that the money has now been satisfactorily accounted for? Mr Palfreyman-Yes. As I say, it was never a case of asking for additional funds. It was a transfer from the program vote to the administrative vote. Senator CHILDS —Very briefly, there is no question of misappropriation of money. There was, if you like, a contest between two departments as to what they had done. However, it was simply a matter of dispute between two bureaucracies, if you like. Certainly, the Committee was not in a position to adjudicate. It was dealing with the industry accounts. I think that to make this a major issue is to wrongly see the role of Estimates committees. The second item in the reservation regards the cement industry. I will just briefly read a segment of the Opposition reservation, which stated: The Minister told the Committee that the recently established cement industry monitoring body was not set up in response to allegations of dumping by the industry and that no part of the monitoring body's responsibilities will involve the consideration of dumping complaints. This statement appears to conflict with a press release dated 24 March 1988 issued by the Minister which states inter alia, that the body will specifically: `a) monitor the progress and outcome of dumping complaints lodged by the industry; . . . e) monitor the efforts of the industry to meeting competition from imported cement.' Senator Button did say that the monitoring committee was not set up in response to allegations of dumping. This is true. As was explained in the Press release of 24 March 1988 the committee was set up to assess the current competitive position of the industry. This is a lot wider question than just dumping. The Press release referred to the committee being able to `monitor the progress of the industry on a range of issues'. The committee will not, as Senator Button said, consider dumping complaints. The Australian Customs Service considers dumping complaints. One of the five responsibilities of the committee is to monitor the progress and outcome of dumping complaints. This means that the committee will ensure the timeliness of the investigation and assess the implications of the findings of the Customs Service of the dumping allegations. Therefore, the committee will not be directly considering the dumping complaints. Of course, that often happens in government. I am pleased to say that in Australian Customs Notice No. 88/96 of 16 May it was indicated that there will be an inquiry into dumping of cement in Australia. Every honourable senator from every political party knows that representations have been made by the industry. Of course, in this case once again there is an attempt to make a problem where one does not exist. The processes have been followed and the Minister has quite clearly indicated the situation and has been quite proper in what he has said. The third reservation that was raised stated: The First Assistant Secretary of the Technology and Investment Division, Mr Terry Hilsberg, sent a memo on 22 July 1987 to all staff members in the Industry Research and Development Branch. The memo stated: ` I am writing to express my thanks for the excellent work you have performed through the year. In particular, I would like to commend you for achieving that important goal of exhausting monies allocated to IR&D Branch during the 1986-87 financial year. I am sure your efforts in the coming year will prove to be equally successful.' The Opposition continues: The attitude of one of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce's senior officers is disturbing in that the only item that Mr Hilsberg singled out for praise was the expenditure of the money allocated to the branch. It is our view that exhausting monies allocated should never be a goal in itself. The Committee was faced with the problem that Mr Hilsberg had left the Department so it could not inquire into why he had sent the memo. The Minister indicated that he would want to know why that memo had been sent. It is ridiculous that an Estimates committee be required to go on a witchhunt when the officer concerned has left the Department. It appears he was overenthusiastic in his endeavours, nevertheless the simple fact is that an Estimates committee cannot go into matters when the relevant officer is not present and that officer's views do not reflect the view of the Minister. The fourth item in the Opposition document concerns an answer to a question relating to the Government's information industries strategy. The Minister told the Committee: What we are asking in respect of companies is that they establish, in the period specified, a 50 per cent export-import ratio. If DEC, for example, or Hewlett-Packard are importing into this country $1 billion worth of equipment at the same time they will export half that by value. The document goes on about that for some time; I will not read all of it. This is clearly a complex issue, but a straightforward one, in that the requirement of partnership for development programs is that transnational corporations must devote 5 per cent of their turnover to research and development and attain an export-import ratio of 15 per cent over the duration of the agreement. The durations vary somewhat, from five to seven years, to fit in with the strategic planning horizons of the corporations. Only value added in Australia is counted towards the export targets. The importation of goods for re-export would add similar dollar values to both imports and exports and so not significantly drive the export-import ratio towards 50 per cent. Even the importation of components for simple assembly prior to export will not be adequate since little value added is gained from assembly operations. Senator Button correctly stated that in the Hansard report of the Committee's hearing on 19 April, at page A64. In response to Senator Alston, who asked whether it was a fact that the figure of 50 per cent applies to the degree of value added in Australia, Senator Button replied yes. If there is any lack of precision in answers or in Press releases it has resulted from taking it for granted that the export targets were specified in terms of value added activities only. There would be no point otherwise. In relation to the sixth item raised in the Opposition's document, the Opposition starts off: We note with concern the Minister's statement that he was not satisfied that the barrier at airports and ports was adequate to meet the requirements of the Customs Service, quarantine and immigration. This is a very simple matter. The Minister was asked by Senator Bishop, very simply: Could the Minister say whether he is satisfied that the barrier at airports and ports is adequate and meets the requirements of Customs, quarantine and immigration, and in particular in respect of the smuggling of illicit drugs? Senator Button replied no, following which Senator Bishop asked: You are not satisfied? Senator Button again replied no. How could Senator Button or any other responsible Minister say he was satisfied with the barriers when illicit drugs are still being smuggled into Australia? Making anything of this quite straightforward reply from the Minister is simply trying to distort the fact that any Minister would have to reply that he could not be satisfied, otherwise he would be being irresponsible. The next item in the Opposition report is perhaps the main issue. As honourable senators can see the other issues are relatively trivial but this one refers to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Opposition that we know so well is not dealing adequately with the economic issues facing this country and it has a confused policy, but it still tries to besmirch the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Opposition document states: We note with concern the evidence given with reference to the so-called urgent renovations, costing $750,000, requested by the Department for Kirribilli House, ostensibly to make that residence suitable for the accommodation of Guests-of-Government during the bicentenary. Evidence showed that it could well be that the expenditure was merely to make Kirribilli House a second residence for the Prime Minister, in which case the figure of $250,000 for interior decoration of the ground floor rooms cannot be justified. The Committee was informed that no Guests-of-Government have stayed at Kirribilli House since March 1983, but that the Prime Minister had on many occasions. The evidence does not back up the assertions in the Opposition's statement. In my view the last paragraph is particularly sinister. It is venomous. It attempts to attack the Prime Minister, and goes against the evidence taken by the Committee when dealing with this issue. I will refer to some of the answers given to show that the assertions that the Opposition members make in their minority report are incorrect. For example, Senator Michael Baume asked: So the urgent and expensive renovations, which we understood was to prepare Kirribilli House for the bicentennial year for the use of guests of government, were simply to prepare it for the use by the Prime Minister during the bicentennial year? Is that the situation? The officer, Mr Blick, replied: The renovations are not complete yet. They were substantially delayed in recent times by the rains in Sydney and the difficulty of getting contractors for what are fairly small jobs by contractor standards. It is significant, first of all, that delays had been caused by rain in Sydney. Any person who comes from Sydney would have to agree that the rain has caused tremendous problems, particularly for the building industry. Senator Michael Baume asked another question: Has it nonetheless been capable of occupancy by the Prime Minister? Mr Blick replied: Yes. It has not been continuously capable of occupation by the Prime Minister because there was a good deal of construction work and redecoration work going on in a number of the downstairs rooms during that period. I do not have time to go through all of the questions and answers. I refer honourable senators to them on page A68. Senator Puplick —How many overseas guests did stay there? Senator CHILDS —I will first go on to one other question by Senator Michael Baume: Are you saying that after this expenditure of half a million dollars, as I recall it, in the previous year, Kirribilli House was still not in an adequate state of repair for guests of government? Mr Blick answered: The expenditure in the previous year rendered the structure of the building safe and suitable. The rendering meant that the inside finishes of the building were totally unsuitable because, as you would understand, there was a lot of damage to surfaces caused by the sort of work that had to go on. Therefore there was a need for a redecoration program to render the place suitable to accommodate guests of government. Senator Puplick —How many since 1983? Senator CHILDS —The point has been made. I could go on and read the whole of page A69, where it is pointed out-- Senator Puplick —It is just a holiday home so that he doesn't have to live in his electorate with his constituents, is it not? Senator CHILDS —No, that is not true, but it is true that the Prime Minister was able to live in the accommodation because the work was occurring particularly downstairs and outside, as I have just pointed out. It is drawing a long bow to assert, as the Opposition has attempted to do, that this expenditure was for only the Prime Minister's benefit, as that is quite wrong. The point is that we are talking about a guest of the Government, a head of state, coming to the place. Apparently, members of the Opposition would be prepared to put a person from another country into a place where there are bricks and mortar lying around, into a place which would be inappropriate. The final point I want to make about the report concerns a lesser matter on which I do not intend to spend much time, other than to point out that it relates to a $10,000 request for settlement regarding the Builders Labourers Federation. It is sufficient to say here that the Minister said very clearly that he would ask his officers to investigate the matter; thus, once again this matter has been put in the dissenting report for political purposes. The Minister, of course, is quite happy to obtain the information that was sought. On behalf of other members of the Committee, I wanted to refer to those matters. Opposition senators will speak later in the debate; I happened to be speaking at this position on the list, so I am not replying to them at this stage. It is typical of the Opposition to be engaged in a nitpicking exercise and ignoring the major issues that this country faces. I now turn briefly to a non-controversial matter, although I suppose it might be regarded as controversial by some people. I refer to expenditure in the arts area, and particularly to the $43.9m that the Australia Council expended on the arts in 1986-87. Of course, that figure excludes administrative costs. I know that funding for the arts is never enough and one is always disappointed with the amount of money that goes to the arts. However, I want to refer to one enterprise in particular which is very important. Over the past two years Australia has been very fortunate to be the venue for the first and second Wondabyne sculpture symposiums in the Gosford area of the central coast of New South Wales. The 1987 sculptures were created at Wondabyne where they now grace the river in perpetuity. The 1988 symposium took place in the hills of Mount Penang, Kariong, where more sculptures now rest. This makes Gosford the sculpture capital of Australia. I would hope that Senator Puplick would agree with me on this. Twenty-five world class sculptures have been created. Both symposiums received widespread media acclaim, both internationally and locally. In simple financial terms, the two symposiums have provided forever sculptures worth $1.5m, for an outlay of something less than $150,000. The magnificent outcome has been achieved by international cooperation and cultural exchanges. We have had sculptors from Australia, Bulgaria, Burma, Georgia in the USSR, Mexico, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Nepal and France. The Japanese sculptor was from the Edogawa ward in Tokyo, a ward of 500,000 people, which has a sister city relationship with Gosford. The sculptors have donated their time free in a generous gesture to help resurrect the profession in Australia. Australia's contribution has been to provide air fares, accommodation, expenses-but no wages. I feel a bit disappointed about the sources of funding for these projects. I assisted Lawrence Beck, one of Australia's leading sculptors and the prime mover in the organisation of the symposiums, in his search for financial assistance. This brings me back to the matter of the Australia Council. Its contribution to the first symposium was $5,000. In the event, no contribution has been made towards this year's bicentennial symposium. Funding for these events falls within the auspices of the Visual Arts/Crafts Board, which is one of five different funding bodies within the Australia Council. For the year 1986-87, the then separate Visual Arts Board provided $4.7m in grants. I acknowledge that funding for the Council has been cut by 2 per cent in real terms. However, how are these priorities determined? I am told by the Visual Arts/Craft Board: Priority is given to contemporary projects on the cutting edge, not to what is seen as the very conservative sculpture [like Wondabyne]. That seems like gobbledegook to a person like me, but it is the sort of thing that is being said. The previous Labor Government in New South Wales, of course, did contribute, and private organisations have contributed. I would like to pay a tribute to the Mayor of Gosford, Dr Patricia Harrison, and her council for the excellent work that has been done. A significant part of the funding and other assistance came from the local business community in Gosford; for example, Gosford Quarries (NSW) Pty Ltd provided stone worth $40,000, and a number of other organisations participated. It is important to acknowledge organisations that are prepared to enhance the culture of a significant area like the central coast. A further point that I want to make in the few remaining minutes that I have is that this very successful venture has not been without its costs. It has left the sculptors exhausted and out of pocket. The exhaustion results from the fact that they have only six weeks to work on projects that would normally take four months. I regret to say that two Australian sculptors were sacked from their jobs because of their participation in the symposium. Both had part-time teaching jobs. Senator Puplick —They lost their grant when the local member ceased to be a Minister, didn't they? Senator CHILDS —No, they had part time teaching jobs. It is nothing so politically sinister; it relates simply to the way that the middle level bureaucracy is incapable of assisting people who are working in this field. They lost their part-time teaching jobs with the Newcastle Technical College. This type of narrow thinking in this lower or middle level of the bureaucracy could happen in no country other than Australia. I indicate to Senator Puplick that I am hopeful that the new State Minister-and I hope that the senator will make representations to him-will look more sympathetically at the administration and structure for artists in this category. I think that this matter should be treated in a bipartisan manner in order to enhance our culture. Lawrence Beck conducted a survey amongst Australian sculptors: only one Australian sculptor, Stephen Walker, can work the necessary hours to enhance his art. Other sculptors have left to become professors of sculpture at Princeton, Harvard, and other American universities. So, I wish to draw attention to this very real problem. I could develop the matter further but time does not permit me to. However, I do believe that in relation to this small section of our art world there is a need to be much more sympathetic to the particular nature of the people who ply this art. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.15) —The matter that I wish to raise during the debate on the Appropriation Bills is one that concerns all Queenslanders and, indeed, all Australians. I raise it now, before the May statement, in the hope that the Government will see fit to take some action when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brings down the economic statement next week. The problem to which I refer is the road funding crisis and the prospect of further reductions in Commonwealth road funding allocations. I remind the Senate that just recently, as part of Queensland's Bicentennial celebrations, the Hinkler Bicentennial Air Race was held. It was named, of course, in honour of our courageous and famous aviator from Bundaberg and Queensland, Bert Hinkler. It was fortunate that an air race and not a car race by road was organised. I doubt that a car race would have been possible, given the conditions of outback roads in Queensland. The Hawke Government has an abominable track record on this issue and seems determined to continue with the same attitude. I believe that it is important for the Government to do something about the road funding crisis. Last month, the Queensland Local Government Association convened a meeting attended by representatives of 12 organisations that have joined forces to oppose any further cuts in Commonwealth road funding allocations in the Government's May economic statement. Representatives from the following organisations were present at the meeting: the Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, the Main Roads Department, the Australian Roads Federation, the Queensland Road Transport Association Ltd, the Asphalt Pavement Association, the United Graziers Association of Queensland, the Queensland Graingrowers Association, the Queensland Canegrowers Council, the Municipal Officers Association of Australia, and the Australian Workers Union. This group represents a wide cross-section indeed of community, road construction, industry and employee bodies that are directly affected by fuel taxes and road construction activity. The meeting unanimously agreed that the cutback in the Commonwealth Government's allocation to road funding over the past four years has had serious consequences for the people of Queensland, and that further cuts would be neither reasonable nor acceptable. The impact of the cuts to date can be summarised as follows: There is an inability to keep up with the demand for new and upgraded roads to cater for the needs of the transport industry and the individual motorist. The existing road networks are falling into disrepair because of the decline in maintenance allocations. There have been increased operating and maintenance costs for the transport industry and the private motorist because of declining road maintenance standards. Traffic black spots are not removed as quickly as they should be. These trouble spots occur because so many roads have become incapable of handling the increased traffic flows. Jobs have been lost in road construction and maintenance in both the public and private sectors. This has had a particularly detrimental effect on the economy of many provincial and rural centres. It was resolved at this meeting that the following commitments should be sought from the Federal Government. The first commitment sought is that there will be no further reduction in the total current level of Commonwealth road expenditure-that is, $1,245m per annum. Federal spending on roads has been at the same level since 1984-85 but, when inflation is taken into account, we see that funding has declined by 25 per cent. In real terms, that works out to over $300m. The second commitment sought is that at least 6c per litre, and preferably 7.5c per litre, of the current fuel excise levy be dedicated for road construction and maintenance and that the amount be indexed. This increase is justified by the Local Government Association on the basis that it partially compensates for past failures to index fuel excise dedicated for roads. The third commitment sought is that road funding remain a special purpose grant and not be absorbed into the financial assistance grants paid to the State or local governments. This provision is essential to ensure that road users and all levels of government are aware of road funding allocations made from the fuel taxes collected by the Federal Government. I was interested to read a report of an address given recently by the Queensland Commissioner for Main Roads, Mr Eric Finger, to 17 Burnett councillors at Nanango. He pointed out that the fund cutbacks by the Federal Government would affect upgrading and repairs to roads under Main Roads Department and local authority control. He said: We will be struggling to maintain what we already have built and to keep up the rate of progress in upgrading main and shire roads. I worked for the Main Roads Department over 35 years ago. I can remember driving around Queensland at that time and worrying about the roads and the need for money to make improvements to them. I can remember when the then Commissioner for Main Roads went up to Cooktown. He said that the road was too bad and that, as secretary, I could not possibly go. He would not take his wife, either, but he and others had to travel on the roads. Queensland is now reaching the stage where bitumen roads are being turned back to gravel roads because not enough funds are being made available for roadworks by the Federal Government. Mr Finger said that Queensland's share of the fuel tax which the Federal Government put back into roads had been cut by 5 per cent to 16 per cent. A sum of $2m a year had also been cut off funds for local roads, money which councils spent. Mr Finger said that the decline in roads funds from the Federal Government had been a problem for Queensland for a number of years and was getting worse. The State Government had borrowed large amounts of money in recent years to bridge the gap between needs and what Canberra provided. Perhaps that is some of the loan money that the present Queensland Premier is saying he needs and is not being given permission by Canberra to get. Referring to the State Government loans, Mr Finger said: Repaying those loans will take a lot in the next few years. He went on to say that the State Government had taken action to help meet loan repayments by raising vehicle registration fees. He said he was aware that the Department and some local authorities had reduced roadwork staff because of the decline in road funds. He told the Burnett District Local Authorities Association delegates: I can bring you no good news, only that there is a grim outlook ahead for both the Main Roads Department and local authorities for road building in the next few years. Indeed, a councillor from Isis Shire Council, outside Bundaberg, said that it was time that local authorities started to fight for a fair share of road funds. He said: Our roads are collapsing for need of funds, yet all we get from Canberra is bad news. People are being asked to put new cars on to second class roads because of Federal cutbacks in the share of fuel tax which goes to roads. I believe that there is certainly a great need for this Government to ensure that it does not cut back funds any more. Indeed, it should make an increase in the funds available for road works, not just highway works but works throughout Queensland and, indeed, Australia. The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland recently undertook a State-wide survey of roads and found that country roads are so rough that motorists often drive on the shoulders rather than on the potholed bitumen. Many roads become impassable when it rains, and roads are deteriorating more rapidly than city and shire councils can repair them. The Hawke Government has consistently refused to increase the level of funds made available to State governments to maintain and construct roads throughout the nation. It seems that the Government is happy enough to allocate funds for highways between major cities and provincial towns. The Government seems to think that highways are great vote catchers, but I understand that in future there is a possibility that even those roads will suffer under a Federal plan for a per capita funding system. The Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Mr Gunn, has stated that 2,000 Queenslanders will lose their jobs if that recommendation is adopted. A very serious situation is looming, not only in Queensland but throughout Australia, unless the road funding problem is addressed and resolved. It is time that motorists were told the truth about the petrol taxes they pay: Every time a motorist pulls up at a petrol bowser, more than half the money spent on petrol goes to the Federal Government-indeed a great deal more than half, I might add. For every litre of petrol or diesel purchased, the Government takes about 30c in tax. During this financial year, motorists will pay more than $6.5 billion in petrol taxes. Their contributions rise in line with inflation, yet the Government has chosen to cut the funds allocated to building and upgrading roads. Funds allocated to the Australian land transport program have declined by 8 per cent and the highly publicised bicentennial roads development program has been cut back by $140m since 1984-85. When funds are reduced to such an extent, a greater financial strain is unfairly placed upon State and local government authorities. I say `unfairly' because, while the Federal Government continues to tax road users at such discriminatory levels, it must accept most of the responsibility for road funding. The facts speak for themselves: Less than 20 per cent of all fuel tax collected by the Federal Government at the petrol bowser is returned to road funding. How is the Government getting away with such miserable treatment of the Australian motorist? During this financial year, fuel taxes will account for about 9 per cent of Federal Government revenue, yet road funding accounts for just 1.6 per cent of Federal Government expenditure and there is quite a difference between 9 per cent and 1.6 per cent. In real terms, it means that this financial year the Government will raise approximately $7 billion from fuel taxes, compared with $1.245 billion, which is the amount planned for expenditure on road construction and maintenance. I am sorry to say that this Government seems to believe that there are votes only in major highways-not in the less important roads, and especially not in rural areas. Of course, that is a major complaint for those of us who represent huge States, and Queensland is, as I have noted on many occasions, seven times the size of Victoria. Roads provide lines of communication; they are the arteries for the transport of people and produce. Many people living in the outback use a far greater amount of fuel than urban dwellers and consequently they pay a greater amount of fuel tax, yet their roads are probably the worst in Australia. Good, safe roads are vitally important to country people and the motor vehicle is often their most effective and immediate mode of communication with the outside world. If their incomes were better they might be able to afford aeroplanes to fly to their destinations and would not have to drive on the roads, and I would not blame them for that. Regrettably, the further west one ventures the worse one finds the state of the roads. A fairer proportion of fuel revenue must be set aside for roads. Motorists have, unfortunately, become the milking cow for the nation, and I am sorry to say that a very meagre proportion of funds milked in the form of fuel excise actually benefit the average motorist. In fact, things have become so bad in my area of South Burnett in Queensland that the local councils decided to place a cartoon in our local newspaper. The cartoon is headed `Guess who's ripping us off?' and it shows the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talking to one another at the `Labor Servus Station', a petrol station. Mr Hawke is saying to Mr Keating, `So out of 30.5c excise--'; Mr Keating then interjects and says, `We'll keep 25c and give `em 5.5c for roads. What more could they want?'. In fact, I suggest that they want a lot more than that. We need good roads throughout Queensland and I suggest that all senators in this chamber would say that they also need good roads in their States. Councils need funds to keep their road gangs employed. We need good roads to assist tourism in Queensland and I am sure that Senator Reynolds, who is present in the chamber at the moment, would agree with that. We need good roads for transporting the grain harvest and cattle and for all other industries which rely so heavily on road transport. The maintenance of existing roads is certainly 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 road programs are completed the Government will see its way clear to making further funds available for roads. Indeed, I believe that that hope would be shared by senators from all States of Australia. I recently asked the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) whether he could explain to the Senate why the percentage of fuel tax revenue which is spent on improving roads had dropped from 67 per cent in 1984-85 to 27 per cent in 1987-88, when the tax on fuel is automatically increased in line with the consumer price index, and I asked that he give an assurance that the percentage of fuel tax revenue allocated to all roads, not just highways, would be increased from the present 5.355c a litre to at least 7c a litre to enable the condition of country roads throughout Australia to be improved. I certainly hope that we see this increase in the May statement rather than have so much money put into Consolidated Revenue. I think that that is very important indeed. Those who use fuel and are thereby forced to pay the Government's fuel tax should be able to expect a fairer share of revenue in the form of safer, well maintained roads. I hope we see that when the May statement is brought down. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(12.34) —The Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89, the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 which the Senate is debating cognately today allocate funds, as Senator Stone mentioned at the beginning of his contribution, to meet needs associated with departmental expenditure. They are funds additional to those appropriated in the Appropriation Bills passed in the 1987 Budget session. The autumn Budget session of this Parliament appropriates funding through Appropriation Bills to make up the total parliamentary approved expenditure of the government of the day. It is this expenditure that is eyed off by groups such as the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce, the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled and any of a plethora of interest groups that represent specific people in the community when they call for decreased, increased or varied government expenditure. The Business Council of Australia and other groups which purport to represent-although I am not sure that they actually do-the interests of business and industry in this country are particularly vocal when it comes to demanding on an almost, and quite depressingly, weekly basis through the newspapers and radio that this Government, and indeed all governments, reduce spending. There are two interesting facets in these demands by groups such as the Business Council of Australia or individuals such as John Elliott. First of all, they never call for extensive cuts in corporate welfare. They only ever demand extensive cuts in social welfare. Secondly, having called for cuts in the areas of social welfare expenditure, health, social security, education and so on, they do not ever say what services have to be reduced. In other words, having called for the Government to cut its spending programs in the areas of social security payments, health care and education funding, they do not then bite the appropriate bullet and say in which areas those cuts should be made. So we hear honourable senators in this place in one breath demanding that governments cut expenditure and, in the other breath, demanding that there be increased spending in their particular pet areas, such as assistance to people with disabilities as argued by Senator Calvert. I will not argue with that nor will I argue with the legitimacy of Senator Bjelke-Petersen's recent contribution in demanding that there be more appropriate road funding. What I am saying is that we cannot have the continual hypocrisy from groups such as the Business Council of Australia or people such as John Elliott or anybody else in claiming that there must be massive cuts but then either asking for increased expenditure in their pet areas or refusing to say where those cuts should be made. This is hypocritical. It is also cowardly and it is matched by their arguments that these cuts in spending on health, social security and education should, in justice, finance corporate tax cuts which they say, quite untruthfully, are higher in Australia than in any comparable Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country. It is important that these headline grabbing claims be examined in some detail because we are faced with not only the credibility of people making such claims but also the damage that can be done to Australian families, ordinary individuals in this country and to people in need if the claims are accepted by governments and acted upon. Let me take first of all the claim that Australia is a highly taxed country. Anybody who has looked at the 1987 OECD figures will be aware that really only Turkey offers a significantly better tax deal than Australia. There are a couple of other countries that are marginally more generous than Australia through the tax system, but Turkey is the only one with really a significantly better tax structure. I would say that Turkey offers other problems to corporations or individuals who wish to take themselves out of Australia and find a better tax deal. In the area of corporate tax alone, as distinct from the general burden of taxation in this country, few comparable countries have significantly lower tax rates. It is easy to see why this is so. A quick look at a recent issue of Australian Business magazine dated 11 May 1988, which touts itself as a collector's item because it lists the top 500 companies, is very revealing. According to this issue, some of Australia's biggest companies pay less tax than the average pensioner and certainly much less than families struggling to survive on average weekly earnings or less. Companies such as Elders IXL Ltd are paying tax of 10.5c in the dollar, Brierley Investments 10.8c, News Corporation 17.7c, Fletcher Challenge, a New Zealand based group, 19.8c, BP Australia Ltd 2.3c, IEL 4.1c, the Bond Corporation 8.9c, the Bell Group 10.5 and Ansett Transport Industries 14.3c. Given those sorts of figures of tax paid by some of the top 500-I might add that all of those companies are in the top 50-it is quite outrageous that so much attention, credence and credibility is given to the sweeping statements by the managing directors and chief executives of these sorts of companies, all demanding that governments cut spending on the poor and on Australian families generally in order to give these companies an even smaller tax commitment. In most cases, they are paying less than 15c in the dollar when the nominal company tax rate is 49c in the dollar. They want spending cuts so that corporate tax rates can be reduced, which will presumably then see them paying less than 5c or so in the dollar in tax on a regular basis. However, as I said earlier, what is worse is that these people never specify who is to be further disadvantaged. They specify who is to be advantaged. They say, `We will cut government expenditure in the health, social security and education sectors and we can then reduce company tax and the top marginal tax rate for high income earners'. But they never then turn around and say who will be actually disadvantaged, who will lose out, where the hard decisions will be made and who makes them when spending cuts of the sort they call for are implemented. For example, health care cuts are high on the list of those areas that some big business people and people in Opposition parties would like to see cut. Who will lose out? I venture to say that even if they did make some suggestions about who would not have access to health care treatment-one cannot cut health care funding and still allow unlimited access to health care treatment-it would not be those highly paid executives who are demanding spending cuts, but who also want full access to health treatment for their frequently self-inflicted diseases and illnesses resulting from stress and from over-indulgence in tobacco and alcohol. They will not want the so-called blow-out in the health care budget to be reduced by cutting their access to health care treatment. So they must therefore want cuts in other areas. Will they therefore suggest that the Government cut the health care funding budget and, in doing so, reduce access to benefits such as hip replacements for elderly women, cancer treatments for young children and life support systems for very premature babies? All I want is to hear from these same people who are demanding cuts in health care the areas in which they would like to see access reduced. We get the same lack of detail in calls for cuts in social security expenditure. We need to note here that the Labor Government with, I might add, the full support of every Liberal and National Party senator who was here at the time, has already reduced the living standards and disposable income of people such as ex-service men and women by cutting their pensions by 2 per cent and low income families who have 15-year-old children in the last two non-compulsory years of school-that is, years 11 and 12-by removing their access to Austudy. We have seen widows on class B pensions required at the age of 45 or when their youngest child turns 16, to go off the class B widow's pension and on to unemployment benefits or go out and get a job. Every one of the businessmen-it is businessmen in the main who are demanding these sorts of cuts-are the ones who would refuse to employ a 45-year-old woman who has been out of the work force for 20 or more years because they give no acknowledgment to the managerial and other skills that a woman develops over that period in running a home, in budgeting, in keeping everybody's ego in place within the family and generally acting as a public relations and personnel officer in the household. Those women will not get jobs easily and yet their standard of living has been reduced by having the widow's class B pension taken away from them. Their self-esteem has been reduced because they are now forced on to unemployment lines at the Commonwealth Employment Service on a regular basis because the jobs are not out there in the community for them. Given that those cuts have already been made, where else do people such as John Elliott and groups such as the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation and the chambers of commerce around the country want cuts to be made? Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice and Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the Minister's comment yesterday that, while the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) is investigating the Bell-Bond-State Government Insurance Commission (SGIC) of Western Australia deals, it would be inappropriate for him to make any comment on particular matters raised in questions last week from Senator Lewis, Senator Hill and me. Meanwhile, he said that the NCSC had been asked to keep the Attorney-General's Department informed of any developments. Is the Minister aware that a spokesman for the NCSC was quoted in last Monday's Australian Financial Review on several aspects of these matters? If it is appropriate for the media to be given such information, and given that the NCSC is keeping the Attorney-General's Department informed, I ask the Minister: First, is it a fact that the State Government Insurance Commission of Western Australia sought a guarantee of confidentiality before agreeing to supply the NCSC with answers to a second set of questions about its Bell share purchase and $150m underwriting agreement? Secondly, has that guarantee been given and, whether it has or not, have the answers been provided to the NCSC? Thirdly, if no answers have been forthcoming from the SGIC of Western Australia, and if lack of cooperation is hindering the investigation, what action has the Government taken or will it take, including by way of a direct approach to the Western Australian Government, to ensure the cooperation of the SGIC in resolving the current uncertainties? Senator TATE —I am not aware of the article in which certain comments were attributed to an NCSC spokesman, as reported, apparently, in last Monday's Australian Financial Review. As a result, I believe, of the questions that have been asked in the Parliament, including the Attorney-General's response yesterday to certain questions in another place, the NCSC has provided the Government with information on the steps it is pursuing. Honourable senators will appreciate that, as I emphasised in my answer and as the Attorney emphasised yesterday, neither of us-certainly not the Attorney-is in a position of direct ministerial responsibility for the NCSC. A peculiarly difficult situation is created in that the body is answerable to a ministerial council of which the Attorney is a member. Nevertheless, the Government has been advised of details of questions which the NCSC has put to the parties to the share sales and of matters upon which the NCSC has sought counsel's opinion. However, at the moment I am not prepared to prejudice NCSC investigations by disclosing further details of the NCSC's intended course of action. As to the question whether certain guarantees were sought by the State Government Insurance Commission before it would answer certain questions, I will refer that matter and see whether the NCSC is willing to give any reply at this stage, given the fact that, as I have said, there are certain intended courses of action and it is very desirable that they not be prejudiced. Senator STONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his response and the spirit in which it was provided. I ask whether he is in a position to provide the Senate with any indication of when he will be in a position to give the Senate further information arising out of the information with which, I understand, he and the Attorney-General have now been provided by the NCSC. Senator TATE —I am not in a position to do so. As the honourable senator will understand, the NCSC has many courses of action open to it. Until it has resolved what course to take, I certainly cannot set a date as to when that might be. In accordance with the convoluted provision for ministerial responsibility-in other words, taking into account the views of the Ministerial Council-no doubt as much information as possible will be made available to the Parliament. Senator COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs, who is responsible for electoral matters. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last night by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, in the context of an interview on the Government's referendum proposal for one vote one value, in which he said: . . . were I a member of the Queensland Liberal Party I would be arguing very hard with them for a State electoral system that was fairer. Did the Government give any consideration to achieving Senator Chaney's aim of a fairer electoral system for Queensland by legislative means rather than by an amendment to the Australian Constitution? Senator ROBERT RAY —When Senator Macklin first introduced his Bill into this chamber to use the legislative route, I think it was the intention of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to look at the legal arguments rather than at just the technicality of the Bill. However, over time and for a variety of reasons, such as the change of personnel, that was never pursued. However, it had been thought by many people in Queensland that the Commonwealth could use its external affairs powers under the Constitution to legislate against State malapportionment and gerrymandering. That would be based on one of the international covenants to which we are signatories. If the definition in those covenants is for universal suffrage, it would not necessarily translate, I would think, in a High Court case to mean one vote one value. One has to go back to the travois explanataire-the explanatory notes-of that international convention to see whether it meant one vote one value. A variety of legal opinions have crossed my desk-none of which have been commissioned by the Government, I might add-from people seeking those views. The overwhelming majority of those views came down on the side that a challenge to any Commonwealth legislation would succeed in the High Court. I saw only one opinion to the contrary, which was a well-written opinion by Mr Fitzgerald, QC, from Queensland, which contained one false assumption, but the rest of it argued very cogently that the Commonwealth did have the power. There is no doubt that, at the end of the day, the Government decided that it did not have the power under the external affairs provision, that it would be wrong to proceed in that way and that the more appropriate method of proceeding would be to take it as a referendum. It is a great pity that, through an accident of birth, we will not have the persuasive powers of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate supporting us on this occasion. Apparently, that historical accident is accounted for by only about 3,000 miles. I am disappointed that some Western Australian Liberals will not support the referendum proposal. They have had ample opportunity in the last three or four years to solve the malapportionment issue in Western Australia. Electoral reform Bills have been sent to the malapportioned and gerrymandered Legislative Council, which is dominated by the Liberal and National parties, and been rejected. Those Bills would have fixed up the problem. The same opportunity applied when the Liberals were in government in Queensland. If they had had any spine or intestinal fortitude, those issues could have been solved and it would not have been necessary to take the action which the Government is now taking to hold a referendum. However, I live in hope that those opposite will see the light. As I have said, I did note Senator Chaney's comments last night that if he were a member of the Queensland Liberal Party he would be arguing for a fairer system. We all know that Senator Chaney would like to be Prime Minister. We all know that he is looking for a lower House seat. Maybe we will be lucky in the next four or five months; he may finally end his search in Queensland and be endorsed for a Queensland Federal seat. If that happens, I will say, `Welcome, comrade. Come to our side and we will argue the case together'. Obviously, if that search fails and he has to end up in New South Wales or Victoria, Senator Chaney will remain an unremitting enemy of one vote one value. Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to the articles in Monday's and yesterday's Australian Financial Review concerning an audit being undertaken into Aussat Pty Ltd and the tendering procedures for the second generation of Aussat satellites. Has the Minister in fact ordered such an audit and how extensive will it be? Will the audit be examining the tendering and administration procedures for the first generation of Aussat satellites? If not, why not? Was the decision to undertake an audit of Aussat made only on the basis of the internal investigations which are being conducted into the Hughes Aircraft Corporation regarding allegations about improper payments being made to Intelsat or its officials in relation to the awarding of satellite contracts? Further, is the Government considering any change to the timing of its decision on the contract award for the second generation of Aussat satellites? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case, as we have all seen, that there has been widespread speculation that the resignation of the Chairman of the Hughes Aircraft Corporation, Dr Albert Wheelon, may be related to an examination of whether improper payments were made to Intelsat or its officials in connection with the winning of contracts in past years by Hughes. It is also the case that Hughes was the successful tenderer for the first generation of Aussat satellites and is one of the tenderers for the second generation now being considered. While there has been absolutely no suggestion of any improper dealing in the Aussat tendering process, either on the present occasion or for the first generation satellites, Aussat itself suggested to me, through its Chairman, that in order to avoid delays in awarding tenders for its second generation satellite system, an immediate independent review of tendering procedures be conducted to provide the necessary assurances that the United States investigations have no relevance to Australia. The Auditor-General, as part of his normal planned program, will this week be beginning an audit of Aussat and this will include a review of contract administration that will in turn include Aussat's tender processes. This seemed to me, the Government and Aussat itself to be an appropriate form of independent review. A copy of the Auditor-General's report will be made available to me as soon as it is completed. There is no change proposed to the timing of the consideration of the tender process at this stage. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is also directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. In asking the question, I would thank the Minister for the answer yesterday to my question on notice concerning domestic air travel per head of population in three large countries-Australia, Canada and the United States of America. Does the 1986 figure of 0.8 domestic air trips per head of population per annum in Australia compared with 1.7 trips in the United States, indicate that the domestic airline industry in Australia is relatively underdeveloped? What factors could explain the fact that United States air trips per capita are more than double Australian trips? Do the lower per capita figures for Australia confirm claims in the Australian community that domestic air fares are too high and choke off air travel by many potential travellers? Senator GARETH EVANS —There are a whole variety of reasons which could account for the apparent differences in the number of domestic air trips on a per capita basis as between the United States and Australia. There is the different geographic distribution of the two populations; questions about propensity to travel by car or bus; frequency of service; income levels; purpose of air travel such as business, holiday or visiting friends and relatives; and, of course, the levels and conditions attached to discount air fares. There is no question but that the level of air fares and the conditions associated with those fares are two of the key determinants in tapping the potential market for air travel. The May Independent Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation noted that the current regulatory arrangements do appear to encourage the major airlines to concentrate on a relatively small proportion of the market, particularly the high yield full fare business traveller. In the absence of prices competition and with tight capacity controls, as there are under the present two-airline policy, it is hardly surprising that the airlines tend currently to place great emphasis on competing really only through standards of service. Coming to the question of specific comparisons with the United States, obviously any comparison with overseas air fares should be viewed with extreme caution. Typically, Australian fares compare more favourably against United States fares that are offered by major and former local service carriers in markets where these carriers encounter little or no competition. Where competition in the United States is strong, on the other hand, Australian airline prices tend to be higher than those fares that are offered in those kinds of competitive markets. On the basis of overseas experience, the major impact on services in the deregulated airline environment that will exist after 1990 in this country seems likely to be on the availability and use of discount fares and, hence, on the level of average fare that is paid. The simple truth of the matter is that discounts in Australia are not as widely used as they are in the United States where over 90 per cent of all passengers use some form of discount fare. In Australia, less than 50 per cent of all air travellers use discount fares, suggesting that many Australian consumers either see the conditions imposed on discount fares as being too restrictive or, alternatively, are unaware that discount fares are available because they are not promoted as vigorously as is the case in countries such as the United States. There has been some greater disposition in recent times for the airlines to recognise that absence of awareness and do some greater promotion. But we cannot expect, I suspect, that phenomenon really to emerge in the marketplace until deregulation comes about in 1990. As I have said on many occasions, the objectives of bringing the two-airline policy to a close are to ensure not only increased competition and pricing flexibility, leading to greater economic efficiency in the industry, but also increased responsiveness by airlines to consumer needs and, particularly in the context of this question, a wider range of fares and types of services to provide enhanced travel opportunity. Senator PANIZZA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will re-affirm the Prime Minister's promise of 7 July 1987, namely: You have my undertaking we will not introduce a gold tax during the next three-year term of the Labor Government. Senator BUTTON —I think this is one of those questions where I say I neither confirm nor deny. Certainly I cannot deny the Prime Minister's letter of a particular date which has been published on numerous occasions in the Australian Financial Review and in other newspapers. But I think it would be advisable for honourable senators to wait and see. If the Government reaches a decision on this matter, they should wait and see what the decision is. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. I draw the Minister's attention to reports in the media about a shift in the Opposition's policy on immigration. In those reports the Opposition appears to have broken with the bipartisan approach on immigration policy and opted for a vast increase in wealthy migrants at the expense of family reunions. Does the Minister agree that such a step would be heartless as well as leading to a less effective immigration policy? Senator REYNOLDS —I certainly agree that the step taken by the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend to turn back the clock by some considerable time in regard to a bipartisan approach to immigration is of very grave concern. Not only has he substantially upset and confused many people in the community but he patently is not well aware of his facts in relation to immigration policy and procedures. I suppose, as the Minister responsible in the other place, the Hon. Clyde Holding, said yesterday, the kindest thing that could be said of the Leader of the Opposition is that he has an ongoing numeracy problem-a problem that was raised in the context of the last election. This time the Leader of the Opposition claimed in his statement that in the five years to 1986-87 family reunion had risen from 17 per cent to 50 per cent of the migrant intake while skilled and business migrant intake fell from 46 per cent to 17 per cent. Mr Holding responded when he was first confronted with these figures by expressing some considerable doubts about their accuracy. He asked his Department to find the correct figures. The Department has informed him that the Opposition figures for family reunion in 1981-82 exclude brothers and sisters and more distant relations-over 20 per cent of the intake in that year-but that they were included in the figures for 1986-87. As has been raised in debate in the other place, obviously there is a great deal of confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that it is very unfortunate that the bipartisan approach to immigration appears to have broken down. I maintained only a month or so ago that I was confident that it would not break down because of the very fair, equitable and sensible approach of Opposition members in relation to immigration. I cited Senator Jim Short and Senator the Hon. Fred Chaney in this regard. I really believed that we could maintain a bipartisan approach to immigration. We had heard Senator Stone and others raising some doubts about their commitment. But, on balance, we believed-I genuinely believed-that the bipartisan policy would be maintained. After the last 24 hours, one seriously has to doubt whether this is possible. However, given that the Opposition changes its mind on many occasions and that it could be prepared to sit down and sensibly rethink its policies in relation to their impact on the community at large, I suppose that there is still some chance for the more informed members of the Opposition to influence its policy in this regard. Senator McLEAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Has the Minister read the article in the June edition of Australian Investment entitled `Defence Forces Super-It's Scandal'? Is it the case that, unlike contributions to the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme, which go into an investment trust, Defence Force superannuation payments are absorbed directly into Consolidated Revenue, and if members of the Defence Force decide to leave before completing 20 years service, their contributions are returned to them with no interest, meaning that they are, in effect, giving the Government a subsidised loan through their superannuation contributions? If this is the case, has the Government considered that this grossly unfair treatment of Defence Force personnel, coupled with the continuing 2 per cent discount penalty on defence pensions, may be one strong contributing factor to the current low level of Defence Force and veteran community morale? Will the Government change the way these funds are handled to give our Defence Force personnel a more equitable superannuation deal? Senator ROBERT RAY —My attention has been drawn to the article referred to by Senator McLean. It is the case that contributions to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme are paid to Consolidated Revenue and are not invested. This arrangement is in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation, known otherwise as the Jess Committee, an all-party committee of the Parliament which in 1970 to 1972 inquired into the retirement benefits for the Defence Force. The reasons given by the Committee for not supporting the payment of interest included that a substantial increase in overall costs would result, interest might lead to increased withdrawals, further adding to the drain on the scheme, and, finally, the member leaving without pension received ample consideration for his or her contributions in the form of insurance type protection in the event of death in service and a pension in case of invalidity retirement. The present arrangements reflect the recommendations of that Joint Select Committee. If interest on contributions were introduced, it would impact on both pensionable and non-pensionable personnel. It would add to the cost of the scheme, which in 1986-87 cost $319m in net terms, after deducting contributions paid to Consolidated Revenue. The reduction of 2 per cent in updating pensions in 1986-87 applied to both that scheme and the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It was based on the principle that all sectors of the community should share in the economic restraint that the Government had called for. Senator McLEAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that 78 per cent of those people serving in the forces leave the forces before completing their 20-year term of service, does it not follow that those personnel in fact suffer under this program in that they get a refund only of their contributions, without any interest whatsoever, and that the program constitutes a $75m per annum interest-free loan to the Government? Senator ROBERT RAY —I think what was in the mind of the Joint Select Committee at the time it made those recommendations-I think unanimously-which were adopted by the Government, was that the whole area had to be looked at as a compact and not as individual areas. In some ways the ultimate retirement pension benefit for service people is far in excess of the Commonwealth Public Service schemes. Therefore, when looking at the thing in totality, that was regarded as a balance at the time. I will draw the Minister's attention to the implied views put here today. I will see whether she wants to add anything further to the answer. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. The Minister would perhaps know that Senator Vanstone was reported recently as saying that she and the Opposition do not place much store on the Government's commitment to women's health and its draft health policy in view of its taking genital warts from the medical benefits schedule. Will the Minister explain, firstly, that women's health encompasses more than genital warts and, secondly, what the Government has done regarding the provision of treatment for genital warts for women? Thirdly, will the Minister also remind the Senate of the Government's commitment to women's health and its health policy for all women? Senator COOK —In regard to that part of the question which referred to women's health encompassing more than genital warts, the need for a national women's health policy is clearly demonstrated by the types of comments made by Senator Vanstone. It comes from a recognition that we need to move towards prevention in the provision of health care services and away from a narrow focus on health care as being solely about the provision of treatment for illness. Women's health is not a matter of concentrating on treating illnesses experienced by women. It is about a holistic approach to health care with the emphasis on prevention. The second part of Senator Crowley's question asked what the Government was doing about the provision of treatment for women who have genital warts. Senator Vanstone was referring to the removal from the medical benefits schedule of items relating to the removal of warts generally. There has never been an item specific to the removal of genital warts. Although the items relating to the removal of warts have been deleted, the procedure still attracts a benefit on an attendance basis. In addition, there is an item in the schedule to cover circumstances when a more complex procedure is undertaken. Item No. 3004 is described as: Operative procedure on tissue, organ or region not covered by any other item in this part, including any consultation on the same occasion. To make a claim under this item, practitioners must make application through the Health Insurance Commission to the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee-the MBAC-seeking an increased fee. The MBAC has considered a number of applications relating to the removal of genital warts and approved payment of benefits based on those applications under section 11 of the Health Insurance Act. Consideration has been given to creating a specific item for treatment of warts where the complexity of a procedure is such that the benefit on an attendance basis is inadequate, for example, where general or regional anaesthesia and admission to hospital are required. As to the third part of the question about women's health, let me elaborate on the Government's policy. In June 1987 a special consultant on women's health was appointed by the Minister for Community Services and Health to coordinate the development of a national policy. The consultant has recently released a discussion paper which is the first stage in the development of the national policy. This paper sets out preliminary thinking on the principles of a national policy and possible strategies which will address women's express concerns. The recently released report on health targets for Australia has drawn attention to the link between socioeconomic status and health. As the majority of adult poor in Australia are women there is a need to focus on the health of women as a disadvantaged group if we are going to address the inequities in health status in our society. As part of the Government's commitment to prevention in health care for women it has committed $5.1m over three years to pilot projects for screening for breast and cervical cancer. These projects will improve the uptake of pap smear screening for cervical cancer and assist in the development of mammographic screening for breast cancer. This initiative in prevention of cervical cancer is particularly significant in relation to the treatment of genital warts. Some types of human papilloma virus, the same virus that causes genital warts, has a strong association with cervical cancer. The Government is particularly interested in the prevention of cervical cancer. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister confirm that the existing wage guidelines laid down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the March 1987 decision will continue in force until such time as the Commission completes its review of the wage fixing principles? Is it a fact that the review is only about to begin and there is no certainty about how long it will take until any new wages package is decided? Is it also a fact that an important part of the existing package is a requirement that unions do not pursue any extra claims? Does the Minister agree that the industry by industry pay push orchestrated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) which has seen claims in the order of 6 per cent lodged in a wide range of vital industries, often accompanied by the threat of industrial action, is in breach of the no extra claims commitment? I ask what the Government is doing to counter that strategy, which is so clearly aimed at undermining the forthcoming wages review. Senator BUTTON —I am not able to answer all the question but the answer to the first part is yes, the March 1987 guidelines apply, as Senator Chaney suggested in his question. Secondly, it is true that the review by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the new wages system is about to begin. Thirdly, it is correct that unions in some industries have lodged claims which I suppose might be said to be technically in breach of the provisions in the current guidelines to which Senator Chaney referred at the start of his question. I would query whether the union claims that Senator Chaney mentioned are designed to influence the course of the review. I think they are designed-perhaps it is not for me to say what they are designed for-to ensure that the unions in question after the review has been completed have a claim in position which can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. But there may be other aspects of the question which I should direct to the Minister and I will do that. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer but it is a bit puzzling. I remind him that the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, said just a few days ago that the Government did not want any deals struck that might pre-empt the outcome of the review which is properly the responsibility of the Arbitration Commission to determine. I remind the Minister that the employers have in fact threatened to quit the system as a result of the campaign currently being waged. In the light of those two facts I ask the Minister whether he agrees that what is being done by the unions in specific industry sectors is in fact an attempt to pre-empt the review and present the Arbitration Commission with concluded agreements between the trade unions involved and the employers for wage rises in the order of 6 per cent, and is he alleging that could be achieved without imposing any distortion on the wage fixing principles which are to be considered and determined in the May hearing? Senator BUTTON —I am not able to say whether it is an attempt to pre-empt. I honestly cannot answer that part of the question. I think the 6 per cent claims have probably been lodged in the context of believing that the position of the Government and of the ACTU would be that the claims should be dealt with next year on the basis of movements and anticipated movements in the consumer price index. That is probably the basis of the 6 per cent figure but I cannot say with any certainty. Senator Chaney —But the unions have actually made an agreement with the building construction contractors on a productivity contract. Senator BUTTON —The way Senator Chaney puts it is interesting: `the unions have actually made an agreement with the building construction contractors'. It can be put around the other way. Senator Chaney —They have obtained an agreement. Senator BUTTON —No, not in the building industry. I do not agree with the honourable senator's terminology `obtained an agreement'. An agreement has been made, as I understand it, in the building industry but I am not familiar with the details of that agreement and it would seem to be somewhat premature. That is the only comment I can make. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can she say how extensive was the water damage to the contents of the Australian War Memorial after the accident last night? Which exhibits sustained the most damage? Will the Government give priority to funding for the restoration of these irreplaceable pieces of Australia's history? Senator REYNOLDS —It is believed that a plumbing malfunction in the Memorial tower caused a fire protection sprinkler head to activate and this resulted in the building being flooded, as Senator Childs has indicated. The Memorial's counter-disaster plan was put into action immediately and the flooding was contained by staff, the fire brigade and the Australian Capital Territory Emergency Service. I am advised that the major area of concern is the collection of First World War and Second World War diaries. There has been some slight water damage to parts of the collection but no material has been lost. The same can be said for all of the Memorial's irreplaceable records. Carpets and storage units also suffered damage but this will not cause any major disruption to the Memorial's activities. The research centre is closed until the end of this week but the galleries remain open. While there have been other incidents of flooding in the past it should be stressed that this situation is unrelated to those incidents. One, for example, was as a result of heavy rain, and additional guttering was installed to overcome that problem. On another occasion there was a burst water pipe, caused by an outside contractor. The current incident is not the result of insufficient funding for the Memorial. The first stage of an air-conditioning system which will replace the current water-operated system and its associated pipe work has been installed, and stages 2 and 3 are planned for 1988-89 and 1989-90. On completion of this project the risk of a similar incident occurring will be minimal. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Does the Minister recall that some weeks ago I asked him a general question concerning the links between organised crime, corruption and vice? Does he also recall that in his answer he indicated that he could not grasp the particularity of what I was seeking? I now ask the Minister whether, during the term of the Hawke Government and prior to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct, any Federal Minister having relevant portfolio responsibility for the Australian Federal Police and policing generally as it relates to the States was alerted in writing by a senior officer to the need for an inquiry into the links between organised crime, corruption and vice? If so, what action has been taken in response? Senator TATE —I recall the question and I recall seeking to divine what exactly might be sought by the honourable senator in that question. I must say that her second question is almost as vague as that which was asked some weeks ago. I will undertake a further review of the files available to me to see whether such an alerting in writing, as the honourable senator puts it, was made by some senior officer to a responsible Minister. I think I indicated at the time that the matters which Senator Newman was concerned about, namely, the links between organised crime, gambling and vice, generally speaking fall within the jurisdiction of States and the Northern Territory. In that situation, the scope for action by the Federal Government is somewhat limited, and I think I indicated would probably be most appropriately dealt with, because of the State connections, by the National Crime Authority. Its charter, as set out in the statute passed by this Parliament enables it to examine questions of organised crime to do with vice. It was my recollection that, for example, in the latest round of deliberations and consultations by the National Crime Authority to ascertain what reference might be undertaken-this was the subject of discussions in Hobart late last year-the particular question of vice and gambling and the relationship with organised crime was not put very strongly by any of the State jurisdictions as something which should take priority. In fact, I cannot remember it being put at all. I will have another look at the files and see whether, with the slightly more particular question put by Senator Newman, we can discover what she is after. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. Is it a fact that consultants to the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests included Mr John Quick, a former Commissioner of the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, who has publicly stated that `we cannot afford to lock up a single hectare of forest'? Is it also a fact that another paid consultant was Evan Shield, Deputy Logging Manager of Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd until 1981, who was later hired by the National Party of Australia and the Queensland timber industry to campaign politically against World Heritage listings in the wet tropics? Was another consultant a Mr David Trebeck, a former rural affairs adviser to the Liberal Party of Australia and an officer of the National Farmers Federation, an organisation which is spending large sums of money in opposing World Heritage listings? If so, who hired these men and why was there no public cross-examination of their input or public examination of the secret meeting between the Commission of Inquiry and counsel for the Tasmanian Forestry Commission in early December 1987? Given the suspicious circumstances surrounding evaluation of evidence, does the Minister agree that the findings of the Helsham inquiry are fatally flawed? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware that the Helsham inquiry employed quite a number of consultants, about 17 in all. I note with interest Senator Sanders's comments about a number of them. However, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to comment on the Helsham report at this stage. It was tabled only yesterday. It was tabled for the purpose of enabling public debate and comment upon it, and after a reasonable period for that debate and comment the Government will make its decision. When it has made its decision, I will be more than happy to comment. I do not believe that anything beyond that that I say in the interim would be helpful Senator HARRADINE —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, follows his statement to the Senate today that the priority for the Government's national health policy is disease prevention. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statements by Dr Ditta Bartels, a Sydney molecular biologist, to the Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference, that quality controlled babies produced through genetic engineering may soon become the norm and that a new technique would allow genetically defective embryos or those of the wrong sex to be discarded before they were implanted in the uterus? What taxpayers' funds are going towards the diagnostic techniques and proposals for the establishment of genetic registers of persons and families with histories of genetic disorders which would be essential in the establishment of such a filtering system for humans? If tax- payers' money is going towards this, in the case of genetic diseases does the Government's policy of disease prevention really mean prevention of individuals with genetic diseases from being born? Senator COOK —I noted three parts to the question from Senator Harradine. The last one was about the Government's general approach to health care and disease prevention. Of course, on that front the Government has, as I said in an answer earlier today, a holistic approach and an approach which emphasises preventive practices rather than treatment of diseases after the event. In particular, I draw attention to answers to questions that I have given earlier in the Senate about campaigns to encourage people to reduce alcohol intake and to disengage from other health damaging practices. But that, I understand, is not the thrust of this question. Senator Harradine is once again pursuing a series of questions which he takes extremely seriously and which of themselves are important. I do not wish to diminish that importance but they are a standard set of questions from Senator Harradine. I do not have answers to all three parts of the question that I can give Senator Harradine now. I will put those matters on notice. But I should say in respect of the second part of the question, as to the amount of taxpayers' money that is going into setting up a register of genetic disorders, that I think underlying that question is an imputation which I do not accept on behalf of the Government. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. In view of the despicable attempts at character assassination of two members of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests, can the Minister advise whether the capabilities and integrity of all members of the Commission were investigated prior to their appointment? Can he confirm that the members had and have retained the support of the Government and that the Government totally dissociates itself from the scurrilous attacks that have come from both inside and outside the Parliament? Senator RICHARDSON —I recall that in giving an answer in the Senate last year I said that I believed that we had in the three commissioners a competent and capable team. There is no reason for me to resile from what I said then. I am not sure what sort of lengthy investigation was carried out into their integrity, but I have no doubt as to their integrity and I think the Government is of the same view. I hope that we do not confuse in a democracy the right to disagree with the right to challenge integrity. There is no doubt that over the coming weeks some of the majority findings of that Commission and, indeed, the minority report, will come under considerable attack from both sides of the argument. I hope that at no stage will anyone criticise the commissioners' integrity, but we are, of course, all entitled to query whether we agree with the reports that they have brought down. Senator ARCHER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister's answer also cover the commissioners' competence? Senator RICHARDSON —The question of competence is one that will always be up for debate. While everyone in the Senate is no doubt a person of integrity, I have heard at times the competence of a number of us brought into question. I would have thought that in a democracy it would be very difficult to prevent that from going on. Senator McKIERNAN —I ask the Minister for Finance: Has he seen a media release put out by the National Priorities Project 1988 proposing a $10 billion per annum privatisation program? What is the value of the Commonwealth's investment in its government enterprises? For how many years could a $10 billion per annum privatisation program run? Will the Government consider pursuing such a program? Senator WALSH —I have seen the Press release put out by the National Priorities Project (NPP). It might make more sense to those people who are not already aware of this if I identify some of the people associated with that group. There are Professors Porter, Cliff Walsh, and Freebairn as well as one or two others that I cannot remember at this point, but they are well known names. The Press release does indeed say that tax cuts can be financed by `a $10 billion per annum privatisation program'. That is either a misprint or Professors Freebairn, Porter and Walsh are off with the fairies-like the Liberals were in the run-up to the last election campaign and, to a substantial extent, still are. If it is not a misprint, what the NPP group is advocating is a big boost in the short term in personal consumption levels, financed by big tax cuts, relying on the sale of assets, which at that rate could not last for very much longer than one year. It would be a great final binge or splurge, I suppose, similar to what the Liberal Party of Australia was proposing six or eight months ago which, substantially, it is still doing. The full valuation of Commonwealth Government owned enterprises of course does entail elements of judgment. In the guidelines for statutory authorities and business enterprises which I tabled towards the end of last year it was noted that at the end of June 1986 the book value of the Commonwealth's holdings of loans and equity capital in its 16 largest enterprises was just over $12 billion. It is probably true that those book values somewhat understate the actual value, but by no stretch of the imagination or by no defensible means could that figure of $12 billion be stretched out as far as $20 billion, in my judgment. Therefore, unless it is a misprint, at the most this consumption binge which is being proposed by Freebairn, Walsh and Porter could be financed for only two years through asset sales and, of course, it would also rather heroically assume that the market could absorb asset sales of that size, namely, $10 billion per year. I look forward to reading the book or in some other way finding out whether the valuation flaw is confined to a misprint in the Press release. Finally, I will also look with some care at the book in total to see whether it, too, is riddled with conceptual errors as Taxing and Spending Mark I was riddled with conceptual errors last year. Senator VANSTONE —My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer the Minister to my question to her on 21 April 1988 in relation to bipartisanship in status of women matters, to the launch of the rural women's survey and to the additional information that she provided to this chamber on 26 April 1988. Does the Minister believe that she can continue to say one thing in this chamber and do the opposite in practice? I also ask the Minister whether she made the following statement on 26 April: I will ensure that on the next occasion we work on such local events, their names- that is, the names of parliamentarians other than Labor parliamentarians- are on the mailing list. Having said that, did the Minister not speak at a Tasmanian launch of the National Agenda for Women this week to which Tasmanian Liberal senators were not invited? Are there to be local launches by the Minister in each State? Did she allege that I had been sent guest lists for three events, namely, the National Agenda for Women, the Women's Suffrage Banner and the rural women's survey launch, and that I had failed to be completely frank with the chamber? As I have not received these three lists under my freedom of information application or elsewhere-indeed I have received only one-what occasioned the Minister to make this allegation? Did it seem like a good idea at the time or was she misled by her officers? What standard of care does the Minister exercise over supplementary answers, and what steps did she take to ascertain the veracity of her comments before she made them? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank Senator Vanstone for her question. I can assure her personally that I am really a very hospitable person and that I am very sorry to hear, if it is indeed true, that Tasmanian members-women and men-were not invited. Senator Vanstone —You failed to ensure that they were. Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Vanstone, I have many responsibilities and-- Senator Vanstone —You promised they would. Senator Robert Ray —This is bigger than Watergate! Senator REYNOLDS —Yes, it certainly is. I will certainly find out why invitations were not sent to Opposition women members, or indeed to some of my own colleagues. I am pleased that the honourable senator is so interested in the National Agenda for Women and, indeed, in the rural women's survey that she has asked I think now two questions relating to invitations. I concede that obviously there needs to be some tightening up in relation to the issuing of invitations. I would merely remind Senator Vanstone-and I am sure that her colleagues would support me in this regard-that personally I am a hospitable person. I invited Senator Vanstone to participate in bipartisan photographs in King's Hall in front of the women's suffrage banner, which I think was a very pleasant occasion. I will certainly find out why my particular assurances have not been carried out, and we will try to do better in future. Senator VANSTONE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Do I understand by the Minister's answer that she is admitting that she in fact failed to ensure that on the next occasion a local event was undertaken Liberal senators would be invited? Also, I invite the Minister to address the second part of my question, which is why she chose to come into this chamber and say something that had no basis in fact and why, when she is given the opportunity to address her incapacity in this respect, she chooses to ignore it. Senator REYNOLDS —I have given an apology to those honourable senators who were disappointed not to receive an invitation. I have indicated that we will have to further tighten up the issuing of invitations. If Senator Vanstone is so concerned about this matter, perhaps she would like to draft a reprimand for me to actually issue to staff involved. I will certainly ensure that Senator Vanstone is not disappointed again in the future. Senator COLSTON —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the discomfort and discord that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives is causing within the Opposition ranks by insisting that all members of the coalition place unity in front of principle over the Government's proposed referendums? Is the Leader's position at odds with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and will this discord be likely to affect the rights of Queenslanders to achieve equal value for each vote cast? Senator BUTTON —I think the matter goes further than disquiet amongst members of the Opposition. It undoubtedly causes community concern as well, because I think the community likes to believe that there is a viable Opposition in this country and that there is some possibility of enlightened debate about these issues. I am aware that several of the more forward looking, enlightened and more highly principled members of the coalition-and there are one or two-do feel a great deal of discomfort with the Opposition's cynical and shortsighted decision to oppose the referenda. For example, on the question of electoral justice in Australia-one vote one value-the President of the Queensland Liberal Party admitted on 6 May, on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, that: The Queensland State Parliamentary members are taking the view that they will support the Federal redistribution principle. That is, one vote one value, with a few per cent tolerance. I congratulate the Queensland Liberals who decide to support this principle, which only in Queensland could be regarded as anything other than a basic tenet of a truly democratic political system. The Press has also reported that the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr Spender, considers his Party's decision to urge a no vote to the extension of trial by jury and the right to compensation contradicts the existing law and order policy of the Liberal Party. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that, when he was asked why the joint parties had decided to oppose the extension of these rights, Mr Spender could only reply, `I'm damned if I know'. Mr Howard was obviously upset with Mr Spender's forthright and reasonable remarks, and he said on ABC radio on 17 May about Mr Spender: He won't be speaking out again. He, like every other member of the front bench, will totally support the campaign for the decision. So much for democracy in the Liberal Party. Senator Chaney —This is absolutely sickening. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says that this is sickening. That is the sort of remark one gets by way of interjection, when people say, `You are trying to play politics in this place'. Of course it is sickening; but there is more to come. On the same interview program as that on which Mr Howard appeared, Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, admitted that were he a member of the Queensland Liberal Party, he would be arguing very hard for a fairer State electoral system. That is very proper, and Senator Chaney has the delightful fallback that he is not a member of the Queensland Liberal Party and does not have to do what he says he would do. The need for a fairer political system in Queensland is characterised by the Australian comedian Brian Doyle, who says, `I want to be buried in Queensland because that is the way I will get to vote after death'. That is true. Senator Bishop —That was said about New South Wales. Senator BUTTON —No, that is not the case with New South Wales. Honourable senators opposite have tried that one. Today we read in the South Australian Advertiser that the honourable member for Sturt will be voting in favour of two of the Government's referenda Bills. I am sure that the people of Australia will see through the Opposition's shoddy tactics and support all four constitutional amendments. The dissent and discomfort of many members of the coalition reflects not just their own dissatisfaction with Mr Howard's ham-fisted attempt to hold up sensible reform, but also their conviction that the people of Australia really want these reforms. These people in the Opposition of relatively high principle know that the great majority of people believe in one vote one value, want to go to the polls less frequently, want to see basic principles such as trial by jury recognised in the Constitution, and want proper recognition for local government. Those are the issues, Mr President. In return, the Liberal Party is offering the 1965 show all over again. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —This personal explanation relates to the report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last night which involved the misleading use of my comments at a Press conference, and which I hope was the result of sloppy reporting rather than an intention to misrepresent. I therefore wish to outline the views that I gave, and I will quote from a transcript of the Press conference to explain why Senator Collins was led into asking a question which amounted to a continuation of that misrepresentation, and there was a further continuation of it by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). I made the point at the Press conference that no member of the Liberal Party of Australia favours the sort of redistribution that we have had in Queensland. I said that I was making it clear that that was not a situation which I was defending. I then said: The question is whether you decide that you are going to try to remedy that by putting in an overriding central constitutional principle. I then went on to outline why that should not be done. I again quote from exactly what I said at the Press conference: The first thing is-the Government is not proposing to apply the one vote one value principle to the Australian Constitution. One vote one value will not apply in the House of Representatives-and it will not apply in the Senate. It will not apply in the House of Representatives because the Government is not intending to interfere with the weighting of electorates which has provided for Tasmania. So that in applying that requirement on the States, the Labor Party is not proposing that it should be applied to the House of Representatives. I went on to say: There would be a total outrage if the Government proposed to apply it to the Senate and destroy the representation of States like Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, which is equal with that of the more populous States. Later, I said: I think that there is an enormous element of hypocrisy in what is being put forward. Slightly later in the Press conference, I said: My own position on one vote one value is that it is an important principle but it is not the sole principle which is to be examined when you are drawing up an electoral system. It is not the sole principle, it is not some total absolute, and I happen to think that the arrangements with respect to Tasmania and the arrangements with respect to the Senate are an illustration of an aberration from the one vote one value which are two illustrations which are totally acceptable. I do not believe they breach democratic principle and I do not believe they provide a particular advantage for the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party. I think they provide an advantage to areas of the country which would otherwise be underrepresented in a democratic sense. With reference to the Western Australian situation, which has been referred to in Question Time, I said: In Western Australia, I have consistently argued . . . for a different approach to State electoral matters, which is essentially a matter for the State Government. But I have always said that in a State as big as Western Australia representation of the regions in the upper House makes eminent sense . . . To look at the State, its geography, its communications, its population, and to deny that some Senate-type imbalance of representation in the upper House is undemocratic-I think it is crazy. I see it as not very undemocratic at all. Then the matter of Queensland was raised with me, and this is the point at which the misunderstanding arises. I was asked: How would you address the problem in Queensland? I replied: I think that has to be handled by Queensland politicians who have got to make up their minds what they want to do. If there is a majority of members of parliament in Queensland who want a change-and that is what we are being told by the Liberal Party and the Labor Party-then it is over to them . . . They can't just hand all their responsibilities to us, or to the Constitution. I could read more extracts, but the point is that I made it quite clear that in my view the position being adopted by the Opposition is correct in principle, and that there is a high degree of hypocrisy in the arguments being put forward by the Government, because, in fact, one vote one value will not apply to this Commonwealth Parliament if the constitutional amendment involved is passed. It will be forced on every State legislature, but it will not apply to this Parliament. Senator McKiernan —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: Senator Chaney asked for the indulgence of the Senate in order to make a personal explanation. That indulgence was granted, but I think Senator Chaney is now debating the issue and not addressing himself to the matter about which he rose to make a personal explanation. He is widening the debate out from the personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chaney received leave to make a personal explanation. He is entitled to do so. He is not entitled to debate the issue; he must confine himself to his personal explanation. That he is doing at the moment. Senator CHANEY —I thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy President. I have almost completed my remarks. I have already said that at the Press conference I said that this matter had to be handled by Queensland politicians, who have to make up their minds what they want to do. To that, I should add `in Queensland'. I have made the point about the regionalisation aspect and the weighting of votes in Queensland and Western Australia. It was then that I said in the final part of an answer to a question: I don't, in any sense, belittle that and were I a member of the Queensland Liberal Party I would be arguing very hard with them for a State electoral system that was fairer. That has always been my public and private position, and it remains my position today. It also remains my position today that that is not a matter to be determined by an amendment to the Constitution that would impose on the States an electoral straitjacket that we are not prepared to impose on the Commonwealth Parliament. I believe that it is rank hypocrisy to apply one set of rules to the State parliaments and a totally different set of rules to the Federal Parliament. I would not support such a proposal. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(3.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority annual report 1986-87 contains a number of startling facts and figures, especially in the light of the current debate in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) about a possible casino. Under the heading `Highlights for the period 1 July 1986 to 29 June 1987' we read that the ACT Totalisator Agency Board turnover for the financial year was $49,850,144 and that poker machine turnover for the same period was $220,948,146. That works out to the expenditure of something like $1,000 per man, woman and child in the ACT just on poker machines, let alone horse racing, lotteries and the various forms of so-called sport gambling. One would think that that is enough and with that amount of money being spent already a casino would not really be necessary. It is also interesting to note that Mr Connor, in the report of the Board of Enquiry into Casinos in the State of Victoria, which recommended against having a casino in that State, after very wide-ranging inquiries argued that a casino would have the net effect of increasing the total level of gambling in that State. Incidentally, he also noted that, despite the promises of politicians, casinos are acknowledged targets of organised crime. I refer to page 2 of the report under the heading `Corporate statement' which states that the objective of the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority is: To provide cost effective wagering and other services that will create maximum financial returns to the community, the racing industry and the Government. This statement begs a number of questions, not least the ethical argument of using gambling as a form of concealed taxation. Also interesting is the use of the term `racing industry' for an occupation which does little for the community except provide a form of entertainment; and it is certainly not an industry in that it certainly does not create anything. Another matter of interest in this report which I draw to the attention of honourable senators is the coy use of words such as `sport' and `gaming' instead of `betting' and `gambling'. Although the Australian Democrats have no wish to further regulate something which is demonstrably part of Australian culture, we prefer to call a spade a spade. I refer now to page 12 of the report under the heading `Sports betting' and the statement: Sports betting was offered on the Sydney Rugby League and Victorian Football League competitions, the America's Cup defence, the James Hardie 1000 motor race, Australian Grand Prix and the World Series Cricket. ACT/TAB turnover on these events was $57,011. I guess that these events are sports for those taking part and they are certainly spectator sports for those watching, either actually present or watching on television but, as the Australian Democrats' spokesperson for both sport and the ACT, I place on record that the Democrats strongly believe in Government support for participatory sports in the interests of community health and fitness, and they are quite unrelated to the gambling industry. I note the ACT Gaming and Liquor Authority Report. I regret the confusion of terms in the report between `sport' and `gambling'. I place on record the opposition of the Australian Democrats to the widening of gambling opportunities in the ACT by the opening of a casino in Canberra. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Walters: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 26 April. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate approves the changes to the parliamentary administration contained in the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 April, on motion by Senator Collins: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(3.15) —As a member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances I wish to place on record several comments on the Committee's eighty-third report. In relation to regulations and ordinances, there seem to be too many of them, they are too hard to acquire and they are too hard to interpret. The report contains an appendix which lists over 100 legislative sources for different kinds of delegated legislative instruments other than-and I stress that it is other than-regulations and ordinances. It refers to over 20 generically different types of delegated legislative instruments other than regulations and ordinances. In relation to generic types of delegated legislation there are orders, declarations, determinations, directions, notices, principles, guidelines and standards. They are not statutory rules and as such they are not printed, not numbered, not indexed, not digested, not consolidated and as a result are not easily accessible. If a lawyer or member of the public wants to find a statutory rule there are indexes but, if one wants to find subordinate legislation in one of the categories that I have mentioned, one is faced with the unenviable task of searching for a needle in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette haystack. One of the most striking features of modern government, not only in Australia but throughout the world of Westminster type parliamentary democracy, is the dislocation of powers between Parliament and the Executive. Ideally there is a constructive tension in the relationship between law makers and law executors. Parliamentary government has two components-Parliament and government-and we, the representatives of the people in Parliament, need the Executive to administer our laws, just as the Executive needs us to give it power and authority to administer them. The complexity and sophistication of modern society makes it essential that we delegate to Ministers and officials rule making powers to deal with the details and contingencies of large administrative, social, legal and economic schemes. The sheer mass and momentum of these laws passes us by, perhaps given tacit parliamentary approval with all the confidence of parliamentary ignorance because in many cases we are quite simply ignorant of what executive law making is doing and why. I believe that the fault lies with successive governments, particularly the bureaucracy, for their failure to supply Parliament with adequate information on the reasons for new subordinate laws and their predicted effects. Quite simply there is now so much secondary law and it is so detailed and complex and so incomplete in the sense that it is part of an evolving sequence of administrative responses to the needs of administration. These laws are made by highly skilled and very professional public servants who know intimately what they are doing and why they are advising the Ministers to do what they do when they make new rules and regulations. But why can we not, in Parliament, be told in greater detail the whys and wherefores of new regulatory laws? In its report, the Committee has again expressed its dissatisfaction with the quality of explanatory statements which are attached to instruments tabled in this place. So little effort is needed by the experts in the bureaucracy to make those statements informative and truly explanatory of the impact of delegated legislation that I have to wonder why statements are so uninformative. It is undoubtedly part of our role on the Committee to criticise this aspect of the presentation of rules because we act as a watchdog for the rights not only of the citizen but also of the Parliament and individual parliamentarians. Parliament has a right to know why secondary laws are necessary and what their expected effects, monetary and otherwise, will be. I am currently in the unique position of being a member of both the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. In that capacity I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the concern expressed, on this very same issue, by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in its 1986-87 report which is reiterated at the beginning of chapter 3 of the report currently under discussion: The Committee has been concerned . . . at the proliferation of instruments . . . in a form other than regulations. The main reason for this would . . . appear to be . . . a belief in the Departments administering the relevant legislation that the regulation-making process has become cumbersome and lacks . . . flexibility . . . It considers the proliferation of substitutes for regulations to be undesirable . . . it is much more difficult to ascertain whether a power to determine some matter by notice has been exercised and, if so, to find a copy of the relevant notice. The proliferation of such notices thus makes it more difficult for the public at large to ascertain what the law is in relation to a particular matter . . . such notices, although they have legislative effect, are not prepared by the professional drafters in the Attorney-General's Department, but by departmental officers. They may thus lack the precision required in legislative instruments and, if found defective in subsequent litigation, may result in significant additional costs for the Commonwealth. It seems obvious since both committees are commenting on this issue that it would behove the Government to address this issue of subordinate legislation. It is obvious that both committees agree that more serious attempts need to be made by officials, preferably on the basis of standing directions from their Ministers, to furnish Parliament, as a matter of course, with statements that explain and offer some detailed guidelines as to the nature of the problem that the new laws address and the cost and impact of their enforcement. If this is to be a modern Parliament, served by a modern bureaucracy, then it is time that steps were taken to recognise properly the dimensions of this shift in law-making authority from Parliament to the Executive and respond to it as parliamentarians by requiring fuller explanations and impact statements. Almost equally important is the need to pay greater attention to the width of those clauses in Bills which delegate law-making power and, where necessary, require that the scope and purpose of delegations of authority be more clearly set out in the Bills that come before us. I would like to make it clear that I recognise the need for delegated legislation. I accept the likelihood that under governments of any hue there will be a need for a relatively large, if fluctuating, volume of such legislation. I also recognise that, for reasons of inertia and administrative convenience, there is probably more legislation on the delegated statute book than there needs to be. A requirement to assess more carefully and express more clearly to Parliament the impact of new departmental laws will inevitably sharpen departmental and ministerial perceptions of the justifications for proposed laws. The Committee believes that that will inevitably improve the overall quality of such laws. I have no doubt that improvement in quality which arises from the need publicly to justify laws and publicly to predict their impact will eventually flow through to those other issues of particular interest to the Committee concerning personal rights and civil liberties. I think there would be less likelihood of creating the unjustifiable strict liability offences, unreviewable discretions, subdelegated powers and the other technical flaws that the Committee encounters if there existed in the minds of lawmakers this keener sensitivity to the presence of a supervising parliament which has the right to know more about the way its own parliamentary authority is being used by its delegates. In its report, the Committee has urged Ministers to give consideration to this question of the process of making law outside Parliament and the need to justify properly the laws that are made. I would strongly argue that all subordinate legislation be referenced in such a way that both parliamentarians and public are able to access it with relative ease. I would like to quote Peter O'Keefe, Secretary to the Committee, who says: A strange breed of men and women, of both right and left, still gravitate to serve on these committees- he is referring to subordinate legislation committees- with a willingness and motivation that is becoming rare in Australian politics. Their concern is to protect ordinary people's rights and to use one of the last politically unsullied parliamentary forums to engage in a genuinely parliamentary activity. I consider it a great privilege to be a member of that strange breed. As a new member of this Committee, I have been impressed with my colleagues' willingness to take off their party political hats and don their parliamentary hats to participate in a non-partisan and united way to achieve the aims of that Committee. The Committee is served by a very able staff, totally dedicated to the important task of the Committee. I acknowledge their contributions, in particular that of the Secretary to the Committee, Mr Peter O'Keefe. I commend this report to all honourable senators, to Ministers and especially to professional public servants involved in the development of subordinate legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. Senator Coates —Why? Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Since Senator Coates questioned why this is being done, I am quite happy to provide an explanation. He is quite right. When you, Mr Acting Deputy President, called this item no senator rose in his place. Quite correctly, you put the motion and it was carried. However, there are a number of honourable senators in this place with a long term interest in this matter who have not yet had a chance to speak and who, to my knowledge, wish to. Indeed, since that occurred one has spoken to me about it and I know of at least one other. For that reason, I am following this procedure simply to ensure that the matter is preserved on the Notice Paper and that honourable senators will at some later time get a chance to make a contribution. I have nothing further to say on the motion at this stage except that, in my view, the question of access to video material is very important; one in which there is a good deal of public interest. That public interest relates particularly to the protection of young people, which is an extremely difficult thing to do because of modern technology. Therefore, I think that it is not a matter that should go from the Notice Paper if there are honourable senators who wish to make contributions. I am pleased to have the Senate's leave and I thank it for it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Senator Cook: That the following Sessional Order, as contained in the attachment to the Report, be adopted: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in a debate on a motion for the suspension of any Standing or Sessional Order a senator shall not speak for more than 5 minutes, and if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion shall then be put. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.29) —The motion that we are debating today is: That the following Sessional Order, as contained in the attachment to the Report- that is, the second report of the sixty-third session of the Standing Committee on Procedure- be adopted: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in a debate on a motion for the suspension of any Standing or Sessional Order a senator shall not speak for more than 5 minutes, and if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion shall then be put. The first point to be made about this motion is that it is indeed a sessional order that we are discussing, not a standing order. It is a temporary procedure put in place to see whether the change will work in the best interests of the Senate and in the best interests of each senator, rather than simply going for the double whammy, if you like, of changing the standing order outright. What the motion proposes is that for a trial period, which is all a sessional order provides for, we see whether or not there should be a limited time for each speaker and a set time for the debate on a suspension of Standing or Sessional Orders motion. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you would well know, we do have limits on other forms of debate in this place. I think that you were a member of the Senate in the days when a one-hour debating period was set aside for normal debates-debates on Bills and so on. I am sure that you will remember colleagues of ours who, if given 10 minutes to debate something, would do so quite competently but, if given an hour, would stretch it out to that as well. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —I remember some speeches that took an hour. Senator HAINES —I am sure that you do. None of us were any more edified at the end of such speeches than we would have been if the speaker had been limited to 10 minutes. Senator Colston —And some went on to ask for an extension of time. Senator HAINES —That is quite true. Senator Colston has pointed out that it was not unknown, at the end of that hour's debate, for somebody to seek an extension and no doubt, from time to time, be granted it because people were numb after sitting there for an hour listening to whatever it was that was up for debate. In the past we have put back time limits in order to get through the business more appropriately, to make speeches more precise and more on the topic, to stop honourable senators from falling asleep and one thing and another, and that was all to the good of the Senate. Over the years we have frequently changed debating times so that now we speak for a maximum of only 30 minutes in a debate on a Bill, instead of 60 minutes. Prior to the setting of the 60-minute time limit, we were able to speak for an unlimited amount of time. That is still the case in the United States, which allows people to filibuster on their own. The Senate has a five-minute time limit per speaker in debates on committee reports and a 10-minute limit, as we have just noted in the last two batches of debates here today, for debates when some papers are tabled. During Thursday lunchtimes when matters of public interest are dealt with by the chamber we put a 15-minute time limit on the speakers. In debates on urgency motions or matters of public importance that come before the chamber after Question Time, the first two speakers are given 20 minutes and the remaining speakers have a 15-minute time limit. To argue that limiting a speech-whether it is a limit of five minutes, 10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour, or whatever the standing or sessional order provides-somehow gags debate is quite ridiculous and flies in the face of what we have done in this place to control the debates, to make the procedures more orderly and to get through the enormous amount of business that this chamber deals with on an annual basis. It is especially ridiculous to argue that somehow a gag is being applied when the motion seeks to limit not the debate on the substantive motion for which a suspension is being sought but the time for debate on whether or not the Standing or Sessional Orders ought to be suspended-the time during which the speakers should be putting their arguments about the urgency of a matter. That is why from time to time in this place we move to suspend Standing or Sessional Orders. Sometimes a matter is drawn to our attention that is so urgent that it cannot wait until the afternoon, later in the evening or the following day: we cannot go through the normal processes of putting down a notice of motion, dealing with it at a later hour of the day or, as would normally happen, having it put on the Notice Paper for the following day and following normal procedures. When a senator moves for the suspension of Standing Orders to debate a matter immediately, rather than at some subsequent time, that senator is saying, `This matter is of such importance, such urgency, that it simply cannot wait for a later time'. Therefore, I would have thought that it was in that senator's interests, or in the interests of the party which that senator represents and on whose behalf the senator is moving the motion, to get the matter dealt with as expeditiously as possible, to get the suspension motion dealt with as quickly as possible, so that we can move on to the substantive motion. I know that it is a time-honoured tradition in this place that sorely tries the patience of people such as you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and me who take the President's chair from time to time that when a senator, or the party of that senator, who knows that he does not have a majority to enable him to get the suspension motion approved, uses the debate to canvass the substantive issue. The senator then hopes that either nobody will take a point of order on the matter of relevance or, if somebody does so, the person occupying the chair will be moved not to uphold it. Mr Acting Deputy President, you and I know how difficult it is sometimes to rule on the question of relevance. We use these little tricks in this place. A 30-minute time limit, as applies currently, certainly gives people plenty of rope with which to hang themselves, or indeed anybody else, by taking the substantive matters into the debate on whether or not a matter is so urgent that Standing Orders or Sessional Orders should be suspended. I say that, having done it myself. Knowing that for some reason a suspension motion we are moving will not be accepted, we have dragged in by the ears, or any other part of the matter's anatomy, any detail that we have wanted to bring in, in the hope that we will get away with it. So, I acknowledge that from time to time we ourselves have, shall I say, abused the system or fudged the issue slightly. However, that is not the point. The point is that a debate on a motion to suspend Standing or Sessional Orders is a quite specific one. The argument should be whether or not the matter is so urgent that we should deal with it at that time and not at some other time; indeed, whether we should interrupt other business to deal with it. A matter ought not to be brought before the Senate at a particular and inappropriate moment simply because it is politically expedient to do so-because one cannot wait until Question Time, because Question Time has passed, because there is no time to get an urgency motion to the President or because one does not want to wait until the next day to use the normal notice of motion process. That is not the purpose, or ought not to be the purpose, of a debate on the suspension of Standing Orders. We ought to be arguing that a failure to raise a matter at that point in time will cause some problem to someone-not a problem to the political party that would like it brought forward in that it would have to wait for a while, but some specific problem-or that there is, in fact, a time element that renders it particularly urgent. I would have thought that the very fact that we were debating the urgency of a matter would be a reason for keeping the time limit down. As has been indicated, it is always possible to seek an extension of time, if one is necessary, and we did that this morning for Senator Stone. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(3.39) —We are dealing with a motion which proposes to limit, by way of either Sessional Orders or Standing Orders, debate on a motion for the suspension of any standing or sessional order to five minutes or less. As a matter of fundamental principle, I have always opposed any further reduction, by way of either Standing Orders or Sessional Orders, of the time available for honourable senators to speak in this chamber. Slowly but, I suspect, inexorably we are finding that through various mechanisms and means this Government is moving this place towards the system that operates in the House of Representatives-that is, that the time of senators to speak is being reduced to the point where they are no longer able in any detail to put a comprehensive explanation and persuasive argument. I find absolutely no reasonable justification for reducing from 30 minutes to five minutes the period allowed for debate on the question of whether Standing Orders should be suspended. One can reasonably argue that a senator would move for the suspension of Standing Orders in regard to a matter of great moment, urgency and priority. He would do so in respect of an issue which cannot wait for the normal processes of Senate procedures. In that case the reasons why Standing Orders should be suspended not only ought to be justified but also ought to be compelling. On that basis alone, an excellent argument can be made out that senators ought properly to argue and debate the merits of suspending Standing Orders so that an issue can be brought forward. It is not unreasonable to allow senators from either side of the chamber a full and proper opportunity to debate why Standing Orders or Sessional Orders ought to be suspended. I am of the view that to continue, as we have, to reduce the time available for senators to speak on all sorts of occasions is simply another form of gag. The motion before us is a surreptitious, insidious attempt by this Government to gag senators and to prevent them from making a proper and detailed contribution to whatever the subject of the day is. We are told by Senator Haines that it is possible for senators to get an extension of time. Of course, that request has to be granted by leave and without dissent. Leave is refused if only one senator dissents. The right to debate ought not to rest in the capricious hands of an agitated senator. Senator Haines —We would always give you leave, Noel. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the honourable senator very much. In that case, I speak for my colleagues. It seems to me that the right to 30 minutes ought to be enshrined in the Sessional and Standing Orders. Over recent years we have witnessed more and more legislation being introduced into the Parliament and into this chamber. Parallel with that, we have also witnessed the incompetence of this Government in managing its business. Almost without exception, we have no legislation before us in the first two or three weeks of any session. During these periods we have filibusters. We have lengthy debates on matters that could easily be dealt with more quickly. During the middle and end of a session we find that there is a stockpile of legislation which causes the Government to seek to guillotine Bills through the Senate-either on the floor of the Senate or by surreptitious methods outside the chamber. I argue now, and I will always argue, that all senators have a fundamental right to stand and speak for as long as they like. For my part, I am opposed to the 30-minute rule on speeches made during a second reading debate. I am totally opposed to the 30-minute rule on adjournment speeches. There may well be occasions when the subject with which a senator is dealing cannot properly and comprehensively be addressed in 30 minutes. It might so happen that a senator requires an hour to speak on a piece of legislation. But we find ourselves now restricted because of the management of the chamber and because of the amount of legislation that is before us. The Government has foreshadowed a number of steps and measures which are designed to restrict debate in this chamber. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government seeks to restrict debate because Government senators are unable, incompetent or do not have the capacity to compete with us in terms of the force of their arguments. I suspect, rather, it is because of mismanagement that the Government is unable to organise its program so that there can be orderly, proper and comprehensive debate. There is no justification for arguing that any issue which comes to this chamber can be comprehensively and fully debated by an honourable senator in five minutes. Next, we will find ourselves with the American system which has been introduced into the House of Representatives whereby members have 90-second bites. They stand up, identify themselves, refer to the subject and sit down. What can be said in five minutes that is likely to persuade anybody? I submit, very little. This is not a sensible time limit. Such a limit is not imposed on any speaker in any other forum. I would have thought that the one place in which there ought to be no retardation, inhibition, limitations or frustrations in regard to the length of time in which a person is given to attempt to persuade, would be the Senate chamber. The Senate is the very last place where the capacity to put an argument ought to be restricted. I rather suspect that it is a reflection of this Government's attitude towards the parliamentary system that it would want legislation to be introduced and put through the chamber without debate. The truth of the matter is that on the Government's side of politics the argument is decided before a Bill is ever introduced. From time to time I still think about poor old ex-Senator Georgie Georges who dared but once in 60 years as a member of the Australian Labor Party to disagree publicly with his own Party. He paid the ultimate price. The ultimate sanction was placed upon him and he was expelled from his Party. After his expulsion he was subject to abuse and intimidation from those on his own side for the balance of his period in this place. It was bad enough that he was sent to Coventry. But to be described by his own colleagues, his bosom friends, his lifelong friends as a scab is symptomatic of the straitjacketing that is practised by those on the other side of the chamber in terms of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of debate. Senator Michael Baume —Senator Walsh attacked him viciously. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —That is right. Senator Walsh bitterly and viciously, as only he can do, with the skill and capacity that he has learnt from his own twisted and warped approach to life, attacked the honourable senator because that man-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.49) —I am all in favour of short, to the point speeches in this place and I am all against this motion. I think it is important for us to understand the difference between those two points. The motion that is now before us is an attempt to cut down the right of senators to speak properly to a very important motion, that is, the motion to suspend Standing Orders. First of all, the issue must be quite important to the mind of that senator and, presumably, to other senators for that senator to hope to get the support of the chamber for the moving of a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. Therefore, the issue must be very important. Secondly, under the Standing Orders, the mover of a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and any senator speaking to that motion must stick directly to the point. They would be asked to do so by the presiding officer at the request of any senator if that speaker were straying from the point. Senator Coates —And then would continue to ignore the request. Senator HARRADINE —No, that senator would not continue. Honourable senators have not continued to ignore such requests. I have heard a number of speeches on motions for the suspension of Standing Orders which have attracted points of order from honourable senators. The presiding officer has then instructed the speaker to stick to the point and has made sure that the speaker has stuck to it. The debate on a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders is not just an ordinary debate. When speaking time in ordinary debates was almost unlimited-and that is going back some years now-I heard honourable senators straying on to various irrelevant points. Even with the present half-hour time limit honourable senators stray on to various irrelevant points. However, in regard to debate on the suspension of Standing Orders, this is a narrowly defined area. Let us take such an example. Senator Coates was interjecting a moment ago, so let us take the most recent example, provided by Senator Chaney. The report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material appeared as a Government paper in the Notice Paper today. In the past a period of 30 minutes has been set aside for the discussion of Government Papers. I ask honourable senators: When was the last time on a broadcast day that discussion of Government Papers has been less than 30 minutes? Senator Colston —Today. Senator HARRADINE —Today-for the first time in my memory, this has occurred on a broadcast day. We were therefore caught short. Those honourable senators who were interested in speaking to the report of the Committee on Video Material of course considered that, naturally, the debate on Government papers on a broadcast day would go for 30 minutes-instead of which, it went for only five minutes. In those circumstances the motion was put and adopted without debate. Senator Chaney, quite rightly, on behalf of the Opposition, sought to have that matter returned to the Notice Paper. Because it is a matter of major public policy, it was quite a justifiable action for him to take. Senator Coates initially refused leave. Senator Colston —He queried it, I think. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry. Okay, he queried it. However, had any honourable senator refused leave, it would have been possible for Senator Chaney to do one of two things. Firstly, he could have given notice of motion for tomorrow or, secondly, if he thought the matter was very important, he could have sought to suspend Standing Orders today. I guarantee that it would have been important for Senator Chaney to do so because of the misrepresentations of the majority report of the Committee on Video Material. There has been a Press conference about that today. Because of those misrepresentations Senator Chaney had a great deal to say to the Senate in order to ensure that it was aware of the importance of the matter and the need to suspend Standing Orders. However, it would not have been possible to do that with any form of justice in a period of five minutes. It is my concern also that this represents the thin end of the wedge. To that extent I agree with what Senator Crichton-Browne said when he asked why we should, unless evidence is placed before us of honourable senators taking advantage of the suspension of Standing Orders provisions, change the Standing Orders. That is what we are actually doing. Although we say that it is a change to the Sessional Orders, it is actually a change to the Standing Orders. While I am on the subject, let me state that there is too much of this business of governing our procedures simply by the use of Sessional Orders. If the change is important enough, why is not the Senate Standing Orders Committee game enough to say, `Let us change the Standing Orders'? I know that Senator Haines has put forward the argument that we should give it a trial. We could give it a trial in this instance. But let us reflect. Where is the evidence before us to show that this standing order has been abused? Where is the evidence? It is not in the report. If there is evidence, let us have it so that we can consider it. Otherwise, it looks to me as though this is the thin end of the wedge and an attempt to deny the rights of individual honourable senators to represent the people who elected them to this place. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.57) —One of the good things about debates on Sessional Orders or Standing Orders is that there is no party line and one can take an attitude of one's own on this. I would take the opportunity to disagree with my colleague Senator Crichton-Browne and with Senator Harradine on this very important matter. Senator Crichton-Browne —I defend your right to be wrong. Senator HAMER —Senator Crichton-Browne may defend my right to be wrong; he can also defend my right to be right. It is an issue which is of great concern to all honourable senators and one which I am sure we have to tackle very seriously. It is important that we should be able to suspend Standing Orders to discuss matters of great and immediate importance. We have Standing Orders which provide proper procedures for the protection of all senators, of due processes in our procedures. We should suspend Standing Orders only when a very important case is being made out. In general, Standing Orders are suspended with the agreement of all parties. There is no problem there. There is virtually no debate involved. The motion is moved. It is known that all parties agree and the debate on the important matter goes on with no interruptions and no waste of time debating motions to suspend Standing Orders because the matter is acknowledged, by a majority of senators anyway, to be one that should be discussed. What we are dealing with here is the situation in which a majority of senators do not think the matter should be discussed on that day. Using the ordinary Standing Orders the matter can be discussed the next day. However, I am talking about when it is believed to be a matter of such immediate importance that other matters should be set aside so that it can be discussed. The majority of senators do not agree-if they did the debate would not take place. The motives for such a debate are threefold. First of all, it is to publicise a matter which is very important-usually to the Opposition, occasionally to the Australian Democrats and occasionally to the Independents. They take the opportunity to get maximum publicity on a matter which is of importance to them. I think that I could say without being unfair that the majority of these sorts of protests tend to take place on a day on which the Senate proceedings are being broadcast. That is very natural. The purpose of those senators is to get publicity for a point of view which the majority of the Senate does not think needs to be discussed urgently. It is essentially a protest or a publicity device-a perfectly proper one. The question we have to consider is how much time it is appropriate to allow the Senate to spend on that protest or that publicity device. The second technique used in these debates on the suspension of Standing Orders-I have heard this when I have been sitting in the chair and have had problems with it; it is almost inescapable-is that a great deal of the substance of the matter will be debated during debate on the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the matter to be discussed. It is a very simple technique, and it is used with admirable skill by many honourable senators, some of whom are now in the chamber. They say it is only by suspending Standing Orders that they can discuss a matter, and they develop the matter that could be discussed were Standing Orders suspended. It is perfectly proper. What they are doing is getting in the material on the matter which the majority of the Senate presumably does not wish debated. Senator Harradine raised another point. Where is the evidence of the necessity for this measure? I must confess it is a difficult point to raise because one does not know what the alternatives are. It has always struck me as odd that, on the whole, the Senate has I think a good set of Standing Orders yet we give an extraordinary amount of leave to people to do things contrary to Standing Orders. When an honourable senator seeks leave it is almost automatically granted. I believe the reason is a very simple one. Everyone knows that an honourable senator refused leave would immediately move for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent him doing what he sought leave to do. Everyone in a position of authority in the Senate knows it is much less time consuming to allow leave to do a thing, even though one believes that thing should not really be done, rather than go through a motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. That is a distortion of our proper processes. I know and accept there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue. We should try it out and see how it goes. It is a sessional order, it is under trial and if it does not work or is felt to impact unfairly on minority parties in the Senate, or on the Opposition for that matter, after a due trial we could certainly wipe it out of the sessional orders. I do think it is an area of our procedure which is subject to abuse. It has caused what I think is an excessive amount of leave being given to do things which are not strictly urgent, which should be done by the proper processes of the Senate without seeking leave to avoid those proper and standard processes. I think we should try out a sessional order to see whether it would make the Senate work more smoothly and more efficiently and enable it to devote more of its time to the proper processes, and allow a reasonable amount of time for protests but not an excessive amount. I fear that is the danger of continuing with our present arrangements for the suspension of Standing Orders. I therefore support, as a trial-it must be considered as a trial only-the adoption of a sessional order. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.03) —I wish to speak against the proposal before the chair that the motion to suspend Standing Orders be not debatable or that a time limit be placed on such a motion. Senator Colston —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think that Senator MacGibbon has spoken in this debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —I understand that although Senator MacGibbon did speak earlier in the debate, and in fact adjourned the debate, it is the first time this matter has been listed on the Notice Paper. I am advised by the Clerk that Senator MacGibbon is able to speak under a special sessional order relating to committee reports. So it is in order for Senator MacGibbon to speak. Senator MacGIBBON —I was in no doubt about my entitlement to speak and I am surprised that Senator Colston had some uncertainty about it. I am opposed to this motion. It is no accident, of course, that the origins of the motion come from the Australian Democrats because anything relating to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and the ability of a senator to put his point of view is always censored and if possible denied by the Democrats, once they have had their say. The motion provides in essence that when Standing Orders are suspended a total of 30 minutes be allocated for debate. At the present time there is no time limit on the debate when the suspension of Standing Orders is moved. When are Standing Orders suspended? Standing Orders are suspended only in a matter of emergency. The business of the day is set by the Government, the Government decides on how it wants the affairs of the chamber to run for that day, it is published in the business sheet and the Minister on duty is asked by the President quite early on whether there is any proposal to alter the arrangements for business. The answer to that is usually no, but at any time it is possible for the Government through a Minister, to alter the sequence of business. So the suspension of Standing Orders in essence is an essential safety valve, a procedure available to the Opposition in this chamber to move that something be debated urgently. In the time I have been here I have learned one truth, that is, every party in the Senate is destined to serve some time in opposition. It is not true that everyone is destined to be in government; certainly some of the minor parties, such as the Nuclear Disarmament Party, will not ever be in power. But we all face the certainty of being in opposition. On a higher plane it is very much part of the institution of the Parliament that senators be allowed and have the opportunity to challenge the views and the position of the government of the day, whether it is executive government or the government en masse represented by senators and members. What we are seeing here is a denial of the right to challenge. In my time here-Senator Harradine said the same thing-I have never seen the Standing Orders as they exist at the present time abused. It is very rare, in fact, that moves are made to suspend Standing Orders and they are suspended only when a matter of great urgency is raised. I am surprised that Senator Hamer took the view he did in his speech, which preceded mine. I thought it was extraordinarily benign of him to say that somehow or other Standing Orders are suspended generally with the consensus of most senators in the chamber. My experience is that Standing Orders have an air of urgency and emotion about them, to put it mildly. Senator Hamer —Standing Orders cannot be suspended unless there is a majority. Senator MacGIBBON —I am glad that Senator Hamer has brought this point up. It is true that unless there is an absolute majority of senators Standing Orders cannot be suspended but we are talking about the motion to suspend. The desire to move that Standing Orders be suspended often arises as a result of a matter of urgency, and emotions are involved. Therefore it is quite incorrect for Senator Hamer to suggest that there was some sort of benign tolerance of that in the chamber. There is usually quite a large number of senators who wish to speak both for and against the motion. The other point I found difficulty in understanding was Senator Hamer's claim that this presents almost insuperable problems in the chair. I have had some experience in the chair and I have found no difficulty in interpreting Standing Orders at all. Standing Orders simply require that in speaking in the debate on the motion to suspend Standing Orders relevance must be shown. I suggest that there is no difficulty in knowing what relevance the speaker's argument has to the motion proving urgency such that Standing Orders be suspended. This really gets back to the ethos of the Senate. We have a degree of tolerance in this chamber. We do have an age old belief that senators are entitled to be heard on an issue. The fundamental issue here is the motion to suspend Standing Orders. I hold very strongly that senators have the right to express themselves on this issue without any censure at all with respect to time. As I have said I have never seen our present right abused. I am not surprised that the Australian Democrats have moved this motion. If it is accepted and carried I believe that in six or 12 months time there will be another motion from the Democrats, that the motion to suspend Standing Orders be put without debate. I am very mindful of the fact that over the years the Australian Labor Party has been in power it has always been the Democrats who have moved either the gag or the guillotine to deny to the Opposition the opportunity to debate matters and Bills that are before the chamber. We have to go back only a few weeks to the environmental legislation on the northern rainforests when the Labor Party in collusion with the Democrats moved the guillotine and prevented this chamber debating a very important issue. It is not surprising that they do this because, as I have said before, the Democrats are allergic to the expression of any points of view other than their own. In the time that the Democrats have been in this chamber, which is now 10 years, not one of them has ever had any respect at all for the institution of Parliament. For them the Parliament is merely a platform for pushing minority points of view that have 2 to 4 per cent support in the community. I have a different point of view from that of Senator Crichton-Browne in respect of general speaking in general debate. I think that there is a case for limitation of time for general debate on Bills. I have long held the view that it is pointless for the Senate to re-run second reading debates on Bills that have been introduced in the House of Representatives. I think our time would be spent far more profitably if our efforts were directed towards taking a Bill apart in the committee stage to find out precisely what the clauses of the Bill mean and what the defects might be. Personally I am in favour of reducing the time allowable for speaking from 30 minutes to 20 minutes, with a reduction from 15 minutes to either five or 10 minutes in the committee stage. A fundamental principle is involved in this motion before the Senate today, one which is quite distinct from the normal rules of debate for the Senate. This is the opportunity for the Opposition to challenge the rule of government. If this is limited it amounts, in effect, to denial. What we are looking at in that respect is total dominance of this chamber by the government of the day. If that happens, democracy and the institution of Parliament suffer. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.12) —I also oppose this proposal which has come from the minds of Senator Haines and her advisers. I have been in this place for almost 12 years, and in that time I can recall only one occasion when this procedure to move to suspend Standing Orders was what might be called misused in that the debate extended over a very lengthy time. In relation to debate that has occurred in recent times on a motion to suspend Standing Orders, I think on every occasion no more than three speakers on our side of the chamber have spoken for some 10 to 20 minutes, and there has not been a continuation of that debate. The problem is that one of the speakers has been Senator Puplick, and during those debates he has literally torn to shreds not only the Government but Senator Haines and her cohorts. Senator Haines has been angered by the fact that Senator Puplick is such a masterful debater and so able to destroy Senator Haines and her puny views on these matters. Senator Haines —This is fairytale time, is it? Is this flights of fancy time? Senator LEWIS —She has become angered, as she is now becoming angered. Her voice starts to rise and she starts to yell at people. She became angered about this and she then put forward a proposal that there ought to be no debate on this matter. She wanted to gag Senator Puplick and the only way that she could think of doing that was to say that, in relation to the suspension of Standing Orders-which has for centuries been a privilege of all parliaments under the Westminster tradition-in this House of Parliament, the Senate of Australia, there ought to be no debate on such a motion for suspension. That would certainly have gagged Senator Puplick from that point of view, but I am sure that we would find other ways around that. Of course, the Government has taken up this proposition; governments always take up propositions which limit the time for debate for Opposition senators, because they do not like people like Senator Puplick tearing into them. Thus the Government is taking up this proposal of Senator Haines-and Senator Haines is sitting there; she is not denying that it is her proposal, that she is the one who brought it forward. What will happen is that this House of Parliament, this marvellous Senate of Australia-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! The time allotted for debate on Committee reports has expired. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney, I present the seventh report of 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Cash Transaction Reports Bill 1987, the Civil Aviation Bill 1988, and the Honey Marketing Bill 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 7, dated 18 May 1988. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children, together with the transcripts of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLSTON —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The Senate's interest in the education of gifted and talented children was demonstrated when, on 17 October 1985, it referred to the then Standing Committee on Education and the Arts this particular matter for inquiry and report. After the inquiry was advertised, the Committee received a significant response from a variety of sources, including individuals, organisations, associations and State and Commonwealth authorities. This response enabled an extensive inquiry to be conducted. Hearings were held in all State capitals and in Canberra. The Committee inspected a number of programs for gifted and talented children in schools and visited a number of centres which specialised in the education of gifted and talented children. The Committee's task of reporting to the Senate was greatly assisted by the high standard of the evidence which is received. Many eminent people such as Dr Eddie Braggett, Mr Ken Imison, Professor Brian Start and Dr David Mossenson gave the Committee the benefit of their expertise at public hearings. National and State associations for the gifted and talented made significant contributions, as did State and Commonwealth education authorities. The assistance received from numerous concerned teachers, parents and others involved in this particular area of education is also highly appreciated. Following the 1987 Federal election, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts was not re-formed. The Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children was therefore established on 22 September to complete the inquiry and report to the Senate. From the evidence that was received, it is obvious that there is dedicated and constructive work being conducted to further the development of gifted children in Australia. There is a general recognition that gifted children exist, that their talents are varied, and that to neglect this resource would not be in the best interests of this nation. While this recognition is not as widespread as would be desirable, it is nevertheless growing. In the report which I have just presented, the Committee notes that the Commonwealth Government has a major involvement with tertiary education, while education at the primary and secondary levels is the responsibility of individual States. It is not the Committee's role to address specific recommendations to State governments. Therefore, the recommendations in the report are directed to the Commonwealth Government's responsibilities with education. Overall, the Committee's findings are that the Commonwealth's commitment to the education of gifted children should be increased. The areas involved include formulating strategies, upgrading information networks and providing financial support for initiatives in advancing educational provisions for the gifted. A positive response from the Government to the recommendations for increased support for the education of gifted children is essential. As the previous Chairman of the former Education and the Arts Committee, I express my appreciation to the members of that Committee for their cooperation and diligence on the reference. As Chairman of the Select Committee, I extend my thanks to the members of the Committee for their help and for the spirit in which they undertook the task of completing the inquiry and finalising the report that I have presented today. To all those who contributed to the inquiry I also extend my gratitude. Mr Acting Deputy President, I commend the report to the Senate. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(4.20) —As a member of the previous Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and as a present member of the Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children, I wish to speak briefly to the motion and to the Committee's report. I personally found the work of the Committee absorbing. The evidence given and the visits around the States were particularly valuable in obtaining an understanding of the subject. I believe that the report of this Select Committee is most important because it concerns Australia's most vital resource-our talented people. The gifted and talented have been sadly neglected in our education system in the past. While those with learning difficulties have been greatly assisted to achieve their full potential, the same attention has been denied those at the other end of the scale, who need it just as much. The stated aims of the Federal Government will not be served unless gifted and talented children are looked after. The December 1987 Green Paper on higher education stated that Australia requires a better educated and more highly skilled population to deal more effectively with change. Gifted and talented children have a potential, as yet untapped, to contribute enormously to the better educated and more competent and highly skilled work force that we need. When we talk about gifted children, we are not just talking about children who are clever. We are talking about children with the ability and potential to perform at a level considerably superior to that of children at the same age. We are talking about academically gifted children but not only academically gifted children. It is important to refute the suggestion that the talented will automatically fulfil their own potential. This is certainly not the case, as evidence that we received made quite clear. By way of example, Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw to your attention a report that was given to the Committee. The Centre for Education at the University of Tasmania, in my home State, conducted a rigorous study to identify intellectually able students and to analyse how far their ability is developed in the education system. To do this, it examined the entire grade 10 cohort in Tasmania in 1981 and continued to monitor its progress in subsequent years. The researchers found that of those students in the `high' and `very high' potential categories-and 23 per cent of the grade 10 school population in Tasmania in 1981 were in those categories-23.7 per cent did not progress beyond grade 10 to any type of further study. Further, in the `most able' category, twice as many girls as boys dropped out after year 10. In other words, an unacceptably high percentage of the brightest students often drop out at an early stage of their education relative to their potential, and this was confirmed by a number of witnesses; it was not just the case with Tasmanian students. Maximising the potential of gifted and talented children should not be seen as elitist. Nor should it be done at the expense of other children. The cake should be of sufficient size to give a fair go to everyone, including the gifted. I draw attention to the fact that the Soviet Union has programs to look after the gifted and talented which are not considered elitist by any means, but are regarded as a sensible and desirable way to maximise the potential of its people, and consequently the nation. Not only the children themselves, but also our nation will benefit from encouraging our most able to reach their full potential. At present, the opposite is tending to happen. The gifted and talented tend to the under-achievers and have behavioural problems owing to a lack of stimulation and extension. At an early stage of their schooling they start being treated as disruptive, problem students. They then develop an aversion to school and continue to behave in the way they are expected to behave. Eventually they drop out. Frequently they are not recognised as being gifted. Even when they are recognised, they are often a nuisance and a threat to class teachers. There is an imbalance in the way resources and attention are given to those who are talented on the sportsfield, compared with those who are gifted in other ways. I quote from the Committee's report: The Committee noted with concern the comparisons drawn between the situation of the talented sportsperson and that of children with other talents. It finds the situation quite anomalous that gifted young athletes, for example, can receive intensive coaching in special institutions and can engage in international competition at public expense while this treatment is generally denied those with academic, artistic or other talents. Parents, teachers and communities all rally to raise funds to help these young sportspeople along their way, but we do not see that same rallying of support for the academically or artistically gifted and talented to extend their experience and learning. State system programs have a variety of ways of providing for the gifted, and we received evidence about a number of programs in the States. The Committee visited all States, and it is clear that all, to a greater or lesser extent, can demonstrate programs for the gifted. However, I believe that what they are in fact giving is really educational enrichment, which is the right of all children. The States rarely have programs which are effectively targeted just especially for exceptional children. In my view, a notable exception was the University High School in Melbourne. Innovative programming in the field of gifted education was encouraged between 1981 and 1985 by small grants under the Commonwealth Schools Commission's projects of national significance. That has now ended and the gifted and talented are totally dependent on what the States provide. While this recognises the constitutional reality of the States' responsibility for education, it does nothing to further the national need for the expansion of our skilled and educated work force. For isolated children in particular, the amount available from State governments is very little. It is clear that isolated children are not given sufficient opportunities to develop to their full potential. In the light of the limit to Commonwealth responsibility for education, the Committee did not make recommendations which were outside the Commonwealth's ability to implement. Consequently, we have concluded that there needs to be a clear Commonwealth statement of the need to provide special educational strategies for gifted children in this country for the sake of the children and of the nation. Teacher training institutions, although State run, use Commonwealth money and we recommend that, in the use of that Federal funding, student teachers should learn more about the needs of gifted children, special techniques for identifying them-an area that is often not well understood-and strategies for teaching them, because often teachers feel threatened by the prospect of teaching such children. The Commonwealth has also given priority to the education of girls, Aborigines and disadvantaged children. There are obviously numbers of gifted children in these special populations, and the professional development of all teachers engaged in educating these children should include attention to the needs and teaching of gifted children from these populations. Some interesting experiments are being carried out around the country in an effort to improve the opportunities for educationally disadvantaged children. For example, the Committee received evidence that Aboriginal children in Western Australia who were slow to respond to `pen and ink' teaching responded much better to learning on computer. It is a salutary thought that we are not well equipped to identify the talents of children, like these Aboriginal children, who may not shine in the standard classroom situation. The Committee has also recommended that the professional development of all teachers in the education of gifted children be supported by the Commonwealth. There are a number of very positive actions which the Commonwealth could take which would help in the education of these children. They are set out in recommendations 5 to 9, and include the development of videos and associated materials for isolated gifted children, and the establishment of a national centre for research into the education of these children and its financial support by the Commonwealth during its establishment phase. They also include priority to be given to expanding the information on the education of gifted children within the Australian curriculum information network, and we recommend that this information be made accessible not only to educational institutions but also to the special interest groups concerned with this sort of education. The Committee received a great deal of evidence of the work being done by dedicated individuals and voluntary organisations such as the State associations for gifted and talented children in the provision of vacation schools for children, seminars and workshops for parents and teachers. These together with national competitions for science and maths are at the forefront of efforts to encourage our most gifted children. I personally believe that the dedicated people who give their time in these ways tend to put the State education systems to shame. While I appreciate the value of volunteerism, these people cannot be expected to do the whole job, and to provide these educational opportunities totally out of their own pockets and time. The Committee has recommended that the Government expand the small amount of financial support that is currently given to these volunteers in providing opportunities for children which are not being provided by their schools and which are of great importance to the long term well-being of the children and to the advancement of Australia. I strongly commend the report to the Senate because of its national significance, and I urge the Government to speedily adopt and implement the recommendations which are responsible and achievable. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.31) —I support the remarks of my fellow Committee members who have already spoken-the Chairman, Senator Colston, and Senator Newman. Indeed, I recognise that the Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children, of which we were three of the four members, succeeded in this inquiry as a result of the work done by the former Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, of which we were three of its eight members. The inquiry was conducted over the past 2 1/2 years and we have now presented the report of this rather long-ranging inquiry which extended over parts of two parliaments. I add my own thanks to those expressed by the Chairman to the staff who assisted the Committee. I thank not only Mr Magi, who is present in the precincts of the Senate this afternoon, but also Ms Barbara Allan, who helped us very much in the final preparation of the report; and I also thank Mr Brown, Mr Bessell and others who assisted us during the deliberations of the former Standing Committee. I support the remarks of the Chairman with regard to expert witnesses and I also commend the excellent material presented to us by specialists in this field, and I refer to Dr Braggett, Mr Imison, Professor Start, Dr Mossenson and others. I not only note their specialised expertise, which is too little known in Australia even in educational circles, but also by commending them in a special way support the finding of the report that their experience and conclusions should be more available in education departments and schools. I also commend the associations that appeared before the Committee because after these specialist educationists the most commitment expressed came from parents and teachers who were members of various State associations for gifted and talented children. Two such groups especially spring to mind: the Peninsula Association for Gifted and Talented Children in the north-eastern suburbs of Brisbane, and the Association for Gifted and Talented Children in my own State of South Australia. They expressed enormous enthusiasm and reported to us on a wide range of activities that are now being conducted largely without any kind of government recognition, let alone support. The work of these very concerned people is to be thoroughly commended. Certainly nothing that we recommend seeks to undermine or replace the special work that is being done by these volunteer parents and teachers. I will now refer briefly to a couple of matters in the report. The terms of reference of the Committee are set out in the preface to the report, and during the conduct of the inquiry I took special interest in terms of reference (b) and (g). Term of reference (b) states: consider the extent to which schools generally have the objective of pursuing excellence. Term of reference (g) states: Consider whether the pursuit of excellence in mainstream education is consistent with providing for the educational needs of all children. I highlight these two terms of reference because the majority concentration in the report naturally was on programs for minority groups of children with gifts in particular areas and on how to assist those children to reach their full potential. However, these broader matters of interest were by no means neglected by the Committee and we considered the old furphy that too many teachers of the 1970s and their disciples who still linger would say that it is not possible to concentrate on the pursuit of excellence in schools because the priority must be to help every child achieve the basics. I reject that distorted argument and I believe that it is entirely consistent for teachers in a particular classroom or for those responsible for a whole school program or, indeed, any educational program, to equally pursue the achievement of basics by all children and the pursuit of excellence by those children. One notorious example that has been put to me on many occasions is the deplorable activity in some schools-schools that are too much losing the confidence of many parents-where teachers are not setting homework for able students because they would otherwise excel and disrupt the task of teaching the remaining students by creating too wide a range of knowledge or achievement. That kind of `lopping off' of the tall poppies is inexcusable and it receives no support in the report. As I say, the concentration of our inquiry and our conclusions is on the particular programs for gifted and talented children. As Senator Newman said so admirably before me, we have identified particular groups of children for the provision of special education, but why should we neglect the minority who in different fields, different academic and artistic areas, should also receive special treatment so that they reach their full potential. I refer to page 173 of the report where there is something of a definition of `gifted children', as follows: Gifted children are those with the potential to perform at a level considerably superior to that of their age peers. Giftedness is not a fixed, unvarying concept. It can be found in all social and ethnic groups and amongst the disabled. In some instances in announces itself through remarkable achievement, while in other cases it remains undetected and unfulfilled. This description of giftedness is not elitist. It says-and I have yet to hear anyone sensibly deny this-that every one of us has a gift in one area of activity or another and that if we truly encourage our colleagues, peers or children, we will help them to become aware of their own gift or gifts and that will encourage them to pursue their gift or gifts so that their full potential is achieved. This is not to say that when there may be a multiplicity of programs to encourage that giftedness each one of them is an elitist activity. I think that the lie has been put to that. So some of the old phoney arguments of the 1970s for not pursuing gifted and talented programs and not pursuing excellence in all educational programs are put to rest by this report. Secondly, I wish to refer to the important educational goal of achieving potential. I quote from page 174 of the report: The Committee refutes the suggestion that talented students will automatically fulfil their potential, unaided. That was another furphy of the last decade-that one can give special assistance to lowest achievers but of course one cannot give assistance to the most able to enable them to fulfil their potential; they are so able that they will do it without any kind of special program or assistance. That is just not true. The examples of sport and music are two very good areas to focus on to put to rest this false argument. It is right that in our schools, indeed beyond our schools, we in Australia encourage participation by all in sport and music but that does not deter us from identifying those particular individuals with a special aptitude in a particular sport or with a particular musical instrument and encouraging them, with great enthusiasm, to achieve their full potential. I put it to honourable senators that our best musicians and best teenage sportsmen would not have achieved that potential even though they had the gift, talent and aptitude to so achieve, had they not been given a special program and special encouragement in that sport or in that music. The report continues: Studies of high achievers nearly always point to the influence of supportive individuals or institutions. Research indicates that there are many gifted children who under-achieve. Few would deny the right of children to develop to their full potential. In practice, however, this right is tempered by a consideration as to whether, by advancing the chances of some, we are adversely affecting the chances of others. Many are fearful that by furthering the talents of the most able, we are neglecting our egalitarian ideals and are guilty of elitism. The Committee is convinced this is not the case. The Chairman has already referred to the Select Committee restraining itself in its recommendations, of which there are only nine, to the national focus-that is, to programs which can be facilitated and initiated by the Commonwealth Government. There is much in this report that I believe will be of stimulus to State governments and to local schools and associations. I also believe that it will be a real fillip to the existing voluntary associations of parents and teachers in assisting gifted and talented children. Therefore, there will be many in the States and in the individual institutions who will refer to the report and take their own action as a result. But the focus is upon those matters which we believe the Commonwealth can initiate and act upon. I conclude by drawing a parallel with the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on programs to assist isolated children and also on providing better television programs for children. Over the last decade or more-indeed, over the last 15 years-throughout the existence of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, no better examples can be found than those two areas where the Senate Committee conducted inquiries about the nation and brought down reports in this matter that led to Commonwealth action. These reports have been of great assistance to many Australians. One flowed from the Senate inquiry into the needs of isolated children and the other into ways to improve the television provision for Australian children. I do not need to outline the particular existing programs that are now in place that were not there 15, or even 10, years ago. I believe that this good report of the Select Committee is a benchmark. It makes a call for the Commonwealth Government to initiate a program that has a similar dimension to these two precedents-that is, through Commonwealth initiative and in concert with the States, individual institutions and many parents and teachers, to see that such programs will be of genuine assistance for gifted and talented children and that they will encourage everyone involved in education in Australia to pursue excellence. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(4.47) —I wish to make a few very brief comments as a former member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. I am very pleased that this report of the Senate Select Committee on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children has now been put down in the Senate. I am even more pleased to note that the Committee has unanimously agreed that the provision of facilities for gifted and talented children is not elitist. That gives me great heart, considering that that was not the belief of the former Minister for Education, Susan Ryan. She said that the pursuit of excellence was elitist. That was the matter that was uppermost in my mind when hearing evidence that was put before the Committee because it concerned me that in various areas it appeared that the gifted basket weaver was in fact more important in some schools than the gifted academic. We must all remember that the gifted academic is a very important resource for Australia in the years to come. If we are not going to encourage the academic as much as we encourage other gifted or talented children, then we are sacrificing a very important resource. I also felt, as has been detailed in the report, that some of the teachers really did appear to feel threatened by some of those gifted children. They felt inadequate in some areas to deal with them. That is why it is particularly important that teachers become better equipped and they are provided with the facility to become better equipped so as to feel less threatened by those particular students. It is through the ability of those teachers to encourage, nurture and educate those children that they will be that resource to which I referred earlier. My belief is that education is largely for States and that there should be minimal, if any, input from the Commonwealth in the lower years of education. I think that this is recognised to a degree by the Committee report. I hope that the Committee can keep the Government to the commitment of minimal input in terms of costing and factual, while making sure that there are those provisions. Those children who need special attention at the less fortunate end of the scale-and particularly the academic scale-need and should receive special attention. But by no means should the gifted or talented children not be encouraged or provided for. That is where I think Australia had a real hang-up not so long ago-that if one were to provide for gifted and talented children, that would be seen as elitist. It was a great tragedy that some teachers felt that way also. Many gifted and talented children were not given maximum opportunity because some teachers believed that they should be given more work of the same kind in preference to more work of a more difficult or taxing nature. That was very sad to see. Some children were suffering as a result of an attitude whereby, if they finished a maths class in double quick time, the teacher would simply say, `Go away and do another 20 sums' in preference to saying, `Let's sit down, go through it and give you some more difficult ones', thereby pushing those children further ahead. That situation needs to be corrected very quickly. Recommendation 6 recommends the establishment in a tertiary institution of a centre for research into gifted and talented children which would be funded by the Commonwealth. Within the bounds of my feeling that education is a State responsibility, I think that that recommendation is probably the most desirable. Probably it needs to be a Commonwealth responsibility to get some unanimity in the approach taken in this area. I hope that the States will learn what is needed and desirable and will actually implement the recommendations that are put forward as a result of such research. As I said before, this is a very important report for the future of many young Australians. I sincerely hope that gifted children will receive more attention and recognition as the vital resource to Australia that they are. I congratulate the Committee on bringing down this report. I am only sorry that I was not a member of the Committee in this Parliament and could not see it to its finalisation. However, I am absolutely delighted to see the recommendations which the Committee has put down. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —I present the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration entitled Non-statutory Bodies-Further report, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The report I have just tabled contains the Committee's consideration of the Government's response to our previous report on this subject. The Committee recommended the establishment of a central register for non-statutory bodies which would include key data on their establishment, functions, membership, financing and staffing. The Government has agreed that such information should be available but in the annual reports of departments and other, unspecified parent bodies. The Committee reaffirms its recommendation. A central register should be required for management as well as accountability reasons. It is surprising, indeed, that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet does not have such information anyway so as to be able to provide informed advice to the Government on machinery of government matters. The annual reports option upon which the Government relies cannot be regarded as adequate. Little more than half the departments comply with previous government guidelines or freedom of information requirements to publish information on non-statutory bodies clearly, if at all. It is a method which converts accountability into an obstacle course. For these reasons the Government should proceed without delay to establish a central register as previously recommended by the Committee. Not to do so is rather like having a library without a catalogue. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- The Committee's previous report, tabled in August 1986, recommended that, for each non-statutory body and each non-statutory body sub-body, a document be prepared briefly outlining essential data and that the relevant Minister be responsible for lodging the document with a co-ordinating department such as the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to form a central NSB register. The Government response, tabled in December 1987, rejected this recommendation in favour of a proposal that the relevant information should be incorporated in annual reports of departments and unspecified parent bodies in the interests of devolving and streamlining administration. In its further consideration of the matter the Committee invited Professor Christopher Hood of the University of Sydney to give evidence on the issues involved. Professor Hood pointed out significantly that even in an environment in which administration was being devolved and streamlined it was still necessary for central authorities to have some strategic information available to them, at least to fulfil the central part of government's traditional responsibility `to make sure that one part of the bureaucracy does not undo or duplicate what another part of the bureaucracy does'. He continued: The decentralised management model in government does not necessarily remove the need for that traditional machinery of government function at the centre of government. It is just as important that the centre of government performs that function in relation to non-statutory bodies as it does for departments. The Committee also examined departmental annual reports to assess compliance with an earlier Government decision, announced in the Senate by Senator Grimes on 20 March 1985, that details about non-statutory bodies, their principal activities, membership and staffing, should be included in departmental annual reports. In each of the three years involved, little more than half the departments complied. Nor did performance improve after the Freedom of Information Act was amended to require inclusion in annual reports of information on the organisation and functions of agencies which did not report separately to responsible Ministers. There were even more departments whose reports did not include either information on NSBs or statements required under the Freedom of Information Act. Indifferent performance of this order gives no grounds for confidence in the Government's December 1987 response. It, moreover, calls into question the policy of recourse to departmental annual reports for the discharge of important government-wide accountabilities. The Committee accordingly believes that a central register of non-statutory bodies should be established and maintained because information of this type is integral to the proper management and accountability of the machinery of government. It is, moreover, puzzled to find that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet does not, as a matter of course, hold such information in order to meet its own responsibilities as the central department of government and the department responsible for advising the Prime Minister in the discharge of his duties. A central register is necessary so that current information is at all times readily available. Annual reports, by contrast, can provide information current only at the time of preparation. A central, continuously updated register is required for accountability as well as management reasons. Convenience and simplicity of access are important characteristics of proper accountability. The Government's approach, as set out in the response, would be practicable only for individuals or organisations already well acquainted with the non-statutory bodies sector. For the rest it would convert accountability in the field into something of an obstacle course. It should be stressed, in conclusion, that in reaffirming its earlier recommendation the Committee has had full regard for current objectives of streamlining administration, devolution to departments and elimination of unnecessary costs. It is simply not clear to the Committee that these objectives are well served by the Government's approach to this particular matter. It is important that governments should have key management data of a strategic nature readily available in current form. It is equally of concern that the accountability structure of Commonwealth administration should be clear, open, simple and easily accessible. The costs of meeting these objectives by establishment and maintenance of a central, continuous register are slight; the benefits, on the other hand, will be much more easily realised than if the thus far ineffectual annual reports method is followed. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(4.55) —The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration is a very significant report. The useful simile that Senator Coates used is quite apposite because it is indeed like having a library without a catalogue if one does not have a form of central register. What is significant about the way in which the report came to be compiled is that it had a long and tortuous history which culminated in correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Coates, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I congratulate Senator Coates on his determination in pursuing the matter with the Prime Minister. The ultimate outcome of that was that the Prime Minister provided reasons which I would have thought verged on sophistry for not accepting the Committee's recommendation that a central register be accepted. The Prime Minister said that the decisions announced in the response to the report were decisions of the Government and it would not be appropriate for officials to appear before the Committee to give reasons for them. I would have thought that that was the first alarm bell in looking to see whether there were any valid objections. It was then said that the reason a central register should not be set up was that information about non-statutory bodies was to be provided in a more efficient manner in annual reports. That is a completely self-serving statement because it did not go on to explain why it would be more efficient. If the object of the exercise was truly to allow ready access to this type of material, one would have thought that it would not be efficient in any sense of the term-certainly not cost efficient, but work efficient even less so. One has to ask why the Prime Minister was prepared to try to justify his failure to cooperate and, in my judgment, to defend the indefensible. He went on to say that there were a number of wider contexts within which the Government's decision should be seen. Those included the Government's ongoing efforts to streamline the public sector, remove duplication and simplify administrative processes. Those are mere words. What we are talking about here is an amorphous mass of non-statutory bodies. There has been very little comprehension of their extent. Despite the valiant efforts of this Committee, chaired by Senator Coates, the reality is that any one-off investigation that the Committee might undertake can quickly get out of date and there needs to be a constant updating, even if it is done on an annual basis, in order to bring together the various unique characteristics of the bodies. They number in their hundreds and vary enormously. The Committee has recommended that a whole set of information and data be compiled. The Government's response was, `That is all very well. We accept the thrust of the recommendation to that extent. We would like to see the various departments responsible for collating that material'. By making that strategic concession, it has blown the ultimate basis of the defence out of the water. The Committee was very fortunate in having before it an expert on the subject-Professor Christopher Hood, who has studied the system in the United Kingdom, where there is a limited form of central register. We all recall his appearance before the Committee because, in a very cogent manner, he demolished each and every argument against the retention of a central register. He began by elaborating the arguments that are traditionally put forward to justify not having a central register. Having demolished those, he addressed himself to the particular proposals. I think that, at the end of the day, we were all very much of the view that the position adopted by the Government was little more than mere subterfuge. Professor Hood said that the first traditional reason given is that it is not feasible to establish a central register. The most cogent demonstration of the fact that it is feasible is that the Finance and Public Administration Committee, in its earlier life, did just that. Pointing to the register maintained in the United Kingdom, Professor Hood was able to give first hand evidence of the effectiveness of that, as far as it went. The fact that the Government had asked departments to provide that very information in their annual reports again is a demonstration of the manifest feasibility of such a register. Confidentiality is the second traditional objection raised. Again, the fact that the departments are going to have to provide this information and have it available on the public record simply pulls the rug out from under that defence. The third objection was cost. What Professor Hood said here was particularly devastating because, given the fact that departments are going to be responsible for collating and retaining this information, the great bulk of the cost will have been incurred in that very process. Professor Hood said that the only additional cost of the information then being centrally collated would be of the order of $3,000 a year if it were done on an annual basis. He pointed out that it would involve about two weeks work by a person at graduate level and that the process of extracting the data, having already been collected by other departments, would be a very simple and mechanical process. So, again, the third traditional reason is simply out the window. The fourth objection is relevance. Professor Hood went on to make some very telling arguments in favour of relevance. He argued that the public does have a great interest in this sort of information. He pointed out that not just the Parliament but the public and public officials should be aware of the total dimensions of the system. I think it is certainly very true that it is impossible to make sensible judgments about the size of government, about the necessity for a whole range of non-statutory bodies, unless one has the broad picture at some stage. One simply cannot consider a matter on a case by case basis because there are so many cases and they all vary tremendously. One has to stand back at some stage and ask what the effectiveness is of having a plethora of such agencies and what the cost is in terms of efficiency and otherwise. Professor Hood made it very clear that he thought there was a substantial public interest in having the information collected centrally. Professor Hood also made the point that there is a tendency in political debate to exaggerate the number of bodies. He said: . . . a central, governmentally maintained register which demystified this subject and that produced some basic information would, I think, perform a valuable demythologising function. Again, I think that is something that we should all be aspiring to. There is always a tendency to use figures for one's own defeat and argument. Senator Haines —You would not do that, Richard! Senator ALSTON —I point out to Senator Haines that if one does not even know what the figures are, one can have a field day. That is the problem here. An Opposition may want to argue that the size of government should be reduced. It might say there are thousands of public servants, that they are everywhere and one cannot keep track of them. The government will say, `Well, that is your mere assertion. The reality is that there are only a small number and they are in only a certain number of areas'. One simply cannot get down to having a concrete discussion on factual data. That is where Professor Hood made a very valuable point. He was trying to take the politics out of the argument and address the facts. Senator Haines —That is a bit of a radical move! Senator ALSTON —I know. It is unusual. Over the last five years we have grown accustomed to the opposite. Nonetheless, it is never too late to be converted. I think Professor Hood was conscious of the fact that these principles should be adopted irrespective of which government is in power. Undoubtedly they will contribute to better management. Professor Hood said that some strategic information available to government would assist it to fulfil the central part of its traditional responsibility to make sure that one part of the bureaucracy does not undo or duplicate what another part of the bureaucracy does. I think those words should ring bells with anyone who has had even the most tangential dealings with government. Again, a very valuable service would be performed if this information were centrally available. I think the end conclusion by Professor Hood was a fairly devastating indictment of the Prime Minister's feeble defences on the matter. Therefore, I think we are entitled to ask why it is that governments resist the obvious. I think the only reason can be that information is power. If one is in control of the system, one can make it very difficult for the ordinary citizen who wants an answer to these sorts of questions: What is the cost of operating a whole series of non-statutory bodies; how many of them are there; what work do they do; do they have central requirements; who appoints them; and do they have finite life- times? The answers to all of those questions by a government that does not believe in a central register would be, `Well, you go off and work it out for yourself. You go to all those departments. You collate the figures. If you are really that interested, you will come up with an answer. Of course, we will then presumably question your methodology. We will say that you were not very professional and that is just your view of the world'. Senator Short —A cynical view, Senator Alston. Senator ALSTON —Perhaps it is. But the way to destroy that cynicism is to have that information collected on an objective basis and to ensure that one does not get into those endless and fruitless arguments. Therefore, I think one has to come to the conclusion that the Government is really cynical in terms of the public interest, that it is putting secrecy ahead of information, that it is wanting to keep control of the material and deny access to the ordinary citizen. Those are the very sorts of principles that I would have thought the Finance and Public Administration Committee should be very anxious to preserve. That is why I pay tribute to Senator Coates for pursuing the matter as vigorously as he has. No doubt one could quite easily have said, `Well, we have a response from the Prime Minister which details a number of pseudo arguments and there is not much further that we can take the matter'. Ultimately, I think all members of the Committee took the view that the response was inadequate and that the arguments put forward by Professor Hood and others were overwhelming. Accordingly, we have made a series of what I believe to be very sensible recommendations that will hopefully lead to the maintenance of a central register in a current form-in other words, regularly updated. The register would include all bodies except departments and statutory authorities. It would contain information across-the-board that would be of great assistance in making decisions on government administration. It would lead to a systematic assessment of the need and continuing justification for non-statutory bodies. In conclusion, I welcome the report of the Committee. I share the Committee's puzzlement that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet does not, as a matter of course, hold such information in order to meet its own responsibilities as the central department of government and the department responsible for advising the Prime Minister in the discharge of his duties. I express my own surprise that the arguments that were advanced did not meet favour with the Prime Minister and the Government. I can only hope that now that this report has been tabled and now that the logic of it is apparent to the public, we will ultimately see some change of heart and that logic, for once, will rule the day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to table, for discussion purposes, a draft Bill covering the transitional provisions necessary for the introduction of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory, together with notes on the draft, and to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator JENKINS —I table the draft Bill and the notes. As can be seen by the front page, the tabling of this Bill was scheduled for yesterday, 17 May. Unfortunately the debate on papers was lengthy and time ran out. The draft Bill that I have tabled complements the Australian Capital Territory (Constitutional Provisions) Bill which I tabled in draft form on 18 April. That Bill, as I stated then, provides a framework for self-government. I tabled the Constitutional Provisions Bill, and presented it, through the media and various community associations and groups, to the people of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) to try to achieve the maximum possible discussion within the community as well as in the Parliament of this very important transfer of power. As the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) stated in a Press release dated 13 April, it will be `the most significant transfer of power on a population basis by the Federal Government since independence was granted to Papua New Guinea by the Whitlam Government in 1972'. Obviously, the transitional period will be of crucial importance in the orderly establishment of the new body politic, the self-governing Australian Capital Territory. This draft Bill, the Transitional Provisions Bill, provides legislative machinery for the transition. Most importantly it provides for the transfer of power to the ACT Legislative Assembly from the Commonwealth, the transfer of land and land management from the Commonwealth to the ACT, while recognising certain specific Commonwealth rights and the transfer with full protection and entitlement of Commonwealth public servants to the ACT service. The Bill also requires the Commonwealth to meet the cost of overcoming the backlog in the revision of ACT laws which the Commonwealth has allowed to develop. The Australian Democrats support the fundamental principles of self-government and democracy. There have been some popular expressions of opinion which might indicate that some citizens of the ACT feel that self-government will incur increased costs, increased bureaucracy and increased complexity. All the parties in this place are agreed on the necessity for self-government. Precisely because the governing body is representative and accountable, self-government gives every citizen the means to direct and limit expenditure. Further, living in a democracy is not meant to be easy. Not only do we enjoy the rights of free citizens in directing our own affairs but also we are placed under the democratic obligation to participate in public matters. The people of the ACT have been deprived not only of this right but also of this obligation. I commend this Bill which is the second in a series of three self-government Bills. Debate resumed. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.12) —A moment ago when Senator Alston was speaking to the report tabled by the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration he made a plea for logic, for facts to be brought into at least the occasional argument in this place and for people to stop acting in self-interest. Indeed, when I was cut off in my prime when speaking before lunch, halfway through an impassioned speech on the Appropriation Bills-if one can make an impassioned speech on the Appropriation Bills-I was making precisely that point. I was saying that here we are dealing today and, it would seem, for the rest of this week with Bills which seek to appropriate money for the Government through its departments to spend on various services to the community. We do this twice a year. These Bills being debated now are the supplementary appropriations to the major legislation that went through the Parliament in the Budget session last year. I made the point that it is this expenditure which is the target for many groups in the community-groups such as the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Council of Social Service and a variety of other interest groups which want various changes made to this spending-an increase in it for their particular group, a decrease in it for some reason or other or a variation in spending patterns. I made the point that in particular when groups such as the Business Council of Australia are arguing for government cuts in expenditure they rarely call for extensive cuts in the area of corporate welfare; they limit their cuts to the areas of health, social security and education. Furthermore, having called for those cuts they very rarely then take the next necessary step and argue where those cuts should be made and who is to be deprived of services as a result of the Government's being deprived of its capacity to spend. The third argument that is often put by these groups is that if we have spending cuts in areas of health, social security and education we can then finance cuts in the corporate tax area in particular-a tax area which many of these people and organisations claim, quite inappropriately, is too high, arguing that many other countries have much more benign tax systems-particularly more generous corporate tax systems than does Australia. I pointed out just prior to lunch that indeed if one believes everything one reads in the Australian Business magazine-who does not?-its list of the top 500 companies printed earlier this month indicates that in the top 50 companies quite a significant number are paying nowhere near the tax that the average pensioner or the family on average weekly earnings or less is paying. I cited among the examples listed Elders IXL Ltd, paying tax at 10.5c in the dollar, Ansett at 14.3c in the dollar, Bond Corporation at 8.9c in the dollar and Bell Group at 10.5c in the dollar. I particularly highlighted the example of Elders IXL because it is the chairman of that company who is constantly claiming that it would be better for most Australian companies to go offshore. He says that the tax benefits would be better and that it is high time we cut expenditure. I issued a challenge in my speech before lunch to people such as Mr Elliott and to organisations such as the Business Council of Australia and to the various chambers of commerce and industry around the country to say who is going to be the target; who is going to be on their hit list for losing out if we cut expenditure in the areas of social security, education and health. I asked whether they were not satisfied with the areas that had already been cut. I asked whether they were going to require that we no longer perform hip replacements on elderly people, that we not provide expensive cancer treatment, that we not supply life support for very premature babies-all in aid of cutting Government expenditure so that the corporate tax rate and the top tax rates for the very well off could be instituted. The same lack of detail and the same lack of specifics is very evident in their calls for cuts to social security expenditure. We have already seen the Government heavily cut back in these areas so that widows who received the class B pension have now been forced on to unemployment benefits, ex-service personnel have had a 2 per cent cut in their post-retirement income, family allowances are means tested and age pensioners are further behind the economic eight ball than ever because of the delay in consumer price index increases granted to them. All of those things are passed through this Parliament with the support of Opposition senators. As far as education is concerned, one wonders too how much further we can cut this very vulnerable area. We have already seen $30m cut from technical and further education (TAFE) funding-the very area which provides the main training and re-training programs for ordinary Australians who need to upgrade, update or redirect their skills. Is this reduction in expenditure going to be picked up by the private sector which is currently arguing, for example, that we do not have enough skilled people in this country and need to increase immigration programs in this area? Are they, in the interests of having a highly skilled, relevantly skilled, work force, going to make bequests and donations to TAFE colleges in order to pick up the expenditure that the Government has withdrawn under pressure from these people who want to see public expenditure cut back? Of course, the answer is that they will not. By and large business and industry in Australia have an appalling record when it comes to their contribution to education. For example, Australia has one of the worst post-war records for research and development funding, from both the private and public sectors, of any comparable Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. Almost every other advanced, civilised country in the world recognises that a country's future development depends on a skilled and educated population and on appropriately funded universities, research programs and various organisations such as TAFE colleges. We have to face the fact that if we do not have a well-educated population in this country we are never going to be in the race with the big technology leaders. We have already suffered because of our blinkered attitude to the manufacturing sector, relying as we have for decades on our export market from the rural sector. That has all changed. It has changed dramatically. We have to recognise these facts. The end user of the education system in this country is not the student who graduates or improves his or her knowledge; the end user of the education system is the community at large and business and industry form a significant part of that community. They should therefore be prepared if not to offer funding directly to tertiary institutions to at least accept the fact that consolidated revenue funds the future education of our students and hence provides the necessary skills and training. It is about time that groups such as the Business Council of Australia and people such as John Elliott came clean. If they are going to call for expenditure cuts, they ought to say who will no longer be a beneficiary of the expenditure-little old ladies, small children, youngsters at school, the education system, the health care of the nation. We cannot have limited spending in these areas and then expect unlimited access to facilities. As I said earlier today, it is an enormous irony that many of the executives who are calling for cuts in health care funding are the very ones whose lifestyles and the highly stressed nature of their occupation mean that they finish up on the operating table for a bypass operation or they finish up having to have treatment for lung cancer because they smoke themselves into an appalling physical condition, or they over-indulge in alcohol, which produces physical problems as a consequence. We cannot have it both ways. As Senator Alston said earlier on a different matter, it is time we got some logic and some facts into these arguments, got rid of the rhetoric and started talking a bit of common sense. They should either call for funding cuts and then say who is going to be hurt as a result or leave things as they are. To justify a demand for expenditure cuts on the ground that Australian companies are over-taxed in comparison to those in other countries when we have companies such as Elders IXL Ltd paying less than 11c in the dollar in tax and News Corporation Ltd paying less than 20c in the dollar in tax is quite outrageous. I turn now to the second reading amendment which has been foreshadowed by the Opposition. This, too, is strong on indignation but short on elementary facts. The amendment asks the Senate to note a couple of things. It asks us first of all to note Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficit on the current account which increased by $1,185m during March 1988. Nowhere in that noting does the Opposition amendment point out that over two-thirds of that foreign debt is owed by the private business sector and that much of it has been borrowed for certain players in the big league in Australia to partake of the game of local monopoly whereby they borrow huge amounts from overseas in order to take over another company, write the interest off against their tax and have a taxpayer-subsidised little frolic in the economic sphere. Nor does the amendment point out that over half the remainder is owed by State governments, at least some of which debt has been caused by the fact that the Federal Government has been cutting grants to the States, again under pressure from the business sector which wants to see federal expenditure cut back. Paragraph (b) of the amendment asks the Senate to note the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest level in post-war Australia. It does that without noting that while personal income tax has certainly formed a larger percentage of tax collected, corporate tax has fallen dramatically as a percentage of tax gathered and that this flies in the face, of course, of what has been happening overseas. It certainly does not bother to point out the sorts of tax percentages that are being paid by some of the top 50 companies, much less the top 500 companies, in Australia. Paragraph (c) of the amendment asks the Senate to note the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulty. Like the John Elliotts of this world and spokesmen for the Business Council of Australia and chambers of commerce and others, the Opposition gives no indication in these amendments of which public sector outlays it would want reduced. Does it want age pensions cut back even further? Does it want family assistance packages reduced even more? Does it want hospital funding and funding for schools removed? Does it want to take Senator Bjelke-Petersen to task for comments that she made earlier today that more money should be spent on road funding? This is something I would have thought would get the support of every South Australian senator in this place as well as the support of the Queensland and Western Australian senators, all of whom are aware of the fact that those three States have been getting a quite disproportionate share of road funding grants. Would the people who are arguing for reduced public sector outlays want to argue that Senator Calvert was wrong this morning when, presumably speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia-certainly he was speaking on his own behalf-he argued that we should not be cutting funding to people already facing serious disabilities and the disadvantages that come from that. Most certainly I am sure they do not mean that we should cut public funding of private schools for example, that we should cut public subsidies to corporate take-over merchants of the sort I mentioned earlier, or that we should not have a couple of years ago paid off to the tune of several hundred million dollars the private banking sector and the big oil companies when they threatened to increase their costs to the consumer. I remind the Senate that when we gave something like $125m to the private banks in order to stop them from raising home mortgage interest rates it was at a time when they had made record profits for about four years in a row. We can find money for them and it is rarely criticised, but at the same time we hear continual demands from the group which benefits from those sorts of subsidies that government expenditure should not be directed at the needy, at the least well-off in the community. It is high time that the public and the Press started asking exponents of spending cuts to name the victims on their hit list. It is no good their keeping on giving front page stories to high-flying business people who say that Australia is never going to be on the road to economic recovery until we cut health, education and social security expenditure without also asking and demanding an answer to the question: What areas are going to be removed, what children are going to be hurt by cuts in health, education and social welfare funding, what elderly people are going to remain in pain because they have no access to the operations they need for a hip replacement because there is no funding? What long term problems are we asking to have in this country if we do not fund the needy, if we do not accept our responsibilities as governments and parliaments to keep families on low incomes with their heads above water. Only when that happens, when the Press and the public start to demand answers to those sorts of questions, will the Australian people be able to assess the credibility of the Liberal-National Party coalition and their supporters in business. Only then will the Australian public be truly able to assess how they and their families will be affected in the future if governments now or later accept as accurate the argument that funding must be cut for Australia to get on its feet. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.30) —I am very pleased to join in this debate and to support the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, which notes that Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficits are matters of major concern; that the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest levels in post-war Australia, is another matter of major concern; and noting the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulties. That amendment has been belittled by Senator Haines-not surprisingly-because the Australian Democrats consistently look to all elements of government spending as if they are sacrosanct, as if there is no waste, as if all government spending is somehow magnificent and goes only to those in need. As with so many things, if only what Senator Haines was saying were true. If only that were true, the problem would be extremely difficult and beyond the scope of the Government. The reality is that this Government has built up a massive pattern of government spending, particularly in grants to people with whom the Australian Democrats have curious links. The Australians Democrats love, for example, all the government grants to the greenie organisations. I have no doubt that much of that money eventually ends up one way or another supporting the Australian Democrats at election times. I am sick of taxpayers' money being diverted to people such as members of Senator Haines's Party and then hearing them say that any attempt to cut government spending is somehow disgraceful. Senator Messner —A bit hypocritical. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Messner says that it is a bit hypocritical. He is a gentleman. I would say that it is enormously hypocritical. I am sick of the disgraceful attempt which Senator Haines persists with to suggest to the people of Australia that any attempt to cut government spending must mean an attack on the poor people who are desperately seeking some kind of assistance with their health, for example, or who will need a pension because they are in desperate need. One looks at the enormous waste in the delivery of many of the Government's services, particularly in the area of health, and at the ludicrous nature of some benefits. For example, a report today has demonstrated that the way the Hawke Government goes about paying family benefits at the moment encourages divorce. The report, which quotes the National Priorities Project, states: The incentive for low-income families to earn extra income has been destroyed by the interaction of the Family Allowance Supplement (FAS) and the tax system . . . . . . the present tax regime may also encourage couples to separate and draw welfare benefits as single parents. `Interaction of the FAS and high marginal rates of income taxation result in significant disincentives for many families to seek extra hours of work or job promotion' . . . According to estimates . . . about 120,000 working families on incomes up to and including those on average weekly earnings are subject to very high effective marginal tax rates . . . of 80 per cent or more. Here we have not only Government spending but also Government taxing measures working to people's specific disadvantage. Yet Senator Haines pretends that every attempt to cut government spending is somehow disgraceful. There is no doubt about the volume of waste. My Waste Watch Committee certainly exposed disgraceful volumes of incredible waste. I was overjoyed to see in a recent report from the Australian Government's Commissioner for Employees' Compensation that he has changed the arrangements relating to the payment of workers' compensation because of some rip-offs, last year saving $35m. I believe that the Waste Watch Committee should be congratulated for having dramatised those rip-offs, just as we have dramatised the multi-millions of dollars of wastage on Government rents. The Government pays for office space which it leaves empty for periods of up to 18 months. The ludicrous time the Government takes to fit out new offices that it is moving into means that they lie idle sometimes for two years while the Government pays enormous rentals amounting to multi-millions of dollars. I give the Government notice that I will be providing some very interesting information in the near future on the extent to which this waste of public money, taxpayers' money, is going on. We have many indications of this kind of waste. I was intrigued in this debate earlier today to hear a Government senator attempt to defend the self-indulgent spending by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of taxpayers' money on his own residences, particularly Kirribilli House in Sydney, which was supposed to be being done up, renovated and repaired so that it would be available for visiting guests of government during the Bicentennial. After the spending of three-quarters of a million dollars, not one visiting guest of government has occupied Kirribilli House. We were told in this debate that this is because it was not finished on time and there was plaster and so on around the place. The reality is that the renovations provided for in this year's Estimates, to which the Appropriation Bills before us apply, involve something like $50,000 per room in interior decorating. That is as much as an ordinary family would spend building a whole house. That is just the cost of interior decorating. The structural renovations cost about half a million dollars. The expenditure of $50,000 a room is the same sort of rate that was spent renovating the Lodge. I am not involved in the politics of envy; all I want to do is get rid of the hypocrisy on the Government side which suggests that everyone, except the Prime Minister, should pull in his belt. Before I deal with some serious matters relating to the economy, I mention that waste is continuing enthusiastically under this Government. Annual reports by this Government's committees, departments and statutory organisations are, of course, an essential way of informing the people of Australia, through the Parliament where these reports are tabled, of what is happening in the myriad of Government organisations which in so many cases intrude on our personal activity. In so many areas they should be disposed of to private enterprise and restored to a competitive arena. Let us see what having the Government reporting actually does, apart from the fact that it means that in many instances we get our reports many months after the statutory limit and certainly many months after the date on which a public corporation would be fined for having failed to produce its report. Let us look at the costs of these reports. I am absolutely appalled at the reckless way in which taxpayers' money is being spent by some Government organisations. The individual amounts are not enormous; the principle is. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority's annual report for 1986-87 cost $14.36 a copy to produce. As another example of the Government's high capacity to make losses, they are being sold through the Commonwealth Government bookshop for $4.40 each, representing a net loss of something like $10 per copy. Why in the first place should the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority put out such an incredibly glossy and expensive annual report? I certainly have seen no justification for it. It is only one of the many, however. We can go through the list. The annual report of the Merit Protection and Review Agency costs $15.45 a copy to produce. Each report of the National Capital Development Commission costs $13.33 to produce. These are thin booklets. Each report of the Special Broadcasting Service costs $11.85 to produce, and it is being sold for $8, losing only $3.85 a copy! That is a decided reduction in the rate of loss! Each annual report of the Australian Film Commission costs $19.99-say $20-to produce. There might be some special reason why the Australian Film Commission should go to that enormous expense to produce its annual report. Maybe there is some commercial benefit and if so I would like to see evidence of it. Each annual report of the National Library of Australia costs $15.74 to produce. In looking at other normal sorts of reports, one finds that the Department of the Treasury, for example, spends only about $3.80 per copy to produce its report. It costs the Australian Audit Office $3.12 per copy, and there is plenty of information in it. The Australian Audit Office certainly gives us a very detailed annual report. The Australia Council report costs $8.56 per copy. In other words, some $25,000 of Australian taxpayers' money is being spent just to produce the annual report of the Australia Council. The report of the Australian Film Commission costs, as I have said, about $20 each; the total cost of producing its annual report is about $50,000. If other government organisations can do it at the $2 or $3 mark, why is it costing $20 for these organisations? Is there any control over the costs? Even fairly historic and significant organisations which have a message to get across, like the Australian Heritage Commission, can do it for about $3.35. The Australian National Gallery report, which is certainly a very glossy publication is produced for $7.50. But as I said, we have the National Library producing its report at about double the cost of the Australian National Gallery report. But is the Government taking any interest in this? Does the Government care that $27,000 has been spent just to put out an annual report for the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority, the reports costing some $14.36 each? It appears that there is no restraint on these matters. There is certainly no restraint on the sorts of prices being charged and there is very little control over all those organisations in terms of their getting their annual reports out on time. The report of the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority costs $8.23 to produce and it is sold for $1.60. That is another example of how this Government is expert at losing taxpayers' money. Of course, most of these reports that I have outlined were not released until the end of February this year-and they relate to a period that ended in June of the previous year. That is almost three months over the statutory time limit-something that would result in a public company being fined. Large government organisations like the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation are respectable. It puts out some 9,000 annual reports and they cost $2.30 each. Such reports are very informative and effective. However, I believe that many of these others have gone right over the top, without any concern at all about costs. In this context, may I congratulate the Parliament House Construction Authority, which I am consistently bagging in this place: it has put out a very informative annual report, and it cost only $3.60 to present. I believe that this situation is ludicrous, particularly in the context of the Government having put out guidelines to departments about what their annual reports should be like. Those guidelines say that reports should be concise. Well, they seem to be concisely spending up to $20 for each of those reports. Some of them are incredibly bulky; there are plenty of pictures of people but not necessarily volumes of useful information. Senator Messner —Of Ministers. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Messner says, there are plenty of pictures of Ministers and other people who have political merit while this Government is in power, but the reality is that among the guidelines for the preparation of departmental annual reports there is not one mention of the need for any care to be taken or restraint to be exercised in the spending of money. Is this not typical? The Government provides to its statutory bodies and departments pages and pages of guidelines about what sort of report they should produce but with not one word concerning restraint in the expenditure of money. What intrigues me is that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, has, as usual, been monumentally indolent in this area. He is a man who certainly speaks at great length about the need for restraint and control of government expenditure, but in these matters over which he has direct control he has in fact done absolutely nothing. I now want to deal with some more significant matters, although I must say that this lack of control of costs, as evidenced by the Government's approach to these annual reports, is simply yet another example of what I believe is a reckless indifference by this Government towards the spending of money. That is one of the reasons that the coalition considers that it is absolutely vital for government spending to be reduced, and reduced considerably-because under this Government it has, of course, soared. We keep on hearing that this Government has shown restraint, but the facts and figures simply deny that. The reality is that since this Government came to power the increase in real terms-having constant dollars with no inflation-in government spending has been enormous, averaging, in 1979-80 prices about $1 billion a year. Compare that with the rise in government spending that occurred under the previous Government of only some $700m a year. I admit that the increase under this Government is nothing like the enormous 33 per cent increase that took place during the Whitlam years. However, there is no doubt that in the first two years of the Hawke Government this increase did represent very much a Whitlamesque approach. All restraint in the last couple of years has simply been in relation to holding down the excesses that took place during the first two disastrous years of the Hawke Government. It would be more honest if this Government, when talking about its great achievements, did not just talk about last year and the year before but revealed to the public just how appalling the total rise in government spending has been under its control. That is why, in our view, the only way to get taxes down, the only way to resolve the sorts of excessive pressures which are now becoming evident in the Australian economy, is to cut government spending by far more than this Government has had the courage to do. We must recognise that the Government's cuts have related only to cutting its own fat, the fat that the Government itself generated. It is not cutting into any basic government services and it is certainly not cutting into much basic government waste, although the efforts of the Waste Watch Committee have generated some sort of political imperative on the Government to do so, and to an extent the Government has responded to that political imperative. However, there is a lot more to be done. There is no denying that the evidence clearly shows that the Budget surplus that the Government will come out with this year has been directly the result of a massively increasing tax burden on Australian families-apart from some asset sales. This has been despite the so-called tax cuts of December of the year before last and of July of last year, which, in fact, were the sorts of tax cuts that result in people paying an awful lot more in tax. They are the sorts of tax cuts that are political stunts, and they are the sorts of tax cuts that no doubt the Government will repeat in the run up to the next election. They look good but they certainly do not result in any reduction of the total tax burden and, as I have said, that tax burden has massively increased. Under this Government total taxation revenue has gone up by about 80 per cent. That is just an enormous and dreadful burden. It has increased by 80 per cent, while the inflation rate has gone up by something like 40 per cent. Taxes have just about doubled the inflation rise over this period. So now people know why this Government can appear to be restrained. It can appear to have done the right thing by having a Budget surplus, which no doubt will be discussed in the May statement very shortly, but that Budget surplus has been bought basically at the cost of the taxpayers of Australia rather than, as should have been the case, at the cost of government spending, which should have been cut much more drastically. The shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, said quite recently: The basic message is that the Government has more margin for manoeuvre in the next Budget than has been the case in recent years. If they have the political courage-the very political courage that Senator Walsh lamented as lacking last year-to cut expenditure substantially in real terms, personal income tax can be reduced while still budgeting for a surplus. Tax cuts should be introduced without delay to provide additional incentives to work and to invest. The essential difference between the Labor Government and the coalition is that the Labor Government believes that it solves its governmental problems by taxing Australians more and more, whereas the coalition believes that Australia's basic problems relating to working and investing can be solved by cutting taxes and giving people more incentive, by producing a people-led rather than a government-led recovery. That essential difference will be demonstrated more and more often in the run up to the next Federal election. Some people have wrongly said-and they sought to undermine the Opposition's tax policy before the last election-that any reduction in income tax that emerged from cutting government spending would lead to a massive burst in consumer spending and thus to a huge increase in imports. It was alleged that that would destroy Australia's prospects of recovery and worsen our balance of payments problem. That is self-evident bunkum. If a government finances a tax cut by cutting government spending, it cuts the government's ability to import and spend. It replaces government spending with personal spending and spending by Australian businesses to make them more efficient and more able to compete. By allowing personal spending by Australians, people have more scope to save; so they can invest in expanding Australia's capacity to produce. Yet that was the level of the unfair and ridiculous attack on the coalition's tax policies. May is a big month for the economy, and we have already seen some of the things that will happen this month. Next week there is the mini-Budget, and we have already had the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council meetings. There are also prospects of wage deals. At the Premiers Conference, there was another of these extraordinary changes of tack by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Quaintly, they are generally commended by the media, which appear to forget what he said the previous week. At the Premiers Conference, once again the Treasurer was saying all sorts of disastrous things about the economy, although no doubt today, with the release of some interesting balance of payments figures that show a reduction in the deficit, he will be saying that this proves that everything is going well. However, these jumps, hops and starts by the Treasurer are ludicrous. They show a lack of foresight and determined policy by this Government. There is no doubt that the May statement will not take the opportunity to do what should be and must be done to get the economy out of trouble. Today's balance of payments figures show that the seasonally adjusted figure for imports is still up about 15 per cent on the figure for April last year. The trendline for imports has risen to a record level. What these figures hide is the fact that Australia is still in desperate trouble with its balance of payments. We have income debits, particularly the money we have to spend to pay interest on our record borrowings overseas, on our massive overseas debt, that have also reached a record level. We were helped out of the mess by a fortuitous, perhaps temporary, strong rise in commodity prices. We cannot keep living on good luck and hoping that commodity prices will get us through the problems we face. I am particularly concerned that the spate of temporarily good figures will reduce the Government's willingness to take the kinds of action that must be taken. Taxes must be cut and government spending must be reduced so that Australians can get on with the job rather than having the Government dominate our economy, stifling incentive and hope. As a result of the Australian Labor Party's disastrous performances at the New South Wales election and in recent by-elections, I believe there is a real threat that Labor backbenchers, particularly from the left wing, will be pressing the Government to take the soft option, which is not to cut back on areas of spending because some of these cuts may be difficult to explain. They will be pressing the Government not to sell off those government enterprises which are at present a drain on the Government, which involve the Government in massive borrowing for their re-equipment, and which represent a burden on the taxpayer. However, the left wing of the Labor Party has already recently denied the right of the Government to make sales of such enterprises, thus denying what is in fact economic reality. Thus, all around we will see this Government getting weaker and less able to cope with the pressures it faces. There is no doubt that the Government's readiness to accede to union demands for a return to inflation-linked wages is a disaster. The only wage increases that should be granted are those accounted for by productivity improvement, because otherwise there will be no improvement in our living standard. The only improvements we can achieve in living standards are through tax cuts and productivity gains. Inflation-linked wage rises have been shown over and over again to be not only a waste of money but also illusory, because they push up the cost of producing goods in Australia and make us less competitive. They push us down the Argentinean road about which the Treasurer was talking a couple of years ago. He then decided we were doing well and that success was just around the corner. At the Loan Council meeting, he said that things were bad. Now things are good again. It makes one wonder just what the Government has in mind. Cuts in government spending undoubtedly release resources to the private sector. I am proud to be a member of a party that is keen indeed to see that lower taxes should be introduced as an incentive both to work and invest, thus increasing the productivity that we need. Instead of providing tax cuts by reducing government spending, the Treasurer has now said earlier this month that there will be no tax cuts this year. The Government is prepared to forgo sensible and necessary spending cuts that would benefit the economy and improve the financial position of Australian families. The Treasurer is missing this opportunity only as a result of the panic that has gripped the Labor Party following its loss of electoral support among traditional Labor Party voters. I am not making out this case simply because it is what the coalition believes. There is a wide and impressive collection of views about the disastrous impact of excessive government spending and particularly about excessive government taxes, such taxes largely being raised by an enormous increase of about $4 billion in consumption taxes under this Government. We have heard all this debate about whether a consumption tax should be introduced. This Government has introduced it already, and to a large degree it is now the fastest rising tax in Australia. The National Australia Bank Ltd, Westpac Banking Corporation, and the Australian business conditions section of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd have all spoken about the risks now existing in the economy if the Government does not make a severe cut in its spending. Much of that spending is wasted and misdirected and must be cut if we are to have any real cuts in taxation. These warnings from the private sector all over the place are most important and must be taken seriously in the May statement. I will be concerned as, indeed, should all Australians, if the inflationary pressures now building up are not acted upon. We have already seen the inflation forecast blow out this year, since in nine months we have almost reached the inflation level that the Government predicted would occur in a full year. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(6.00) —I rise tonight to speak to the Appropriation Bills and cognate Bills, and I express my grave concern about what is happening to the health of the people of this country and the position that they are being placed in thanks to the Hawke Government. Thanks to this Government we have an absolutely unprecedented list of crises hanging over our heads. We have strikes by doctors and nurses resulting from more than shabby treatment by governments, queues and waiting lists for surgery which were never experienced in Australia until Dr-non-medical-Blewett started fiddling with the system, and costs to the individual which are now totally out of proportion. I remind the Senate that it is meant to be a free health system whereby all people are universally covered by the Government, and it is meant to contain an insurance package to ensure that they receive medical and hospital treatment if and when they need it. A fake levy has been set at 1 1/4 per cent of income yet we all know that, if the Government were honest, the levy would have to be nearly 4 per cent to provide the total costs associated with health cover. Will the Government be honest? The answer is no. Will the Government increase the levy? Who knows. Will the Government reduce the benefit? Who knows. All these things have been talked about. If the Government gives an undertaking that it will not increase the levy, it is not much of an undertaking anyway because the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Dr-non-medical-Blewett gave such an undertaking prior to the 1984 election. What happened? They upped the levy. So any undertaking along those lines means little or nothing. People now have to borrow huge sums of money to obtain urgently required surgery because their Medicare coverage means absolutely nothing when they are in real need. Families are having to go into endless debt to look after their loved ones, the aged and the infirm. Individuals no longer have the right to cover themselves totally for health. It does not matter whether one pays twice-paying the Medicare levy and the private health insurance contributions. Under this Government one cannot insure for the gap. Somehow or other the Australian public has let the Government get away with this. Imagine if this Government or any government said that one could insure one's home for only 85 per cent of its value and not the rest-there would be absolute war in the streets. However, that is what this Government has done in respect of the health of this nation, which is probably more important than most property. Government expenditure has been growing at a phenomenal rate-in fact, it is 9 1/2 per cent this year over the 1986-87 figure-yet the Government still cannot cure the ills in the health system. More money is being given to the States to assist in reducing waiting lists, but the lists just keep on growing. It is an absolute joke that the Government actually spends more money trying to reduce waiting lists, yet the lists continue to grow. At the moment, at a conservative estimate, there are over 100,000 people on those lists across the country. It is a sick and sorry story, but Australians need to be aware that a vote for this Government is a vote that in the end can place their lives at risk. That may sound dramatic but, sadly, it is true. One need only talk to the families of some of those who have suffered, who have not been able to obtain treatment and who have died while waiting at the bottom of the list. Those families know that it is true. It is not hearsay; it is fact. Only yesterday many newspapers in Australia carried a stark warning about how bad things are. An article in yesterday's Daily Telegraph was headed `Patients wait 70 weeks for surgery'. Having just spoken to my colleague Senator Newman from Tasmania, I believe that that figure is a gross understatement with respect to how long patients must wait in that State, but I believe that she will cover that matter later. Even if 70 weeks is an accurate statement, how can we possibly sit back and say that that is satisfactory? The article in the Daily Telegraph states: Patients are being forced to wait up to 70 weeks for surgery because of the crisis in the State's public hospital system. An audit of the hospital network revealed yesterday at least 40,000 patients are waiting for surgery. And in some hospitals patients face the prospect of waiting until 2,000 others in front of them are treated. So 40,000 patients are waiting for surgery in just one State. The article continues: In the 10 main teaching hospitals alone, about 12,000 people need surgery. And there are even hundreds of youngsters who cannot get immediate treatment at the big children's hospitals. The worst delays are in the western suburbs. That is, the western suburbs, in New South Wales. This Government also purports to look after those in need, those who are less fortunate; but this is the area where most people are being affected, What does the Government do about it? Absolutely nothing. The article continues: At Westmead Hospital, at least 2,100 people are waiting for admission. People requiring orthopaedic surgery face delays of up to 70 weeks; those wanting ear, nose or throat operations can expect to wait 40 weeks; and even neurosurgery patients can't be admitted for up to six months. That does not include those who are waiting for bypass surgery who, as I have said, drop right off the bottom of the waiting list and into a grave. It is tragic and it is about time that this Government did something constructive to ease these problems. We are talking about many people who, in the first instance, may not suffer from life-threatening complaints but, nonetheless, thanks to this Government, suffer many months of pain and discomfort and a deterioration in their lifestyle. I do not believe that it is right for any government to impose a deterioration of lifestyle on any individual, let alone 100,000. The Government opts to put people on invalid pensions in preference to providing a health system that can effectively and efficiently cure people. So if you become too sick to work you should not worry about it because you will be put on an invalid pension. That is enormously clever logic! The Government simply pensions them off. However, make no mistake about it: most of these people would far prefer to be out there working and enjoying a healthy lifestyle. The Government policy of the day is not to provide that facility but to deny these people their jobs and put them through pain and discomfort. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) has been ducking and diving all over the place in recent weeks while attempting to establish exactly what money he will give the States next year. On the one hand, he says that he proposes to increase the Medicare compensation grants yet, on the other hand, when the sums are done at the end of the day it is found that no money has been allocated whatsoever to cater for any increase. More alarming is the suggestion that the States actually cut back accepting Medicare patients because the States do not have sufficient funds to care for them. It has been advocated in some States that they need more private patients, who pay up to $150 a day, so that the hospitals can obtain some hard cash. Earlier today we heard Senator Haines bleating away as she normally does about the need for more money for this and more money for that. There is little that I can ever agree with her on, thank heavens, but today she spoke about people who are not receiving treatment when they need it. I think the problem is that there is no flexibility whatsoever and one is locked into a government operation whether or not one likes it. As I said before, if people take the option of insuring with the private sector, they must still pay into the Government's coffers for a system that does not work. It is a pity that Senator Haines and some of her cohorts have not looked at some of the other options available to replace this bureaucratic monster whose tentacles are going out all over the place and strangling the Australian health system. Let me remind the Senate that this is supposed to be a health system that is not only free but also looks after everyone. That claim is simply dishonest. If anyone is inclined to think that the enormous problem with waiting lists is an accident, and that it is even more of an accident that those waiting lists keep growing, then he should stop thinking that right here and now. It has been clearly demonstrated in New Zealand that the waiting list phenomenon is an excellent way for governments to ration the provision of health services. The following quotation from Dame Dorothy Fraser, a most respected health administrator from New Zealand, could well apply to Australia. However, she was referring to New Zealand when she said: The public will identify access as the greatest failing of the present system . . . Unless you are an accident victim, covered by Accident Compensation, or develop an acute condition such has cancer, you join the 50,000 people on waiting lists who need hospitalisation . . . The New Zealand public hospital system uses waiting lists to ration its services and encounters great difficulty in determining patients' priorities . . . Uncomplaining, less articulate and poorer members of society tend to gravitate to the end of queues. The New Zealand system, like ours, is of course promoted by a socialist government pretending to look after the less well-off and the poor. Yet these are the very people who are being more seriously affected. The big difference between what Dame Dorothy Fraser said about New Zealand and the situation in Australia is that New Zealand only has half the number of people on waiting lists. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this Hawke Government has failed dismally to provide an effective health system that is meant to be free to all Australians. This Government cannot even treat seriously or take appropriate measures to prevent the spread of the dreadful disease, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). This Government hides behind an advertising campaign-or two, or three-and says that it has fulfilled its public responsibility. I do not believe that it has even gone part way to fulfilling its public responsibility. Once this epidemic gets out of hand, and probably when it is too late, the Government may sit up and do something serious. As of today-and these are the latest figures available today-441 Australians have died of AIDS. This figure is growing month by month. It was only 426 last month; it is now 441. What does this Government do? It does nothing. it runs public awareness campaigns alerting people in various categories. Senator Reynolds —That is rot. Senator KNOWLES —Very interestingly, the Minister for Local Government has just woken up. She has just come out of deep slumber and said that that is rot. Is that not wonderful? Senator Colston —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. That is a personal reflection on a member of this place and it quite obviously transgresses standing order 418. I ask that it be withdrawn. Senator Puplick —I rise on that point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. It would be a quite extraordinary ruling if you were to proceed precipitately on that basis. There is no standing order which forbids an honourable senator from being asleep in the chamber. Therefore, as being asleep is not an offence against Standing Orders, to have somebody say that one is asleep can hardly be an offence against Standing Orders. Frankly, it is only if the honourable senator actually starts to snore and thereby becomes disorderly that any offence arises. I submit to you that under those circumstances to simply draw attention to the fact that somebody was asleep, which is not a breach of Standing Orders, can hardly be something which should be the subject of a request that it be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —It seems that Senator Reynolds has not taken any personal offence. Senator Reynolds —Mr Acting Deputy President, I find it hard to take this seriously. Anyone who is in the chamber can see that I have far too much work to sleep either now or much later into the evening. I interjected when some of the claims that were being made by the honourable senator were just too much for me to ignore. For Senator Knowles to say that this Government has done nothing in relation to- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is fair enough, Senator Reynolds. I do not think you should go any further. Senator Reynolds —I will not go any further but I can assure Senator Knowles that I am noting what she is saying and I find it very difficult to believe that she believes her comments are accurate. Senator KNOWLES —What an absolutely amazing set of circumstances. I am sorry that it is has caused Senator Reynolds such absolute trauma to be woken up at this stage-after all, it is only quarter past six at night. When this great awareness and awakening occurred I was really just trying to alert the Senate to the fact that the Government has done little about the treatment of patients who are suffering from AIDS. But at that stage the Minister-- Senator Reynolds —Rubbish. Senator KNOWLES —She has just said again that it is rubbish. If the Minister or any other member of the Government is able to answer the question honestly, he or she will be groping for weeks and months. Did they run a public awareness campaign alerting all people in high risk categories? The answer is unequivocally no. They ran a series of expensive advertisements that scared the wits out of half the population of Australia. It made a whole heap of people rush off and have blood tests. What was proven as a result of that? The overwhelming majority of those people were not in the high risk categories. This is the Government's fantastic advertising campaign. These people proved to be the least at risk. The great tragedy of this is that the Minister can sit there and condone what the Government has done. What has this Hawke Government done to alert those in the high risk group such as the drug users, the homosexuals, the bisexuals, the males who occasionally have sex with other males and do not consider themselves bisexuals, male and female prostitutes, the Aborigines, the teenagers, the prisoners and, of course, the sexual partners of all of those people? What has it done to alert them? Nothing; absolutely nothing. The only thing the Government has ever done is tell all those people to wear a condom. I am at a loss to figure out where a drug user will wear a condom to prevent his getting AIDS. But that is the Government's advertising campaign which it thinks is absolutely top notch. So if this is where its campaign is headed, good luck to it, but I think it is a great tragedy for the people of Australia. It is appalling that this Government has, in real terms, increased recurrent grants for combating AIDS only marginally. While it may say that it has increased funding by $4m, that sum has to cover an absolutely toothless education campaign, medical research and contributions to blood screening. Also, within that $4m there will be $1m for the supply of the drug AZT which prolongs the life of sufferers. It claims to have increased funding. That $4m is not even a drop in the ocean. We are not talking about the common old cold or tinea in this situation. We are talking about a disease that is now in epidemic proportions worldwide-in case the Government does not know. It is incurable and is 90 per cent fatal among those who are HIV positive. The way that the disease is heading it will have a higher mortality rate than most forms of cancer or heart disease. Health professionals have repeatedly advised testing for all people in high risk groups, but unfortunately this bright Government considers that a sop to particular interest groups is more important than the health of the community including, I might add, the unborn. It will continue to sop to particular interest groups. The Government's cop-out is that there is not sufficient money to take the hard decisions. Yet it is prepared to spend more money on treating the disease. Surely prevention is better than treatment, particularly when there is no cure. Treating an AIDS patient is also more expensive than treating a person with cancer or cardiovascular disease. Why will the Government not take action? Heaven only knows. Last year, Dr Reanny, the Vice-President of the International Interdisciplinary AIDS Foundation, concluded that the cost to Australia of AIDS-related, hospital-based care will be about $680m by 1990, just over $1 billion by the year 2000 and about $1.7 billion by the year 2017. It may sound rather prudish-if it does, so be it-to say that it is not good enough for governments to be spending public money on risk minimisation advertising-which is all we have seen to date-such as `Wear a condom' and wanting to put a whole bus in a condom. Has anyone heard of anything more ridiculous than trying to solve an epidemic that has a 90 per cent mortality rate in that way? Why are governments not utilising some of the resources that have been put in place and encouraging people to change their lifestyles to prevent risk? As I have said, that may sound prudish. If it does, I am quite prepared to live with it. I think that governments should be encouraging people to change their lifestyles in preference to just saying, `Wear a condom and you'll be okay'. I do not believe for one moment that any government can legislate for social attitudes; but I do believe that, faced with a fatal epidemic, they could encourage people to be more responsible. Governments did not blink one jot in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when they required immigrants and residents to be tested for tuberculosis. They did not even blink when they brought in the practice of tracing partners of patients with sexually transmitted diseases. Yet there is no way they will take those types of measures to reduce the spread of AIDS. It is too expensive and too hard because they may offend some people. Once again, this Government has to consider whether it will sop to those interest groups or whether it will be responsible. I am afraid that there will be a continuation of the former in preference to the latter. I, too, feel very sorry indeed for AIDS patients, but I have to confess that I feel even more sorry for those who do not participate in any high-risk practices but contract the disease quite unknowingly. What consideration does this Government give to those in the medical profession whose responsibility it is to look after and care for AIDS patients? None. The Government is hell-bent on doctor bashing and nurse bashing, as we have seen for years now. We have only to go back through Hansard from time immemorial to see what the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has said about the medical profession. We can see how much he cares about the medical profession. Of course, this is simply a further extension of that exercise. The attitude is, `If they get AIDS, that's their problem'. Once again, it is all too hard and all too expensive. That is the excuse. It is an absolute disgrace. With the cost of treating an AIDS patient being estimated at $43,000, according to the Executive Director of the Fairfield Hospital in Melbourne, it is absolutely mystifying why the Government refuses to acknowledge the seriousness and on-going cost blow-out associated with the disease. Many AIDS patients, like so many other ill people, cannot afford to pay out huge sums of money for their care. Medicare is wrongly named; it should be `Medicareless', because that is the effect it is having on people who are ill from a whole range of diseases, not the least of which is AIDS. The health of this nation is now out of control. The chaos is spreading like wildfire. The way in which the Government is spending the health dollar does not give anywhere near the best return and the Government refuses point blank to accept the responsibility for a serious, well-informed and effective campaign to reduce the risk of the epidemic disease AIDS. The Government is treating the health of Australians with what I believe is absolute and utter contempt. How many people need to die waiting for surgery? How many more children need to suffer unnecessarily? How much longer do the queues need to go beyond 100,000 people? How many more weeks than 70 will people have to wait? Probably more importantly, by how much will the Government reduce the Medicare rebate or increase the levy in either the May statement next week or the second annual Budget-we now have two Budgets a year-in August? The Government is likely to adopt either of those measures, which will only further exacerbate the existing situation. Health is not a disposable commodity and it should not be treated as such by this Government. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(6.25) —Senator Knowles has talked tonight about the mess that has been caused by this Government to the hospital system and the medical system generally. Tonight I want to talk about the mean-spirited way in which this Government is whittling away the rights of our veterans. My husband is a former Minister for Repatriation and a returned serviceman. Therefore, I suppose I have always had a particular interest in veterans' affairs matters. I have very strong views about how this country should recognise the service that our veterans gave to it when they were needed desperately. We were very ready to send them away to war to defend us. I wonder whether we are prepared to continue turning a blind eye to their needs now that they are getting older and frailer and need more assistance. It seems to me that this Government is prepared to do that. In a very mean way, their benefits are being whittled back gradually bit by bit. The Government is never game enough to do it by way of a big cut, thus demonstrating what big fellows its members are; but it is prepared, in every Budget or mini-Budget, to make just a small adjustment here and a small adjustment there so that benefits to which veterans are rightfully entitled as compensation for their war service, not as welfare, are gradually disappearing. I draw your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the fact that in Australia there are 574,300 surviving veterans and 70,870 war widows. Obviously, the bulk of those people gave their service during the Second World War, although clearly many served in subsequent wars. But that means that they are mostly in their middle-sixties, late-sixties and seventies. They are ageing and are starting to suffer from conditions from which elderly people suffer. Frequently those conditions are exacerbated by their war service. I draw the Senate's attention to what has been happening over the last couple of years to the entitlements of veterans and war widows. There have been changes to the totally and permanently incapacitated entitlements; there have been limits as to dental treatment; there have been reductions in the amount payable to them for travel allowance; access to the repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme has been terminated for war widows and some service pensioners; a statutory patient contribution has been introduced for those who need nursing home care; there have been changes to the veterans' home health program; and there have been many changes to the defence service home loans scheme, which have been debated in the Parliament in the last few months and have caused confusion. I draw the Senate's attention to the quite unacceptable delays in the implementation of the scheme which has now reached mark 3 or mark 4. I have lost count of how many times the Government has told us that it is changing the scheme. That has not helped the veterans community. I believe that one of the most mean-spirited of the Government's actions is the 2 per cent cut in the defence force retirement and death benefits (DFRDB) scheme pension base which the Government said it would restore when economic conditions permitted. Some 107,000 veterans have been affected by that cut of 2 per cent in the pension base. The Government, over two years, has made no attempt whatsoever to restore that 2 per cent. Yet it is quite prepared to tell us what a clever manager of the economy it is and how it is going into a Budget surplus. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator NEWMAN —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was describing my particular interest in veterans' affairs matters. I was referring to the way in which the Hawke Government has whittled away the benefits due to veterans during its time in office. It is a very sorry record and the over half a million surviving veterans and the 70,000-odd war widows are only too well aware of how shabbily they are being treated by this Government. Immediately before the sitting was suspended I was discussing the 2 per cent cut in the DFRDB pension base. The Government has told us that it is doing very nicely thank you in terms of the Federal Budget. The Government is putting it around that it will be able to announce a very nice surplus in the May economic statement. Some 107,000 veterans have been affected by the 2 per cent cut in the DFRDB pension base that was made two years ago. They are very curious and indeed anxious to know just when the economic conditions are going to permit the restoration of that 2 per cent. The Returned Services League (RSL) has told us that the cut has a perpetual and cumulative effect on the pension base. In addition, the recent national wage case and the second tier productivity increases have placed DFRDB and other Commonwealth pensions affected by the cut further behind community standards. No date has yet been set for the restoration of that 2 per cent and it would be a very appropriate time for it to be announced in the May economic statement. I call on the Government to do the right thing by the veterans, who have been made to suffer much more than the rest of the community. (Quorum formed) I am very glad to see Senators Coates, Devlin and Devereux in the chamber. Perhaps they will learn something about the Tasmanian scene that they are supposed to be representing to their Federal Labor Government. It is a pity that they do not represent their Tasmanian veterans a bit better. But as they are obviously not interested and are leaving the chamber, I will have to send them an autographed copy of Hansard so that they know the facts. It is not just the RSL which is concerned about the failure of the Government to restore this 2 per cent cut. All the veterans' organisations, and in particular the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association, have expressed great concern at the Government's failure to restore this earned and deserved benefit. Tonight I want particularly to draw the Senate's attention to the very serious delays in medical and surgical care for veterans. This is something which has been gradually building up. The situation is now most unsatisfactory and something will have to be done. It is not good enough for the Government to be just messing about with the issue. I have pursued this matter for some time both through the relevant Estimates committee and through representations to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Humphreys). As a Tasmanian senator, obviously my concerns are particularly with the veterans in my State. But the picture is reflected in other States. Therefore, honourable senators should be very concerned to see what is happening to the men and women who were prepared to go away and defend this country in time of war. This is what is happening. In Tasmania it is currently taking at least 12 weeks for veterans to get hearing aids-that is, once they actually get to the National Acoustics Laboratory; it takes quite a while even to get to that stage. It is taking 12 weeks because the National Acoustics Laboratory cannot cope with the numbers. I recognise that this is not something that is governed by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, but it is a responsibility of Dr Blewett. My opinion of Dr Blewett's administration of his Department is none too high-no higher than that expressed by my colleague Senator Knowles earlier in the debate. I fail to see why veterans have to suffer as a result of the lack of resources in the National Acoustics Laboratory. It is well known that a much larger percentage of servicemen who were subject to gunfire in a war-time situation have impaired hearing than is the case in the mainstream population. It is quite unfair that they have to wait so long before they can be seen to be fitted with hearing aids. However, this is not the main problem. I think a much more serious problem is that of waiting times for the various categories of elective surgery for veterans in Tasmania. It is intriguing to note what the Department of Veterans' Affairs calls `elective surgery'. According to the Department, surgery which is elective is treatment which is not required as an emergency to deal with life threatening situations. Well, I thank God that they are not life threatening situations. You will too, Mr Acting Deputy President, when you realise that orthopaedic surgery for veterans in Tasmania takes between 50 and 112 weeks-that is, one to two years-at the Repatriation General Hospital in Hobart. This compares with one year at the State-run Royal Hobart Hospital and 36 to 90 weeks at the State-run Launceston General Hospital. Urology delays are 26 weeks at the Repat, 10 to 20 weeks at Royal Hobart and 4 to 30 weeks in Launceston. These delays are far too long for anybody with a urological or orthopaedic condition who is waiting for surgery. We are talking about people who are in pain and real discomfort and whose quality of life is very adversely affected. For the life of me, I cannot see why we have to put veterans at the bottom of the list when it comes to eligibility for surgery. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and his Department tell us that the conditions are not life threatening, that they are elective operations and therefore people can wait. I tell him that it is not good enough. Clearly, this Government has to do better. The Minister said that he could tell me what the factors were that led to these delays. I would like the Senate to know what the Minister gave as an explanation. In his letter to me of 10 May, the Minister said: . . . a number of factors contribute to these waiting times, including insufficient orthopaedic surgeons in the State and competing demands for the limited operating theatre time and support services available. He also said: There are also the significant advances in medical technology which have made surgery a viable alternative for a higher proportion of people with orthopaedic problems. Aged patients now constitute a very considerable proportion of the total orthopaedic workload. I am glad that the Minister recognises that. I hope he recognises that his whole constituency, his responsibilities, are almost exclusively veterans or very advanced years. So of course he should be exercising the utmost care and concern for aged people who need orthopaedic or urological treatment. The Minister seems to think those explanations are good enough. I do not. One of the things that he tells me in his letter is something that I find even more concerning, that is, that the Repatriation Hospital in Hobart is handling only three hip replacement operations a fortnight. Here is the crunch: two new hip replacement patients join the waiting list for every patient actually operated on. What is this Government doing when it cannot get ahead and the numbers of people applying for surgery are growing? The Minister tells me that there are not enough resources. It is in his hands to provide the resources. The veterans are going backwards. I would like also to quote from a letter I received this week from the wife of a veteran who lives in Tasmania and who has just had orthopaedic surgery in the Repatriation Hospital in Hobart. It was a very gentle letter, not really complaining but asking me for help as to whom she should go to for advice and to make a proper complaint about the treatment that her husband has received. She had no complaint whatsoever about the medical care that he received. She stated that she was concerned: He had had surgery and traction for approximately 6 days and despite feeling weak and unwell, he was requested to go home as the bed was needed. She continued: My husband is a TPI (1939-45 service) Middle East, Syria, Greece, Crete and New Guinea- he certainly fought for this country- and his related injury is war caused, so I feel at 74+ he is deserving of more consideration, especially as I have a dystrophy complaint, and having no family, find it difficult to cope with a sick husband just out of his hospital bed. That is the service that the Veterans Affairs' administration and the Minister are prepared to countenance. They are not prepared to put in the resources to see that veterans get the bed care to which they are entitled and to ensure that there are enough surgeons and facilities to provide for their orthopaedic and urological needs. However, there are ways around it-that is, to make better use of the private hospital facilities that are available in the State and which do have spare capacity. The Minister did not advert to that in his letter to me, although it covered three closely typed pages. The Estimates include an additional amount of $15m Australia-wide, $10m of which I was told at the Estimates Committee hearings was to cater for the increased demand. So at least the Department is recognising that for, say, the next decade we will have an increased demand, particularly in the areas of orthopaedics and urology. However, the Department is not providing enough. I was told that the revised target for Tasmania will go from 45 occupied bed days in the public and private sector up to 50. That may have some impact on the waiting lists but with increased demand it is clearly not enough, especially when we consider the quantity of people joining the lists all the time. As I said, that will continue for quite a while to come. There is a diminishing population of these veterans. As I said earlier this evening the veterans are in the 65 years to 77 years group. Life expectancy for men in Australia is roughly 77 years. I ask honourable senators to consider that when one has a life expectancy of a maximum of 12 years, what does one or two years on a hospital waiting list waiting in great pain for a hip operation do to one? What is the quality of one's life? In the Minister's letter he criticised doctors who he said were not making it clear enough when their patients were urgent cases. He said that if the doctors were to reassess their patients more accurately, their patients would be able to jump to the top of the queue. I do not know whether the Minister is stupid or whether he thinks I am, but clearly if people at the bottom of the queue are pushed to the top that would not do much for the waiting times of those people who have thereby been pushed towards the bottom of the queue. What does the Minister think he will achieve simply by refining the process of declaring people to be urgent cases? It sounds to me as if somebody in the bureaucracy has fed the Minister a lot of bumf. Resources are needed, not bureaucratic refinements. If we really believe in compensation for war service then the veterans deserve some sort of special treatment, not lesser treatment than the rest of the community. I was interested that the Minister in his letter compared the hospital waiting times in Tasmania with those of other States. He told me that Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia are similar in waiting times, that Victoria is marginally better, that in South Australia one must wait 24 to 28 weeks for orthopaedics and that in Queensland the wait is 5 to 16 weeks for orthopaedic surgery. However, as Senator Knowles mentioned in her speech earlier this evening, the New South Wales Minister for Health was reported in yesterday's Australian newspaper as saying: In some Sydney hospitals it would take more than 70 weeks to clear waiting lists, which were longest for orthopaedic surgery, general surgery and urological services. In other words, if one were in New South Wales one might have to wait a whole 70 weeks-something which I find quite unacceptable and clearly a result of the Government's mess-up of Medicare. However, if one is a Tasmanian veteran one will have to wait up to 112 weeks. I think the Minister does not even know how to read his own figures. Senator Aulich —Having disposed of that- Senator NEWMAN —I am glad that Senator Aulich has come into the chamber to learn about the Tasmanian situation because it is very important that we try to get him to speak in the confines of his party room; he is clearly not prepared to say anything publicly. Perhaps he might do something about his Government's attempt to palm off the repatriation hospitals on to the States. This Government has been trying to do that for some time now. Back on 18 February last year, in response to a question which I asked of the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, I was told: It is the view of the Government and the view of the veteran community that we should maintain a separate repatriation hospital system. He went on to say: So I can give Senator Newman and in fact the whole Senate a complete assurance that, rather than closing down the hospitals, the hospitals will continue to be improved. At some time in the future-perhaps by the year 2000-the government of the day will decide the processes by which the Government's current intentions will be realised. So there we have Senator Gietzelt, the then Minister, on record in the Parliament telling us that the Government was going to maintain a separate repatriation hospital system and that it would not be until about the year 2000 that maybe the Government would look at whether there would be any change. He said that in the meantime, while there were so many people going through, the Government would improve the hospitals. That is what Senator Gietzelt, the then Federal Minister, said. I do not know whether he was telling the whole truth to the Senate or whether there was a hidden agenda for the Australian Labor Party. I rather suspect that that is what it was all about. Only a couple of months later, on 30 April last year, we find a report in the Mercury about the Tasmanian Labor spokesman on health, Mrs Judy Jackson: The Opposition spokesman on health, Mrs Judy Jackson, said the delay over transferring the Repatriation Hospital from the Federal Government to the State Government was for political reasons and there was no logical reason for the duplication of services in State and federal health systems. Here is the very interesting bit, I think- She said the hospital was a modern facility not being used to capacity- can one believe it?- and could be used for elective orthopaedic surgery as a way of decreasing long waiting lists at public hospitals. It says something about Mrs Jackson's inability to cope with her shadow portfolio responsibilities that she seemed to think that the Repatriation Hospital was underutilised and that using it would be a good way of decreasing the public hospital waiting lists. In fact, the boot was on the other foot and it is the Repatriation Hospital which has longer waiting lists than the Royal Hobart Hospital. Clearly it was the intention, and remains the intention, of the Federal Labor Government to try to palm off the repatriation hospitals to the States. Of course, the RSL has different views about that. I will quote from an RSL document: . . . on no account- should the Federal Government- hand over repatriation hospitals to the states until the demand from veterans reaches such a low level that the independent operation of each hospital is no longer economically sound. Of course, we in the Opposition agree with that. However, clearly the Government has some secret agenda. Now at least we have on record what the Government is up to. However, in the meantime we have the problem of an overutilised facility, not enough funds being provided to allow more operations to take place and, clearly, an unwillingness by the Federal Government to make use of the underutilised private hospitals which are available for the sort of surgery that veterans need. I might add that although my State is relatively small, people visiting Tasmania are always surprised at how long it takes to get from one place to another because of the winding roads and hilly terrain. Therefore, it is helpful for elderly people to be treated near their homes. It would be much fairer for those veterans and war widows who live on the north-west coast, the west coast or in the Launceston and north-east districts, if they could be treated in a hospital nearer to their home. The Government has obviously decreed that it will not spend money on these people, who have given so much already to their country. The day has not yet come for the Federal Government to pass this responsibility off to the States. The States are already unable to find sufficient funds to keep their hospitals running, and for that we have to blame the Federal Government's mishandling of Medicare and the blow-out in costs that we all recognise only too well. The Commonwealth has to find funds to enable veterans to be cared for in private hospitals so as to end these completely unacceptable and cruel delays. The Australian Labor Party should be ashamed of the pain its Government is inflicting on our old diggers. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(8.21) —I support these Appropriation and Supply Bills and oppose the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The amendment to which Senator Stone referred in his comments seems to point up the inherent contradiction in the Opposition's economic policy. It demonstrates that members of the Opposition do not seem to understand that in matters of government finance the whole has to equal the sum of the parts, and therefore we cannot increase each part and still have a smaller whole. Senator Stone spoke today of reducing government expenditure-he said this has to be the top priority in the Government's economic policy-and yet over recent days, and several times today, we have had examples of Opposition senators supporting the amendment and yet then going on to speak about the need to increase expenditure in their own areas of particular concern. Senator Hamer spoke recently of the need to increase expenditure on defence, which I understand is a view that has Senator Stone's support. Today Senator Bjelke-Petersen talked about increasing expenditure on roads. I do not know whether Senator Stone supports that or not, but I do know that Senator Bjelke-Petersen did say we have to spend a lot more money on roads. Senator Newman has just been talking, if I heard her correctly, about increasing expenditure on repatriation provisions. I am not saying any of those proposals are bad; I am simply saying that we cannot increase each bit and have the total somehow magically reduce. Senator Newman —Don't waste it. Senator McMULLAN —The oldest argument in the book is that we should cut out waste. People who do not have the courage to make decent cuts just wave their wand about. The Opposition is heading exactly in the direction of the 1987 economic black hole. Those opposite want to cut taxes but increase expenditure to appeal to every little interest group that comes up. They are like the girl in Oklahoma who sang, `I'm just a girl who can't say no'. Senator Aulich —Don't be sexist. Senator McMULLAN —She sang the song; I did not write the words. Members of the Opposition cannot agree to have a consumption tax to fill this awesome gap in their economic policy. Yesterday Senator Peter Baume correctly pointed out some of the social consequences of reducing expenditure. When every interest group that knocks on their door says `Please give us more money' they say yes-but they are still going to cut government expenditure. It is wonderful to hear them putting this beautiful illogical economic argument, because it means that at the next election there will be a yawning black hole again. I can see their campaign now. Their arithmetic still does not add up, and they cannot and will not be a credible alternative government until it does. Senator Newman —Why don't you give us a try? Senator McMULLAN —Fortunately the Australian people are much too sensible to give the Opposition a try. They proved it last July. I actually came here tonight to speak about something entirely different. I chose to speak tonight on an important initiative in the 1988-89 Supply Bills, and in particular in Supply Bill (No. 2), because they mark a very important first step in introducing State-type funding arrangements in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It is a key element of the legislation, and Supply Bill (No. 2), in particular clause 6, establishes for the first time the Australian Capital Territory Trust Account, which is in effect the consolidated revenue fund of a self-governing Capital Territory. It is a very important step on the road to self-government and it is an important initiative by the Government, announced recently by the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) in a Press release and implemented in the Supply Bills coming into effect on 1 July for the 1988-89 financial year. For the first time there is a clear distinction in the Government accounts between national and territorial and municipal functions and expenditure accordingly, as determined previously by the Government in 1985 and adopted and reported on by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its second report on ACT finances in 1986. The State-type payments to be made to the ACT are reflected in Supply Bill (No. 2). In relation to, for example, the Attorney-General's portfolio, and in the portfolios covering the Department of Community Services and Health, the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the Department of Transport and Communications, we are starting to see for the first time in these Supply Bills important direct State-type payments to the ACT, starting to establish a proper financial basis for a self-governing ACT. All the relevant ACT moneys which would otherwise be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be credited to that ACT Trust Account. In particular, sub-clause 6 (1) provides for moneys paid pursuant to the territorial administration of the ACT to be credited to the Trust Account. These receipts will include State-type taxes, stamp duties, rates, fees, charges, fines and penalties. Some of these, of course, arise pursuant to legislation and some result from the provision of goods and services. The Commonwealth is also to pay for services of a territorial and municipal nature provided to it by the ACT Administration. These payments will also be received in the ACT Trust Account. This is an important point in the debate that is going on within the ACT at the moment, because there are some fundamental misconceptions about self-government. Supply Bill (No. 2), if properly studied, will hopefully put to rest the concern that somehow or other, after self-government, the citizens of Canberra will have to pay more for the administration of their government. It will put to rest the argument that somehow or other services that are now provided magically and do not have to be paid for will have to start being paid for after self-government. This Supply Bill illustrates absolutely and clearly what will happen to the Territory's financing after self-government. There will be simply a change of nomenclature, a change in the method of recording expenditure. It makes the current situation explicit-that is, the people of Canberra are paying for self-government to the same extent as people in other States, for example Tasmania. They are paying the same rates, taxes, stamp duties and legislative and service fees that arise in all the States. They are already paying for self-government. All the people of the ACT are missing out on is having a say in determining how that money is spent. The priorities being set at the moment are being set by people properly accountable for that money to the people of Australia as a whole rather than accountable to the people of the ACT in particular. I welcome the fact that Supply Bill (No. 2) introduces this initiative because it does provide some possibility for identifying expenditure and it enables local people to start having a proper input into the determination of priorities. Until self-government such decisions can and must be made by the Minister for the Arts and Territories, who is accountable in the end to the citizens of Barton rather than the citizens of the electorates of Canberra or Fraser. They will therefore not properly reflect the priorities of the people of Canberra, and the Minister cannot be democratically accountable to the people of Canberra. It has been fairly well established by my article-and what more reputable source could there be-in the Canberra Times-and somewhat more objectively by representatives of the ACT treasury that the extra cost of self-government could be 0.1 of one per cent. The figures supplied by the ACT Administration during the recent public debate concerning the ACT budget indicate that the ACT budget in its current state involves something like $900m. The total extra costs of the provision of self-government to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory has been assessed at possibly $1m-that is an extra 0.1 of one per cent of the Budget. So, the Supply Bills mark a very important stage in the progress of the Australian Capital Territory towards self-government. They mark a very important stage in the development of proper administration of the funds of the Australian Capital Territory and, in fact, despite this separate trust account, parliamentary accountability for this expenditure will continue. These expenditures will continue to be assessed by the relevant Senate committees, unless and until self-government is delivered to the people of the Australian Capital Territory and hopefully, this year, with the concurrence of the other parties in this Senate, that will be forthcoming. Therefore, I regard this initiative as being very important. I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) has taken this initiative. On 28 April he announced these further reforms to the Australian Capital Territory financial arrangements and in referring to these Supply Bills he said: . . . the Supply Bills . . . have been prepared on the basis of the ACT operating like a State as from 1 July this year . . . Major ACT territorial and municipal funding has been separated from Canberra's national functions and will form a stand-alone ACT budget operating through a separate Trust Account . . . The ACT will receive Commonwealth Grants, determined in a similar way as payments to the States and the Northern Territory . . . The level of payments will allow for the additional costs of the national capital influences on the provision of the normal territorial and municipal services. Concern has often been expressed that it will be much more expensive to administer Canberra than the other States and Territories because of extra costs imposed by the Commonwealth influences, the national capital influences here in Canberra, but the Grants Commission and the Cabinet consideration properly distinguishes those costs and responsibilities, and appropriate payments will be forthcoming. The first indication of that is reflected in the payments provided for in Supply Bill (No. 2). The Minister further stated: The ACT's State-type taxes and duties, rates, fees, charges and payments for services provided to Commonwealth departments will be kept in the Territory. This will allow the ACT's budget priorities to be considered on their merits. I welcome that initiative from the Minister, and it is an important move towards self-government. The debate here in Canberra is developing and moving ahead on this very important issue. People are starting to realise that the concerns of ten years ago that self-government would cost more-and I think it could be argued that ten years ago it would have-are no longer relevant. As they assess the information that is being made available by the ACT Administration they are becoming aware that these extra costs are already being met, that the preferential treatment that the Australian Capital Territory received in relation to funding for so many years, for almost 60 years, no longer exists. In fact, payroll taxes in the ACT are higher than those in the States. We find now that the leaders of community groups, with whom I have regular consultation, and the leaders of business and unions are conscious of the difficulties that the lack of self-government makes for their respective interests. The issues that need to be resolved are starting to be turned around in the debate. One finds that nearly all the community group leaders, nearly all the leaders of business and, as far as I know, nearly all the leaders of trade unions, support self-government, because they understand that it is through that mechanism that they will achieve the opportunity to have their preferences and priorities reflected in the decisions of a self-governing territory, in the decisions made by properly elected ACT representatives, answerable and accountable, as should be the case in a democracy, to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. Some 200 years after European settlement and, more importantly, 88 years after Federation, it is absolutely unacceptable that a quarter of a million people should be denied effective democratic representation in the determination of their own expenditure priorities in the matters that affect their daily lives. Nowhere else in Australia would people allow education funding to be determined by people not answerable to them. Nowhere else in Australia would the people tolerate decisions about the health system being made by the people not accountable to them. Nowhere else in Australia would people accept that the operation of the public transport system is not a matter to be determined by their locally elected representatives, those people not having a chance to do anything about it if they do not like the system. Given the awesome list of speakers that are to follow in this debate-awesome not only in number but also in quality-I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. I have risen to indicate my support for the Bills that are before the Senate and I particularly wanted the opportunity to welcome the initiative taken by the Government, particularly by the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Gary Punch, in submitting the Supply Bills in this manner, and in taking a major step forward for my constituents, for the people of the Australian Capital Territory. (Quorum formed) This could be the longest peroration in history, because I was actually just concluding by saying that I supported the Bills and that I welcomed in particular the initiatives taken in the Supply Bills for and on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory. In conclusion, I reiterate the point that I made at the outset, namely, that I reject the amendment as proposed by Senator Stone. It adds nothing to these Bills, except to shed light on the inadequacies and inconsistencies of the Opposition's economic policies. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(8.38) —In speaking on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1987-88, the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1987-88, the Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1988-89, the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1988-89 and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1988-89 this evening I will direct my remarks towards the Government's record in relation to road funding, following which I will make some remarks about the inadequacies of the present system concerning the threshold level for provisional tax. However, before Senator McMullan leaves the chamber I want to refer to a couple of comments that he made on road funding and on other points raised by Senator Newman. He said that our side of politics wanted to spend more on this and more on that while at the same time wanting to have cuts in spending. He can say what he likes and I am sure that Senator Newman can reply when it comes to the medical and hospital aspects. Perhaps Senator McMullan is not well versed with the road funding system around Australia and the need for upkeep. Having lived in Canberra as long as he has, he probably has not seen country roads, country arterial roads or main highways for a year or two. I suggest to him that, if the Government does not want to spend more money on roads, it should not raise money in the name of roads. That is the point I make to him. Senator McMullan —You have obviously misunderstood. It is your economics. Senator PANIZZA —I have not misunderstood. I am telling the honourable senator that the money I am talking about has been raised in the name of roads, and it is on roads that we want at least most of it spent. It is no secret that this Government has held Commonwealth funding for roads to $1.245 billion for the last four years. In effect, that is a reduction in real terms of about 40 per cent. Moreover, there is a fear that the Government will incorporate the local government portion of that $1.245 billion into general purpose grants. Of course, country councils will then be at the mercy of each State government. If a State government is not sympathetic to country areas, those areas will feel it. The case can arise where the State government will not allocate funds to areas where the roads are the worst. Such cases are certainly well known on my side of the continent, in Western Australia, where the Government has given funds to areas that will be more advantageous to it when it comes to the ballot box. I am sure that Senator Cook will agree with what I am about to say, as would Senator McKiernan if he were here. The State Government in Western Australia has pushed far too much money into the city of Bunbury. Of course, this is a delicate seat and with Bunbury 2000 the Government hopes to hold it at the next State election, and I think that there is a slim chance that it might do so. Senator Cook —Decentralisation. Senator PANIZZA —I thought that word had disappeared since the 1960s. I am glad that Senator Cook's side of politics has mentioned it. I thank him for doing so and hope that he will think of it in time to come. There are other examples of the point I am making besides Bunbury. Since the last State election, the money has started pouring into Geraldton. Many honourable senators know that Geraldton is held by the Minister for Local Government, Jeff Carr, who survived at the last election by 50 votes, so now the money is going there. A couple of years ago the America's Cup was held in Western Australia, and certainly it was a worthwhile event because of the great win of Alan Bond's group in America. However, once again money for roads was funnelled away into areas other than country areas where it was needed, in this case to Fremantle, again a seat held by the Labor Government in Western Australia. Someone as old as I can remember the Commonwealth Games in Perth in 1962, and again the money poured into the city rather than to the bush. The situation I am describing has caused a lack of funds for roads in remote areas, areas such as that in which I live and areas for which I speak. As I told Senator McMullan earlier, the Federal Government is raising more and more funds in the name of roads. As I have said, if the Government does not want to spend money in certain areas, then for God's sake let it not raise money in the name of those areas. This vast sum of money is raised by a fuel tax. In fact, it has been known at certain times over the last few years that 68 per cent of what one pays at the bowser goes to the Federal Government. To prove that I am not talking through the top of my hat when I speak about raising money in the name of roads and spending it on something else, I have a chart from the Bureau of Transport Economics. It goes back to 1926-27, but I will not bore honourable senators by quoting figures way back in those days. Most honourable senators in this place were not born then. However, from 1926-27 to 1930-31, 70 per cent of what was raised in fuel tax went back to the roads. But let us go to more modern times. That peak of 70 per cent was not reached again until the 1959-60 to 1963-64 period, when 70 per cent was again spent on roads. There will be no prize for guessing what government was in power at that time. It is more interesting when we come to the period from 1980 onwards. In 1980-81, 77 per cent of what was raised in the name of roads was spent on roads, in 1981-82, 79 per cent was spent on roads, and in 1982-83, 71 per cent was spent on roads. I have underlined that year, because that is the year when our side of politics lost government, unfortunately for Australia. Immediately, in 1983-84 the amount spent on roads dropped to 63 per cent. In 1984-85, it was down to 60 per cent; in 1985-86, it was down to 46 per cent; and in 1986-87, it was down to 24 per cent, as estimated by the Bureau of Transport Economics. Those figures certainly speak for themselves. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate these tables in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Chapter 4 TABLE 4.1 COMMONWEALTH ROAD GRANTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF FUEL TAX REVENUE, 1926-27 TO 1986-87 (CONSTANT 1984-85 PRICES) Year/Legislation Average revenue Average payments Payments/ revenue ($m) ($m) (per cent) 1926-27 to 1930-31... 9.2 6.5 70 1931-32 to 1936-37... 22.3 7.9 36 1937-38 to 1946-47... 34.1 10.5 31 1947-48 to 1949-50... 84.8 24.2 29 1950-51 to 1953-54... 114.9 48.9 43 1954-55 to 1958-59... 157.5 101.3 64 1959-60 to 1963-64... 236.5 166.6 70 1964-65 to 1968-69... 407.2 247.9 61 1969-70 to 1973-74... 774.4 413.9 53 1974-75 to 1976-77... 1 248.7 687.1 55 1977-78 to 1979-80... 1 399.6 844.1 60 1980-81 to 1984-85... 1 545.6 1 042.7 67 1985-86... 2 527.7 1 174.7 46 1986-87... 4 669.9 e...1 107.7 e...24e e Estimated. Note Price deflators used were ABS Implicit Price Deflator of Gross Domestic Product for revenues and the BTE Road Construction Price Index (overall activity) for road payments. Sources ABS (1985a). BTE (1982, 1986c, 1987a). Commonwealth of Australia (1986). Commonwealth road grants as a percentage of fuel tax revenue. Information from BTE publication-average for five years 81/85 is 67%. 1980/81-77% 1981/82-79% 1982/83-71% 1983/84-63% 1984/85-60% 1985/86-46% 1986/87-24% E. Senator PANIZZA —I thank the Senate. These figures do not include other revenue raised in the name of roads such as drivers licence fees and vehicle registration fees, sales tax on motor vehicles, parts and tyres, and so the list goes on. If those amounts were also included, the figures would certainly look even more ridiculous. Local government in remote areas suffers more because of small population and the long length of roads. The future of such areas is bleak if principles enunciated in the report of the Cameron Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Road Grants are put into effect fully. As an example, I will instance a small shire in Western Australia-Trayning. It is in the eastern or central wheat belt with a shire population of 600. Its area is 1,632 square kilometres and it has three towns. It is a sheep and wheat area, and it has 827 kilometres of roads. Its present grant is $165,000-odd. The proposed grant under the Cameron report guidelines for 1994-95 will be $50,400. That shire has these options: First, it can increase the shire rates by 50 per cent. Secondly, it can reduce outside staff by three, but the result would be even worse roads. Thirdly, it can channel funds from community facilities. The result of taking the third option is well known-the shire loses people, with the result that there are fewer ratepayers from which to collect rates. The final option, which has been tried by a few shires around Western Australia and which amounts to suicide, is to fund road maintenance and even road building by borrowing. As I have said, that is certainly the way to go down the tube in the shire and to have the State Government appoint an administrator. I have read the Cameron report pretty well, and I believe there are four indicators of the way in which the Federal Government would allocate road funding. Of those four, three are indicators on road usage-in other words, traffic volume. Only one indicator is related to the roads themselves, and that relates to restoration. If my mathematics are correct, the end result is that two-thirds of the allocation is made according to the volume of traffic, so in those areas where the traffic is not great, but roads are still needed, the position is disastrous. In submissions to the Cameron inquiry-in fact the Cameron report mentions this-the social factor was argued. I thought that the social factor might interest Senator Cook and Senator Haines, who are always talking about disadvantaged social groups. Of course, no notice was taken of the social factor in this case. That is the same in most isolated areas; the social factor is not considered. The social factor is considered only in cities such as Perth, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne, where there are far more votes-only about 4 per cent-for the Australian Democrats. Senator Haines —Why don't you support our Bill to take the freight component out of sales tax? Senator PANIZZA —When we have a good discussion about that matter I will think about it. Of course, the interest in remote areas by the Government and many other people-not only honourable senators opposite because it can be both sides of politics-varies in inverse proportion to the square of the distances out there. If one works that out, one will realise that the interest drops away very quickly. Senator Cook —I am often in the Pilbara. Senator PANIZZA —Just like me, Senator Cook would fly to the Pilbara, and once there he would probably go straight to Trades Hall and not see many of the roads. As I said before, local roads are access roads and are used by everyone from tourists to mining companies and everything in between. For example, mining companies move into a small shire holus-bolus and wreck the roads not once a year but every week. Unfortunately, local councils do not have a large rating base to allow them to do anything about it-they have a minimal rating base-and they cannot raise enough money through internal rates within a shire to repair the roads. It is all right if it occurs in a wealthy city because the ratepayers can be slugged quite a lot, and because of the land values-- Senator Haines —Those city roads are not being chewed up like country roads. Senator PANIZZA —And they can afford to put in the better roads-- Senator Haines —I am on your side. Senator PANIZZA —That is good. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! There are not too many interjections but I ask Senator Panizza to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator PANIZZA —I will adhere to your ruling, sir. Of course, the improvements, as Senator Haines just told us, to the highways and byways of main roads and bridges over the past six years have come about by way of the Australian bicentennial road development (ABRD) program which the Fraser government had the good sense to introduce some six years ago. Of course the Government has even interfered with that by indexing the ABRD levy. It has held on to any excess over the 2 cent levy and put it into Consolidated Revenue, once again raising money in the name of road funding. I refer to an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald headed `Roads funding slashed by 10 per cent'. So perhaps there is another 10 per cent that I did not know about, because I prepared my notes last night. The article states: Commonwealth funding for roads has suffered its largest cut for six years, leading to the likely postponement of major road improvement projects, including on the Hume Highway. Cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee has reduced by more than $50m the $1.249 billion allocated for roads in last year's Budget. The interesting part of the article shows that even the Federal Government is scared of the backlash that it will suffer on funding for country roads. The article also states: The Herald learned of the cuts on the same day that the Labor Caucus debated a motion from Mr Ted Lindsay, who represents the Queensland country seat of Herbert, seeking to avoid further cuts. His motion said: In order to arrest the rapid decline in the relationships between the Federal Government and local government and in order to maintain employment and to restore faith in marginal rural electorates so critical for the Government, the May economic statement should provide for the maintenance of road funding in real terms in 1988/89. The debate lapsed when the Government Whip, Mr Barry Cunningham, called for a quorum and there were insufficient members to continue the meeting. This led to what MPs described as an unprintable exchange between an angry Mr Lindsay and Mr Cunningham. That shows that those on the other side of politics are panicking about road funding. Senator Cook —We are absolutely desperate and in full flight in panic! Senator PANIZZA —Perhaps, but I had better continue before the Acting Deputy President hauls me into line again. The Interstate Road Transport Amendment Bill will soon be introduced to standardise interstate road transport throughout Australia. Among other things it will mainly raise and standardise the speed limit for trucks on the open road to 100 kilometres per hour, which I welcome. It will also standardise the loading limit throughout Australia at 42.5 tonnes up to a six-wheel prime mover with a single drive and triaxle trailer. As I have said, I applaud this move but what effect will it have on our roads and bridges? For example, I attended the opening of World Expo 88 in Brisbane and I wondered whether some of the bridges I saw there would be able to stand up to this increased speed and loading limit along with a reduction in road funding. Certainly road funding is hitting the headlines and there is quite a lobby around Australia. In fact, there is a large advertisement in today's Sydney Morning Herald headed `Where are the roads our petrol taxes pay for?'. The advertisement points out that $5.2 billion-money that was raised in the name of roads-will disappear into the black hole of Consolidated Revenue. I urge the Government, as I told Senator McMullan earlier, to get its priorities right. If it raises money in the name of roads, that is where it should go, although I am not stupid enough to suggest that all of that money should go into roads because I suppose, whether or not we like it, every facet in the workings of Australia has to put some money into Consolidated Revenue. However, the Government must get its priorities right and stop spending money in stupid and illogical places. I will not go on to mention surfboards and so on. Senator Haines —Why not? Senator PANIZZA —It has already been well debated in this place, so I will not worry about it. I refer quickly to provisional tax on the lower end of the taxation scale. From 1963 to 1972 the threshold on provisional tax was $416; in 1972 it was raised to $999, and it has remained there ever since. In 1972 the provisional tax threshold was 20 per cent of average weekly earnings on a per annum basis, while today it is only 4 per cent of average earnings. In 1972 the provisional tax threshold for the average pensioner was 91 per cent of base pension; it is now 16.4 per cent of base pension. In other words, in 1972 a pensioner could earn an extra 91 per cent above his pension before paying provisional tax; today he can earn only 16 per cent above the pension before he is netted by provisional tax. Of course today anyone trying to save need have only $6,000 in a building society or a traditional bank to be netted by provisional tax. I have a chart here showing those exact figures, with comparisons for the years from 1963-64 to 1987-88 between the provisional tax threshold and average weekly earnings, and between the provisional tax threshold and the annual age pension. I seek leave to have these tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Table 1 COMPARISON OF PROVISIONAL TAX THRESHOLD AND AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS 1963-1988 Year Provisional tax threshold Average weekly earnings Provisional tax threshold as a % of AWE $ $ p.a. % 1963-64 ... 416 2,501 16.5 1964-65 ... 416 2,688 15.5 1971-72 ... 416 4,529 9.2 1972-73 ... 1,000 4,935 20.1 1986-87 ... 1,000 23,145 4.3 1987-88 ... 1,000 25,000 (est.)...4.0 Table 2 COMPARISON OF PROVISIONAL TAX THRESHOLD AND ANNUAL BASE AGED PENSION 1963-1988 Year Provisional tax threshold Annual base age pension Provisional tax threshold as a % of pension $ $ $ 1963-64 ... 416 585 71.1 1964-65 ... 416 624 66.7 1971-72 ... 416 923 45.1 1972-73 ... 1,000 1,099 91.0 1986-87 ... 1,000 5,546 18.0 1987-88 ... 1,000 6,093 16.4 Senator PANIZZA —I thank the Senate. Looking at what this Government has done since 1983, I and a lot of other people have found that it is a government of self-congratulation. But there is no way in the world that this Government can claim any credit for the points about which I have spoken this evening. It may be able to congratulate itself on some very minimal points in the past four years, but certainly not on these issues I have raised here. Senator Cook —We have a lot to congratulate ourselves on. Senator PANIZZA —Just a minute. The honourable senator should wait until he hears the rest of my remarks. Even if the Government takes these points on board and does something, there will still be no need for self-congratulation. People will congratulate the Government when that is justified. That was evident in the last election results. Senator Cook —We got back in; it was obviously justified. Senator PANIZZA —Yes, but judging by the results the Government certainly lost favour and, irrespective of what it does now, we will be over on the Government benches the next time round. In conclusion, let me return to the subject of roads. The roads of which I spoke at length earlier are in areas that could be classified as `disadvantaged'. There are a lot of disadvantaged areas and people in Australia and I have a feeling for them. Those very same areas that are disadvantaged-and even Senator Cook cannot deny this-are those where 10.5 per cent of the population produces 84 per cent of Australia's exports. Certainly, I would like the Government to look at this issue on that basis. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(9.03) —The debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and cognate Bills gives me an opportunity to speak about some reading that I have done today. The first article to which I wish to refer is on page 5 of today's Australian Financial Review. The headline reads `Opposition plans probe into unions'. There is an accompanying drawing of Senator Chaney with a pleasant smile on his face, but unfortunately some of the contents of the article about him are not quite so pleasant from the unions' point of view. I wish to indicate the concern that some people on this side of the House feel about the proposition that unions should be seen in a realistic fashion and should be appreciated for their contributions to society. I want to touch on that matter in this speech. Senator Chaney is reported as making some rather ungenerous comments-or perhaps the reporting was ungenerous. The article says that he plans to move amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill which will be brought before this House shortly. The article reads: The planned amendments deal with compliance and sanctions, strike pay, union membership, and provisions in the legislation which would override State legislation such as Queensland's secondary boycott laws. The amendments would include the right of workers not to join a trade union and tough compliance provisions to enable the proposed Industrial Relations Commission to enforce its decision. I think it is fair to say that the thrust of those sorts of comments indicates that Senator Chaney looks upon unions with a somewhat jaundiced eye. Senator Cook —And a sad inability to learn from history. Senator COONEY —And a sad inability to learn from history, if I can adopt the words of Senator Cook. I note the presence of Senator Cook in the chamber. He is an example, Mr Acting Deputy President, and so are you, of the contribution that the union movement has made to this country not only in terms of the good that it has done to the economy-and I will come to that shortly-but also in terms of the contribution made to this House. Senator Cook is a former Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and now a very eminent Minister who adorns this place. He is a product of the union movement. My second piece of reading matter was the economic publication The Round-up for April 1988, published by the Treasury. Perhaps I am as economically illiterate as Senator Puplick. Our abilities lie in other areas, perhaps those areas more attached to the soul and the mind than the economy. However, with the help of Senator Maguire I have been able to understand some figures in The Round-up. When one looks at those figures in terms of what Senator Chaney has purportedly said about the unions, one gathers that the two issues do not lie very happily together. These figures are very interesting. On page 9 of this volume the Treasury deals with the decline in real average earnings over the years since 1981-82. I do not think it gives any joy to this Government to know that real wages have fallen, because it is the ambition of people on this side of the chamber to see that real wages rise ultimately with the prosperity of this country and that workers obtain the just rewards for the efforts they have made over the years. But the reality is that real average earnings have fallen since 1982-83 by a factor of 4.9 per cent. The next interesting figure is to be found on page 63 of this book which talks about international economic activity and the real gross national product (GNP). Let us look at the increase in Australia's GNP over the period from 1985-86 to 1986-87. In 1985-86 the gross national product of Australia rose by 4.3 per cent compared with 3.1 per cent for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries as a whole. In 1986-87 our GNP rose by 2.7 per cent compared with an average in the OECD of 2.4 per cent. In each of the last two years our GNP has risen by a greater factor than the average for the OECD. Page 68 of this volume shows the labour costs for each unit of production. It appears that those labour costs per unit of production have fallen considerably since the coalition was in power. Adding those three figures together, one has a fall in real earnings, an increase in gross national product, above the average of the OECD, and a fall in the unit labour costs. The last figure to which I wish to refer is that which deals with working days lost in the period from 1980-81 to 1986-87. The number of working days lost has fallen dramatically since this Government came to power. At the same time the real wages of workers have fallen. So there is a picture of a fall in real wages, an increase in gross national product which is above the OECD average, and a fall in the number of working days lost through industrial disputes. Those figures present a picture of the Australian worker shouldering a burden and doing so in a fashion which does him great credit. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you well know, the Australian work force is organised in a number of unions. The unions have taken part in this dramatic acceptance by the worker of falling standards, increased production and a lowering of days lost through industrial disputes. Yet the organisation of unions-each union forms the organisation-apparently is to be subjected, if the coalition parties ever come back to power, to oppression, to attack and, one might think, to a fairly protracted war. I cannot quite understand why Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, should take that attitude to unions, given the economic figures set out in The Round-up for April 1988, which show that the very organisations that he would attack are the organisations that have helped this country on the road to recovery. Australian workers have had to bear the burden of the dramatic fall in Australia's competitiveness in May 1984. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will know what that has meant. They have had problems with paying their mortgages and difficulties with sending their children to school and getting decent food on the table. They have had problems with being able to go out-for instance, to football matches-and with buying proper clothing. All those pressures have been placed on the ordinary family that we are dedicated to helping. Apparently, if the article that appeared in today's Australian Financial Review is accepted, those people will be oppressed further. A person who is often overlooked in the happy record, I suggest, of industrial relations during the life of this Government is the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Ralph Willis. He was an architect of the accord that was struck between the Australian Labor Party and the unions in 1982-83. The accord, in its several forms, has proved a harsh instrument in the sense that it has seen deprivation of living standards and of the social wage. But, as a counter to that, it has also seen an increase in employment-an increase in participation rates in the Australian work force. It is very significant to note that, under this Government, participation in this country's labour force has reached 62 per cent. There has been an increase in the number of women employed. I will return to that a little later. Mr Willis deserves praise for his efforts in this area. He has brought forward the Industrial Relations Bill. According to the article in today's newspaper, the Opposition will seek to amend that legislation in an attempt to make it even more harsh on the labour force. There is no doubt that the industrial relations system, through the courts, is particularly harsh on unions. They have no lawful right to strike. There is no industrial action which I can think of that cannot provoke action under either the criminal law or the civil law such as actions of intimidation and conspiracy or actions under sections 45d and 45e of the Trade Practices Act. The union movement has a very harsh series of sanctions hanging over it and that must not be forgotten. Apparently, an attempt will be made to increase even further the harshness of those sanctions. In any event, the Industrial Relations Bill brought forward by Mr Willis will be discussed in this place. It is the most far-reaching reform of the industrial relations law since the first Conciliation and Arbitration Bill was introduced into this Parliament in 1904. In addition, Mr Willis will be continuing with the operations of the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which will adopt the working title of Worksafe. The Commission comprises 17 members under a full time Chairman and Chief Executive and has representatives from the ACTU and the Confederation of Australian Industry. It has seven representatives from each of the six States and the Northern Territory and representatives of the Federal Ministers responsible for industrial relations, health and the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Willis has moved forward on that very important initiative. Safety in the workplace is crucial to not only the well-being of workers, which is the first principle that must be adopted, but also the economy of Australia and the good conduct of industrial relations and the productivity that will be expected from it. The workplace can be very dangerous. Although there have been vast improvements in the safety of the workplace, brought about by legislation and a greater consciousness over the years of the need for safety, there remains a great need for it to go forward even further on a national basis so that Australians, no matter where they go-there is no doubt that the Australian work force is a mobile one; it goes from State to State-can enjoy uniform safety standards and safety that is of the highest quality. That is another initiative that the Minister has undertaken. The other initiative undertaken is the plan to bring about affirmative action. That initiative has been put in place and is continuing to be a success. Former Senator Susan Ryan, who introduced the affirmative action legislation, deserves much praise in that respect. Some concern is to be had by the ordinary people of Australia about the tax policy which the Liberals announced this month. When I say `ordinary' I mean ordinary in the sense of their being people who depend on wages to live and who try to make their place in the world on the basis of an economy which depends on a wage packet each week. Senator Maguire has already touched upon this in a much more learned fashion than I am able to do. But I think it is worth mentioning some things here again. The Liberals' taxation policy provides that there will be a two-rate income tax system, that there will be no broad based consumption tax but a reform and rationalisation of the existing indirect tax system. As Senator Maguire has indicated, there is some real concern about what in fact that means. What does a rationalisation of the existing indirect tax system mean? I suppose one way in which we might be able to obtain an answer to that is to look at what happened when Mr Howard was Treasurer immediately prior to the time this Government came into office in March 1983. Senator Parer —Look at antique clocks. Senator COONEY —That is the point, we are referring to an antique clock. I think it is probably fortunate for Australia that what happened then can be regarded as an antique clock. I think we would be in a fairly disastrous state if that clock had continued to tick away and operate over the years since March 1983. I think Senator Parer will see what I mean if I illustrate my argument by using some figures that have been given to me by Senator Maguire. There were big rises in sales tax revenue in 1981 and 1982 under Senator Parer's beloved leader. I know that Senator Parer speaks most highly of him. But under Mr Howard all sales tax rates were lifted by 2 1/2 percentage points in both the 1981-82 and 1982-83 Budgets. So the old 2 1/2 per cent rate went up to 5 per cent in 1981 and then to 7 1/2 per cent. This happened in just two Budgets. The rates of sales tax in respect of cars elucidate the point that I am making. The rates on cars started at 15 per cent, went up to 17 1/2 per cent and finished at 20 per cent. Of course, as a Victorian senator I am quite concerned about what might happen in the car industry if sales tax rates are increased. In the 1980-81 Budget $2,102m was raised by sales tax and in the 1982-83 Budget $3,490m was raised. So there was a 66 per cent rise in revenue from this source in two Budgets. Senator Parer —What has happened since then? Senator COONEY —I am talking about what will happen if the antique clock that Senator Parer mentioned were somehow to operate in the modern era. I am talking about what is likely to happen. As I have said, Senator Maguire has already dealt with the reform and rationalisation of the existing indirect tax system which is contained in the summary of the Liberal tax policy dated May 1988. If we lift tax rates by 2 1/2 per cent one year and 2 1/2 per cent the next year, what will be taxed in this way? Senator Maguire said that there is only one area that can be taxed in this way and that is the necessities of life-food, clothing, rent and all of the other things that are absolutely essential for some sort of decent way of living in this economy. If the Opposition were elected to government Senator Chaney, as the Minister for Industrial Relations, would conduct a campaign against unions and those whom they seek to protect. As a result, living conditions would be lowered even further and the worker would take even less back. Senator Puplick —Do you think that is really what Senator Chaney wants to do here? Senator COONEY —Of course he would not want to do it. He is such a decent man that he would not want to act in that way. But the fact of the matter is that the sorts of statements he makes and the sorts of corners he seems to paint himself into mean just that. That is the problem. I think these sorts of things will be done in a sense by blundering into them rather than by doing them intentionally. But there is no other conclusion that we can draw if we have regard to the sorts of statements he makes in regard to the oppressive conduct he wants to perpetrate against workers and their organisations. Senator Puplick —Such as? Senator COONEY —I will tell the honourable senator what he wants to do. He wants to increase the tough compliance provisions. Senator Puplick may not have been in the chamber when I spoke before of the fact that there is no legal right-- Senator Puplick —They were the ones introduced by Mr Willis last year, were they? Senator COONEY —The honourable senator should listen to this because what I am saying is very useful. There is no legal right for unions to take industrial action now. In that fairly oppressive circumstance, Senator Chaney wants to increase the penalties even further. He wants to stop unionists from trying to get their members together to form some sort of united front against powerful employers so that they are not isolated. I am sure that Senator Puplick does not want them sent back to the days of Mr Bounderby, Gradgrind, Hard Times and Dickens when unions did not exist. All of the great reforms that have taken place have been brought about by the unions. Senator Puplick —But you are going to insist that they have 3,000 members, aren't you? Senator COONEY —I want to do that because that is a rationalisation of the system. Senator Puplick —I thought you were opposed to rationalisation a few minutes ago. Senator COONEY —I have never been opposed to rationalisation. I am opposed to the oppression of the ordinary person who, as I said before, has to pay his mortgage, send his children to school, buy his children shoes and clothes and somehow try to give his wife a reasonable style of living. I am opposed to oppression that arises in the name of rationalisation. I am opposed to the situation that would arise if Senator Puplick's Party were returned to power and its proclaimed policies that have been coming forth recently were implemented. I do not, of course, attack the personnel in the Opposition. What I do is attack their policies because, unfortunately, they seem to lead to the conclusion that the people of Australia will be squeezed in both directions-that indirect taxes will go up and the necessities of life such as bread, milk and meat will become dearer and, at the same time, less will be paid to them in wages. I notice that there are several honourable senators who are listed to speak in the debate. If they can explain during their speeches how I happen to be wrong, I will certainly accept that correction. However, if we look at the tax policies pursued by the coalition when it was last in office and its industrial relations policy now, I do not see how one can, on that evidence, draw any conclusion other than the one that I have. I conclude by saying this: Under this Government and the Minister for Industrial Relations there has been a great change in the attitudes adopted by various parties to the industrial life of this country. There has been a great change in the stance taken by employers, employees, their organisations and governments. A great change in the relations that over the years have been established has been produced under this Government. There is abroad in this community now a sense of cooperation, a sense of the various groups getting together to realise the great potential of this country. The Round-up for April 1988, which is published by the Treasury, shows quite clearly that this is the situation. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(9.30) —In the context of this debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1987-88 and cognate Bills, including the Supply Bills, which provide the Government with approval for expenditure supplementary to that approved in last year's Budget, it is appropriate to consider some aspects of the taxation and expenditure record of this Government together with some related matters. Reviewing the record of this Hawke Labor Government is made even more appropriate at this time, coming as it does shortly after the five-year mark of its time in office has been reached. Half a decade of hard labour has been suffered by the Australian people! The major cause of that suffering, which is reflected in these Bills, relates to the fact that this Hawke Labor Government is the biggest spending and biggest taxing government in Australia's history. Only in the last two Budgets has any restraint at all been exercised in regard to expenditure-to some extent matching the restraint demonstrated by the Fraser Government in its whole period in office. However, the Hawke Labor Government in its first three Budgets made even the Whitlam Government look parsimonious, with a massive 43 per cent increase in spending. This profligate spending spree undid all the good work of the Fraser Government which had restored some semblance of responsibility and commonsense to government spending after the Whitlam disaster. Let no-one be fooled by the Labor myth machine peddling the line that this Government is one of restraint and discipline in relation to spending. The fact is that this Government in its period in office has increased spending by 60 per cent, way in front of inflation of about 40 per cent over the same period. This is a rate of increase nearly three times that of the Fraser Government in its period in office. What do we have to show for it? The normal aspirations of Australian life are slipping away from more and more Australians. Since 1983 an extra 700,000 Australians have fallen below the poverty line so that now 2.6 million people, including some 800,000 children, are living in poverty. This represents one in every eight households. Senator Puplick —It is disgraceful. Senator CHAPMAN —As Senator Puplick said, it is disgraceful. Sixty thousand people live on the verge of homelessness. Forty thousand people sleep in refuges. Since Labor came to power the number of people on public housing waiting lists has gone up by 50 per cent to 154,000. More than 600,000 people, including 140,000 teenagers, remain virtually permanently unemployed with the average duration of unemployment having increased to 52 weeks-a whole year-across the board and to 75 weeks for the older unemployed. Real household disposable income continues to fall. Therefore far from improving the welfare of the community, the only real justification for government spending, the Government's profligacy has sent living standards reeling backwards-unless, of course, one is among the coterie of Labor's rich mates who can do special deals with the Government. Senator MacGibbon —Gareth's friend Sir Peter. Senator CHAPMAN —That is one of them, yes. With regard to taxation there is not even a latter day pretence at restraint. Federal Government tax revenue this financial year will approach $80 billion for the first time in Australia's history. It is up a massive 80 per cent from the $44 billion raised in the last Fraser Government Budget. This means that Federal taxation has increased at twice the rate of inflation under Labor and now gobbles up about 27 per cent of all the goods and services produced in Australia-our gross domestic product. It is no wonder Australian families are paying $43 a week more income tax now in real terms, that is, even after allowing for inflation, than when the Liberal and National parties left office. This Government stands condemned for such an appalling record of financial mismanagement. It is no wonder that in a debate of some 22 speakers on these Appropriation and Supply Bills we are hearing from only four Labor senators, plus the Minister who will be winding up. Who would want to defend such an appalling record? Let me take issue with one of those earlier speakers, Labor Senator Childs, who criticised Senator Bishop, Senator Alston and me for incorporating in the report of Senate Estimates Committee A our reservations about various items of Government administration. He described us as engaging in a nitpicking exercise. That attitude and comment epitomise the sloppiness of this Labor Government. It is this very lack of attention to detail which has allowed the multiplicity of extravagances and waste so accurately identified and documented by the Opposition Waste Watch Committee. Senator Childs would do well to remember the old dictum: Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. Senator Gareth Evans —Have you ever tried to make a non-haranguing speech? Senator CHAPMAN —Senator Evans does not like this speech because he knows that every word of it is true. That is the thing that is embarrassing him. In developing this myth of restraint the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has of late-especially at the Premiers Conference last week-been admonishing the States for their profligate spending and excessive borrowings, yet the Budget figures demonstrate that growth in Federal spending has far outstripped that of the States. The marginally smaller percentage increases in Federal spending than those of the States in the last couple of years are in fact a further percentage increase on an already vastly expanded sum compared with the States. Since the last Fraser Government Budget this Labor Government has spent an additional $21.9 billion on its own direct outlays compared with the States' extra $15.2 billion spent on their own direct outlays. That represents an increase of 74 per cent for the Commonwealth as against 65 per cent for the States. Thus the rate of increase in spending has been one-seventh greater for the Commonwealth Government. Whereas the level of Commonwealth Government spending exceeded the levels of the States by 27 per cent at the end of the Fraser era, it now exceeds them by 34 per cent, a more than one-quarter increase. While neither the Commonwealth nor the States have practised adequate restraint and, instead, have contributed to higher levels of indebtedness and eventual lower living standards, let there be no doubt in any one's mind as to who is the main culprit. Senator Collins —Why don't you restrain yourself and sit down? Senator CHAPMAN —I can see that Senator Collins also is finding these facts embarrassing to the Government. The people of this country can thank the Treasurer for putting us in a debt hole-- Senator Gareth Evans —A dettol! Senator CHAPMAN —from which we and even our yet to be born children may never emerge. Senator Collins —That is a very sterile thing to say. Senator CHAPMAN —It is all very well for the Federal Treasurer to impose heavier and heavier cuts on the States. I inform Senator Collins that perhaps it is this Government that needs to be sterilised and thrown out of office. The Treasurer has completely failed to set an adequate example in cutting Federal spending. This treatment of the States is both hypocritical and selective. What is this cosy deal about a swap of $25m special grant between South Australia and Western Australia one year to the next in order to help them out prior to their respective State elections? Also we see that because of the formula adjustments of the Commonwealth Grants Commission South Australia would have received a lower allocation this year. According to the rules, no State is to receive a nominal cut. This meant that South Australia got an extra $10m special grant and a very favourable hospital grant to top up its financial assistance grant. While this might please me as a South Australian representative one can understand the other States viewing it with a jaundiced eye. This whole round of Premiers Conference revenue paybacks and Loan Council grants are all wrong and most people know it. It is fine to have a system which provides a degree of equality between the States. Of course, that is one of the main purposes for my being here in the Senate. However, it has to be recognised that in terms of finding a better system greater weighting needs to be put on efficiency. We have seen Victoria and New South Wales heavily advantaged by protection for manufacturing industry through tariffs and other forms of protection. The Grants Commission takes no account of this in its recommendations. Conversely, we see the resource-rich States penalised because their resources are factored into the grants they do not receive in order to top up the others. This is not to say that citizens of the less resource-rich States should be penalised. However, on the ground of efficiency, resources should, from an economically rational point of view, be directed to the areas which will show the most return. The Grants Commission in its Report on General Revenue Relativities 1988 rejects the view that fiscal equalisation should play a positive role in enhancing efficiency. New South Wales and Victoria argued in their submissions to the Commission that the existing methodology of the Commission contributes to significant losses of efficiency in the Australian economy. New South Wales said that the Commission's concern with efficiency had been restricted to technical or productive efficiency in the context of business undertakings, to the exclusion of economic or allocative efficiency. Its submission indicated five main areas of concern: first, the Commission's use of broad judgment in applying the factor assessment method; secondly, the impact of dispersion and isolation allowances on the spatial distribution of resources; thirdly, the impact of the scale factors on the efficient delivery of public services; fourthly, the arbitrary range of expenditure covered by the Commission's approach, in particular the exclusion of public sector capital expenditure; and, finally, the Commission's partial approach to revenue capacity assessment. Victoria argued that, by equalising the fiscal capacities of governments rather than those of individuals, the Commission's methodology fails to achieve horizontal equity among individuals living in different States. Victoria also implied that, by contrast with the Grants Commission in its early years after 1933, the present Commission makes assessments which have the effect of compensating States for the poverty of their resources by discouraging population shifts from resource poor States to resource rich States, with detrimental consequences for Australia's economic prospects and growth. Like New South Wales, Victoria was mainly concerned with the consequences of expenditure equalisation, which it said drives a wedge between true economic costs and tax prices. Victoria especially objected to departures from equal per capita assessments in respect of scale, dispersion, isolation, urbanisation, and economic environment and physical environment factors, which the State referred to collectively as factors involving location specific expenditure equalisation. Location specific equalisation was contrasted with what Victoria called individual specific expenditure equalisation, achieved under the Commission's methodology through the application of units of use, social composition and age and sex composition factors. Both New South Wales and Victoria argued that it is inappropriate for the Commission to make any allowance for location specific factors, claiming that to do so distorts the economic allocation of resources. While they were prepared to concede a case for individual specific equalisation, they were concerned about the extent to which the Commission found it necessary to exercise broad judgment in assessing factors for this purpose. South Australia, my home State, submitted that it is inappropriate for the Commission to be concerned with making choices between the conflicting goals of fiscal equalisation and allocative efficiency, and concluded that it was unlikely that the effects of the former on the latter could ever be conclusively established. While it conceded that fiscal equalisation alters the distribution of resources in the public sector, it questioned the assumption that shifts in resources to high cost, low income areas from low cost, high income areas under conditions of fiscal equalisation necessarily result in a loss of efficiency. South Australia argued that the maximisation of production and allocative efficiency needs to be concerned with marginal product, whereas the redistributive effects of fiscal equalisation are concerned with average income and output levels. If high cost areas have significant developmental potential, it is inefficient not to promote their development by providing appropriate government services, according to the South Australian submission. South Australia in any case doubted whether differences in the level and cost of State government services operate as a major incentive for the relocation of resources. It referred to an empirical study which suggested that the allocative effects of fiscal equalisation relate more to the pattern of development than to the overall level of production. It suggested that the issue of allocative efficiency is less relevant to Australian conditions than to those of other federations. This is because of the peculiarities of the Australian approach to fiscal equalisation, which achieves a comprehensive measure of equalisation while respecting States' rights to offer diversity rather than uniformity in government service provision. However, South Australia submitted that if the underlying concern about efficiency was with the level of support given to country areas, this enhanced South Australia's case for the exclusion of business undertakings from the Commission's assessment. While it may be currently difficult to calculate which States get the worst deal, I believe that a degree of allocative efficiency needs to be included in Grants Commission figuring. Unfortunately, the Grants Commission has totally rejected this proposition. However, if we are to avoid the constant bickering between the States and the Federal Government which was in evidence again last week, I believe that some account of fiscal allocative efficiency needs to be addressed. I turn to another matter. This Labor Government has sought to balance the Federal ledger by walking down the privatisation path. It has identified a number of Government statutory authorities and commercial undertakings as possible privatisation targets, if its left wing can be persuaded to agree. But an examination of the Additional Estimates sought under Appropriation Bill (No. 3), which is one of the Bills we are debating tonight, reveals that the Government's initial sortie into privatisation should not give us any confidence about its capacity to lead Australia towards this worthwhile objective. The largest increase sought by any one department for Additional Estimates is $250.6m for Defence. This increase reflects a whole range of requirements, including exchange rate variations, salary increases, defence housing and, most importantly, costs associated with the sale of Williamstown dockyard and the takeover arrangements for the Government Aircraft Factories. I am extremely alarmed about the costs associated with this sale and transfer, as I am sure most Australians would be. The failure of this Government to realise a reasonable return on the sale of Williamstown dockyard cuts to the heart of the Government's privatisation attempts. If this is the best it can do, no wonder Labor ranks are deserting the privatisation path. The fact that the Government will not come clean with the real figures on this sale is a pretty clear indication of how badly it has been botched. A number of important questions require answers. How much are these assets worth? What were they sold or transferred for? What was the net return or loss on the sale and transfer? How much will the ships and planes now cost the Department of Defence? What have been the human costs, with thousands of people laid off? Will the reduced work force really result in improved productivity and efficiency and reduced costs to the taxpayer? Has the capacity of the dockyard and the Aircraft Factories been so much reduced that they will now not be capable of seeking extra commercial work in order to reduce their unit costs of production? I can guess the answers to these questions, but I do not know them for certain. I was not much enlightened through the Estimates committee questioning process. I doubt whether the Government has any idea of the benefit cost of Government assets sales. The Department of Defence certainly does not, and I doubt whether it really cares. It was asked to proceed with these sales for politically expedient reasons. The Government did not get too much opposition because most people thought it would be a good idea, especially since our defence factories seem to be costing us so much money. But the sale and transfer process was never open for discussion. The unions were left to negotiate the best package possible for their members. There was not too much opposition from employees because the packages were so good that the workers were climbing over themselves to get the money. The fact that many of them will have spent this within a couple of years, will not have found a job in the meantime and will perhaps eventually be looking for the unemployment benefit did not enter anyone's head at the time. Thus there will be imputed long term costs. How much will they amount to? As I said, there has not been much debate over this asset sale. There has been plenty of debate surrounding the proposed sale of Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and the Commonwealth Bank. In fact, the benefit cost of these sales appears to be far more clear cut than those surrounding defence assets. With the projected net cost to Government revenue entailed in retaining Qantas and Australian Airlines with a requirement to purchase more aircraft, the imperative to sell becomes all the greater. In these times of fiscal austerity, which we have been dragged into by this Government as a result of the high level of debt with which it has saddled us and future Australians, I fully support the proponents of Government assets sales. These sales, however, should take place where cases have been openly considered and where they will result in improved efficiency and productivity and, above all, a substantial return to revenue and thus a reduced requirement on taxpayers to fund past Government excesses. A sizeable net return is apparently not the case with the sale of Williamstown dockyard. Although $100m was obtained, we are told in this Bill that a further $24.8m is required, mostly for redundancy payments for 1,000 employees. This is in addition to the sum of money spent on redundancy and retrenchment over the past several years, when the dockyard once employed nearly 2,000 workers. I understand that the Australian Taxation Office made different valuations for the dockyard depending on its purpose. Land value only would be close to $200m, but because the Government required that it be retained as a dockyard $100m was the most that could be expected. Again, this could have been substantially increased if some guarantee could have been given regarding contracts for the construction of the new surface combatant ships. But given the past record of the dockyard, no more than an implicit guarantee could be given, based on a hoped for improved industrial climate with the change of ownership. The recent strikes at the dockyard do not augur well for the new owners. Many of these workers, replete with their redundancy payments and now re-employed by the new owners, are now going to extract every concession they can. If the Department of Defence does give the contract to Williamstown to build the next generation of surface combatant ships-and there is a very good chance that it will, despite excess shipbuilding capacity in Australia-what guarantee is there that once started the dockyard will not be just as unproductive and inefficient as it was in the past, with huge cost overruns to be borne by the taxpayer? A similar situation is evident with the conversion of the Government Aircraft Factories to a Government-owned company called Aerospace Technologies of Australia. The dubious benefit that this will bestow appears to be costing, in terms of this Bill, an additional $78m. This is in addition to previously allocated expenditure. We find that a large proportion of this expenditure is for restructuring expenses, accountancy, consultancy and the like. But what guarantee do we have that this new structure is going to be any better than the last one, especially since it is still Government owned? Every time this organisation runs into trouble it will come running to the Government for more money. Anyway, it is bound to try to operate at least on a break-even basis so it will simply increase the cost of production to the Department of Defence to cover shortfalls or inefficiency, and the Department will be powerless to do anything about it. So much for this Government's effort at privatisation and rationalisation of its assets. The Defence Department is currently reviewing all of its facilities Australia-wide with a view to rationalisation. Given this present record, I suggest that a full open discussion on this program be undertaken. The Government's examination of a graduate tax must be viewed with considerable alarm. It is not that the principle of user pays should be discredited, but who are the users and beneficiaries of this further education should be clearly defined. There is a case for students who will personally financially benefit substantially from certain courses of study, such as medicine and law, eventually paying for their education. However, it may not be appropriate for students of other courses such as science and engineering to pay for the high cost of their education. This is because in these latter professions, which are vital to the technological development of this country, there is not the remunerative benefit from studying these courses. A higher than average tax on graduates from these courses would serve as a positive disincentive to studying these vital disciplines. But, as usual, this Government shows little or no foresight and has little consideration for the future of this country. It is all very well catering to the unions and considering what is best for them-many trades people receive salaries far in excess of tertiary qualified people. What is the incentive for further education? The fact that further educated people provide innovation and improved productivity in this country is lost on the many beneficiaries in the community at large. As with privatisation, the costs and benefits of the graduate tax proposal must be carefully examined. We can only hope it is not the thin end of the wedge of this Government adopting the disastrous union blueprint for this country outlined in Australia Reconstructed. I have raised a number of matters tonight which indicate the way in which the Government is now poorly administering this country. There are matters of taxation and Government spending. As I said at the outset of my remarks, this Government is the highest taxing, highest spending government in Australia's history. Further matters relate to its botching of the privatisation issue. I have given the specific examples of Williamstown dockyard and the Government Aircraft Factories. Finally, of course, I have referred to the proposal by the Government to introduce a graduate tax. It is no wonder that in the opinion of the Australian community this Government is on the nose when these sorts of shortcomings in its administration are clearly evident. It is for that reason that the Opposition has foreshadowed an amendment to the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 3), which is one of the Bills being debated in this cognate debate. To the motion for the motion for the second reading, the Opposition will move as an amendment: At the end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate notes: (a) Australia's $86.77 billion net foreign debt at the end of December 1987 and its continuing balance of payments deficit on the current account which increased by $1,185 million during March 1988; (b) the Government's inappropriate response, which has been to increase taxation revenue collections to the highest levels in post-war Australia; and (c) the urgent need to reduce public sector outlays as the major element of a Government policy response to our current economic difficulties''. I support that amendment, foreshadowed by Senator Stone in leading this debate for the Opposition. It spells out clearly the failings of this Government to provide effective economic management for this country, and for that reason it must be passed by the Senate. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.57) —I commend the address of Senator Chapman, which the Senate has just heard. In terms of the appropriations and responsibilities of Government, I want to address tonight Australia's estimated $11.5 billion current account deficit for this year. Last year's deficit was $13.4 billion and the previous year's deficit was $14.6 billion. Our accumulated foreign debt is now in the vicinity of $111.5 billion. Last week a visiting American observed that Australia was a big country that thinks small, and in my opinion that well describes Australia's place in the highly competitive but critically important world of international trade and our deplorable performance of recent years. On the basis of generous natural endowments in agriculture and minerals, this country was given a running start. We squandered our advantages and became insular, short-sighted and negative. We have been taught a trading lesson by nations with no natural advantages other than a recognition of the importance of trade and a determination to succeed. Countries such as Japan and in more recent times Taiwan and Korea are running huge trade surpluses. If we boost our trade, everything will follow-the capacity of this country to meet reasonable defence needs, influence in foreign relations that arises from economic strength, and a capacity to meet national requirement in health, education and welfare. With our small population base we cannot provide for those things solely through the domestic economy. The requirement for governments to maintain standards for those for whom they are responsible in times of poor growth related to trading failure has led to huge borrowings and a downward spiral that will be difficult to get out of. Servicing Australia's foreign debt will now cost governments this year $8.7 billion or, to put it in relative terms, more than three times the entire budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. The theme of the comments I want to make tonight is what government can do to influence change. Although it tends to be the practice of government to pass the responsibility for our trading failure off onto individuals, I would argue that a great deal of responsibility falls upon government. It is government, through its wage policies, its taxation policies-particularly its indirect taxation policies-its protectionist policies such as, in our case, those involving coastal shipping, air transport, and tariffs on productive equipment, which affect the cost of our products and therefore our capacity to compete. It is government, through borrowing policies, that has the capacity to insulate the domestic economy for a while and protect the community from the pressures of international competition and thus, in turn, to influence people's attitudes. It is government that regulates imports, through quotas and tariffs. In our instance, it is government that determines what can be exported and how much, such as in the case of uranium. In fact, in some instances it is government that can determine who can market a product, such as applies with wheat, and so on. It is governments that have the resources to positively influence trade, through their trade policies. In Australia we have the policies and practices of Austrade, our aid policies, and schemes such as the development import finance facility scheme, as well as other supports that can be given. There is support through research and development, through grants, and the upgrading of plant and equipment through accelerated depreciation. What I am saying is that certainly the attitude of governments has led to our trade failure, and, therefore, individuals and governments have reinforced each other, with the view that there must be an easier way and, to put it in the terms of our American visitor, we have reinforced each other that we might in this country think small. Our share in world trade has fallen, from 1.7 per cent in 1970 down to 1.3 per cent in 1987. I remind the Senate that we are now behind such countries as Brazil and India, and just in front of Spain and Mexico. In 1976 we accounted for 1.3 per cent of the value of world exports. By 1986, we had slipped to twentieth place in the world, with only 1 per cent of exports. The first reason for our failure has been our over-reliance on commodities-approximately 60 per cent of our exports. We have provided the basic foodstock for the industrial development of Japan, Taiwan, Korea, and other countries, by which they have developed sophisticated, high value added export orientated manufacturing industries. But instead of Australia reinvesting profits and diversifying industry with research and development spending and export orientated service industries we have rather absorbed such profits in consumption and in maintaining a high standard of living. I suggest that it was inevitable that the terms of trade would turn against us, as more Third World competitors came on line, as substitute materials developed for the natural resources that we were offering, as more efficient uses were found for energy, and so on. Therefore, although there has been an improvement from our point of view in very recent times, particularly as a result of gold and wool, our terms of trade are in fact still some many points worse than they were five years ago. So, it is something of a myth to suggest that our terms of trade have recovered to former positions. That has not occurred, and I suggest that they are unlikely to do so and that in the long term they are unlikely to sustain trade recovery. It is noteworthy that of the 24 countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), four stand out for the severity of balance of payments swings: Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Iceland-all, of course, dependent on the export of primary produce. That does not mean that we cannot do better in the commodity area, and we should be doing better as our economy diversifies into other areas. The cost of tariffs, high indirect taxes, expensive and often inefficient transport and high interest rates in this country have in fact cost us dearly in trade terms. This has been documented by such bodies as the National Farmers Federation. The conservative estimate of the cost to the Australian economy of such barriers is in the vicinity of $4 billion. The Government has, to varying degrees, the capacity to influence all the matters that I have raised. While the highly publicised initiatives of the Government, such as the Cairns Group and its General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade initiatives might serve a useful role in opening up markets-and it has been said that if in fact we could totally open up the United States of America market we could gain the benefit of $1 billion-what I am saying is that if the Government simply puts its house in order at home the benefits in this sector alone could be increased by some $4 billion. Even given such improvement, I would argue that diversification will be necessary. We will not be able to maintain our standard of living without a competitive manufacturing sector, competitive in exports and in import replacement. Some 75 per cent of our imports are manufactured goods. They are often highly value added manufactured goods, with almost half from Japan and the United States. On the other hand, 60 per cent of our exports comprise basic commodities. Only 20 per cent of our exports are in manufactured form, and often in a form of simple processed foodstuffs and simple metal forms. It is worth noting how far we have fallen out of step with other OECD countries. The OECD average growth in manufacturing output over the past decade is 27 per cent; in the case of Japan, 50 per cent; the USA, 42 per cent; while in the case of Australia it is only 10 per cent. Further, we are not getting the capital investment to upgrade our manufacturing capacity that is necessary. We are not getting it because we are not offering the right environment to attract it. In the first six months of the year 1987-88, Japan's direct foreign investment in our region grew by 127 per cent, up to $US3.7 billion, going largely into manufacturing, with an emphasis on transportation and machinery. But that investment was not attracted to Australia; rather, it was attracted to the newly industrialised countries, which will provide the next level of competition for our manufacturers. Japanese money coming to Australia was mainly concentrated in areas of property and tourism-in other words, an investment in our lifestyle, often for Japanese visitors. It is of some value, I concede, but not in building a powerful industrial and post-industrial economy in our country. As I have said, we do not attract investment for that purpose because we do not offer the right environment. Our company tax is too high. One has only to consider our competitors in the region: for example, Hong Kong, with a company tax of 17.5 per cent, and Singapore, with a maximum company tax of 40 per cent, in comparison with our flat corporate tax rate of 49 per cent. Further, transport costs in Australia are too great, as all senators in this chamber would know. Regrettably, our work force is unreliable, and although there have been improvements in some areas I remind the Senate that in 1987 there were 250 industrial disputes on the waterfront, involving stoppages affecting 360 ships. When one travels to Japan and seeks investment, they complain of our industrial record on the waterfront and those figures in fact prove their case to be true. Lastly, of course, they encounter within this country inefficient work practices. Sydney port handles 17,000 tonnes of cargo per employee as compared with the United States figure of 80,000 tonnes and the Canadian figure of 120,000 tonnes. In considering the comparative numbers of containers handled, one notes that, for every 100 containers handled in a given time in Australia, New Zealand handles 138, the United Kingdom 141, northern Europe 214, North America 250 and Japan 312. Therefore we do not offer the environment that will attract that investment in our manufacturing sector. The point that I particularly wish to stress again is that it is within the capacity of Government to influence nearly all of those matters. If we are to maintain high wage levels in this country, which of course we wish to do, then we must offer high productivity growth, greater productivity, more ingenuity, better quality and competitive price. There is no doubt that in the manufacturing sector the rewards are there for the taking. If one looks simply, for example, at the market available in the area of processed foodstuffs in Japan, it is enormous. To take another simple example, if one looks at the price of one tonne of aluminium ingot it will be found to be 20 times higher than that of four tonnes of bauxite from which it originated. That is a simple demonstration of the value of manufacturing to this country which for too long has been overlooked. The third important sector to be considered is that of services-our capacity to sell transportation, communications, finance, health care, education, tourism, consultancy and entertainment activities, currently amounting to about 17 per cent of our exports. The services industry within Australia is growing, but in exports it has remained largely stationary. We come in at about twentieth in the world scene with only one per cent of the world service industry exports. There is great scope within this area, and it is helpful that the terms of trade for services have held up so much better than those for goods. Let us consider one example of the room we have in which to improve. I take Singapore, with only 2,500,000 people, as a comparison. Singapore decided in the early 1970s to step up its services activity and it now ranks twelfth in the world, compared with our twentieth, even though it has a much smaller population-because it chose a field and was determined to succeed. That example shows what can be done. Again, so much is in the hands of government. In the area of communications, if we consider organisations such as Telecom Australia, Aussat Pty Ltd and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission we realise that so much is controlled by government, and these are simply not export oriented bodies. Education is making positive strides forward. Last year 12,000 overseas students studied in Australia. This year we will get $80m to $100m from full fee paying students, and that is commendable. However, again government enterprises have been slow to adapt to this opportunity. The private sector is showing more initiative, particularly if one considers the record in Western Australia and what is clearly to come in Queensland. The market is enormous. Just consider the 80,000 Japanese who travel abroad each year to engage in English studies, usually short courses of four to six weeks. Most go to the United States; only 3 per cent come to Australia. What an opportunity abounds in that simple example for further improvement in providing services to our overall advantage. If we consider the area of consultancy, our record of taking up consultancies from the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and other such international bodies has not been good. Again, I regret to say that the Government has not been giving much of a lead. The decision of this Government to withdraw from the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation-which provides industrial assistance to developing countries-for a saving of $2m is short-sighted. The consultancies we will lose from that short-sighted decision will far exceed the benefits that accrue from it. Similarly, the intended withdrawal of the Government from another United Nations body-the International Fund for Agricultural Development-will lose us major agricultural consultancies throughout the world. That is totally a short-sighted attitude. Last September, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), pursuant to outdated policies in relation to trade with Taiwan, is reported to have personally blocked a $2.5 billion contract won by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation-which I remind honourable senators is a government authority running at a loss-to build a dam and hydro-electricity plant in Taiwan. So the Government is simply not giving the lead. I will consider briefly the other example in the services field-tourism. I readily concede that tourism in Australia has vastly improved, but it is not helped by the outdated entry facilities in Sydney-and that is in the Government's hands-entry and departure taxes that the Government imposes, industrial disruption that tourists find in this country, and the high internal costs of air fares. All those matters are related to Government policies or are within the Government's capacity to rectify at least partly. I bring home much of our trade failure to the hands of the Government. However, I would not want it thought that I am not prepared to give credit where credit is due. The Opposition has said that deregulation of the financial sector and the floating of the Australian dollar-both initiatives of this Government-were courageous steps in forcing Australia into the wider competitive world. What has happened might be difficult in the short term but it will be in our best interests in the longer term. In so many instances, the Government remains blinkered and is frustrating and hindering the readjustment so urgently required by this country. Fancy not allowing direct flights from South Korea, our fifth largest trade partner, and Taiwan, our seventh largest trade partner-but they are policies of the Government. Moreover, fancy having one quasi-governmental trade representative in Taiwan when the United States of America and our other competitor countries have powerful trade offices. Someone should tell this Government that things have changed. In fact, last year the People's Republic of China and Taiwan had trade of about $US1.5 billion. Things have changed a great deal. Other countries are seizing the opportunity in this area. Taiwan's trade with Canada last year rose by 30 per cent and its trade with West Germany by 32 per cent, while Australia labours under outdated Government policy and is not taking advantage of these opportunities. How could this Australian Government downgrade the Australia-Japan Foundation, moving it from Sydney to an office within the department in Canberra where it becomes lost, and reducing its staff and the status of its head, all at a saving of just $67,000, yet our trade with Japan is $17 billion a year? What is necessary more than anything else for our trade with Japan to improve is a better understanding of Japan, particularly through cultural and other means of producing such an understanding. The Australia-Japan Foundation was giving us that opportunity. The initiative of this Government in response to that was simply to downgrade it, and that is, at the very least, short-sighted. Where are the benefits of the amalgamation of the Department of Trade and the Department of Foreign Affairs which were promised by this Government and which by now should be obvious? All I can find is a highly publicised row over the future of the previous Special Trade Representative for North Asia, Mr Barratt, who now seems to be in limbo because he was apparently too aggressive in his work. Heads of branches that existed in the old Department of Trade in such areas as agriculture, services, and other commodities, instead of being brought into the new Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to give it a sharper cutting edge have been dispersed within other departments, such as the Department of Primary Industries and Energy, the Department of Resources, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, and so forth. In those circumstances, what was there to be gained from amalgamating these departments, presumably to improve trade policy, if these men and women at the fine cutting edge were in fact not brought in within the amalgamated department? This has separated trade policy from trade marketing or, in other words, Austrade, and created a bridge that simply should not exist. Why can the Government not recognise that we will trade better with Asia, the region of greatest growth in the world, when we better understand Asian people and are better able to speak their language? Despite all the rhetoric of this Government, at present less than 2 per cent of Australian students of all levels study Asian languages-again, something which is within the capacity of the Government to influence. I stress that. Why does the Government inhibit exports by charging and seeking to charge new imposts such as those under the Export Inspection Charges Collection Bill which passed into law in April this year, or impose a levy on exports such as uranium through the work of the Office of the Supervising Scientist whose services are so costly because he and his staff are based in Sydney and carry out inspection work in the Northern Territory? Why have policy decisions on defence exports been tied up in Cabinet since February this year? The defence industry throughout the world is worth $1,000 billion yet this Government is not prepared to face up to the opportunities it presents to Australia. One could go on, but it is a frustrating story. It must be conceded that Australian businessmen seem to need a lot of educating and encouragement, so it is not solely up to the Government. One can recall the much publicised example, I think it was late last year, when the Austrade office in Japan sent out letters to 65 Australian companies seeking expressions of interest in contracts worth $1 billion. I regret to say that only a handful replied to the letters of indication sent out by Austrade. A more recent example can be found in the office of the United Nations in Sydney, which is one of the four major procurement offices of the UN in the world. Last year it sent out letters to Australian companies inviting tenders for $50m worth of contracts. The office hardly received a reply and in the end only $3.2m of that $50m opportunity was taken up by Australian businesses. There is no doubt that we need to further educate our businessmen and businesswomen about these opportunities. I return to the principle that so much of this falls to the Government because it is the Government that sets the economic parameters. It is the Government, if it has the resolve, which can guide Australia to be not only an efficient producer of primary products but also a nation with a thriving industrial base and a skilled and outward looking services sector. That will determine the economic future of this country, but I regret to say that, with very few exceptions, this Government has failed to show the necessary leadership in this particularly critical area. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.24) —In the short time remaining to me tonight I wish to speak to the Appropriation Bills and I will begin by referring to the opening of the new Brisbane Airport. I mention this because, at around $600m in today's terms, it is now a very big investment for this country. Because of the hatred of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) for this project the nation is not getting the benefit from the investment that it has made and paid for. I will talk about four aspects very briefly: the history of the airport; why a new airport was required in Brisbane; the problems at the present time; and what needs to be done in relation to them. Brisbane Airport began at Eagle Farm as a boggy dairy farm in 1922 when Captain Jack Tracey first used it. In 1926 the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services set up the Brisbane flying school there. On 6 June 1928 it was the terminating point for Kingsford Smith in the Southern Cross on his first Pacific crossing from Oakland in California. In January 1930 it was also the site of the first Sydney to Brisbane air service for the original Australian National Airways, which was the company founded by Kingsford Smith and Charles Ulm. It eventually went broke and was succeeded by the Holyman company some years later. The airport was closed in 1931 because of its boggy nature and it was transferred to Archerfield. In 1942 the Americans created a military airfield there which became the Eagle Farm field that was used as a civil airfield up until March this year. It was quite apparent to everyone in the 1960s that the old airport was inadequate and after due consideration the then Liberal Government decided in the early 1970s to build a new airfield. A prime mover behind this was the late Hon. Kevin Cairns. He fought endlessly for the development of the new airport. He was supported by Donald Cameron, David Jull and by Liberal senators of the time. I took a major part in the proposal both within the State Liberal Party organisation and from the time I entered Parliament. In 1972 the Liberal Government made a commitment to spend $1m in 1973-74, $13m in 1974-75 and $18m in 1975-76 to develop the new airport. I will return to the outcome of that proposal later. A new airport was necessary in Brisbane simply because the existing airport had been overtaken by the growth in traffic. The main runway was 04/22, and the 22 degrees heading pointed straight for the central business district-right at the heart of the downtown area. That had inherent safety problems and imposed height limitations on the development of the central business district. Most importantly, there were great social problems associated with the old Brisbane Airport. It was surrounded by high density old residential areas and the social problems associated with operating a modern airport with heavy jet traffic created considerable suburban problems which led to the introduction of a curfew. That imposed another burden on the air fare structures for Australian travellers. It was quite impossible to expand the old airport because the runways were too short. As a consequence, the design parameters for the new airport envisaged something that would be curfew free and would be far more acceptable socially because the number of houses affected by noise would be reduced by quite a large magnitude. The airfield to be provided was to be operationally adequate and would have a runway length able to allow a Boeing 747 aircraft to operate at maximum all up weight. I will deal briefly with the question of the cost of curfews because it is a cost that is borne by everyone in Australia. The fact that we have airport curfews in Sydney and Adelaide, and formerly in Brisbane, means that the great trunk routes of Australia cannot be operated on a 24-hour basis. That means that airlines cannot use highly expensive equipment on a 24-hour basis. Airlines cannot amortise that equipment by using it 24 hours a day in the finite life the aircraft have before they are superseded by more efficient equipment. The fact that most Australian airports cannot be used between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. means that for 7 hours out of 24 hours-nearly a third of a day-that equipment cannot be used. Off-peak air fares cannot apply between Sydney and Adelaide because those airports are closed during the curfew-and that was formerly the case out of Brisbane-and aircraft cannot operate freight runs late at night. For a small country like Australia it is economically efficient to use aircraft through the daylight hours to carry passengers when there is that demand and then at night remove the seats and use them to transport freight. That makes it unnecessary for airlines to acquire separate freight aircraft, as Ansett Airlines of Australia has been forced to do. Its new freight aircraft will commence operations next year. Another important economic constraint is that aircraft cannot be positioned. An aircraft may land at an airfield with an 11 p.m. curfew. The airline may wish to start it 600 miles away at 6 a.m. the next day but cannot position the aircraft through the night. The on-costs associated with this for Australian air fares are highly significant, and Australian air fares, despite what the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) said earlier today, are expensive compared with many other countries. The noise problem associated with the old Brisbane airport was very significant and it applied to both sides of the river because of the high density housing. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Export control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order 1988-No. 6-Export Control (Fresh Fruits and Vegetables) (Amendment). Extradition (Foreign States) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 52. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1988 No. 54. Fisheries Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules-1988 No. 53. Health Insurance Act-Statements (2) of particulars of Ministerial Determinations pursuant to sub-section 106aa dated 28 April 1988. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under subsection 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. National Health Act-Principles formulated under subsection 40aa (7), dated 30 March 1988. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1988 No. 3-Remuneration and Allowances for holders of public offices, dated 15 April 1988. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- ACT Institute of Technical and Further Education, dated 13 April 1988 Canberra Institute of the Arts (2), dated 13 April 1988. Motor Omnibus Services, dated 5 May 1988. Ordinances 1988- No. 19-Meat (Amendment). No. 20-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 6). No. 21-Financial Institutions Duty (Amendment). Regulations 1988- No. 4-Meat (Amendment). No. 5-Magistrates Court (Civil Jurisdiction) (Solicitors' Cost) (Amendment). Veterans' Entitlements Act- Instrument under sub-section 90 (4) varying the treatment principles, dated 24 March 1988. Instrument under sub-section 91 (2) varying the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, dated 24 March 1988. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATIONS-COMMENCEMENT OF ACTS: Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General were tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following sections and parts of Acts to come into operation on the dates specified: Australian Airlines (Conversion to Public Company) Act 1988-Sections 15 and 16, subsection 52 (2), sections 55, 57 and 60 and subsection 69 (2)-30 April 1988 (Gazette No. S 117, 27 April 1988). Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Act 1987-Part V-1 May 1988 (Gazette No. S 118, 28 April 1988). The following answer to a question was circulated: (Question No. 193) Senator Messner asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 16 February 1988: (1) In regard to the voucher system available to pensioners in obtaining a discount on their Telecom accounts, what advantage or benefits does this system provide to Telecom. (2) What is the extent of the cost savings, if any, involved with this scheme. (3) Does the cost to the Department of Social Security of mailing out these vouchers outweigh the savings to Telecom by not having to print the pensioner discount on Telecom accounts. (4) Is this voucher system under review at the present time, or is a review planned in the future. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from Telecom Australia, is as follows: (1) The Pensioner Telephone Concession Voucher Scheme provides benefits to Telecom through greater efficiency in administration. Benefits to Telecom include: Telecom's reimbursement claims on DSS are simplified. A reduced number of billing enquiries are received by Telecom from pensioners in relation to the telephone concession. Telecom no longer is required to process concession applications and cancellations. Concession recipients do not need to be recorded as such within Telecom's billing system. (2) Telecom is currently able to achieve savings of about $860,000 per annum in its unrecovered administrative costs of operating this scheme on behalf of the Department of Social Security, as compared with the costs of operating the previous concession scheme. (3) and (4) No.