Friday, 20 May 1988 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hamer) took the chair at 9 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: 1. They are concerned that in the Tuggeranong Valley area of the A.C.T., non-government schools have Year 11 and 12 places. 2. They want the new Catholic secondary school to be built at Isabella Plains to go to Year 12. The petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensure that adequate resources are provided by the Government to allow year 11 and 12 places to be provided at the Catholic Secondary School at Isabella Plains in accordance with the Government's commitment to a dual system of education and greater school retention to Year 12. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 163 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 Senators McMullan (from 100 citizens) and Reid (from 100 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 Senator Patterson (from 39 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 gives more power to the government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the states and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Durack (from 302 citizens). 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Initiative (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will Refer the above mentioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 150 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 Senators MacGibbon (from eight citizens), Patterson (from 159 citizens) and Vanstone (from 30 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government To hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that: The Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future- Including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and- To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including- To prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vanstone (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (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 102 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in spite of many petitions and other communications, we are dismayed and disgusted at the lack of will on the part of the Parliament to restore to retired Commonwealth Public Servants and Defence Force Personnel, pension benchmarks which were affected by a two percent discount as part of the budget brought down in 1986. Having regard to assurances given by the Government that the base will be restored, your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, act to ensure that this is done without further delays so as to remove the permanent and compounding effects of this discriminatory action taken under the guise of the entire community sharing the economic burden. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Foreman (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are concerned that the Judeo-Christian moral values which have been fundamental in our laws and education systems since the foundation of the country are now being undermined in the current practice of law making, and we are concerned that the values of the secular-humanistic philosophy have taken their place therefore jeopardizing the moral climate of our society and contributing towards immorality and violence in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate for the restoration of Judeo-Christian laws and moral values. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 94 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, Express concern over the further delay until 28 April 1988 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. Call upon the Senate to request the Government as an urgent interim measure to immediately adopt the recommendations and respond positively to the observations of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material by: ensuring that all videos currently on the market which contain a level of violence beyond the current Film Censorship Board guidelines be withdrawn from sale or hire; placing a moratorium on the sale and hire of X-rated videos; promulgating Regulations to prevent the transmission by post from Canberra of videos which are banned in the States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 147 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the proposed changes to taxation on superannuation will have a dramatic impact on the lives of the majority of working Australians. 2. That Australian citizens have traditionally been proud to be independent and self-reliant of government and the proposed changes will effectively remove incentive for citizens to provide for their own retirement. 3. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any changes to the current tax arrangements for superannuation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Newman (from 335 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: Grave concern with the insufficient level of Government grants provided for carrying out improvements to the Canberra/Batemans Bay (MR51) Road. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Senate will call upon the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to allow for and provide special substantial direct funding to carry out the necessary improvements to the road and, further, call upon the New South Wales State Government to accept greater financial responsibility for the upgrading and maintenance of the said road. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McMullan (from 611 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled The humble petition of certain Port Augusta citizens (citizens of Australia) (Electors of the State of Grey) Respectfully showeth (here circumstances of case stated) that the unemployed in trying to better themselves by full-time study, lose $17 per week, which is the gap between unemployment benefits and Austudy. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that (here terms of action petitioned stated) Supporting parents DO NOT lose any money under the same circumstances. Why should unemployed be discriminated against? Humbly pray that there be NO loss of money between unemployment benefits and Austudy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 76 citizens). Petitions received. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice) —Mr Deputy President, I give notice that, contingent on the reading of the order of the day for resumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) moving a motion to provide that there be one debate only on the motions for each of the readings of the following Bills: (a) Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) Bill 1988; (b) Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill 1988; (c) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Bill 1988; (d) Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988; and (e) Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1987. Motion (by Senator McKiernan for Senator Aulich) proposed: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training: Priorities for reform in higher education. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 19 May. GROUP D Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $6,080,000 Department of Primary Industries and Energy Proposed expenditure, $3,420,000 Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure, $5,015,000 Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $40,906,000 Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.06) —I wish to refer to something I said last night which on reflection, having regard to the answer of the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Senator Bolkus), may have been taken the wrong way. Last night I referred to the report to the Senate of Estimates Committee D which indicated: During the Committee's examination of the Department's additional estimates, members of the Committee asked questions concerning sub-program 1.4. `International Health'. The Department was requesting an additional $58,000 for the implementation of the Australian-USSR Agreement on cooperation in the health and medical sciences fields. The Committee was concerned that the Department could not provide adequate information concerning the Agreement, the implementation of which was the cause for the additional funds being sought. In particular, the Department was unable to explain what was intended by the term `medical biotechnology' referred to in the Agreement. After I had indicated that I went on to say, as was indicated in the report of the Estimates Committee, how important it was to have the relevant officers present so that members of the Committee and other honourable senators could not only ask questions but also follow up the answers given. I went on to refer to an inaccurate and misleading response given by the Department, presumably, to the Minister as a result of a question that I had asked in the Senate. That may have been taken by the Minister to refer to the Australian-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agreement. Rather I was referring to the questions that I have raised in the Parliament about the $450,000 of taxpayers' funds-indeed funds earmarked for medical research-and paid to a non-medical research project which related to a study of ethics surrounding human foetal tissue transplants, human embryo experimentation, and the like. That money has gone to the Monash Bioethics Centre, the director of which holds the view that not only do human embryos and human foetuses have no inherent right to life but also that even the newborn human infant has no inherent right to life. I want to ensure that next time this matter is raised at the Estimates Committee, the particular officers are there. If the Department is going to hide behind the National Health and Medical Research Council and it is going to pass it on to the Medical Research Ethics Committee, let there be an officer from both the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Ethics Committee present as well as the appropriate officer in the department. We will see who is fooling whom. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(10.15) —I want to comment on local government funding. I intended to do so yesterday during the discussion of Government Papers. The report from the Local Government Grants Commission in New South Wales has come out and shows this Government's lack of funding to local government. It is the third or fourth report from the Local Government Grants Commission. The Government has been telling local government that it is better off but, in fact, it is evidence of the big con job that is being perpetrated on local government. The report shows that funding in New South Wales dropped by something like $5m over the last year and that follows a 10 per cent cut in funding to Tasmania over two years and a 6.3 per cent cut in local government funding to Western Australia. I believe the only State that increased its funding was Victoria-by $8m. The Local Government Grants Commission in Victoria distributed the funds in such a way that it looked like half of the local government councils of north-west Victoria were going to the wall or would have to increase their rates by 50-odd per cent. They had to go back to the larger councils in Victoria and ask them for help to send some of the extra funds that they had received back to the country. There has been a lot of talk about local government over the last couple of days, particularly by the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) yesterday. She implied that some members on this side of the House are sitting a bit uncomfortably about local government and the question of what will be debated next week on constitutional recognition. I think that people in the community who are involved in local government should realise what has been happening with funding. If we look at some of the figures we find that under the Fraser Government back in 1981-82 and 1982-83-and that followed increases in the personal income tax sharing-local governments were getting a regular amount of 2 per cent. Since the Hawke Government has come to power there has been an erosion of those funds: in 1985-86 to 1.9 per cent; 1986-87 to 1.85 per cent; 1987-88 to 1.75 and this year to 1.66 per cent. I think that local government would be more interested in that than in this token matter that is coming up next week about recognising local government. When the Minister was asked yesterday what it meant, she said, `It recognises local government'. That is all she could say. I think that people on this side of the House are more interested in recognising local government in the terms that applied under the Fraser Government when local governments were guaranteed a 2 per cent funding arrangement. I listened with interest when Senator Bjelke-Petersen and Senator Panizza spoke a day or so ago about road funding. That is really affecting local government. We have seen a 25 per cent, or $300m, drop in real terms in the last three-odd years. Road funding has been frozen at something like $1,245m since 1983-84. That has not changed. Victoria and the other States are ripping up sealed road and going back to gravel roads because of the funding cuts. I think that this Government has a lot to answer for on local government funding. I referred earlier to the situation mentioned in the Local Government Grants Commission report. Honourable senators may remember a Prime Minister called Whitlam back in the days when general purpose grants commenced in 1974-75, when $56.3m was provided nationally under the scheme. Of the 196 local authorities in New South Wales, 22 local authorities did not receive any funding. They had to wait until Fraser became Prime Minister. In the tradition of support for local government that this side of the House has always given, the Fraser Government brought in the personal income tax sharing that I referred to earlier and made it possible for local government to get a fair deal. It was the first time that a government had provided every council with a grant. That is something that should be borne in mind. The other thing the Fraser Government did was to link funds available for local government to the Commonwealth tax collections. Only since this present Government came to power have we had the erosion of funding to local government. I do not think local government will be hoodwinked by these cosmetic funding arrangements. The most important thing to remember is that under the Liberal Government local government received a fair share. I quote from the report of the Grants Commission in Tasmania: . . . the Commission firmly considers that the previous basis of allocation has resulted in an equitable distribution of the funds, a distribution which has found the general acceptance of the great majority of local government authorities in Tasmania. However, the new principles of allocation prescribed in the Commonwealth Act, together with the desire for uniformity between States have led the Commission to the inescapable conclusion that significant changes would have to be made, notwithstanding the substantial effect on some existing grants. In this respect, the best that the Commission can do to cushion the fairly considerable loss of funds by some municipalities is to ensure that the new methodology is phased-in over as long a period as possible. This has happened all over Australia. I am sick and tired of listening to representatives of local government saying how well this Government is looking after them. In fact, they are all receiving less money. They all believe that they are being looked after. The greatest hoodwink job that has ever been perpetrated on local government concerns quarterly payments. That has cost every State at least a 5 to 10 per cent drop in revenue. I conclude my remarks by saying that local government is not getting a very fair deal at all at the moment. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.17) —Last night when the Committee adjourned I was asking the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Senator Bolkus, a few questions on the resident classification pro forma for nursing homes. I asked who the person was who invented this score sheet and what qualifications he had. I was told that it was a statistician with research qualifications and that it was done in consultation with 1,200 nursing homes. I asked the Minister whether he could give me the name of at least one nursing home that was completely in favour of the score sheet. I wonder whether the Minister can now give me that name. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.19) —I am told that we are unable to give individual names because of some restriction under the Health Act. I am not sure of the nature of that restriction but hopefully I will get some further advice. Some of the comments that-- Senator Walters —I do not want some of the comments; I want the names. Senator GARETH EVANS —I cannot help Senator Walters with the names, and if she does not want the comments I will sit down. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.19) —Last night I was told that 1,200 nursing homes were consulted on this score sheet and that they were happy with it. I do not want some of the comments. I want to be able to approach one nursing home that was absolutely in favour of the score sheet and its method. I have not found one nursing home that is in favour of it. The Ministers says, `It's all too complicated. We have restrictions. We can't tell you, Senator Walters, of one nursing home that is in favour of this score sheet. We did consult and they made very good comments. I can give you a whole lot of comments'. I do not want unsubstantiated comments. I want the name of one nursing home that is completely in favour of this ridiculous score sheet, which was put together by a statistician and researcher. As a nursing sister, let me give the Minister some advice. I know from experience that if it takes two people to transfer a patient from a bed to a chair beside the bed, that is not very difficult or time-consuming nursing. But for that procedure the nursing home gets a score of 4.37. That score is given just for a patient being transferred from a bed to a chair beside the bed by two people. For a patient who is incontinent, with the incontinence occurring more than once daily, the score given is 1. Does the Minister realise what such nursing entails? It entails the nurse changing the full bed, with assistance-often two nurses are involved-several times a day, washing the patient in the process and taking considerable time to make that patient comfortable. And the score for that procedure is 1. That is not all that occurs with such a patient. A patient in that condition would also need the prevention and care of pressure areas to avoid bed sores. Let us consider a patient who needs that care as well. If a patient requires attention for pressure areas one to three times a day, the score is 2.63. So for a patient who is incontinent and needs pressure areas done, the total score is 3.63. That involves considerable nursing care, over a considerable time, by more than one nurse or more than one trained sister. So the score is barmy. This is no justification for giving a score of 4.37 just for two people transferring a patient from a bed into a chair beside the bed and only 3.63 for nurses tending a patient who is incontinent and liable to get bed sores. Can the Minister please explain the reasoning behind that score? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.23) —All I can do is retail the account I have about the resident classification instrument (RCI) system which was developed through three trials, the last covering 1,200 nursing homes and 17,000 residents. A large number of directors of nursing have supported the new RCI, which is a vast improvement on the old system. The weightings to questions are derived solely from their assessment as to residents' relative service needs. Some people are still somewhat confused about the purpose of the RCI. It is not designed to be a care plan or time management tool; rather, it is the means by which national funding for nursing and personal care can be provided fairly and according to residents' needs. It has been developed to predict whether a nursing home resident has, on average, higher or lower service needs than other residents. Therefore, a score of 1 on incontinence and a score of 4.37 on transfers does not mean the treatment of incontinence requires a quarter of the time as does assistance with transfers. Rather it means, according to individual directors of nursing, that incontinence is a far poorer predictor of a resident's overall service needs than are, for example, transfers. The weighting simply reflects the capacity of each variable to predict service needs. The major trial of the resident classification instrument showed that it has a 94 per cent accuracy level in predicting service needs in a nursing home as assessed by individual nursing home directors of nursing. The current ad hoc system has been shown to have only a 9 per cent accuracy level-hence the current inequities. I am afraid that I cannot contribute anything more to the debate than that. I hope Senator Walters will appreciate that there are certain limits to the extent to which one can have an extensive discussion of this sort of issue in the committee stage of an Estimates Bill. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.26) —The answer the Minister gave obviously came from a statistician who has had absolutely no experience in the situation she is trying to research or gain statistics about. It is an absolutely hopeless answer. From a practical point of view, the answer is nonsense. I do not know why the Minister will not tell me the name of one nursing home that is happy with the scorecard. He will not give me one. He just says, `We cannot do that. It is all very confidential'. But he cannot do it because there are not any such nursing homes. I have approached a number of nursing homes, not one of which is happy with the scorecard. All of them say to me that the whole thing is rubbish. They say to me, `Have a look from a practical nursing point of view'. They say that this matter is associated with the grant for the costs of a nursing home. The Minister is telling me that it has nothing to do with nursing hours. I find the Minister's answer completely unsatisfactory. It is the answer that any researcher or statistician would give and certainly is not an answer that a practical nurse or director of nursing in any nursing home could possibly abide by. The Minister says that the Government has consulted 1,200 nursing homes, yet he still refuses to give me the name of one nursing home. I asked Senator Bolkus last night for the name of one nursing home. He assured me that he would give me that. The Minister this morning tells me that for various reasons, all sorts of confidentiality and so on, he cannot give me the name of a nursing home. I just do not believe that he has one. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(9.28) —I should like to return to the matters Senator Calvert was raising on local government. The allocation for the 1987-88 financial year was based, according to the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in New South Wales at least, on an expectation of an inflation figure of 8 per cent. It was then said that this figure would be adjusted for the actual increase in the consumer price index for the 12 months to March 1988. As I understand it, that figure is now 6.9 per cent. Does that mean that local governments will have to pay back money they have already received from the Commonwealth? If so, what is the mechanism under which that will be done? I also ask why on earth the forecast figure of 8 per cent was given when, at the time, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was forecasting a 6 per cent inflation rate-which of course has not been reached. It has blown out beyond that and I think it is almost 6 per cent for the three quarters. Senator Stone —It is 6.9 per cent. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The annual rate is 6.9 per cent, as I understand it, for the 12 months to March. But, as I was saying, for the three quarters so far of the current financial year, I think it is well over 5 1/2 per cent, clearly indicating a blow-out from the figure the Treasurer had mentioned, and is another example of lax economic management by this Government at a time when we should have been concentrating very heavily on maintaining the lowest possible inflation rate. This Government has set out on a different course altogether, taken the soft option, with the result that we are becoming more uncompetitive and our costs are rising at double the rate of those of our trading partners. That is a matter of major concern. It is interesting that here we have all these different expectations of an inflation rate depending on what the Government is doing. Here it appears that the Government wants to make a good fellow of itself by saying to local government, `These are going to be your grants based on an 8 per cent inflation rate', when in fact the inflation rate forecast in the Budget was 6 per cent and the final result will probably be about 7 per cent. I would like the Minister to let me know what is going to happen to that shortfall and whether councils have to pay the money back. I would also like to note that the money was allocated this year on the basis of significant changes made as a result of a paper of principles prepared by the Commonwealth Office of Local Government and finally agreed to by the Commission. According to the annual report of the New South Wales organisation, copies of this paper were forwarded to the local government and shires associations and the Town Clerks Society for comment. The local government associations circularised their response to councils. The additional principles proposed by the associations to guarantee the grants of individual councils were not accepted by the Commission. The local councils themselves put up propositions to protect their own interests, naturally, and these were not accepted by the Commission. What interests me is that this has resulted in many councils getting what appears to be a raw deal this year. Perhaps the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), could explain why he thinks it is not a raw deal. This raw deal was supported by the then New South Wales Labor Government Minister for Local Government and was submitted to the Commonwealth in March 1987. The result of all these changes is that many councils in New South Wales have not received their 8 per cent inflation covering increase. On the contrary, many of them have done extremely badly. Some, for example Mudgee, are losing more than $40,000 of what should have been their rise. Kiama is losing about $26,000, Cooma-Monaro is losing about $60,000 and the Singleton council lost close to $50,000. In looking through the list of those that did badly I see strangely enough that so many of them appear in electorates which frankly would be far better represented in this place if they were represented by Liberals rather than the present Labor members. I refer to the seats of Calare, Eden-Monaro and Hunter. I find that the local members of these electorates have not been terribly successful in protecting the interests of the local councils in terms of Federal funding. For example, in Calare, the Blayney council was badly dealt with, and the Mudgee council and the Orange council are all falling well short of even an inflation indexed rise in Federal assistance to local government. In Eden-Monaro we have Bombala, Cooma-Monaro and Snowy River, and in Hunter we have Merriwa and Singleton. So it seems some councils have been disadvantaged. I would like the Minister's explanation of why the request from the local government association was rejected to protect the interests of local government? What will happen to the money, the 8 per cent, that may well have been paid out? Does it mean that these allocations, listed in these sheets of what are the 1987-88 grants to local government, will now be reduced? If so, will there be a revised sheet put out showing what councils really are getting, and do the councils have to pay the money back? Senator Gareth Evans —I am sorry. You didn't ask a question, I take it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The Minister obviously is paying great attention to this debate! I asked a series of questions during my speech. It is extraordinary that this Government takes so little interest in, and has so little concern about, the welfare of local government that the Minister involved is not even listening to a series of very clear and significant questions about whether local government councils have to pay back money that has been granted to them in the expectation of an 8 per cent inflation rate when it looks as though it will be about 6.9 per cent or 7 per cent. I also ask the Minister, now that he is listening, whether there will be a revised list of what the expenditures are. Will the Government advise us of that? I also ask the Minister to explain the reasons for knocking back the request by the Local Government and Shires Association that the adjustments to be made to the method of payment this year be changed in order to guarantee the grants to individual councils. The Commission did not accept that request and the Government did not proceed with it. It did not protect the interests of these councils, the names of which I read out. I will not bore the Committee by repeating the names of all the councils that have been badly dealt with. I ask the Minister: Will councils have to pay back money that was paid out in the expectation of an 8 per cent inflation rate, when it does not appear that that will be the inflation rate for the year? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.37) —I am sorry, but I simply do not have an answer that I can give to that question, which the honourable senator asked right at the beginning of his speech, as I recall. I sought an answer, but it was not forthcoming. I thought the honourable senator was just embarking upon a general analysis of the ills of the universe, rather than asking any more specific questions. I hope that we can have an answer as soon as possible. I will certainly ensure that it is given to the honourable senator in a proper way if it is not available before the conclusion of this debate. Might I just say, before Senator Walters gets back into fighting shape again, that I have sought further information on the names of individual nursing homes that have responded, with the enthusiasm that one would expect, to the new classification system. There is no question but that there are plenty of nursing homes in that category. The difficulty is section 135a of the National Health Act, which prevents the release of any information supplied by any nursing home without the agreement of the nursing home in question. That agreement is being sought for a number of them who have given favourable comments which are on the record. There is to be a debate before the end of this session, as Senator Walters is no doubt acutely aware, on nursing home legislation. We will certainly undertake to have the answers for her then, if not before. I hope that she appreciates the grace and the charm with which I am offering to accommodate her concerns in this respect. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.39) —The Minister's great confidence in being able to supply those names is overwhelming. I certainly will be interested to hear them because I will be approaching them, making sure that they understand the situation, and checking up on the enthusiasm with which they welcome this change. As I say, I know of so many nursing homes that are not embracing this new system with any enthusiasm at all, but call it a load of rubbish. I now have a question on Veterans' Affairs. Can the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) tell me why rehabilitation service units not under the direction of the chief medical officer, since they employ health professionals are not regarded as part of the health rather than the disability program? Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(9.41) —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Senator Stone —Temporary Chairman. Senator COOK —Thank you, Senator Stone. I am getting a lot of help in this chamber. Senator Walters —You sure need it. Senator COOK —Well, it takes a lot to get orientated but once I am, I am all right. I thank the honourable senator for orientating me. Senator Walters —That takes a bit of time. By 5 o'clock this afternoon you might be oriented. Senator COOK —Does the honourable senator want to continue to chide me or would she like an answer to her question? I am advised that the chief medical officers that she refers to are under the auspices of the hospitals in which they work. Senator Walters —That was not the question. Senator COOK —The rehabilitation units are part of the hospitals. Senator Walters —So they are not part of the disability programs-is that what you are saying? Senator COOK —That is what I am saying. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.42) —I have one more question to ask in relation to Veterans' Affairs. There are many existing State and private rehabilitation services, especially in New South Wales. Why then is Dr Blewett permitting the proliferation of Commonwealth units in New South Wales, with such units employing physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, pathologists, consultant medical practitioners and sessional clinical psychologists, when much of this is a duplication of existing services which are merely short staffed and underfunded? Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(9.43) —The Department of Community Services and Health, under Dr Blewett, is providing the services to which the honourable senator refers. At the moment we are dealing with the estimates for Veterans' Affairs and Veterans' Affairs concerns are located in the hospitals. Senator Walters —I am sorry? Senator COOK —I am making a distinction. Senator Walters seemingly is confusing the Community Services and Health portfolio under Dr Blewett and the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, which is the one I took her to be asking questions about. Senator Walters —So it is just general rehabilitation? Senator COOK —Yes, as I understand it. Senator Walters —Perhaps I had better ask that question of the Department of Health and Community Services. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.44) —Madam Temporary Chairman, if there are any other questions to be asked of the Veterans' Affairs people, can we have them while the officers are sitting beside the Minister on duty. If there are none, I will ask the Veterans' Affairs people to leave and the Community Services and Health people to come back in. I suggest to honourable senators and the Chair that it might suit everybody's convenience if we worked through systematically department by department. There is a very obvious difficulty, if people want answers to questions, in moving officers in and out. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.44) —It is up to the Government. Last night the occupant of the chair asked whether it was desired to take Group D as a whole. The Minister had his opportunity then of saying, no, that he wanted the Estimates dealt with department by department. The Minister did not do that, so he should not blame us. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Senator Walters, will you ask your question about the Department of Community Services and Health? Senator WALTERS —Why are rehabilitation service units not under the direction of the Chief Medical Officer? Since they employ health professionals, why are they not regarded as part of the health services rather than the disability programs? Rehabilitation obviously comes under the delivery of health services. Secondly, as there are many existing State and private rehabilitation services, especially in New South Wales, why is the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett), permitting the proliferation of Commonwealth units in New South Wales, with such units employing physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, pathologists, consultant medical practitioners and sessional clinical psychologists? Much of this duplication exists in services which are short staffed and underfunded. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(9.46) —The best I can say on the information available to me is simply that this is the result of an administrative decision. There is inevitably some degree of arbitrariness in the way functions are allocated. We simply cannot squeeze every function under the rubric of the Chief Medical Officer, even if some aspects of that function are obviously of a kind that will not be appropriate, according to their subject matter, for him to have supervision of. It has to be remembered that the rehabilitation program originally came under the community services part of the public administration when the former departments of Health and Community Services were brought together. The administrative arrangements that were thought previously to be appropriate have continued. There may well be matters of judgment involved in that and I have no doubt in the light of the honourable senator's raising the question that the matter will be further considered. I cannot give her any better answer than that at this stage. Senator Walters —I ask the Minister to give me the answer with specific emphasis to the duplication. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take that on notice. I do not think we can give the honourable senator a sensible answer off the top of the head at this stage. Proposed expenditures agreed to. GROUP E Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $7,878,000 (Quorum formed) Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.49) —I want to ask a question in relation to the Attorney General's Department concerning funding for the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC). The Minister will recall that at the last Estimates committee hearings I asked questions on short term appointments, and I would like some answers to those questions. I really want to raise the criticisms that have been made of the NCSC in recent days concerning its handling of the sale of shares in the Bell Group. What has the Government been doing, if anything, to boost the funds and resources available to the NCSC to deal with the major issues confronting it, given that we were told in the Budget Estimates Committee hearings last year by the Executive Director of the NCSC that the Commission was extremely short on resources and did not have enough resources to carry out its normal and expected monitoring and surveillance activities? That was a serious enough issue at the time but in view of the developments in the capital markets, particularly with the Bell Group situation and the criticism of the NCSC's handling of it, it seems to me to be of even greater moment now. I would like some advice on what the Government is doing in this area. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.52) —I rebut any criticism of the way the National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) has handled various matters relating to the Bell Group. As honourable senators will know, it was announced overnight that the NCSC is to conduct private hearings, commencing on Monday, into those matters, which are of concern not only to the Government but also, of course, to honourable senators on both sides of the House. Senator Lewis —We are delighted to hear that they were of some concern to the Government. We had not got that impression. Senator TATE —They were of concern and they are of concern. Indeed we have been attempting, within the limits of ministerial responsibility, which are diffused, to find out as much as possible about the intention of the NCSC in relation to that matter. Of course, given the options chosen by the NCSC, it was not advisable to signal that earlier than the NCSC's announcement that it would undertake this hearing on Monday. The Government believes the general resources available to the NCSC have been adequate, and that it is able to fulfil its functions. The particular matters of concern raised during the Estimates committee relating to short term appointments were answered in the supplementary answers circulated. The whole question of the structure of the NCSC, and the whole ministerial council structure which supervises it, is a matter for this Parliament to deliberate on when the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) introduces his proposals for a new national approach. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.54) —I thank the Minister for his answers. I am glad to hear the Minister rebut the criticisms of the NCSC of recent days. However, I understood many of the criticisms came not so much from this side of the chamber as from the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his anger at not being advised of the investigations the NCSC was making. I am pleased to hear Senator Tate's rebuttal of the Attorney-General's comments. In relation to the matter the Minister raised at the end of his remarks about the forthcoming legislative changes, can he advise us in any more detailed way when that legislation is coming in, when it is going to be debated and when it would have effect. If there is a lengthy delay the resources required by the NCSC in that interim period-that is assuming the legislation gets passed-will be critical. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.55) —The Attorney-General has indicated that it is his intention to introduce legislation as early as possible in order to give the community time to react to the specifics of it. As honourable senators will know, there have been lengthy discussions with the ministerial council, which has not been able to endorse fully the proposals put forward by the Attorney. So it is a question of presenting the legislation to this chamber as speedily as possible so that there can be the widest appreciation within the Australian community of the benefits which may flow from it. Senator Short —Does the Minister expect this legislation to be introduced during this session? Senator TATE —The Government does intend to introduce the legislation in these sittings: It was our intention in March to introduce it in the House of Representatives in the next week of sittings. Whether that has been affected by the deliberations that the Attorney has had with the ministerial council I cannot say with absolute certainty. What is wanted is the longest possible period of consultation and deliberation with public and business organisations-stock exchanges and so on. That was certainly the Government's intention. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(9.57) —Given the delays that have occurred in the processing of this matter and therefore in introducing it into the Parliament, the timetable has slipped very significantly from that which was envisaged by the Attorney-General last year. The National Companies and Securities Commission (NCSC) advised Estimates Committee E last September that it was very short of resources-in fact, its resources were too scarce to fulfil its monitoring and surveillance roles adequately. Has any additional funding been granted to the NCSC? In view of the delays that will occur before any new arrangements come into place, has it made a request for additional funds and resources? If so, what has been the Government's response to those requests? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(9.58) —One of the problems is that as the NCSC operates under the ministerial council the actual use it makes of resources is not as easily determined by consultations with the Federal Attorney-General as would be the case if it were a body which was directly answerable to the Federal Attorney-General. I believe that whilst the sums of money which the Parliament has appropriated for the NCSC are considerable, the use to which it puts those resources and its priorities are matters for which it takes responsibility and on which it reports to the ministerial council. Senator Short is highlighting a difficulty of this Parliament in actually appropriating money and passing legislation in relation to a body which, at the end of the day, is not immediately accountable to it. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $1,816,000 Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(9.59) —Last night in debate both Senator Chaney and I referred to the various changes that have been brought to the Budget by the Government's mishandling and bungling of the proposed new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Both Senator Chaney and I expressed a great deal of concern and reservation, particularly at the manner in which consultations around Australia were taking place with Aboriginal communities and the advice that will flow to the Government from that consultation process. I stated quite strongly that I believe that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand) had, in effect, gone to water, particularly with regard to his relationship with the Aboriginal Development Commission. He has ignored advice-in fact he has deliberately set aside advice coming to him from eminent commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission. In the last few weeks he has proceeded as far as sacking eight well-qualified and experienced commissioners and he proposes to replace them with eight new stooges who will obviously do his bidding with regard to the establishment of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I think we should be very mindful and careful of the lack of consultation that this Government is now affording Aboriginal people with regard to their future. The Minister's very intimidatory tactics in the manner in which he has dealt with a very prominent Aboriginal commission must put fear and apprehension-- Senator McKiernan —Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The matter under discussion now is before the courts. There is a convention within this place that we respect the sub judice position. At this stage I am not pointing the finger at the honourable senator as breaching that rule but I caution that he is coming very close to it. We, on both sides of the chamber, ought to be careful when these matters are before the courts. I bring that to your attention and ask you to watch it carefully. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —There is no point of order. Senator TAMBLING —Mr Temporary Chairman, I am well aware that this matter is before the courts. That is on a matter of detail relating to the Minister's actions with regard to the Commission which is being established. I am referring to the principles that Minister Hand has invited debate on concerning the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I was saying that Aboriginal people throughout Australia must be viewing with concern the actions by the Government in seeking to hold back on advice that Aboriginal people are seeking to give. The Government proposes to establish new mechanisms and the existing organisations of the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and other organisations are now being dealt with in a manner that must make Aboriginal people very apprehensive about the bona fides of the Government with regard to the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. How effective can it be if this Government and Minister Hand are going to treat this matter in such a cavalier manner that it will cause many Aboriginal people to really worry about the priorities and the policies of the Government? Senator Cooney —Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. One cannot do this except-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —What is your point of order, Senator? Senator Cooney —Senator Tambling is discussing a matter which is presently before, as I understand it, the Federal Court. The very issues that he refers to may become relevant there. They are issues of credibility, of who is to be relied upon, and issues as to the standing of the former members of the Commission and of the purported members of the new Commission. I do not in any way suggest that Senator Tambling is doing anything other than genuinely and feelingly expressing what he understands to be the situation, but what he says may so colour the surroundings of the issues that are before the court that it may make it difficult for the judicial procedures to go ahead in the calm and dispassionate way that is proper. Senator Tate —As we do. Senator Cooney —Yes, as we do in this chamber. I simply raise that point not to stop Senator Tambling from going on but to draw his attention, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to the present position. Senator Chaney — Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on the point of order. I feel that it would be quite appalling if the Senate were to be precluded from discussing this issue. The question of consultation with Aboriginal people or listening to the views of Aboriginal people has been raised in this place ad nauseam over the 14 years I have been here. The suggestion that we should be precluded from discussing contentious issues related to ATSIC and the Aboriginal Development Commission because a judge is examining some question of dismissal of commissioners, I find quite absurd. I must say that the idea of any judge I have ever met being affected by the debate in this place on an issue such as this, I find beyond credibility. I would put in a very strong plea that this is a matter of great public interest. We have the administration of Aboriginal affairs being turned on its head by this Government. We have the complete casting aside of the existing frameworks proposed. We have a situation in which the Government has, in a sense, in my view, shown itself to be petulant, indeed childish, in seeking to gag honourable senators who put views with which it disagrees. I think that, if there is any attempt to gag debate in this place, we have reached a very sorry situation indeed. I would say that the sub judice rule has never been absolute. From what I heard before I came into the chamber, I do not think any honourable senator has really outlined in what particular way this debate could possibly affect the legal proceedings. I believe that in any question of doubt, Mr Temporary Chairman, you should rule in favour of allowing free discussion in this chamber. I would certainly object very strongly to any suggestion that, at a time when the Government is acting in what I regard as a contentious and, probably, very foolish way, it should be shielded from discussion and scrutiny. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator MacGibbon) —There is no point of order. I have been listening carefully to what Senator Tambling has said, and he has not transgressed any of the conventions of this chamber. It is further my understanding that the matter has been legally resolved. Whether it has or has not, I will continue to listen to what Senator Tambling says and caution him not to transgress the accepted boundaries. Senator TAMBLING —I am pleased to note the sensitivity of Senator McKiernan and Senator Cooney to this particular matter. I hope that that sensitivity will be reflected in the consideration in the Labor Caucus room of their particular regard to the very matters that are under discussion. Also I would be very doubtful whether Mr Justice Davies would have his radio on this morning whilst he is in court considering this matter. Therefore, the comments probably would not be influencing him very greatly. I refer to the answers given to questions raised in the Estimates relating to the use of consultants by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and, in particular, those consultants associated with the formation of the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. I note that some $30,000 was expended between August and November with Coopers and Lybrand on the design of the top structure of the new Aboriginal Commission. We have already seen the Government proposing alternatives and new options, which, again, are not final because we have not seen any new legislation, or even any new preambles or proposed drafts presented to the Parliament. Therefore, Aboriginal people probably can say in regard to that $30,000, `That was the first design. It is now going through several redrafts and nobody really knows what the final direction will be'. There have been expenditures in relation to other issues concerning organisations, record systems and commercial accounting systems in that regard. The use of consultants by the Department, of course, extends over a wide range of activities. In particular, I note that in the area of public affairs the estimated expenditure for 1987-88 totalled some $82,000. This includes a considerable amount of money to be expended on advice on art and culture for Aboriginal organisations. In fact, quickly adding the amounts up, I think it totals some $63,000. I would have thought that those consultancies would run counter to the practices of the Aboriginal Arts Board of the Australian Council, in which, indeed, there is other activity going on. I would, therefore, seriously question expenditure in this particular area. Similarly, in regard to public affairs, I wonder why consultancy fees have to be paid for people to engage in speaking engagements. Some $12,000 was paid over a six-month period to a Mr N. Bonner for speaking engagements on behalf of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I note an amount of $26,000 for a consultancy listed under `Heritage' under the title of `Land for Aboriginals' for a review of the accounting procedures of the Northern Land Council and the introduction of a new accounting system. Is it just a quirk of the pen that this appears under a heritage rather than an administration heading, particularly having regard to the possibility that particular areas and details need to be looked at? Similarly, another consultancy in the Northern Territory under the heading `Community development' relates to a review of the Tangentyere Council in central Australia. There is a consultancy fee of some $30,000 allocated for a review that is yet to take place. It appears that the Department is recognising that the systems it has in regard to the various land and community councils are not working adequately if the accounting systems need to be so desperately reviewed in this particular financial year. As Senator Chaney said yesterday, the whole administration of Aboriginal affairs is giving great cause for concern at the moment. There does not appear to be a very firm direction by the Government that can give confidence to the general community or the Aboriginal people of Australia. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.11) —It is not my intention, of course, to disagree with your ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I will be extremely careful not to say anything which might have to do with the legality of the dismissal of the eight part time commissioners of the Aboriginal Development Commission, which is the issue before the Federal Court of Australia. However, I agree that the more general questions raised by Senator Tambling are proper for debate. I shall certainly try to meet his general misgiving about the process so far in relation to the proposals which have emerged, which he said indicated that the consultations with the Aboriginal community were either very meagre or not of any great substance and certainly would not be regarded by the Aboriginal people as evidence of the good faith of the Government and, in particular, of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Hand). If one looks at the record of the 46 meetings undertaken earlier this year by Minister Hand with 6,000 representatives of some 1,200 organisations and groups throughout Australia, I think it will be seen that the consultation process which has been undertaken by the Minister has been quite remarkable. I doubt whether any Minister would want to be burdened with such a remarkably extensive process, both geographically and in terms of consultations with many representatives. Of course, it has led to a considerable change in those early proposals, which is a matter, I think, that would give great heart to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly perhaps the Torres Strait Islander people who had very legitimate complaints and grievances in relation to the first option. Their very real grievances have been met. I know that for them, as for many Aboriginal people, the sort of consultation undertaken has been extremely fruitful. Also as a result of those particular consultations, the starting-up date for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has been deferred because the consultation process indicated that that was the wish and requirement of the Aboriginal and Islander people. I might also try to make it clear that the idea that the Minister is trying to put into place a new structure which I think, to use the words of Senator Tambling last night, would be full of stooges who will simply do the Government's bidding cannot be right when one looks at the fact that at the moment, for example, all Aboriginal Development Commission commissioners are the Minister's direct appointment, whereas, of course, it is well known that, through the new structure to be established by the Government, Aboriginal people themselves will elect members of the new Commission. Senator Tambling —Some of them. Senator TATE —The honourable senator must admit that that is quite different from the present structure where all the Aboriginal Development Commission commissioners are appointed by the Government. Senator Tambling —Not all of them. Senator TATE —Under the new proposals the Commission will more independently, if you like, represent the Aboriginal and Islander people in their various regions. I believe that that is a major step forward in self-management and self-determination. I am advised that 12 of the 15 commissioners on the new Board will be elected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. If we are talking about self-management and self-determination, I believe that that is a very significant matter, as it ought to be. Consultancies are undertaken by departments all the time in order to aid the departments and the Ministers in the carrying out of their responsibilities. The fact that the top structure, as Senator Tambling called it, put forward by Coopers and Lybrand early in this consultation process has been altered I think is a mark of the Government's willingness to listen to criticism and to change those matters which are found to be defective. Nevertheless, there has to be a starting point in consideration of such a major overhaul and Coopers and Lybrand played its part in that. As far as the remarks about Neville Bonner are concerned, I think that most honourable senators who knew Senator Bonner in this chamber-I know Senator Tambling would share this view-would regard Senator Bonner as a very remarkable Australian; indeed, he is unique. His painting hanging in King's Hall attests to that fact. Senator Newman —It is now up on the hill. Senator TATE —It is now up on the hill in the new Parliament House. Senator Stone —Unlike that of Sir John Kerr. Senator TATE —A painting in itself does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the person who sat for the portrait is an outstanding Australian. I agree with Senator Stone. Nevertheless, it is cause for remark. People have wandered around King's Hall and will now wander around the new Parliament House to see this painting of such a distinguished Aboriginal. His task is to help build bridges between the Aboriginal and Islander communities of Australia and their fellow Australians. I do not know the answer but I will undertake to provide to Senator Tambling a list of those organisations to which Senator Bonner has been invited to speak. It might give an indication of the sort of bridge building that that distinguished Australian is attempting to undertake within our community. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.18) —I want to raise some matters compatible with those which I raised last year; that is, the level and competence of management of funds for Aboriginal communities. Last year I stated that the Oombulgurri community had lost $100,000. I do not mean that it had lost $100,000 in trading-$100,000 had disappeared and so eventually did the bookkeeper. It seemed that there was no discipline, no proper guidelines and no proper management and, least of all, no proper supervision of the appointments of the various bookkeepers and advisers. I refer to the Marra Worra Worra Aboriginal Corporation which is a group located essentially in Fitzroy Crossing in the north-west of Western Australia. It is probably best known because of its past association with young Stephen Hawke. I will give some background: The Corporation acts as a cheque cashing agency for the benefit of community members wishing to cash their social security entitlements. That is not an unusual procedure in itself. It is standard procedure for the Corporation to receive members' social security cheques through the mail, to prepare a listing of these cheques showing deductions to a community chuck-in-in other words, the money that is thrown in for general community use-and to provide a net cash payout direct to the member or through an agency of a community bookkeeper. In other words, money gets fed in in a lump sum and is then paid out in bits and pieces to those essentially entitled to it-to individual members of the community. The member does not sight or endorse the cheque or the listing. The procedures are open to abuse in that no internal control exists over the cash movements between the point of issue of cash from the safe of the Corporation to the community bookkeeper and receipt by the member. In other words, there is absolutely no discipline of bookkeeping or accountability of large amounts of cash from one point to another. Cheques cashed in that way for the last financial year amounted to $2.6m. The Corporation runs with a float, normally something in excess of $100,000. So on any one day there is in excess of $100,000 in cash sitting in the drawer or the safe of the Corporation. There is no discipline in the protection of that money. The Corporation has been unable to obtain insurance over the $100,000 float because insurers are totally dissatisfied with security arrangements. Cash is ordered on a weekly basis and is delivered without supervision or without proper security protection. The cash movements are significant and give rise to concern as they occur without the protection of security procedures generally accepted as necessary. The concern applies to the safety and well-being of staff who handle the cash as well as the cash itself. I understand that this matter has been raised with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Social Security. To my knowledge, limited as it might be, no steps have been taken to rectify it. I turn for a moment to the system of accounting. A control account was maintained for the cash float. However, the control broke down in February 1987 and by 30 June 1987 errors totalling $10,148 had occurred. In other words, there was a reconciliation of that $100,000 and there was a discrepancy of over $10,000 in respect of it. The float contained $10,148 more than it should have contained. Honourable senators might say that that is good accounting, but it is inaccurate accounting. A test of the float on 27 October 1987 revealed further errors totalling $26,239. In other words, the float was more than 20 per cent out. The accountants suspect that these excess funds belong to client communities, although the necessary analysis of float transactions has not been carried out to determine ownership of these funds. That is because the bookkeeping is just not sufficiently sophisticated to allow them to be traced properly. The rules of the Corporation require that persons seeking membership of the Corporation be formally admitted by the governing committee. To the best of the knowledge of the accountant, membership of the Corporation is now quite uncertain. A register of members is not maintained and the legality of any resolutions passed at a general meeting would be in doubt. An annual general meeting of members, as required by clause 11.1 of the rules, was not held for the three years to 30 June 1987. The Marra Worra Worra Aboriginal Corporation received $2.6m just in cheques, putting aside grants. It did not have a meeting for three years and the membership was unable to be identified. Under clause 12 of the rules the governing committee must be elected each year at the annual general meeting. A committee member holds office for only one year. The Corporation operated a trust account to receive and disburse income tax refund cheques on behalf of members. The books of account were not properly maintained, resulting in a shortfall of trust funds totalling $8,859 which was made good from Corporation funds. The Corporation received a grant of $52,970 in 1985-86 under the community employment program to establish an Aboriginal traditional arts centre. At the completion of the project $10,549 of grant funds had been expended for non-grant purposes. The Department of Employment, Education and Training wrote to the Corporation requesting a refund of these moneys. Representations have been made seeking that the debt be waived but a contingent liability, not disclosed in the balance sheet, exists to the extent of $10,549. The Corporation failed to issue group certificates to all employees as required under the Income Tax Assessment Act. A contingent liability, not disclosed in the balance sheet, exists to the extent of penalties which may be incurred. The accountant is unable to ascertain what those penalties might be. The Corporation operates in an air-conditioned office situated on land excised from a lease reserve held by another Aboriginal corporation. Electricity supplies to the office come through that village. No reimbursement has been made by the Corporation to the other group for electricity consumed since the opening of the office. A sub-meter at the office was read on 15 December 1987, showing that 76,130 kilowatt hours had been consumed since installation-date uncertain. At an average rate of 12.16c per kilowatt hour the cost of that consumption is $9,257. A contingent liability, not disclosed in the balance sheet, exists to the extent of electricity reimbursement due to that other community, but the amount cannot be ascertained without further research. The Corporation purchased airline tickets on behalf of client communities and then obtained reimbursement. However, reimbursements exceeded the cost of the tickets, so that it is likely that refunds are due to client communities. A contingent liability exists in this regard, although the amount has not been ascertained. The air fare expense account shows a credit of $5,797. The auditor was not able to substantiate by way of evidence the legitimacy of a payment of $8,000 by the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority in connection with expenses incurred in holding a meeting. Cheques totalling $7,208 written on the school administration bank accounts were not detailed and the cheque butts were lost. These payments have not been vouched. The Corporation operates an artefacts enterprise under the name of Mangkaja Arts and Crafts. The auditor has not confirmed whether this name is registered. Receipts for the sale of artefacts were not banked but were used to purchase artefacts for sale. Therefore, the auditor is not able to verify these transactions, as I understand it. The financial reports of that group have not been consolidated with those of the Corporation. Allegedly, a separate entity is to be established. Before I turn to other matters I ask the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) to comment because, sadly, the affairs of this group are not the exception but, from my experience, the rule. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.28) —In relation to the generalisation made by Senator Crichton-Browne at the end of his remarks and in relation to the particular incidents that he has raised regarding the corporation at Marra Worra Worra at Fitzroy Crossing, I am in no position to assess the validity of the honourable senator's assessment. I do not know whether he was drawing on a particular review that was commissioned in relation to it. Senator Crichton-Browne —It's an extract from the auditor's report. Senator TATE —I know they were extracts from the auditor's report. I am not trying in any way to minimise the importance of correct practices being employed by those who are the recipients of Commonwealth taxpayers' moneys. If they receive those moneys they ought to be accounted for in absolutely the proper way. I think it is important to say that the Government has been conscious of the sorts of deficiencies and problems that can arise with these communities as one attempts to-- Senator Stone —It is no good being conscious about it, Minister; you have to do something about it. Senator TATE —I am coming to that, Senator. I put it in the context of bringing these communities to a stage of self-management and proper determination of their affairs in a way which exposes them to the necessity to account properly for the funds which Commonwealth taxpayers provide to them. I do not imagine that that is an easy process to achieve overnight. I recall during the Estimates Committee hearing that there was a discussion relating to the Aboriginal educational development program, which program has as its major thrust an attempt to make Aboriginal people exercising leadership and holding responsible positions in corporations, such as has been outlined by Senator Crichton-Browne, aware of the management practices and the requirements of running organisations which have such a lot of money flowing through their hands. I am advised by departmental officers that 1,200 grants are made each year. There are difficulties with perhaps a dozen or so every year-the type that have been outlined by Senator Crichton-Browne. At the Estimates Committee hearing there was considerable discussion concerning some particular instances where the Australian Federal Police and corporate affairs bodies have been at work to try to unravel what did occur-Senator Crichton-Browne's concern about the auditor's report was that some matters were still unclear-and, where criminal activity has occurred, charges would be laid. The overall attempt to make sure that those in positions of responsibility understand managerial practices and bookkeeping requirements so that proper auditing of Commonwealth moneys can be undertaken, is a major thrust of the Aboriginal educational development program. I think the Commonwealth is discharging its responsibilities in a general sense in that regard. In regard to the particular instance which the honourable senator has brought to the attention of the Committee, it is not as easy to deal with it in the Committee of the Whole as it was to deal with those particular matters which we discussed during the Estimates Committee hearing. But I undertake to refer those particular analyses of Senator Crichton-Browne to the Minister and ensure that they are followed up. I do not know whether the Corporation is incorporated under Western Australian law and subject to that Corporate Affairs Commission or under Commonwealth law and subject to our own agencies in that regard. I will make sure that Senator Crichton-Browne's remarks are followed up. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.32) —Last night in the debate I raised several questions with regard to the announcement made by the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, on behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, concerning the proposals to deal with the legislation for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission to kick-start and commence operations on 1 January next year. Included in that statement by the Minister was an undertaking that various elections would be conducted in Aboriginal communities in September, October and November this year. I would like the Minister to address the following problem. In the absence of legislation coming before this Parliament detailing any form of guidelines before those proposed elections, will the elections proceed and be held without the legislation having been passed through this Parliament? Are the elections in any way to be complicated by the matters to be considered by the Australian population at referendum on 3 September? If the elections cannot proceed as originally announced, will this in effect mean that the new Commission will not start on 1 January? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.34) —I understand that the elections can be conducted independently of the passage of the legislation, as was the case with the National Aboriginal Conference membership. That Conference was established under Prime Minister Fraser. Elections were conducted and the Conference membership was put together independently of legislation. It would be the intention that the legislation would validate the elections and the Commission could not operate except with the passage of the legislation. As to the question concerning the impact of referendum proposals, I really do not see the link that the honourable senator is trying to make. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.35) —I will be more specific. Given that the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission will exercise many executive functions and, in effect, become a quasi-Aboriginal parliament, taking up many areas now covered by local government, how can the Government or the Minister in any way imply to this Parliament that the elections could proceed independently of the legislation being properly considered by the Parliament? I find it quite incomprehensible that the comparison is linked to the former Conference, which was merely an advisory body to both the Minister and former governments. An important point of principle is involved here. It is very obvious that the Government is not only showing a very high-handed attitude with regard to the constitutional referendums but also proposing a very major and significant change of administration of Aboriginal issues. It is proposing elections of a very convoluted form of regionalised councils, possible zones and many other forms that will effect the expenditure of some $700m per annum, and that those elections should proceed without the endorsement of this Parliament. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.36) —In principle, this is not a matter of any great remark. I recall that in my portfolio legal aid advisory committees were established before the relevant legislation was passed by this chamber. It was understood that the actual appointments could be undertaken and they undertook their functions with the passage of that legislation. These elections will be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission in the hope that the legislation will be passed by this Parliament in the Budget session. I understand that it is proposed to hold the elections in October, November and December in order to have the commissioners available to start work as a commission on 1 January. Of course, the Parliament may decide that it does not wish to pass this legislation, in which case it will not be able to operate as a commission. The actual election process will be undertaken in anticipation of that Commission being established. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.37) —I had not intended to participate in the discussion on this item of the Estimates but, in the light of the extraordinary exchange which has just occurred between Senator Tambling and Senator Tate, I am bound to say that I am astonished by what the Minister has just said. I am not in the least persuaded by his analogy with the minor matter in his portfolio of a few years ago in relation to what he termed legal aid advisory committees. I suppose those committees were presiding over, if they were presiding over anything other than giving advice, spending amounts of about $1m or $2m-$4m or $5m at the most. As Senator Tambling said quite rightly, we are talking about executive authority for a body to preside over the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars. Senator Tambling cited the figure of $700m. Surely the Minister is not telling this chamber that the Government is prepared to countenance proceeding to elect a body to undertake functions of that kind without full and proper parliamentary procedure and process and the passage of legislation. He conceded that the legislation may even be rejected by this place. Surely he is not prepared to countenance that without that fundamental parliamentary process having been completed. I would like the Minister to reconsider the answer he has just given to Senator Tambling and consider whether he should not withdraw it and come back to the Committee with a more prepared statement-not necessarily today, because we want to get through these matters today; certainly, the Opposition does and, no doubt, the Government does just as badly. I believe that the Minister's statement cannot be allowed to pass and stand on the record without further supplementation. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.40) —I add to Senator Stone's comments and ask the Minister to address the point of principle as to how and under what basis the Electoral Commission will conduct the elections. In the absence of regulations and any form of legislation for such an important body, how could we expect, in terms of credibility, not only the Government but also the Electoral Commission to conduct such an important range of elections around Australia? What would happen with appeals and courts of disputed returns? How would those things be established? If it were to be done by way of a series of ministerial guidelines on another proposed administrative arrangement, I believe that it would be insulting to the Aboriginal constituency as well as to the important points of principle that have been raised. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.41) —I will take Senator Stone's advice and seek further clarification as to the machinery that might be put in place, but I must say that, as was stated by the Minister in the document dated 27 April which was tabled in the Parliament-- Senator Stone —Yes, we have read that document. Senator TATE —Yes. All I am saying is that it is quite clear that the Government's intention is that those elections do take place in a way which enables the Commission to commence operations on 1 January 1989 should this Parliament pass the legislation during the Budget session. I am repeating what we all know. As to the actual machinery that will need to be put in place under the aegis of the Australian Electoral Commission, I do not have the details on how that process is to be conducted, but I will undertake to provide them to honourable senators. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.42) —I refer the Minister to the Wangkatjungka community, which is in the north-west of Western Australia. Did the Minister say that 12 out of 1,200 have caused problems? Senator Tate —Well, I was advised about 12. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I wonder whether anybody has looked under the carpet. Last year I raised a matter concerning the Oombulgurri group. The sad thing is that when an Aboriginal community loses $100,000, so does the surrounding community. The Oombulgurri group is situated across the gulf from Wyndham. That $100,000, by and large, came out of the pockets of local businessmen-the baker, the storeman, the greengrocer, the fuel agent and the Toyota agent. Those are the people who lost out. The Oombulgurri group was not able to pay those people. It is very hard for a small businessman in Wyndham to carry debtors owing $50,000 over six months. It is not only the Aboriginal community that suffers from incompetence but also the surrounding community. I was in Wyndham two weeks ago. One of the problems that the Oombulgurri group had was the fact that it had decided to indulge itself by obtaining a barge to bring cattle across the gulf. To my knowledge, not one single beast was ever loaded. The barge was redesigned, at great expense, and it was never able to sail. The group ran it up on the shores of Wyndham and it sat there for the last 12 months. Two weeks ago it was pulled out of the water to see what could be salvaged and it was found that the two new beautiful engines that had been put in it had been lying submerged for the last 12 months so they were ruined. I raised the problems of Oombulgurri and that barge in this chamber 12 months ago. It was pulled out of the water two week ago. I wonder what other problems are not being pursued. I refer to an auditor's report to members of the Wangkatjungka community. The audit was done on 24 November 1986. The report states: It appears to have been the practice for your project officer, Mr. Peter Ross, to book up personal motor expenses to the Association when on visits to Derby. Mr Ross claims that he arranged with your accounting agents, Marra Worra Worra- the group to which I referred previously- to deduct these expenses from his wages. However, this was not done. Is that a half reasonable way of running a business-that a man books up in somebody else's name and takes the benefit with some obscure word of mouth arrangement that the cost of those items should be taken from his salary? The association paid for two charter flights carrying Mr Ross to and from Derby on 2 May 1985 and 18 February 1986. The auditor has been unable to confirm that these expenditures were for the benefit of the association and were authorised by the committee. The expense items under `Store Purchases' include various expenditures which do not relate to store purchases. These include food items used by Mr Ross in entertaining visiting officials and personal items for Mr Ross which Mr Ross maintains should have been deducted from his wages by the Marra Worra Worra but were not deducted. They also include supplies for homemakers, items of equipment for the project officer's house and 34 cartons of beer which Mr Ross informs the auditors were used to entertain visiting officials. I hope it is not a reflection of the indulgence of officers of the Department that 34 cartons of beer are required when they go to Fitzroy Crossing for a day to check on the books. This beer was allegedly also purchased to replace beer purchased by community members from Christmas Creek station but not paid for. Apparently, under `Store Purchases' was a deduction for payment for assistance in extricating a bogged truck. Invoices for the supply of goods into store were often recorded simply as `groceries' with no details of the items supplied. Store purchase control, therefore, was impossible. This system is open to abuse. No control existed over store purchases or sales. The store enterprise showed a gross profit of only 8 per cent on sales. What conclusions can one draw from that? The auditor suggests that goods were paid for but not received, stolen from the store or not correctly paid for-and the moneys banked. Concerning the generator, a detailed analysis of the use of generator fuel was carried out. It was found that consumption varied between 146 litres per day and 551 litres per day-the latter being during the cooler months of the year when airconditioning should have been at a minimum. The figures suggest that diesel fuel is being used for purposes other than generating electricity or that fuel paid for is not being delivered to the generator tank. Control was not kept over social security cheque cashing. The auditor was unable to reconcile moneys drawn with moneys rebanked-the difference was $7,168 for the year. Control was not kept over loans to community members. Loans of $10,909 simply were written off. Wages records show that an amount of $180 per week was paid to Mr Alan Lawford, the powerhouse operator, during March, April and May. Mr Lawford was not residing at the community during these months. The auditor was informed that the powerhouse was operated by the principal of the Christmas Creek primary school during that time and a cash payment of $80 a week was also paid to him. It follows from the above comments that some consideration should be given to the process of authorising payments. I find that to be a classic understatement. The auditor found no indication of any formal process of authorising payments during 1985-86. That is just a report on one community-and I dare say it is not an isolated community. The tragedy is that because the Government has chosen not to ensure that these communities are properly audited, managed and supervised, the Aboriginal community ends up suffering. Every time these matters come up, every time creditors at Fitzroy Crossing cannot get paid and have to go to their bank managers to beg and plead for a further overdraft, the antagonism, bitterness and ill feeling towards the Aboriginal community is manifested in these towns. Nothing creates more ill will than this sort of conduct. I do not sheet the blame home to the Aboriginal communities, for the vast majority of people there cannot read or write, have absolutely no understanding of normal accountancy procedures and have not the slightest idea about what processes they should go through for authorisations of purchases. They have no idea what their agents are doing but at the end of the day they suffer because taxpayers' money provided to them never reaches them. Added to that is the criticism and condemnation in these community towns about the benevolence cast upon the Aborigines. Anyone who bothers to go to any of these towns will see the ill will and ill feeling. Much of it stems back to circumstances such as the ones I have set out. I wonder whether in 12 months' time I will produce three or four more auditor's reports and whether I will find that the number has gone from 12 to 16. In 12 months time will there be some proper mechanism and process? I say to Senator Tate that I can go to half a dozen more towns in the north-west of Western Australia and bring back the same evidence. I did not bother because I am giving an example-not exhaustive proof-but this problem is endemic right through these Aboriginal communities, at least in the north-west of Western Australia and I suspect in the greater part of Australia. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.51) —Before the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) rises to speak, I would just like to say something of a more general nature to underline the points that Senator Crichton-Browne has been raising very forcefully at a detailed level. I refer now to the operations of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the sheer lack of Public Service proficiency which this continual recitation of details underlines. I will come in a moment to a more specific aspect of the operations of that Department and in particular those of the departmental head, Mr Charles Perkins. But the more general point I want to make is that these episodes which Senator Crichton-Browne, Senator Tambling and other honourable senators have mentioned in this chamber and also have been referring to during Estimates committee hearings continue to recur and, it would seem, continue to fail to be the subject of appropriate follow-up and the institution of appropriate controls. As Senator Crichton-Browne quite rightly said, in the end this kind of thing is the result of appalling administrative inefficiency and Public Service and ministerial failure-because in the end the Minister is responsible for the operation of the Department. If a Minister's department is not operating appropriately and his departmental head is no good he sacks him and gets another one who can produce a worthwhile and appropriately efficient and effective department to carry out the Government's policies, not just as some individual might deem they should be carried out, but according to proper procedures accountable to the electors and taxpayers of this country. That is where the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has been falling down. As Senator Crichton-Browne quite rightly said, every time it falls down the backlash is not upon such people as Mr Charles Perkins and some of his senior officers; it is upon the Aboriginal people. I note in passing, as I said I would, that Mr Perkins had the impertinence the other day to make a public statement in which he branded me as the failed Treasury head, Senator Stone. I do not run around the country issuing defamation writs and stuff like that. I take the view that if one is in public life, one has to be prepared to be a bit robust and take it. Senator Walters —Bob Hawke does. Senator STONE —I understand that the Prime Minister has had a penchant for that kind of activity but I am not wishing to follow the Prime Minister's deplorable example in that or in any other way. My point is simply that if one is in public life one has to be prepared to take it a bit, just as one should be able to hand it out a bit, if we are to have any robust debate in this country about matters of public moment. But I must say that the remarks by Mr Perkins about me do him no credit. I leave it to others to judge the accuracy or otherwise of Mr Perkins's personal description of me. I will take my chance in the history books of the country as to whether I have been a failure in my Public Service career compared to Mr Perkins. I am quite content to leave it to the archives to determine. The point I want to make, and this is the only reason I raise this otherwise trivial incident is, that the matters we are talking about in this Committee this morning are matters arising out of the administration-I should actually say maladministration-of Mr Perkins's Department. Mr Perkins is personally responsible for that maladministration. It is about time this Government stopped operating a set of double standards in relation to its Public Service and adopted towards Mr Perkins the same disciplinary attitudes and principles of conduct and operation as it would if any other departmental secretary in its departmental structure were to carry on in this manner. So long as the Government refuses to grasp that nettle, along with a great many other nettles in this area which it is refusing to grasp, it will continue to flounder not only in terms of its policy performance but also in terms of the assessment of that policy performance by the people of this country. I believe that the Department of Finance is in the process shortly of instituting a major change in its financial control procedures which will make departmental heads personally accountable for the manner in which they conduct the expenditure control over which they have authority or over which their departments or their Ministers have authority. I look forward to the day when an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, including not least the Secretary to that Department, is held personally responsible for the kinds of defalcations, maladministrations, and in many cases one would have to say actual corruption, that are involved in the cases which have been brought before the chamber this morning by my colleagues. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(10.57) —I think it is unfair of Senator Stone to say of any departmental head that he or she should be responsible for every instance of misappropriation or corruption out in some of the organisations where funding is made available by transfers through that person's department. It would, of course, be culpable on the part of the department's officers and of the secretary to the department if no procedures were instituted to attempt first of all to prevent such occurrences, detecting them when they do occur, and dealing with them when they are revealed. Indeed any criticism would be very properly directed if those sorts of supervisory processes were not undertaken. I do not know whether Senator Crichton-Browne is going to raise more instances. Senator Crichton-Browne —How long have you got? Senator TATE —Not very long. I want to go back and have some breakfast. I have been at meetings since 7.30 a.m., but I am prepared to stay a little longer. The fact is that it would have been more helpful if these matters had been raised at the Estimates Committee hearing. Maybe the honourable senator had a competing Estimates committee meeting and he could not attend. In so far as there are various auditors' reports which can be brought forward, I have no intention whatsoever of standing here and defending the sorts of practices which have been revealed by the auditors in their reports. On the other hand, I would not want to generalise entirely, and I think Senator Crichton-Browne did try at the end of his speech to put in a little balance. There are many instances where Aboriginal communities, having been entrusted with public moneys, have discharged that trust quite honourably and efficiently and, in the process, have gained self-esteem and self-determination in regard to their community affairs, which is regarded as very important. So there are also many good instances of the operation of these communities with public moneys. The sorts of matters which Senator Crichton-Browne has brought to our attention would not be condoned by anybody, least of all I would think by those Aboriginal communities who are dependent on public goodwill for the flow of taxpayers' money and for living at harmony in the communities in which they find themselves. Those communities would be just as appalled as we are by some of the instances outlined. Steps are being taken, some of a more penal character, and sanctions are being applied, as well as other steps of the educative kind I outlined as part of the Government's program to make the awareness of certain management and bookkeeping practices part of the understanding of those who are put in charge of, and take responsibility for, these communities. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.01) —I am certainly mindful of the fact that the Aboriginal Development Commission is a statutory authority and is quite independent of the Minister in its essential day to day decisions and judgments. The Elvira Koongie Park pastoral property was previously owned by the Western Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and was subsequently sold to the ADC. It was then passed on in trust to a further group headed by Monty Gordon, a man who I might say is held in the highest regard in both the white and Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. He is on record as saying that the station was overvalued and that too much was paid for it and that it was in an appalling condition. As to the homestead and the outstations, I can tell Senator Tate now that I do not know anybody who would be happy to live there if something else were offered. Were any steps taken to ensure that the transaction was not only strictly commercial-I have no doubt it was-but that it was seen to be above board, inasmuch as it might be reasonable to say that there was a superficial conflict of interest? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.03) —There are no officers of the ADC here, as there would have been at the Estimates Committee hearing. I recall seeing a Press response, I think from the vendor of those properties, which refuted some of the allegations that had been made. Did Senator Knowles ask a question on this? Senator Knowles —Yes. Senator TATE —I undertook to give her an answer, and I will undertake to give one also to Senator Crichton-Browne, as to whether the Department had any role in this matter. When I get those answers both honourable senators may be satisfied, but if not, we can follow this matter up next week. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.04) —I understand there is a time problem, certainly not for me but for others, so I will be brief and perhaps deal with this matter at another time. I ask whether the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies has been consulted properly, fully and frankly in respect of its absorption into the Commission, and whether or not the council of that quite outstanding group, which I think is acknowledged by everybody as having done some remarkable work, has agreed to its absorption into the Commission or would wish to stand alone and be able to continue its quite remarkable and excellent work independent of anybody else, maintaining the autonomy which has allowed it so far to conduct itself and its work in the way it has? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(11.05) —I understand that consultations have been held with the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I am advised that the final form of its relationship with the new Commission has not been finally determined. As the Minister made clear in his statement of 27 April, he is continuing to consider a number of relatively minor adjustments to its operation. Final decisions have not been taken. Senator Crichton-Browne —Could you go back a couple of paragraphs? Senator TATE —I am quoting from the Minister's statement. It says: In relation to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies I am continuing to consider a number of relatively minor adjustments to their operation. Final decisions have not been taken. That is all I have as far as the Minister's public statement on 27 April is concerned. Senator Crichton-Browne —But are they to go into the Commission? Senator TATE —Final decisions have not been taken as to the future status and relationship of the Institute to the Commission. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $250,568,000 (Quorum formed) Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.09) —I wish to raise a matter that has caused me concern in relation to the sale of the Williamstown Dockyard. It seems to me that on the face of the documents the Government has bungled to the extent of losing over $20m of taxpayers' money. This clearly calls for explanation. I look forward to the explanation the Minister might give. I will expand briefly. When the Government determined to sell the Williamstown Dockyard it negotiated a price. It also agreed with the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation AMEC, the purchasers, that within the price there would be an allowance for redundancies. It was agreed that the anticipated redundancies would be 261 men and women and that the Commonwealth-they were Commonwealth public servants who would become redundant-would make the required redundancy payments and that they would amount to $4.8m. So the budgeting was done on that basis. Announcements were made to the public as to the sale price and the fact that over $4.5m would have to be paid for redundancies, which would reduce the sale price by that amount. However, when we came to the Supplementary Estimates, we found that the position had vastly altered. Not only was the $4.8m provision for redundancy payments agreed prior to sale, as I indicated, but there was an additional figure for costs of sale, subsequent to the sale, of $26,758,000. Needless to say, we explored further how the Government could unexpectedly have had extra costs of over $26m. We found out that, of that figure, $21.775m was made up of extra redundancies. When the government negotiated, as I said, it understood that it would have to pay for 261 redundancies. It also agreed to pay for further employees whom the purchaser would make redundant or dismiss, or employees who would leave. Unexpected to this Government, that was a further 977 employees, as put to the Estimates Committee. This Government, therefore, has to find an extra $21.755m of taxpayers' money to pay out to these employees, thus effectively reducing the purchase price by over $21m. Or, if one wants to look at it in a different way, the private enterprise organisation that purchased the dockyard, in effect, purchased it for $21m less than had been agreed. Otherwise, in due course it would have had to take over the long term responsibility for these employees. Therefore, that was obviously written into the purchaser's price. So the Government has had to pay another $21.7m of taxpayers' money, whether because of failure in negotiations or failure in the contract remains unclear. Perhaps we will get some explanation from the Minister today. One would have thought that in negotiating the contract it would be written into the contract that the total number of redundancies for which the Commonwealth had to pay without some recourse against the purchaser would be limited to the 261 employees. But it seems-we are told that the contract is confidential and we cannot see it-that it was not written into the contract, that there was a failure in this regard. The Government, through its officers in the Estimates committee hearing, came back and said, `But under the contract, if any of these redundant persons are re-employed within a specified time frame, there will be a right of action for the Commonwealth against the company for the redundancy payments, although the redundancy payments are paid to the individuals. It does not take much imagination to realise that the company is highly unlikely to re-employ these people when it may have a liability to pay millions of dollars back to the Commonwealth. That is unlikely to occur. It is a disincentive to the re-employment of these people. It seems to me that at the very least the contract should have provided that, if in excess of 261 employees are made redundant within the specified time, the company would indemnify the Commonwealth for its extra obligation to the employees concerned. In addition, the Government has determined to pay the private enterprise purchaser $3.595m for the employees who have remained with AMEC. That amount covers accrued long service and recreation leave entitlements. A further $1m was allocated for sick leave entitlements. The total is, therefore, as I said, an extra disbursement from the Government and the taxpayer of over $26m. In the absence of explanation-which was not able to be given in satisfactory terms to the Estimates Committee-I would have thought that that was scandalous. It may well be scandalous that the work on the naval vessels being constructed in the dockyards has ceased for so long. But apart from that, a Defence Department which is pressing for adequate funds to properly maintain its responsibilities to the Government and the Australian people simply cannot afford to have $26m lost to it in this way. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.16) —I wish to respond to some of the points that Senator Hill has made. The estimate of 261 redundancies and the $4.8m was based on the known redundancies at the time. It was always quite clear that there would be more redundancies than that. Until it actually took over the dockyard, the Australian Marine Engineering Corporation (AMEC) could not establish the degree of redundancies required. A clause in the contract gave AMEC the option to retrench further employees for a period of three months. I think it would have been very hard to sell the dockyard without such a clause in the contract. Until it took over, AMEC did not know what numbers it would retrench and what areas it would want retrenchments to occur in. I think Senator Hill has probably indicated the other leg of that-that if AMEC subsequently re-employs any of those people subject to retrenchment payments, AMEC itself must reimburse the Government for that particular amount. I would have thought that when the sale price was negotiated, the extent of possible retrenchments was involved in the estimate of what would be coming into the Government in terms of revenue from that sale. In conclusion, the figure of 261 was the known amount of retrenchments that would occur once the transfer was completed. Within the contract there was an option for AMEC, once it had assessed the situation, to make further retrenchments. That has occurred. It has occurred on a scale probably larger than one would have anticipated at the time. But certainly those retrenchments were not ruled out by any of the conditions of the contract. Senator HILL(South Australia)(11.18) —If the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) wishes to look at the information that was given to the Estimates Committee by officers of the Department of Defence, he will find that the picture is somewhat different from what he has just related to us. There is little doubt that the budgeting for the sale was done on the basis of 261 redundancies. The net sale price was put to the Australian people on the basis of those redundancies at a cost of $4.8m. The Government has taken the plaudits for the sale of the dockyard at a stated net profit, but we now find that there are additional unexpected costs of $26.7m, costs that I can assure you, Madam Temporary Chairman, a private sector vendor certainly would not have accepted without, as I indicated a few minutes ago, writing into the contract a right of indemnity. It just seems to me and, I think, to anyone who has perused the evidence in the estimates, that at the very least it is sloppy work on the part of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and on the part of the Department and it is costing the taxpayer an enormous sum of money. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.19) —I do not have much more to add. It seems eventually that Senator Hill's complaint is about the plaudits we got at the time of the sale. I cannot retrospectively remove those. It seems to me that the statements made at the time referring to 261 referred to the actual redundancies. I do not think there was any desire on the part of this Government to say that there would not be further redundancies. They were always a possibility once AMEC took over the Williamstown Dockyard. Those redundancies have occurred. I have indicated that I think they are at a much higher level than any of us would have liked. But they were always within the option of the contract. Probably having accepted that, Senator Hill went on to say that he did not think the negotiating skills used in drawing up that contract were therefore satisfactory. That is a matter for judgment and people will draw their own conclusions. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $13,591,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.20) —I ask the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) whether it is a fact that Commonwealth car drivers will be denied access to the new Parliament House staff canteen or other areas in which the staff are permitted. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.20) —The question of access for anyone to the new Parliament House is ultimately a matter for the Presiding Officers. Therefore, it is a matter that should have been raised in Estimates Committee A. As we all know, Senator Walters was fortunately asleep last night before she relieved Mafeking by arriving in the chamber. We got through groups A and B in about one minute. I should also acknowledge Senator Michael Baume's role in saving the side. However, I have heard rumours to the effect that some people say that it would be more appropriate if Commonwealth car drivers used the public sections of the new Parliament House. I would be horrified to think that they were true. I would be happy to take this matter up with the Presiding Officers. I do not know whether such a decision has been made. This Parliament is an incestuous rumour mill in terms of the rights of parliamentary employees and extra employees such as Commonwealth drivers. Given the fact that Commonwealth car drivers can use the canteen in this Parliament House, I would think that unless there is some logistical reason there should be no problem in the new Parliament House. As I say, I have heard those rumours too, Senator Walters, and I hope they are not true. Either Senator Walters or I could take this matter up with the Presiding Officers. But I cannot speak for the rights or wrongs of the policies of Parliament House. Quite properly, as is confirmed by the parliamentary precincts legislation, those policies are totally in the hands of the Presiding Officers, and so they should be. I am sure that Senator Walters would agree that we would not like the Executive to interfere with the running of the Parliament. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.22) —I am delighted to know that the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) is as horrified as I am. I know that, as the Minister responsible for the drivers' well-being, he will approach the President. The Minister having heard the same rumours as I did-that the Commonwealth car drivers have been told that they have been denied access on security grounds-I am surprised, I suppose, that he has not done something about it. The mind boggles. If their security status is such that they are permitted to drive us to and fro, from our accommodation to Parliament House and back, and everywhere else, surely their security is good enough for them to be able to use the facilities in the new Parliament House. I am content that the Minister will take this matter up with the Presiding Officers and will not allow such denial of access to occur. Senator Robert Ray —I might just add that I do not track down every rumour I hear. There are not that many hours in the day. Senator WALTERS —As a demonstration of good public relations, I would have thought that that rumour would have been nipped in the bud. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.24) —Initially I want to ask a couple of questions in relation to the sale of the Australian Embassy precincts and property in Tokyo. Since asking a question on this matter in Estimates Committee E on 21 April, I have received some supplementary advice from the Department of Administrative Services. I asked whether we had a guarantee that a capital gains tax would not be paid on the proceeds of the sale. I have now had a response from the Department, which took my question partly on notice, which states; The Japanese Government has not yet responded formally concerning the matter of taxation in respect of the surplus land recently sold in Tokyo. An interim response has been received which implies a favourable decision would be forthcoming. At the Estimates Committee E hearing on 21 April an officer of the Department said that a contract for the sale had been expected to be signed the following day-the twenty-second. Did that contract signing go through and was the contract subject to no capital gains tax being paid? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.25) —I am informed that the Department is fairly certain that the contract was signed the following day. It would surprise me if one could write into a contract acceptance or avoidance of the tax. I do not see that that would be proper. My advice is that the Japanese Government has not yet responded formally concerning the matter of taxation in respect of the surplus land sold in Tokyo. I hope I am not reading exactly the same response as Senator Short has received. Senator Short —I think you are. Senator ROBERT RAY —In that case I will desist. The honourable senator knows that the advice of the Australian Taxation Office is that the tax will not be levied, due to the application of sovereign immunity. Japanese legal advice was obtained to the effect that the gain realised by Australia on the disposition of any portion of the present embassy site will be exempt from taxation. I cannot add much more to that other than that I would be very surprised if there was a reference to capital gains tax in the contract. We are not aware of such a reference. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.26) —I am surprised that, given the amount at stake, we would have signed that contract without a cast iron guarantee that the sale proceeds would not be subject to capital gains tax. We are talking, as I understand it, about a difference of hundreds of millions of dollars. That is why I asked whether any guarantee had somehow or other been given in our dealings with the Japanese to ensure that the proceeds would be free of capital gains tax. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.27) —As part of these dealings advice was given and discussions were held. We acted on the best possible advice in handling this matter. I am not sure that any government would give an absolute guarantee in advance. The indications are that the proceeds of the sale will not be subject to capital gains tax and we acted on that basis. There have been a lot of stories about the sale of this site-Senator Short would have read many of them-such as that Australia was going to get $320m and that $380m had been awarded to X company, when X company in fact missed out. In the end, even if the proceeds were subject to capital gains tax-I do not think they will be-we will probably get more for the site than was ever speculated. Senator Short —If the contracts have been signed, what was the price in terms of both the yen and the Australian dollar? Senator ROBERT RAY —My recollection is it was 57 billion yen or, subject to the exchange rate, roughly $640m. It may have been lower than that because that figure was based on an exchange rate of 90 yen to the dollar. I think it was about 95 yen to the dollar on 20 May when the sale occurred. However, the price was in the ballpark of $640m. Allowing for the exchange rate, it was probably a little less than that. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.28) —Was any provision made to protect the Australian dollar proceeds against a movement in the exchange rate that has occurred with the yen? I was prompted to say that by, amongst other things, Mr West's Press release of 11 March, which stated that it was expected that the deal would bring in approximately $640m at an exchange rate of 90 yen to the dollar, as Senator Ray has said. It stated further: However, the final amount Australia will receive will depend upon the exchange rate at the time the contracts are finalised in a few weeks' time. I repeat: Was anything done in the form of cover to protect the Australian dollar proceeds? Did we cover that matter at all? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.29) —I do not think it is normal practice to do that, but I will make some inquiries and let Senator Short know whether that was the case. Governments anticipating exchange rates, as he knows, is a very grey area. I would have thought that it was assumed that the exchange rate fluctuations would not be great, as has turned out to be the case. We have had a less volatile exchange rate this year. I will seek some further information on whether any thought was given, if you like, to insurance or an each-way bet and give it to Senator Short. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.30) —Am I correct in saying that if the exchange rate applicable at the time was 95 yen to the dollar-that sounds a little high-compared to the 90 yen to the dollar mentioned in the Press release of the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) of 11 March, we are talking about a loss to the Commonwealth, in rough figures, of $30m? That is a lot of money. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.31) —As I said, I do not have that sort of detail immediately to hand, but I have promised to get it to Senator Short and I will do that as quickly as possible. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.31) —I now turn to another topic. I left on notice with the Department the following question: Which members and senators have since the last election established or will in the near future be establishing new electorate offices, as distinct from moving into pre-existing Electorate Offices? I thank the Department for its detailed responses. I wish to ask some questions about the answers that we have received. The figures are divided into two categories-fit-out and furniture-and there is a budgeted figure for each and a spent figure for each. What is the basis for the amount to be spent on fit-out and furniture for these offices in view of the wide variations in the figures? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.32) —Initially, the estimates are based on an inspection of the offices and the amount of work that is regarded as necessary to bring them up to scratch. Just how expensive or how cheap a particular office is also varies from city to city and State to State according to the prevailing market forces. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.32) —I would like to look at some of the figures in a little more detail. The first list is given for New South Wales. Senator Michael Baume's office change involved a budgeted fit-out of $5,000 and it apparently came in at $4,300. Senator Michael Baume —I watched for waste there. Senator SHORT —I am delighted at what the honourable senator has done very assiduously on behalf of the Australian taxpayer over recent years, at a great saving. The outfitting of Mr Michael Lee's office was budgeted at $35,000 and in fact came in at $49,000. There was a nil budget figure for furniture for Mr Lee but, in the event, $3,546 was spent on furniture. Senator Michael Baume —About 12 times more than on my office. Senator SHORT —Yes. What is the explanation for a difference such as that? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.34) —The explanation is very simple. The figures depend on the task needed to bring an office in a particular area up to scratch. The position is that members of Parliament, both Labor and Liberal-there is generally no distinction-are becoming very mobile, generally upwardly, in their wants in terms of their offices. The major moves tend to occur after an election. After the 1987 election the new senators and members wanted offices. I might say that some of their proposals were quite extraordinary and have been knocked back. But existing members tend to leave a move until after an election and they move fairly rapidly in many cases. In some cases the expenditure is totally justifiable. Some of the existing offices were fire traps and the working conditions were becoming intolerable. Given the new and munificent largesse we have extended in providing facsimile machines, computers and a third staff member, many members have found their offices are too small to accommodate that Government largesse and have subsequently moved. But it really does depend on the task. There are certain standard provisions in terms of air-conditioning and partitioning for members. In some cases they are more expensive than others. I am very pleased to say that Senator Michael Baume's figures are not high. Maybe we will scale everything down to suit Senator Baume's requirements. I would have to be very careful that there was not excessive expenditure according to that ruthless waste watcher, Senator Baume. I will not get into the game of comparing individual offices. I will not get into the game of saying what rent, fitout, furniture and conditions some members, Liberal and Labor, have written asking me for. That would not profit anyone in either this chamber or the other. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.36) —The average figure is in the order of $30,000 to $35,000. Can the Minister explain why the budgeted figure for the fitout of Senator Schacht's new office was $130,000 and the amount actually spent was $118,761? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.36) —I would have to seek a breakdown of that before I could say why his figure was particularly high. It also depends on the area in which one seeks to have an office. As I say, fitout costs do vary enormously. It just depends on the degree of change needed in the offices. Obviously I do not know the breakdown of every individual office and why a cost may be high. I will seek that information. Senator Short —How on earth could a budget of $130,000 be approved in the first instance for any senator or member? Senator ROBERT RAY —It really depends on where the office is located. These days providing security, air-conditioning, partitioning, et cetera tends to be a very expensive process. That would be one of the highest costs of fit-out. Generally it depends on which office one moves into and how much work is needed in it. I think the honourable senator is right when he says the general average for fit-out is $35,000 to $40,000. There is no doubt that the cost of fit-out has grown much faster than the consumer price index in recent years. Senator Short —Is the Minister saying that there is no figure of which the Department would simply say, `That is too high'? Senator ROBERT RAY —No, there isn't. Senator Short —There is no figure? Would the Minister not rule out $130,000 for the fit-out of an office? Senator ROBERT RAY —It depends on the difficulty of finding an office in the location that the member or senator requires. Of course we would rule out an extravagant figure or extravagant needs. If a member wanted personalised bookshelves or something along those lines, or wanted us to move those sorts of things for him, we would draw the line. A whole range of those requests are made. Everyone basically gets a standard office. The size limit is 90 square metres, but that limit has been approached with compassion by Ministers over the years so that members are not squeezed too far. From memory Senator Schacht's office is in excess of 90 square metres, as there is a tendency for most offices these days to be. As I said, I do not have the particular details of Senator Schacht's office available to me at the moment, but I will have a look at them. Fit-out cost is not automatically approved. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.38) —I would like to deal with a couple of other offices, whilst bearing the Minister's general comments in mind. Mrs Harvey's new office has $65,000 budgeted for it. That also sounds like an extraordinarily high figure, although it fails dismally in comparison with the budget for the office of Senator Schacht. Does the Minister have any explanation for that high figure? Senator Robert Ray —I do not have the details available, so I do not have an explanation. Senator SHORT —Will the Minister take that question on notice, and if he does not have the answer to my following questions will he also take them on notice? The figure budgeted for Senator Devereux's office in Hobart was $62,800, while $65,816 was actually spent. The figure budgeted for Mr Duncan Kerr's office was $50,000, and about the same amount was spent. Compare these figures with the figure for Senator Calvert's office, also located in the Hobart area. An amount of $35,000 was budgeted for him and only $28,300 was spent. The variations are very wide. Almost without exception the variations at the higher levels relate to the offices of Labor senators and members. One could be forgiven for being a little cynical if one suggested that different standards appear to apply in terms of the figures approved for offices. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.42) —Senator Short has now got to the guts of his question. I categorically say I apply no different standard to any member of this Parliament in terms of accommodation, fitout or other entitlements. I say that categorically. I could, if I thought that was going to be the view put around, very easily square the account. I will not. I could very easily go to some of the letters from Liberals that come across my desk requesting massive rents and furnishings. I will not. I know that was not quite Senator Short's implication but it will be taken that way. I just say that applications for office conditions, et cetera, are applied very fairly. That is not done just as a matter of principle, I might add; it is done out of plain self-interest because the moment one applies different standards one gets caught out and exposed. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.43) —I have two more questions to raise, the first of which relates to the figure of $172,000 for the electorate office of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Further information supplied in a response to a question by Senator Michael Baume points out that the figure was for a combined ministerial and electorate office. I certainly take that point. The answer said that it was necessary because there was no suitable alternative accommodation available. Mr Beazley has been the Minister for Defence, or Minister assisting, for approximately 5 1/2 years now, so I presume the security arrangements for him, which would be very substantial, would always have applied. Can the Minister give me any further information on why that move was necessary, given what would appear to be the understandably heavy security costs involved? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.44) —It is not my practice to question why either Ministers or members move from their electorate or ministerial offices. Mr Beazley, obviously wanted a combined ministerial and electorate office. This is not unusual for Ministers whose electorates are a little volatile, given the fact that Ministers are away from their electorates so often and that prevents them from doing their constituent duties. Ministers are never given any privileges by their electoral opponents, nor should they be, because they cannot be a local member. I indicate to Senator Short that approval is not automatic. At least one Minister elected in 1987 has not been given premises. The Minister's application for office accommodation has been rejected on the grounds of cost. I can think of five such applications since the last election from members and senators-some old, some new-whose applications for office accommodation have been rejected on the grounds of costs or size of office. There is an approach that if the cost is too high or the size is too big they can be knocked back. It is very irritating to the member of parliament. As I said, one member has been a Minister for 10 months and we have not even started work on his ministerial electorate office yet because he represents an electorate where rent is exorbitant and fit-out costs are enormous, as Senator Short pointed out, and where getting the right configuration, down to 180 square metres-or, let us be generous, say, 200 square metres-has not been possible. I do not question Ministers as to why they want to locate their offices in particular areas. If it comes to the point of absolute extravagance or expense we question it and say that the office will have to be moved somewhere else, but we cannot question the actual move. We can question where the member moves to but not the actual move. That is up to the member of parliament. If there are other factors such as an enormous amount of dead rent, we will take that into account and say, `You will find it very hard to move unless we can be guaranteed a tenant to pick up the dead rent cost too'. All these things have to be taken into account but if Senator Short writes to me and says that he wants to move his electorate office from, I believe, the Brunswick area and set up elsewhere for good reasons-his power base in the Liberal Party may have shifted to the eastern suburbs although I am sure it will not-I would not question him. I would not say, `You are only moving out of expediency'. If he wanted to move he could move. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(11.47) —When a member of parliament moves from one office to another is it normal for the furniture to be moved as well? The reason I ask-one can pick various examples-is that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has moved her electoral office in the Australian Capital Territory with not only a fit-out cost of $60,000 but also a furniture cost of $20,000. Would it not be normal for members who move office to take their furniture with them? If so, how are those figures for furniture justified? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.47) —It is normal for members to take their furniture with them. Mrs Kelly may have been on the waiting list for furniture replacement. As Senator Short knows, we replace furniture consistently and I hope that it is done in order of fairness rather than taking the squeaky wheel approach. I sometimes felt I was subject to that some years ago as I always seemed to be last on the list for furniture replacement. I will find out whether the move to the new electorate office involved purchasing new furniture just for the sake of it or whether Mrs Kelly was on the list, it was about the time that her furniture was to be replaced, and the opportunity was taken to do it at the time of the move. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.48) —I also want to refer to the answers to Senator Short's question on notice regarding the fit-outs for new offices. My estimation is that the average new office fit-out expenditure for 10 coalition members, not including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), was $29,146.30. I have also estimated that the average new office fit-out expenditure for 15 Government members, not including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), was $54,711. This average amount is nearly double that of the coalition. Is there an explanation for this? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.49) —I have already given the negative explanation for that. It may well be that Labor members of parliament, working much harder than others, need better conditions-but I doubt that very much. I do not have a direct explanation for that. It has been suggested that Opposition members may be more frugal. I will not enter into that debate without at least taking my gloves off. I do not have a particular explanation for it other than to say that, as far as I am concerned, there is no element of bias in terms of the judgment. I might point out that there are two different sections of the Department of Administrative Services that deal with these matters. Parliamentary and ministerial services come into it fairly late in the piece. I am not involved in day to day supervision in that area. Senator Newman knows of the rent and fit-out costs. The property division does the initial negotiation, estimates and so on, although in most cases I see the final figures. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.50) —I thank the Minister for that answer. I recognise that I was talking about expenditure. I advise the Minister that I have also calculated that the average figure budgeted by the Department for the Opposition members was $26,500 and the average figure budgeted for the 15 Government members was $53,653. So in the approval at the initial stage double the amount was budgeted for a Government member as for an Opposition member. The Minister says that he does not want to get into particularities and individuals but I have to say that a consistent imbalance of that nature needs an explanation and I would like one. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.51) —It may well be that different members from different political representations have different needs; it may be as simple as that. If Senator Newman is suggesting that the overall fit-out costs are too high per se and that we should reduce and further standardise electoral offices, we could look at it, but I do not want to at this stage. I want to give as much flexibility as possible to members of parliament to have offices to suit their needs. I do not want rigid rules such as those which existed under Labor and in the early Fraser years when members could only have 600 square feet; that is, about 60 square metres. They could not have an inch more than that; they could not have a different configuration. Especially in an electorate of different socioeconomic standards, one could have an office only in the down end of the market-even though all the transport goes to the central area. I do not want to impose those sorts of conditions on members of parliament. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.52) —Am I to assume from the Minister's answer that it is not a result of Government policy? I hope that it is not also an example of the politicisation of the Public Service. I find the imbalance between the two averages so dramatic that they need investigation. I would like to pass on to another matter which Senator Short has already raised; that is, the fit-out for the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) of $172,000. I recognise that the additional answers show that this is a combined electoral and ministerial office, that no suitable alternative accommodation was available and that air-conditioning and substantial security measures had to be provided. Why were the Minister's previous arrangements unsatisfactory? He was a Minister prior to this new fit-out. I know Senator Ray has adverted to it, but why were there no suitable alternatives? Is it not a fact that in Western Australia there has been an oversupply of office accommodation in the last couple of years? Finally, what was the expenditure on the air-conditioning and security arrangements? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.53) —Let me first of all say that I reject out of hand Senator Newman's reference to the politicisation of the Department causing that differential. Secondly, I will not have an inquisition as to why Minister Beazley wants to move his office. I indicated before that I take Ministers, Opposition office holders and other members at their word if they say they want to move their office. That is what I did and that is what I will continue to do. I will not change that policy. Senator Newman asked specific questions about air-conditioning without seriously expecting me to give an answer right now. She spoke about an oversupply of offices in Western Australia. I do not think many Western Australian parliamentarians have found that to be the case. Senator Newman —Oh, yes. Senator ROBERT RAY —Some Western Australian members of parliament who have sought suitable office space have found it very difficult. I do not want to cite chapter and verse who, but I can think of three examples from three parties of members who found great difficulty in locating a suitable office in the Perth area, especially in the Perth business district. I do not know how one matches that demand with the supply question: Senator Newman says that there is an oversupplied market but not everyone has found it easy to find accommodation. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.54) —I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel (Mrs Kelly) has had her office fitted out at a cost of $69,150. That means that the two Defence Ministers have just spent $241,150 on their offices. As Service married quarters are being renovated at a maximum cost of $30,000 to $35,000 each that means that the two Ministers between them have used the equivalent of the amount needed to renovate homes for seven or eight defence families. Is this an example of the Government's priorities? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(11.55) —That was a political point. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Giles) —Order! It being 11.55 a.m., pursuant to sessional order I shall report progress. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- Senator BISHOP —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: In light of Minister Evans's statement today that the privatisation debate is dead because the Australian Council of Trade Unions has vetoed it, will the Minister deny the rumours circulating amongst independent schools that the anti-private schools lobby, including the teachers unions, has been successful in having tax deductability for donations to private school building funds abolished or tampered with in the May economic statement to be brought down next week? Senator BUTTON —I suppose that honourable senators can ask any questions they like here. But it is not my function in answering questions to confirm or deny rumours which are circulating, perhaps in the community outside. Secondly, I inform Senator Bishop that it is not my function to say what will be done in the May economic statement. As I have said in the Senate before, if Senator Bishop can possess her soul in patience until 25 May she will know exactly what has happened in the May statement. I am not going to speculate about any things that may be or may not be in that statement. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer him to data apparently held by the Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne which could be used to forecast rainfall more accurately in marginal cereal growing districts in Australia. I ask: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the article in the Adelaide Advertiser on the El Nino ocean current and its links with dry-land farming in Australia? Is it correct, as claimed, that funds available to the Bureau of Meteorology are insufficient to monitor this vital ocean current adequately? Could there be a good return in the form of more accurate farming decisions through the provision of extra funds to the Bureau of Meteorology? Senator ROBERT RAY —I would like to do a Barry Jones impersonation here, but I cannot. I have seen the article. I am aware of the dependence on cereal production in southern Australia and climate fluctuations associated with the El Nino. I recognise the benefits that would flow from improved monitoring of this phenomenon. In order to provide useful advice to the rural community on the current state of El Nino in the Pacific Ocean and on the likely seasonal developments over Australia, the National Climate Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology requires daily data from around the globe for an adequate understanding of the atmospheric and oceanic processes involved. Expert staff interpret this data. A major international monitoring and research effort has been under way for some years as part of the climate research program. The Bureau, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Australian scientists have played a significant part in the development of the program and are participating in the effort to the maximum extent possible with their available resources. The data obtained through these international efforts, especially from the US and Japanese meteorological satellites, have greatly improved the Bureau's understanding of the El Nino phenomenon and its associated climatic impacts in Australia. The National Climate Centre is working closely with the US Climate Analysis Centre and, for the past year, has been issuing regular monthly bulletins to the scientific community on the state of the climate system over the Southern Hemisphere. The Bureau's ability to monitor these climatic fluctuations and its scientific understanding of phenomena such as El Nino and the so-called southern oscillation have reached the stage where it expects soon to be able to begin issuing regular public advice through the media on the general state of the climate system over Australia and the likely seasonal outlooks. I understand that the basic Public Service will be able to provide the resources presently available to the Bureau. I will give more details of this later. I would like it understood that this was not a dorothy dixer. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Now that the Government has buckled to back bench and Australian Council of Trade Unions pressure and abandoned its plans to change party policy at the June Australian Labor Party Federal Conference to allow changes to ownership of major public enterprises I ask: How does the Government propose to find the massive amounts of capital required by some of these enterprises, in particular the $600m that Qantas Airways Ltd needs and the $250m required by Australian Airlines over the next two years and three years respectively? Senator Walsh —One way is to have a larger deficit, as you used to. Senator CHANEY —I note Senator Walsh's interjection that one way of doing so is to have a larger deficit. That may well be the Minister's reply but I suspect that Senator Evans will be able to deal with this question without Senator Walsh's help. I further ask: Does the Minister now believe, as he has previously warned, that government spending in other areas, particularly the big budget social security and health programs, will have to be trimmed to help prevent these airlines becoming marginal bit players on the aviation scene? Senator GARETH EVANS —Obviously I do not accept the premise of Senator Chaney's question and his tendentious language about `buckling'. If he is talking about buckling, he might look to his own Party room and some of the buckling at the knees that is going on at leadership levels within the Liberal Party at the moment. In fact, in the last three weeks there have been four conspicuous occasions that I can recall on which buckling has taken place on an absolutely profligate scale. On media policy, the Liberal Party leadership buckled when it was rolled by the shadow Cabinet. On the referendum issue Mr Howard buckled when his Party room overruled a decision of his own shadow Cabinet. As I understand, on the question of the parliamentary departments legislation, Mr Howard buckled at the knees when he was confronted by the Huns and Visigoths who sit opposite in this chamber who said that that was not on. On the Aboriginal affairs issue of prior ownership, I understand that Mr Howard buckled at the knees when confronted once again by the rednecks in his own Party room. If we are looking for buckling we do not have to look very much further than the other side of this chamber and the leadership of the parties that confront us here. Let us have no more talk of buckling; let us have some sensible and some intelligent talk about the capital formation needs of our government business enterprises. Ours is a Party which is committed to sensible and rational talk about these issues. We do not embark upon ideological crusades. We do not embark upon reflex ideological reactions to these issues. We approach these issues in a measured and systematic way. It just so happens that we are approaching them in a little more measured way than I thought at one stage might have been possible. But I am sure that a debate will continue on these issues. The issues of capital formation are very serious ones and very important ones. They are issues which I am happy to go on addressing. I know that my Party in Government is happy to go on addressing them. I will be pleased to talk about this matter at greater length in the matter of public importance this afternoon. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Resources about a quarantine matter. Is the Minister aware of the recent newspaper reports about Japanese woodchip ships cleaning their ballast tanks on arrival in Tasmania and by doing so dumping tonnes of dangerously contaminated sediment into the ports of both Hobart and Triabunna? Can the Minister say whether any testing of this ballast water has taken place and, if so, with what results? Is there any truth in the claim that the dumping of ballast water has had and will have a deleterious effect on Tasmania's growing marine culture industry? Did a scientist from the University of Tasmania, Dr Hallegraeff, approach the Federal Government about this problem and the harm it was doing to the ecology and marine industries of the ports? What can and will the Commonwealth Government do about this problem? Senator COOK —I am aware of recent Press reports that Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) scientists have found live spores in ballast water dumped by foreign vessels in Hobart and Triabunna, which are thought to be capable of seeding toxic plankton blooms. I am advised that the CSIRO scientists in Hobart, including Dr Hallegraeff, to whom Senator Coates referred, have been testing ballast water and sediments from Japanese woodchip container ships visiting Triabunna and are investigating further the incidence of spores in ballast sediments from foreign ships entering Tasmanian marine culture areas. Quarantine officers have been involved in the drawing of samples for this purpose. It is difficult to assess the extent, if any, of past damage caused by such dumping. The CSIRO studies have highlighted the potential dangers involved and further work should provide a clearer picture when it is completed. The problem of accidental importation of marine life through ballast water has been known for many years. As well as the CSIRO work, of which my Department has been aware, there are a number of cases of introductions overseas and in Australia through ballast water. Studies by officers of the Fisheries Research Institute, the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and the Australian Museum have highlighted similar potential dangers. Despite investigations into means of controlling or eliminating species in ballast tanks, no practical method has yet been developed. The only known practical method of control at this time is exchange of ballast water while the vessel is at sea. However, that is not always a practical alternative because of the inherent dangers, especially in heavy seas. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service is monitoring the developments in Tasmania and hopes that soon it can develop a practical response to that problem. I might say to Senator Coates, since he has raised this question with me, that I will be scrutinising the activities of the Department to make sure that as soon as possible we can give him an answer on what remedial action can be taken in this particular case. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. In view of the fact that many Australians are complaining about inability to obtain first home ownership grants, can the Minister confirm or deny that these grants are being handed out freely to newly arrived New Zealand citizens? Can the Minister supply the Senate with the latest figures on first home ownership grants awarded to New Zealand citizens who have recently arrived in this country? Senator COOK —I can say to the first part of Senator Sheil's question that first home owners assistance is not handed out freely to newly arrived New Zealand citizens or newly arrived citizens of any nationality. No assistance or advance of assistance maybe paid to anyone until the applicant or one of the joint applicants has become an Australian citizen or obtained permanent resident status in Australia. Eligibility for assistance under the first home owners scheme cannot be assessed until the applicant, or in the case of a joint applicant, one of them has lived in Australia for a full financial year as an Australian citizen or with permanent residential status. The reason for that is to ensure that the scheme's income test is applied to a full year of income so that those more recently arrived are not placed at an advantage compared with longer term residents. To prevent hardship in cases where it is clear that the applicant's income will not exceed the limits, an estimate of income may be made and an advance paid of likely entitlement. Estimates of income are reconciled subsequently against the relevant tax assessment notice. If actual income is then found through some change in circumstances to have exceeded the estimate and an overpayment has resulted, the amount of overpayment is then recovered. Otherwise, there is no distinction in the application of the scheme's requirements as between applicants, whatever their country of origin. No statistics are kept, however, relating to the country of origin of applicants because once people have achieved permanent resident status or are Australian citizens, they are treated properly and equally and it is not then necessary to disclose their country of origin. Therefore, as I have explained, the Government aims to treat uniformly all applicants for assistance under the first home owners scheme. I should add that since the scheme's inception over 286,000 households have been approved for assistance amounting to over $1.05 billion. Many migrants to Australia have been assisted within these figures to establish themselves as part of the Australian community. Senator BLACK —I ask the Minister for Home Affairs a question arising out of the vacancy created by the disqualification of former Senator Robert Wood. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the status of the electorate office previously occupied by Mr Wood? Senator ROBERT RAY —In dealing with, if you like, the aftermath of the High Court decision, we have regarded former Senator Wood as having the same status as someone who had retired or shuffled off this mortal coil. Basically, that means that we allowed him to give his staff two weeks notice and to keep his electorate office open for two weeks. As a bonus I threw in a single fare back to Sydney for him on the particular day on which it occurred. I am now being subjected to a very spontaneous campaign from elements within New South Wales who suggest to me that his electorate office should remain open until the matter is resolved. I do not think that that is an appropriate course of action. I am not going to accede to those requests and I suggest that the people who are writing me letters open an office themselves; with the savings on the postage, the telephones, the telexes and the facsimiles they can probably afford it. I do not think we could set such a precedent because there is going to be a recount. I cannot anticipate what that recount will bring up. There is still a 1:100 chance that it may not be the Nuclear Disarmament Party that gets elected. I intend to pursue that course. As and when we get a new senator from New South Wales resulting from the High Court decision, the moment that person is established the conditions of staff and office will be re-established. Senator MACKLIN —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Is it true that two Royal Australian Navy ships, the Stalwart, which is the acting fleet flagship, and the Jervis Bay, a training ship, have been diverted from a planned four-day visit to Cairns to be on stand-by off Vanuatu? If it is true, can the Government inform the Senate as to the scope of military activity that is intended for these ships? Senator ROBERT RAY —I do not have any knowledge of such a decision. I will get further details and get back to Senator Macklin, hopefully before the end of Question Time. Senator GIETZELT —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to the proposed private hearing by the National Companies and Securities Commission on the recent sale of the Bell Group Ltd securities. I ask: Has the Government been informed of the nature of this hearing or inquiry? Senator TATE —I know that many honourable senators will be interested in the fact that the National Companies and Securities Commission has announced a private hearing into the acquisition and disposal of securities in Bell Group Ltd. The hearings, which will be held in private, commence on Monday, 23 May, and are expected to extend over one or two weeks. Until the hearing is completed the Commission has asked the boards of Bell Group Ltd and Bell Resources Ltd not to make any further appointments to the boards of those companies. The Commission expects to take evidence from Mr Alan Bond, Mr Holmes a Court, representatives of the State Government Insurance Commission, other professional advisers and others. It is also likely that the directors of the Bell Resources group of companies will be called. The Commission has been advised that the State Government Insurance Commission will cooperate. The Commission has not alleged any contra- vention of companies or securities laws but is holding the hearing under section 36 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act to consider whether it should exercise any of its powers or functions under the legislation in respect of the transactions. The Commission's hearing will be assisted by senior counsel. Senator REID —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories to the longstanding practice of adjusting payroll tax exemption levels in the Australian Capital Territory to keep them in line with the exemption level which operates in New South Wales. I ask: Is the Minister aware that no adjustment has been made to Australian Capital Territory exemption levels since July 1986, with the result that the threshold in the Australian Capital Territory is $200,000 whereas in New South Wales it is now $400,000? Does the Minister recall the statement of the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, on 16 February this year that he had asked his officers to look urgently at the need to adopt similar provisions to those applying in New South Wales in terms of threshold levels and rates of payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory? Can the Minister say when the Government will act to remove this disincentive to business in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator RICHARDSON —I am aware of the statement that Minister Punch made some time back. I am aware that officers of the Department have been working on the problem. I am not aware of when an announcement will be made, but I shall endeavour to find that out for Senator Reid. If I can tell her by the end of Question Time, then I shall. Senator DEVLIN —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs say where migrants to Australia are coming from and what effect this will have on the birthplace mix of the population in the long term? Senator REYNOLDS —I thank the honourable senator for raising the matter, which is of concern to many. It is a matter that has attracted a great deal of misunderstanding. I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight. We are now taking migrants from more countries. In 1986-87 the largest source of migrants was the United Kingdom and Ireland, which accounted for 20 per cent of all permanent arrivals. The second largest source was New Zealand, which accounted for 12 per cent of the intake. A distant third was Vietnam, with 6 per cent, followed by the Philippines, with just under 6 per cent and South Africa, with 4 per cent. There are no less than 19 countries which each contribute more than one per cent of the intake. Some have been saying that as a result of changing immigration trends those who are Australian born will soon find themselves in the minority. Of course, this is nonsense and will not happen. Because the absolute size of any particular birthplace intake is small compared to the total population, the overall birthplace mix of the population is projected to change little. Even with an intake of 150,000 annually-higher than the current program-the Australian born component is projected to be 75.3 per cent in the year 2025 compared with 78.7 per cent presently. A continuation of present immigration trends would see European born, including those from the United Kingdom and Ireland, remaining the next largest group, making up 11 per cent of the population, followed by the Asian born group, making up just 7 per cent. We must try to bring a sense of perspective to this question. Diversity in the intake brings clear benefits to Australian society. Senator ALSTON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Minister agree with Senator Walsh's recent statement that too often public enterprises operate in their own organisational interests and that of their management and employees rather than the public interest and that public enterprise is often a net drain on the Budget? Does the Minister support the desperate rearguard action being waged by the Australian Labor Party Federal Secretary, Bob Hogg, and more recently Senator Gareth Evans, to keep the privatisation issue alive beyond the National Conference or does he accept Mr Crean's ex cathedra fiat that privatisation is dead? I refer to the Minister's well-known disinclination to adopt the recommendations of Australia Reconstructed, the Australian Council of Trade Unions' blueprint for the Australian economy. Does the Minister's lack of enthusiasm stem from an objection to the basic concept of that report or merely to the funding mechanisms proposed? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Federal Government will not support any compromise arrangements with the trade union movement on the privatisation issue which would result in part of the proceeds from the sale of public assets or government business enterprises being used to fund any schemes along the lines of a national development fund or a national employment and training fund? Senator BUTTON —I hope my colleagues in the Senate will pardon me; it is a long question and I should take about an hour and a quarter to answer it if I was to answer it properly. I will try to deal with some of the points. Firstly, the honourable senator asked me whether I agree with Senator Walsh, particularly in relation to an alleged comment that he made that public enterprises often operate in their own interests rather than the public interest. Senator Stone —Not alleged. Senator BUTTON —Thank you, Senator. My thespian friend has given me a bit of coaching again. I am sure that is correct, Senator Alston, just as it is true of major private enterprises. They operate in their own interests rather than in the public interest. I do not find anything particularly exceptional about that except for the context in which the statement was made. I agree with Senator Walsh. Secondly, the honourable senator referred to a desperate rearguard action about the privatisation debate. The so-called privatisation debate involves big issues of public policy for this country. As I read what the Liberal Party of Australia has to say on this issue it has adopted a set of ideological blinkers about it all-four legs good, two legs bad sort of stuff, in the Orwellian sense. I do not think the Opposition has made a very intelligent contribution to the debate. There are big issues of public policy which the Labor Government and the Labor Party will continue to discuss. I do not regard it as damaging or detrimental to do that. With regard to the comment that privatisation is dead, I think we ought to get our terms right and understand what we mean by privatisation. Different things are meant in different contexts about privatisation. Senator MacGibbon —Is that what is wrong with Gareth? He does not understand. Senator BUTTON —I am not saying that. I am saying that the debate about the future of public enterprises in Australia has been characterised as the privatisation debate. Senator Evans's concerns-which he referred to in answer to a question from, I think, Senator Chaney today-all along have related to the questions of efficiency and accountability of public enterprises and the capital requirements of public enterprises. Senator Walters —Why gag debate? Senator BUTTON —I do not need any help from Senator Walters. Those questions all relate to the earlier part of the honourable senator's question about the interests in which public enterprises operate. They are legitimate questions for discussion. The word `privatisation' is sometimes said to embrace all those considerations, but in my view it does not. Simplistically, privatisation means selling public enterprises to the private sector. Senator Evans has a different set of concerns which he is addressing and about which honourable senators will hear in due course. Another part of the question alleged my disinclination to embrace the Australia Reconstructed document. I have some admiration for elements of the document and some criticisms of it. The criticisms relate largely to the fact that it is based on the Swedish model, which is a very different model from one which we might profitably use in this country-for a variety of reasons. I do not want to go into all those reasons now. The last part of the question concerned whether this Government would rule out the possibility of a national development fund and a national employment and training fund. The answer to the first part of that question is that I do not know, but I believe so. The answer to the second part of that question is no, we would not rule out the possibility of some form of national training fund. It is seen by this Government as a crucial issue-that is, the re-skilling of the work force, the continuing upgrading of work force skills, and things like that. There is a very important debate about who pays for that. Does the taxpayer pay for it or do the beneficiaries of it pay? That is a legitimate question for debate. I am certainly not going to rule out-- Senator Chaney —Or the employers. Senator BUTTON —Yes, or the employers, as they do in many other countries. As Senator Chaney knows-and Senator Alston probably does not know-one of the elements of that debate in Australia has been that those companies which do train and re-train workers on a consistent basis have the legitimate gripe that when they have done that other companies which do not bother to do any training or re-training take those workers by offering them additional incentives of one kind or another. Senator Walters —Why have you gagged the debate? Senator BUTTON —I indicated earlier to Senator Walters that I am not particularly helped by her interjections. That was so when I began to answer this question and it is still so now. Finally, the Government regards the training issue as very important. We will not rule out the possibility of something of that kind being done, because of the importance which we attach to it. The Australia Reconstructed document is like a curate's egg; it has good and bad parts. Many things have to be looked at and examined closely by Government in a constructive approach to that document. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer for Prices. I refer him to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 18 May 1918-I should have said `1988'-by Ross Gittins. Senator Robert Ray —He could have written it 70 years ago. Senator COONEY —He could have written it 70 years ago, as the honourable senator says. A rather dramatic cartoon by Rollo Fazzari appeared with the article, which made the point almost as well as Ross Gittins did. The article and the cartoon dealt with the price of motor vehicle spare parts. The article was critical of the prices charged and said that they were unconscionable. I ask the Minister whether he agrees that prices for spare parts are unconscionable. Does he wish to make any comments on the article as it referred to the imposition on the public of the cost of spare parts? Senator BOLKUS —I have not read one of the articles to which Senator Cooney referred or, if I have, I cannot remember doing so. I have seen the article in the Sydney Morning Herald to which Senator Cooney referred, and I can say that the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) recently conducted an inquiry into the prices of replacement parts for passenger motor vehicles. That inquiry was brought about because of concern, as expressed in the Gittins article but also expressed to the previous Minister for prices and consumer affairs, by consumers and the industry, particularly the insurance industry-an industry which has had to meet the impact of spare part prices on insurance premiums. The report found in general that prices had increased in some respects because of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. However, the report also showed that this development had led to some importers re-examining their sources of supply. As I shall outline later, there has been a beneficial effect from that. We are talking about a particularly complex industry. About 5,000 models of cars are on Australian roads, as has been indicated by Repco. A total of 100,000 different spare parts are on the market throughout Australia. Companies keep stocks of those parts for up to 10 years. So one has to keep margins in mind when one considers the industry as a whole. The report identified a number of barriers to competition, and the PSA was very firmly of the view that a more competitive environment would have a beneficial effect on prices and the quality of goods which ultimately go to consumers. The report identified a number of barriers. One barrier on which the PSA will concentrate in the near future will be that aspect of the market that deals with genuine parts. There is a strong feeling in the community, as stressed by the manufacturers of these parts, that consumers have to accept genuine parts when replacing parts in their motor vehicles. That is partly because of the intricate network of franchise dealerships that is endemic in this industry. As the PSA pointed out, in many instances alternative parts are not only of as good a quality but are often the same sorts of parts but with a different label. The PSA will be embarking on a campaign with industry and insurers in order to try to minimise the price impact of this sort of barrier. As I have said, it will be taking up these matters with both insurers and motorist organisations. It will also take up with motorist organisations, and once again consumer affairs agencies in this instance, the need for a greater understanding of the status of non-genuine parts in relation to vehicle warranty terms and conditions. That is another part of this barrier towards greater competition in industry. It should also be stated that the PSA will continue an oversight of pricing policies of major suppliers in this area. There has already been some indication of a betterment in the industry. For the four months from November 1987-arising from a survey of repair parts reported in the computer quote system of the National Roads and Motorists Association-there has been a fall in prices of between 7 per cent and 27 per cent of some items in the whole range of spare part goods. The Government has expressed its concern in this area, and will continue, through the Prices Surveillance Authority, to take an interest in it. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I preface my question by noting that everyone in Australia is aware that the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)-the de facto government-determined the direction of tax reform late at night in a Canberra motel room. Are we now to understand that the privatisation direction, so ably spelt out recently by Senator Walsh, has yet again been torpedoed by the ACTU, but this time from a motel room on the Gold Coast arranged by Mr Eddie Kornhauser? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, honourable senators are not to understand that. I will not dignify such a squalid little question with any further answer. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to an article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review entitled `Tokyo in favour of US beef'. In that article Japanese Ministers admitted that United States beef imports had been given a preference over beef imports from Australia. It also suggested that Japan might end its present quota scheme in favour of a range of tariffs. Will the Government take all the necessary steps to encourage the Japanese to end their quota system and to end the covert Japanese administrative preference for United States beef? Senator COOK —The short answer to that question is yes, of course we will. But I am glad that Senator Foreman has asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to say that the work of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy over the last five years is at last being rewarded. We have in John Kerin one of the best primary industry Ministers that this country has ever had. He has worked persistently and hard over the five years of his tenure of office to try to open up Japanese and European markets. At last we are beginning to see that his perseverance and efforts are justified. I am aware of articles in the Australian Press-I think that they appeared in the Australian Financial Review and the Sydney Morning Herald on about 19 May-reporting comments by Mr Koichi Kato, who is a leading member of the Japanese Diet. I think that he is the Chairman of the primary industry committee of the Liberal Democratic Party-or certainly an influential member of it. He is a member of the Japanese Diet that Mr Kerin visited just last month when he went to Japan to talk about beef quotas and other matters. He has said, in what I think was a beautiful euphemistic phrase, that the Japanese have used `administrative guidance'-that is a lovely term-to increase the United States share of the Japanese beef market at Australia's expense. The Australian Embassy in Tokyo is following up the full text of what Mr Koichi Kato has said and getting comments from him on the detail, but the admission of `administrative guidance' is, in terms of the effort we have put into the Japanese market, a significant admission. It is the first time that a senior Japanese politician has confirmed what we have been maintaining all along, that there is some interference in terms of that market. It is not an open and free market. That flies in the face of discussions we have had until now with Japanese Ministers and officials who have refused to acknowledge that there is any bias in the system. Australian beef presently is being discriminated against in Japan in at least three ways. Senator MacGibbon —And your Government is doing nothing to protect the producer. Senator COOK —That is a very odd interjection from the honourable senator because I have just spent the first part of the answer to this question demonstrating that we are at last succeeding with the perseverance we have put into that market. If the honourable senator wants to take the argument further, which government, his or ours, formed the Cairns Group to try to liberate world trade in agricultural products? It was ours. So the honourable senator should not interject against us and say in a blanket and unforgiving way that we have done nothing. We have the score on the board. Those opposite did not do it; we did. Let us go back to how Australian beef is discriminated against, because it is important for the Senate to appreciate that there are three major forms of discrimination. The first is in the allocation of quotas. In the previous beef agreements, which expired on 31 March 1988, 6,900 tonnes of the proposed 9,000 tonnes annual increase in quotas-that is, almost 80 per cent-were to be allocated to grain fed beef, in which the United States of America (USA) specialises. On that basis there is a clear case of discrimination. We are also discriminated against in the administration of the quotas. Quota arrangements such as the simultaneous buying and selling system and the demand development quota have been designed to give effect to the arbitrary split of quotas in favour of grain fed beef. By contrast, access for chilled beef-Australia's premium product in Japan-has not been permitted to increase. The third method is that rapidly increasing imports of diaphragm beef are, out of quota, classified as offal. This is supplied mainly by the USA and competes directly with some of the beef supplied by Australia, which is restrained under the quota. It is because of the inherent discrimination that the Government has been pressing for the liberalisation of the Japanese beef market so that normal market forces and not Japanese bureaucrats will determine the types and qualities of beef that Japanese consumers will eat. The USA, of course, is also seeking the liberalisation of the Japanese beef market. To date, bilateral discussions between Australia and Japan, and the USA and Japan, have not produced a satisfactory solution. Both Australia and the USA have taken the matter up under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and panels have been established to examine the conformity of Japan's beef import regime with its GATT obligations. The Government would prefer to resolve this issue through bilateral negotiations and further rounds are to be held to this end. If not, we are resolved to continue in the GATT with our actions. I congratulate Senator Foreman. His question gives me the opportunity to point out that five years of perseverance by John Kerin is beginning, at least in the Japanese market, to pay off. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it not a fact that the Government has engaged the Drake organisation to provide a computer training course for Aborigines at a fee of $721 per student per week, for a six-week course, in Queensland and a number of other Australian States? Is it not a fact that other training organisations have indicated publicly that they can provide this service at one-tenth of the cost and that, under the Australian traineeship scheme, fee costs of around $100 to $110 per week were paid for computer training courses similar to those being given by Drake? Why were tenders to provide this service not called by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? Does this not give further support to the points made by Senator Stone and Senator Crichton-Browne this morning, in the Estimates debate, about the maladministration of the Department? Senator TATE —The private sector, I am informed, has had a poor record in placing Aboriginal people in employment once the training subsidies run out. The Miller Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs, honourable senators will recall, was very critical of industry and governments in that regard. The Drake Aboriginal preparation for employment program is a pilot program incorporating job search and post-payment support services, individual counselling and support, cross-cultural understanding, intensive personal development, communication and presentation skills, office procedures and keyboard and word processing skills. Drake has agreed to use its job placement experience to seek real employment outcomes for Aboriginal trainees. Evaluation of the pilot program will include the costs of providing a similar integrated service through other training providers. Employment outcomes will also be monitored and the Government welcomes the involvement of industry in a serious effort to improve its Aboriginal employment record. That brief outline of the program offered by Drake training does not answer the specific questions as to the cost per person per week of training those Aboriginals who will participate in the scheme and I have no information on the comparative figures that Senator MacGibbon put forward. But I will undertake to seek further information from the Minister on the precise funding details. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. None of the services provided by Drake in that statement by the Minister are beyond the powers of other sectors of the community to provide. Why were tenders not called for this service? Senator TATE —I do not know what the procedure was leading up to the selection of Drake for this particularly important program. As I say, I will inquire and find out what procedures led to the selection of Drake. I will also make inquiries as to comparative costs. Senator SCHACHT —Has the Minister for Finance seen yesterday's statement by the new President of the National Farmers Federation (NFF) seeking increases in road funding? Will the Government accede to the National Farmers Federation representations on road funding? Senator WALSH —The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is that it is extremely difficult to accede to the National Farmers Federation representations on road funding because it all depends on which representation we want to take seriously. Yesterday, an NFF statement was put out, as Senator Schacht said. The first line said: The National Farmers' Federation has called for a major increase in Federal Government spending on roads. That was yesterday; but on 30 April last year the National Farmers Federation issued another document which called for over $11 billion in spending cuts at all levels of government in the May financial statement and the August Budget. The NFF was also kind enough to include a detailed list of the source of these $11 billion-worth of spending cuts, which included a demand that $128m be cut off Federal road funding. So honourable senators can see the difficulty this Government has in acceding to National Farmers Federation representations, because we do not really know whether we should take last year's representation or this year's representation seriously or whether the issuing of the Press statement yesterday automatically means, as Ronald Ziegler used to say, that last year's statement is inoperative-in other words, `We were fibbing before'. It is also worth noting that the ultimate author of last year's National Farmers Federation statement was Andrew Robb who has since come out of the political closet, so to speak, and joined the staff of the Liberal Party of Australia, where I trust he is occupied in the same sort of exercise as an employee of the Liberal Party as he was as an employee of the National Farmers Federation; that is, getting written into Liberal Party policy that $10 billion, $11 billion or $13 billion will be cut off Federal Government outlays. It is not coincidental-- Senator Stone —You would not be opposed to that, would you? Senator WALSH —Yes, I would be opposed to that. I know that Senator Stone and some of his supporters, financial conjurers, would introduce a bit of cosmetics into government accounting and cut billions of dollars off what are called government outlays by converting government outlays to private outlays-through the Medicare system or health policy. The effect of that, of course, would be to increase the total expenditure on health for no better outcome. The Opposition would also reduce government outlays, I have no doubt, by hiding them as tax expenditures instead of being honest about them and acknowledging them as government outlays. That was a trick that was widely employed by the Fraser Government and by John Howard during his period as Treasurer, although I expect that Senator Stone would have advised against it in his former incarnation-I do not think it would be unfair to say-as a public servant who never doubted his own infallibility. At least he had at that time some intellectual integrity, an attribute which I regret to say he seems to have shed since becoming a politician. Even though Senator Stone was nearly always wrong-- Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Richardson —You had to think about this one, didn't you? Senator Chaney —In taking a point of order I note the interjection from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. If one took a point of order every time that Senator Walsh was rude, crude and obnoxious, we would not have any debate in this place at all. I ask him to withdraw that last reference to Senator Stone. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The remark was out of order, Senator Walsh. You should withdraw it. Senator WALSH —I withdraw it, Mr Deputy President. But as I said, Mr Andrew Robb, who was the author of last year's NFF document, is now working for the Liberal Party. He might be able to assist the Liberal Party in actually getting together a list of figures that add up to $11 billion, as he did last year. But he is not likely to provide any guarantee that there will not be errors of fact as well as errors of omission, as there were of course in the Liberal Party's documentation last year. For example, in Mr Robb's effort last year he had as a saving $577m from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, which was in fact more than the total expenditure on the ABC and the SBS. So Mr Robb might help flesh out a few details, but his record indicates that he is no more likely to get the arithmetic right than whoever his predecessor was who drew up the incomplete list of Liberal Party spending cuts-- Senator Cook —Was he one of the Young Liberals in the courtyard? Senator WALSH —No, I think he is a bit old for a Young Liberal. I understand that the typical Young Liberal in the Australian Capital Territory-and my source for this comes from within the Liberal Party-has a physical age of 19 and a mental age of 15. In conclusion, the Government will look at the National Farmers Federation representations, as it looks at all representations, but we are really very confused about what we should do about them. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Can the Minister overcome the following problem found by voluntary organisations who send aid, in the form of clothing, to mission hospitals in India and Kashmir? A report from one such organisation states that it sent 14 parcels to its three outlets in India and Kashmir, but unfortunately those groups were charged exorbitant customs duties by the Indian authorities. As these groups were unable to pay, as they work on a shoe-string, the parcels have had to be refused and returned. As the voluntary organisation had to pay $168 to Australia Post to get the parcels to India, it was unable to pay the customs duty. Would it be possible for negotiations between the authorities of India and Australia to overcome the problem? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will have to take that question on notice. If Senator Walters has any further information on the specific case, I would be grateful if she would give it to my office. Senator McMULLAN —My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it relates to the situation in Sri Lanka. Is the Minister aware of the recent statement by opposition parties in Sri Lanka concerning human rights in that country? Does the Government share the concern expressed in that statement concerning the detention of political prisoners under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and under emergency regulations? In the light of the Government's proper expressions of concern with regard to human rights in other countries in our region, will the Government support the call for the release of political prisoners in Sri Lanka, or at least for the public gazettal of the names of all those who have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the emergency regulations, with a statement of the reasons for their arrest or detention? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government is aware of the concern expressed about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka by many segments of the Sri Lankan community, including the opposition parties in that country. On the question of the detention of political prisoners under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and associated emergency regulations, the Australian Government has in fact frequently expressed its concern to the Sri Lankan Government, stressing our wish that the political prisoners should be released or properly charged and brought to trial. That of course remains our position. We welcomed the Indo-Sri Lankan peace accord, not least because of the elements in it directed at improving the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. In the period immediately following the signing of the accord, a significant number of people who had been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and other emergency regulations were released. More recently we have noted the release of a further number of detainees, including some whose cases had been followed by the Australian Government on an individual basis. The Australian Government regrets that the continuing incidence of violence provoked by groups determined to destroy the accord are hindering its implementation and the return to normality in Sri Lanka. We certainly call again, as we have in the past, on all parties in Sri Lanka to recognise the accord and work to ensure its implementation and the protection of human rights of all Sri Lankans. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. In view of the fact that the 1981 Joint Committee on Public Works deferred the construction of the new international airport in Brisbane until the 1990s, based on projected international passenger numbers in 1986-87 of 500,000, and that the actual passenger numbers for that year topped 900,000, in addition to which the present terminal is little more than an old tin shed, which creates a very bad impression on overseas visitors, has the Government any plans to bring forward the commencement date for the construction of a new international airport terminal in Brisbane? Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Government has offered to make funds available, provided the Federal Government does likewise, to hasten the commencement of construction of the new international terminal in Brisbane, which is very badly needed to cope with the influx of overseas visitors to Brisbane for World Expo 88? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Queensland Government is always very generous in dealing with other people's money, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen would be well aware, but I do understand that the Queensland Premier is offering to contribute towards the cost of a new international terminal at Brisbane Airport. I am also advised that the Federal Airports Corporation, the FAC, has had preliminary discussions with Qantas Airways Ltd as to future terminal needs at Brisbane, and I am sure that the Corporation would welcome discussion with the State Government as to funding arrangements for any future facilities. The existing international terminal has recently been upgraded to provide improved passenger handling facilities. Its current capacity does provide for the handling of two B747 aircraft in an hour, and this is well in excess of the reported 350-passenger limit which was mentioned by the Queensland Premier. On present forecasts the terminal will cater for international traffic at Brisbane, albeit not very satisfactorily, until the early 1990s. While the international terminal is an older facility, it is also worth acknowledging that it is part of, albeit a somewhat distant part of, an ultra-modern new airport complex of world standard, and as such we do consider that the new airport will play a positive role in Queensland's economic development. It certainly ought to-it has cost enough money. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Is the Government satisfied that the Australian Federal Police is capable of properly investigating sexual offences committed within the Australian Capital Territory (ACT)? Senator TATE —I am aware there has been concern about the incidence of serious sexual offences in the ACT. Therefore I am pleased that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is establishing a permanent dedicated sexual assault unit which will be responsible for investigating all serious sexual assault reports, including the sexual abuse of children in the ACT. It will be under the command of an experienced detective sergeant, Fiona Crombie, and it will be staffed initially by six officers with relevant experience who have received specialist training in the investigations of sexual offences and the needs of the victims of such crimes. It is planned to have the unit fully operational on 25 July 1988. It will be established in discreet premises away from normal police stations in order to afford the victims maximum privacy. The premises will also provide victims with an essential supportive and professional environment. The unit will work closely with both community groups and other police services in undertaking the highly sensitive and personal investigations with which it is to be charged. Sitting suspended from 12.55 to 2 p.m. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 19 May Senator Messner asked me a series of questions relating to interests held by companies associated with Mr Murdoch in Northern Star Holdings. I am pleased to be able to give him an answer, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- On 19 May 1988, Senator Messner asked a series of questions related to interests held by companies associated with Mr Murdoch in Northern Star Holdings (Network Ten). Mr Macphee asked a similar question of Mr Morris in the House of Representatives. These questions were apparently based on access to a departmental minute to me, dated 23 November 1987, related to prescribed interest levels. At the outset, I should point out that the relevant authority for the administration and enforcement of the provision of the Broadcasting act in these matters is the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT). Under the Broadcasting Act. the ABT must approve the acquisition of, or increase in, a prescribed interest in a broadcasting licence. A shareholding of more than 5 per cent in television is a prescribed interest. The transactions at the centre of Senator Messner's question, i.e. acquisition of the Ten network stations by Northern Star Holdings, is presently subject to an inquiry by the ABT. The inquiry is also related to the acquisition of a major interest in Northern Star by subsidiaries of Westfield Capital Corporation and interests associated with Daily Mail and General Trust, Associated Newspaper Holdings Pty Ltd and by News Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd. The precise level of interest which the News Corporation group and the Associated Newspaper Holdings group have in Northern Star Holdings will be considered in this inquiry. The Tribunal expects to invite further submissions in relation to the inquiry within the next two weeks. To the extent that there may have been-as of November of last year-a breach of the 15 per cent maximum foreign ownership provisions (as the minute indicates but which Senator Messner does not quote), this was immediately brought to the attention of the appropriate authority, i.e. the ABT. On present information available to the ABT, the News holding in Northern Star does not in fact exceed the 15 per cent foreign ownership threshold, whatever the position may have been at some time in the past. As to Senator Messner's assertion that News is in breach of the cross-media provisions, no breach can occur until the expiry of the minimum six-month period of grace, which begins on the date the ABT proves the relevant transaction. That approval has not yet occurred, as the inquiry is still in progress. If the ABT finds that a breach of the foreign ownership provisions of the Broadcasting Act has occurred at any time, it can take this into account in deciding whether to approve the transaction. The current laws relating to approval of share transactions in broadcasting licences, including the period of grace provisions, were the responsibility of the Fraser Government in 1981, of which both Senator Messner and Mr Macphee were Ministers. Although the Director of Public Prosecutions has a discretionary power to prosecute an apparent breach of the ownership and control provisions of the Act, there has never been such a prosecution launched by any Government. Of course, as the Senate is aware, I have initiated a wide ranging review of the Broadcasting Act, including its sanctions, provisions and the role of the ABT, with the aim of ensuring that the legislation is appropriate to current circumstances and that the ABT can perform its role with maximum effectiveness. Motion (by Senator McKiernan)-by leave-agreed to: That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have leave to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 23 May 1988, for the purpose of hearing evidence in public session. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's sell-out of Australian consumers and taxpayers by its craven capitulation to the trade unions and party machine on the privatisation issue. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.02) —This afternoon the Opposition has brought forward for discussion as a matter of public importance the Government's sell-out of Australian consumers and taxpayers by its craven capitulation to the trade unions and party machine on the privatisation issue. We have done so because what was announced by Senator Evans yesterday, namely, the acceptance by the Government of its inability to change the Australian Labor Party's policy with respect to privatisation at the National Conference, is an extraordinary setback for Australia in terms of its capacity to meet the challenges which we face. I have no doubt that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans), who is at the table, will recall that when he was made mega-Minister for Transport and Communications we discussed the challenges which he faced in reforming areas of the Australian economy which contained notorious inefficiencies. Today's position is that the Government has effectively stepped back and indicated that it is not capable of meeting some of the significant challenges it has in this vital area, particularly in the area which is administered by Senator Evans. One should start this debate remembering the basic facts which have to underpin our consideration of every policy matter in this chamber. Australia is a country with high and increasing foreign debt. It has suffered reduced living standards and does not appear to have the capacity to lift them. Questions of economic efficiency are not matters which are abstruse, obscure or of no interest to the men and women of Australia. The men and women of Australia have seen the results of our economic decline and have felt them in their daily living and in their incapacity to maintain the living standards to which they have been accustomed. The other reason for bringing this matter on for debate is that it is another significant example that nothing in the Labor Party has changed. The Labor Party is not able to make critical decisions because of its subservience to the trade union movement and to its party organisation. The people of Australia, the people out there who are dubbed `ordinary Australians' by the Labor Party, are extremely worried about the Government's relationship with big business and the trade unions. This is just the latest example of the extent to which the trade unions are calling the shots with this Government. In Queensland yesterday, Mr Crean said-- Senator Knowles —Simon says, eh? Senator CHANEY —What Simon said was that the privatisation debate is finished, that as an issue it is dead. Simon Crean has pronounced the privatisation issue dead. That is no unique thing. Last year one of the senior Ministers in this Government, Mr Willis, had some very interesting things to say about the imbalance in the industrial arbitration system in this country. He made the point in the House of Representatives just last May that one could not have an industrial relations system where only one side of the bargain was bound. He said that one had to have the capacity to bind the trade unions as well as the employers. He went into Parliament and said that he would introduce new laws that would ensure that trade unions were subject to the directions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. When he was on radio with me in Melbourne in June, after he had withdrawn that Bill because of the election, he repeated the fact that he as Minister for Industrial Relations would introduce legislation which contained a direction system which would be much more effective than the current bans clause which has been moribund for 20 years. Mr Willis has made very clear statements both in the Parliament and in the media about what should be done to reform our industrial relations system. A funny thing happened on the way to the Parliament, because Simon popped up again. Simon Crean made a statement on 17 August. He said: They- and by `they' he meant the Government of which Senator Evans and Mr Willis are part- can still introduce a Bill but it will have to be one which does not do anything on compliance. What happened? Two weeks ago Mr Willis introduced his legislation into the House of Representatives. Is anyone vaguely surprised that that legislation contains no provision for compliance of the sort that Mr Willis had outlined? Once again, the trade union movement, through its leader Mr Simon Crean of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), had spoken and the Government, of course, responded. I will not go into as much detail, but I simply remind the Senate and the people of Australia what happened to the Government's tax reform proposals. Remember the Taxation Summit? Remember how the representatives of the people of Australia were gathered together here to discuss what sort of tax system we should have? The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was hauled off to a motel room by the ACTU and given his marching orders. The shape of the Labor Party's taxation system was determined not in this Parliament, not in the parliamentary Labor Party, but by ACTU direction. I ask the question: Is this a government for all of the people of Australia? Opposition senators-Never! Senator CHANEY —The answer has just been given by Liberal and National Party senators. This is not a government for all of the people of Australia. This is a government for those people who are the friends of this Government, and no-one else. In the limited time we have for debate on a matter of public importance, I want to make a series of points about where we have arrived at in this privatisation debate. First, it is quite clear that the Government is not facing up to our economic problems. The Government's own spokesmen have made it quite clear that the use of privatisation as one of the tools to obtain greater efficiency in the Australian economy is a matter of considerable importance. In the same way, Government spokesmen have made it quite clear that the people of Australia, both as taxpayers and consumers, required the option of the privatisation of public enterprises because that would be in their interests. The Government has wasted a chance which was offered to it by the Opposition of having an effective bipartisan policy in this area. One of the pathetic things about this debate is that as recently as today the Government accused us of being ideological on this issue. In fact, in 1986 we published our policy on privatisation for all to see. That policy is completely in accord with the views which have recently been expressed by the Prime Minister, Senator Evans and Senator Walsh. They are not even capable of picking up this policy and running with it when they have the full support of the Opposition. This is because they are frightened of the trade union movement. Finally, the really extraordinary thing about this debate is that it has been ruined by the Labor Party. Senator Evans and his colleagues have poisoned the well of this debate. They have used the issue of privatisation for the most short term political reasons. They have poisoned the well of debate within the Australian Labor Party itself. During this debate I will quote some of the things that have been said by the Prime Minister and Mr Keating which are totally at variance with their more recent views, statements which were made simply to cast fear in the hearts of government employees and to try to wring a few votes out of an electorate which was so easily frightened at that time. We have here a very sorry situation, a situation where the interests of the people of Australia have been sold down the river by this Government for short term political purposes. Now the Government is hoist with its own petard. In looking at the relevance of the issue of privatisation to the welfare of the people of Australia, it has been made amply clear by the documents which have been brought into this Parliament by the Government itself over recent weeks that at the heart of getting a more efficient economy which will better serve the people of Australia is the issue of having more competition within the economy. The farmers of Australia, who are having better times at the moment because prices for their products have improved and in many areas seasonal conditions are good, have gone through lean and difficult years. Wheat farmers in Senator Panizza's area, for example, have been hard hit by the rising costs. If we look at the report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport we find the statement by a royal commissioner that wheat farmers have been cost up to $10 per tonne because they do not have competitive systems of transport for their wheat. The tens of thousands of farmers around Australia who have suffered difficulties over recent years have suffered because of a lack of competition. The situation is exactly the same for coastal shipping. The report of the Industries Assistance Commission says exactly the same thing-that the failure to have a competitive shipping system around Australia means that between $300m and $700m a year extra is paid by Australian consumers. These are direct imposts on the people of Australia. They are examples of the gains which can be made for everyone in Australia if this issue of privatisation and encouraging competition within the economy is pursued. In addition, we see the issue of debt reduction as important. The reality is that in an economy which has been burdened enormously with debt by the present Government, the capacity to reduce our debt by asset sales is also of some importance. There are a few Labor members in the chamber, which is nice, because Labor senators are not normally particularly interested in issues which are of concern to their constituencies. Let me quote what Senator Walsh said when he tackled the great lies which have been part of this debate about public and private ownership. In his final words in a Press release issued by him just a few weeks ago, he said: The inefficient use of resources has as its inevitable outcome the less effective achievement of social objectives and will therefore cause living standards to decline. This is not an obscure economic argument; it is an argument which Senator Walsh has said is about causing Australian living standards to decline. The Government has stepped back on an issue which is relevant to Australian living standards. Senator Walsh gave the lie to the sorts of arguments which have affected senators such as the honourable senator who has been caterwauling on the other side and attempting to interject in this debate. I notice that he is not going to contribute to the debate. Senator Burns keeps shouting out because, no doubt, he is a defender of public enterprises. I remind him that Senator Walsh pointed out: . . . too often public enterprises operated in their own organisational interests and that of their management and employees rather than the public interest. He said that the publicly-owned airlines `have been a case study in industrial relations management at the expense of the travelling public'. They were not the words of some Liberal; that is what Senator Walsh said. He said that the present airline system is a case study in industrial relations management at the expense of the travelling public. Honourable senators opposite might stand for that sort of thing, but we had hoped that Minister Evans and Minister Walsh would be able to remove such attitudes from the Australian Labor Party and bring it into the twentieth century. The Minister who is to speak next in this debate has over the last few months made a significant contribution to the public debate on this issue. He has pointed out, either directly or through his agents, that some of the bodies for which he is responsible, in particular the airlines, are in need of another $850m in capital over the next two to three years. Senator Evans as recently as this morning has made it quite clear that there are no easy options to meeting the problems of finding that capital. The significant point that has to be made is that even though Senator Evans has gone down in defeat, as recently as this morning he was reminding the people of Australia, and no doubt intentionally reminding his own Party, that if we refuse to look at this issue of privatisation we face not the preservation of public assets but their absolute dissolution; we look at their running down and their destruction. Senator Evans was quite explicit about this on the AM program this morning. He admitted that he was depressed. Let me quote him: . . . as the Minister in charge of the airlines in particular, that they don't become just marginal bitplayers in the aviation scene-that's very depressing from a public enterprise point of view. He went on to point out: If the private sector component of our aviation industry should take the market by storm . . . because we are unable to keep pace in the international aviation scene, it is even more depressing because not just will there be an element of privatisation by default, as other foreign, privately owned airlines pick up the gaps, but obviously we will be losing a major economic advantage . . . Senator Evans was reminding his own constituency, although he was unable to carry his view, that the Australian Labor Party is pursuing policies which will destroy the existing public enterprises in this country rather than turn them into efficient agents for economic growth. I referred to the fact that the Opposition had over a period of years offered the Government the opportunity to develop its policies in this area without difficulty being created at the political level. The fact of the matter is that as long ago as 1986 we published in a document entitled Policies for Business what we described as the principles of privatisation. I want to quote briefly from that paper because these principles have been reiterated by the Opposition consistently since then and most recently in detail by our Leader, John Howard, in March of this year. In 1986 we said: The fundamental principle underlying a policy that returns functions from the public to the private sector is that competition ensures better and more efficient delivery of goods and services to consumers than centralised decision-making under government ownership. That has been amply proved as a statement of fact by the recent report of the Royal Commission into Grain Storage, Handling and Transport and the Industries Assistance Commission report on coastal shipping. We went on to talk about the need to have a more efficient and competitive economy, and we set out the guiding principles that would govern our approach. The first principle was that there must be demonstrable benefits to consumers and/or taxpayers, and every decision we have made to advocate privatisation of any particular enterprise has met that test. We talked about the need for gradual implementation. We talked about the fact that it is not to be a bargain basement sale but a commitment to reverse decades of public sector growth and accompanying inefficiency. We talked about the protection of the situation of the existing employees and giving them preferential access to shares to assist in increasing productivity and industrial harmony. We talked about the protection of remote areas, a commitment from which we have never resiled. We talked not simply about trying to puff up the capital value of the asset, not having a sale for the purpose of getting an immediate capital return, but rather about trying to ensure that the enterprises are sold in a way which will enhance competition rather than retain monopoly rights. We talked about our timing of these transfers of ownership to avoid disrupting capital markets and we talked about encouraging small investors to get a share in these great enterprises. We talked about using the funds not to finance government expenditure but to reduce accumulated public debt, and we said that where government ownership was retained it would be subject to the same conditions as private enterprise, especially with respect to taxation, superannuation, capital raising and accounting requirements. In other words, we did anything but adopt an ideological stance. We adopted a stance which was aimed at achieving greater efficiencies in the economy and greater benefits for Australian consumers and taxpayers. In that sense we had a brief period of hope when Senator Evans,Senator Walsh, the Prime Minister and Senator Button, after years of cynically bucketing the concept of privatisation for short term political gain, became temporary proponents of privatisation as a tool for chasing economic efficiency. The Labor Party, by its cynicism and destructive approach to this debate, as I said in opening, has poisoned the well. It has been as cynical and inconsistent in this as it has in its approach to uranium mining and to the Aboriginal people of Australia. It has brought short term political advantages at a cost to a reasonable long term debate and a reasonable long term approach. This is an area in which the Government stands most condemned. Privatisation, brought about in a careful way and in accordance with the principles that we outlined as long ago as 1986, could benefit the people of Australia. We now have a situation where the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the most troglodyte elements of the ALP in Canberra have combined to absolutely destroy the Government's current moves towards our Liberal and National Party policy in this area. We deeply regret that. We hope that the Minister in his response in this debate will show some of the courage that prevailed in part of his presentation on this issue, that he will put the argument for privatisation of these great national enterprises and that we will see him showing a little more resolve than he showed after his rather demeaning backdown in front of Mr Simon Crean yesterday. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Transport and Communications)(2.21) —Let me begin by offering a little reciprocal homily to Senator Chaney on the subject of the labour movement, because it did feature so prominently in the crocodile tear-stained harangue we have just heard from him. The Australian Labor Party is a very different animal from that of the Liberal Party of Australia. Thank God for the health and decency of this country that that is so. One of the things that make us different is the emphasis that we place on careful policy development. We have placed emphasis on the machinery to ensure the par-ticipation in that process of the whole, broad labour movement. One of the things that make us different is the primacy that we give to the biennial Labor Party National Conference in determining fundamental party policy positions. That, of course, stands in spectacular contrast to the situation in the Liberal Party, where-- Senator Walters —Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Does the Minister say that the broad labour movement is sitting behind him now? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —Our policy making process is in spectacular contrast to that which applies opposite, where the parliamentary party treats Federal National Council of the Liberal Party resolutions with exactly the same contempt as the leading members of that National Council now regard the parliamentary party opposite. There is a fundamental and very stark difference between the processes of the two parties. Where major policy issues involving traditionally sensitive nerves, such as the future of public enterprise, come forward, policy-making through our party processes can be a protracted process, and sometimes a frustratingly protracted process. As the old slogan goes: the difficult things can be done quickly but the impossible things sometimes take a little longer. This state of affairs may appear to be a somewhat burdensome restriction for Labor governments to live with, and in a sense it is-not least in the fast-moving kind of policy environment with which Labor governments have to contend these days. The important point I want to make is this-and it is an important point-this is a constraint with which all Labor governments have lived. It is a crucial part of the cement which keeps the whole labour movement-parliamentary and extra-parliamentary-together. It is one of the reasons why our Party, unlike its succession of conservative opponents over the decades, has not only survived but also gone from strength to strength in nearly 100 years of continuous existence. Cohesion, strength and discipline are the hallmark of this particular Party in government. They are the hallmark of this Labor Government's relationship with its own movement, as exemplified nowhere more starkly, dramatically or importantly than in the continuing success of the prices and incomes accord that the Labor Government has entered into with the trade union movement. It is simply the most successful prices and incomes policy that has ever been achieved or maintained by any government anywhere in the world. The Labor Party cohesion and the labour movement cohesion in this respect stand out like a beacon in contrast to the disorganised shamble that confronts us daily in the Parliament and in the media. To be lectured today as we have been by a Liberal Party and a coalition Opposition which tore themselves to pieces so visibly in the run-up to the last election-do honourable senators opposite remember that; they are silent about that now-which have continued to tear themselves to pieces so visibly and so dramatically over issues such as tax policy and media ownership policy in recent years, which have no coherence discipline, and, above all, no confidence in their leadership is really a breathtaking piece of cheek. I mentioned in Question Time today the particular difficulties that Mr Howard has been having in demonstrating cohesion, coherence and leadership. Let me mention them again because the events of the last two or three weeks are very embarrassing for honourable senators to recall. Honourable senators will recall the circumstances in which their Leader was rolled on media policy by his shadow Cabinet; the circumstances in which their Leader has been rolled on the referendums by his Party room; the circumstances in which their Leader has been rolled on the question of parliamentary department legislation by his own senators here and the circumstances in which he has been rolled on Aboriginal land rights, once again by the rednecks in his own Party room. Honourable senators opposite have a leader who tacks up on his bed every night the Bonar Law slogan because it is the only one he can rely on, the only one that makes sense. Bonar Law said on that famous occasion, `I must follow them because I am their leader'. This situation we confront is not one about which there is any sensible policy formulation going on in the Opposition benches in between all these alarms, diversions, retreats and forays by the Liberal Party Duke of Plaza-Toro over there who leads his followers from behind. The Liberal Party's own privatisation policy, if it can be dignified with that description, has oscillated wildly over recent years between a condition of total muddle and dither on the one hand and what can only be described as crazy bravery on the other hand. I will give honourable senators some chapter and verse in support of those two propositions. On the muddle and dither side of it, I cannot think of any better demonstration than the evolution, if it can be so described, of the Opposition policy on telecommunications. I point out for the umpteenth time in passing that it was never considered by anyone in the labour movement that Telecom Australia was a candidate for privatisation in any form. That was spelt out nowhere more clearly, for example, than by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 9 September last year. Let us compare by contrast the Liberal Party position on Telecom. On 28 August 1985 the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in a speech to the National Press Club, said that the coalition had not yet made up its mind whether in government it would privatise Telecom. Mr Howard was clearly captivated, however, by what he described as the remark-ably successful sale of British Telecom. Of course, that sale has produced somewhat less than stunning results prompting, among other criticisms, Britain's National Consumer Council recently to award British Telecom the title of the nation's worst public service. By the middle of last year, however, Mr Howard had apparently managed to make up his mind. In an interview with Derryn Hinch on 9 July he said, `Telecom is not going to be privatised or sold'. He apparently failed, however, to let his Deputy, Mr Peacock, in on this secret. In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Adelaide on 29 January this year, Mr Peacock was asked about privatising Telecom and he replied: Well, we will want to break it up. As Mick Young used to say, `Andrew always seems to dry out as he moves towards the Nullarbor'. Meanwhile the various lesser lights of the Opposition have been running around excitedly, spewing forth a variety of usually conflicting Press statements in a vain attempt to keep themselves and everybody else awake. We have had the Opposition spokesman on small business and consumer affairs, Mr Moore-I think he is still the spokesman; I cannot recall, we have not heard much from him-busily writing to the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 January expressing the opinion that if Telecom was having difficulty in expanding its network it was time the private sector had a go. That was the Opposition's front bench spokesman in January this year. Then Senator Alston in a Press statement late last year-I cannot tell honourable senators when because he was not sufficiently organised to put a date on it-called for the immediate scrapping of Telecom's existing cross-subsidisation arrangements. He did not elaborate on how his compatriots in the National Party should deal with the calls of outrage that could reasonably be expected from constituents once the people in the bush realised that scrapping the present metropolitan subsidisation of the rural telephone network would expose them to phone installation costs and phone bills running, of course, into thousands of dollars. Then, of course, let us not forget poor old Senator Messner, single-handedly responsible for the destruction of God knows how many trees as he pours out his own set of Press releases and as he wallows along, to mix the metaphor, in the wake of the rest of the outfit. He took about only two months after Senator Alston's statement to decide that a coalition government would retain the cross-subsidies. We can only assume that he cleared this with Mr Howard who, back in his National Press Club speech, was attacking the concept of cross-subsidisation. I know it hurts honourable senators opposite, but it is a shambles. It is a dither; it is a muddle. That is the point that I am making and it is dramatically made by these sorts of conflicting positions that have emerged. Both Howard and Messner have run the line that Telecom should not be afforded any pricing flexibility while it retains its monopoly. As was pointed out by Anne Davies in the Australian Financial Review on 21 January, implicit in this statement is support for competition on the basic telephone network. That is a move that would obviously leave Telecom unable to meet its community service obligations and expose Australians outside the metropolitan areas again to greatly increased costs. So there we have had it over and over again-muddle, confusion and chaos. But that is only one side of the picture. On the other side the Liberals' attitude to privatisation, the Opposition's attitude, has been the phenomenon that can be described only as crazy bravery. This is the list as it now appears in the recent run of policy statements that have appeared-- Senator Vanstone —What is your attitude? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will come to that in a moment. I have a list of the things that those opposite now say they want to privatise, not just to some small extent to enable public sector enterprise to continue in the ring in the way that Senator Chaney was suggesting was an admirable state of affairs halfway through his speech. That is the point at which he really started to drown in crocodile tears. The situation for members of the Opposition is that they want apparently, according to their various recent policy releases, to sell off the following: 100 per cent of Australian Airlines; 100 per cent of Qantas Airways Ltd; 100 per cent of Aussat, although that will obviously be over Ian Macphee's dead body, as he has made clear with a succession of recent Press statements; 100 per cent of the domestic and international airline terminals; 100 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank; 100 per cent of the Australian Industry Development Corporation; 100 per cent of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation; 100 per cent of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation; 100 per cent of Medibank Private; 100 per cent of the national Pipeline Authority; 100 per cent of the Australian National Line; and, in a fit of moderation, 49 per cent of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. That has not been preceded by any visible process of policy formulation. Where is the argument? Where is the analysis? Where is the reasoning of the pros and cons that have preceded and led up to those particular sets of policy commitments if, indeed, such as they are? Where is the consideration of whether the capital market in this country could possibly absorb the floods of floats that would be involved in any attempt to implement over any kind of credible time span a set of objectives of that particular kind? What we have got here is nothing more and nothing less than an ideological binge. That is the only way that honourable senators opposite know how to approach policy making. It is an ideological orgy. They have an ideological `la grande bouffe' approach to the business of policy-making. They have no other way of approaching the policy formulation process-no more articulate or credible way of approaching it-than to reach over, grab a bag of chocolates and stuff them down their collective throat, all in one big go, without any understanding or appreciation of the process of analysis and the process of digestion that is involved in a rational policy making regime. What has been the Government's approach and my approach, by contrast, to the position of public enterprises in this country? I will tell honourable senators opposite what my approach and the Government's approach is. I am very happy to do so. It is an approach which recognises that there are two quite separate and distinct issues that arise when one is considering the future of public enterprises in this country. The first question which is sometimes called an issue of privatisation-but I think, as Senator Button said in Question Time today, that is a misnomer-is that of the efficiency and accountability of the enterprises and organisations in question. That is an issue which is tremendously important to the future of public sector enterprise and it is one which this Government has been systematically addressing from its very first days in office. It is a matter that came very fully to public and parliamentary attention with the publication by Senator Walsh of the White Paper late last year. It is a policy commitment and an approach that will come very fully to fruition next week with the major statement that I will make in this place on the future of Government business enterprises so far as their financial and corporate structures are concerned; so far as questions of planning and accountability are concerned; and so far as major strategic controls such as superannuation and executive remuneration, borrowing controls, industrial relations coordination and so on are concerned. It is a statement that will address the desirability or otherwise of maintaining the mass of day to day controls which have been built up over so many years of tory government allegedly committed to rational public administration and sensible competition, and which it did nothing to undermine during its period in office, any more than it did with airline regulation or oil regulation. Next week's statement will address all of those issues in a very systematic and detailed way. The other problem concerning public sector enterprises is the problem of capital formation. That is the problem which does raise as a possible solution to the full or partial selling off of such organisations the question of the injection of private equity. Obviously, that is a much more difficult question to confront. It is necessarily a question that we have had to confront in an evolutionary way. My impetus in addressing this particular question has not been, and never will be, ideological in character or content. It is an approach to the problem which is stimulated, motivated, governed and which continues to be driven by me and the Government's perception of just what and how significant those particular problems are. It is based on an appreciation that these enterprises-some more so than others-do have major capital needs. Their position in the marketplace is such that it will massively and markedly deteriorate if those capital needs are not met. It is a set of problems for which I am readily and cheerfully willing to concede there are no soft options available, in particular the traditionally thought of soft options, of budgetary handouts and further access to the borrowing market. On numerous occasions I have sought-I will not do so again now-to spell out and quantify my perception and the Government's perception of what those particular capital needs are. The important point that I have stressed and that I will go on stressing in public and internal discussions of this matter in the future is that a failure to come to grips with these capital formation problems will condemn these enterprises to wither on the vine in the sense of becoming holders of a less and less significant share of the particular market in question. It will have significant implications for the future of public enterprise in terms of the domestic market players. Even more than that, it will have significant implications for the balance of payments, foreign revenue earnings and so on when one talks about international players such as Qantas Airways Ltd. That is the truth and the reality of the matter. There are problems. The final point I would make is that there are many different ways of approaching and confronting those problems. There are other options that need to be explored and I will continue to explore them both privately and publicly. What distinguishes us, yet again, from the barking cacophony, the disorganised, incoherent rabble that confronts us across this Parliament is that we will keep a debate going; we will keep hanging in there to confront and seek solutions to these problems. I am sure that eventually we will find solutions to them. In doing so, I am very sure of one thing: we will be acting infinitely more sensitively and with infinitely more regard to the real needs of the Australian community than could ever be managed by those who so rightly sit on the Opposition benches and who, on the strength of their performance today, will be sitting there for many more years to come. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(2.42) —Today we are debating a matter of public importance brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in these terms: The Government's sell-out of Australian consumers and taxpayers by its craven capitulation to the trade unions and party machine on the privatisation issue. The first point that needs to be made is that the Australian Labor Party has not abandoned privatisation; it has been put aside for the moment. Very clearly, that is because it cannot get the numbers at present. It is not because the Hawke Ministry does not want to privatise; it is because at the moment it cannot privatise. On behalf of the Australian Democrats I wish to spell out why my Party strongly supports public enterprises and the value that we see in public enterprises for our society. We do not believe that we should seek to tailor our policies simply to satisfy international bankers and investors. It is the international bankers and investors who are demanding surplus Budgets and a reduction in public sector borrowing requirements. It is that demand for economic stringency imposed from outside Australia that has led both the Liberal and the Labor parties to support privatisation, irrespective of the effects of privatisation on the average Australian. By sheer coincidence, it is also the bankers, financiers and investors who stand to make the profits. Let us look at Australia's situation. In 1986, the view of the then Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, when he spoke to the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration on privatisation and deregulation was as follows: Australia has a small public sector and is already highly privatised by international standards. In terms of public expenditure as a proportion of GDP, we rank either 18th or 19th among the 24 OECD countries. I am sorry to interject some facts into this otherwise fascinating debate today, but that is where Australia stands in the international table. We are already highly privatised. We are already one of the half dozen most highly privatised economies in the Western world. Mr Dawkins went on to quote a variety of examples: Three-quarters of Canada's airline industry, all of Germany's and Italy's, are state-owned, in comparison to only 25 per cent of Australia's. One quarter of . . . Germany's oil production is state-owned; none of Australia's. Half of France's and Holland's motor . . . industries are state-owned: none of Australia's. . . . half of Belgium's . . . France's and Italy's steel industries are state-owned; none of Australia's. Britain's, France's and Austria's coal industries are . . . state-owned; none of Australia's. So let us get a bit of perspective as to where Australia stands when we get these rampant and hysterical calls for privatisation, regardless of the value to the community or the individual Australian citizen. There are very good reasons for having public enterprises. Public enterprises can be directed to other than profit-making concerns. My Party is not at all worried by that fact. We believe that there are multiple purposes to be satisfied within our economy. One purpose is to deliver equal services to those people who have unequal chances. We are able to spend more on those people who, by accident of birth, upbringing, sickness, illness, distress or death in their families, are unable to have the same chances as everybody else in this community. Unequal service provided to unequal people is one of the reasons we have public enterprises. I hope we will always have those public enterprises. I ask Opposition senators and those in the Government who are so rampageously rambo about this exercise, every time they come back to this country from some other country, to express to anybody they might be travelling with, the fact they are returning to the best country in the world. Why is it the best? Because we are willing to share some of our wealth and we do it through our public enterprises. It is about time somebody started to talk some sense instead of the economic nonsense that is bandied around-that somehow or other the ownership of those companies passing into private hands will suddenly make those industries terribly concerned about our citizens. A private company is there to make profits. It is not there to help the citizens of this country. I am not complaining about that; that is why we have private enterprises. But let us be clear about it: they are not here to help other citizens make a living or get an education or to assist them to do a whole range of other things. Senator Stone —They just provide jobs; that is all they do. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Stone is attacking the profit motive now. He can do that later. I have just expressed my support for the profit motive. Let it be on record that Senator Stone is opposed to it. Senator Stone —That is totally untrue. Senator MACKLIN —It is not. Senator Stone should sit down. He will have his time later. He has been rabbiting on for most of the rest of the debate and he wants to take up my time. He should shut up and sit down. Does he want 100 per cent of the time in this Senate? Senator Bishop —Get on with it. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Bishop should be quiet too. She and Senator Tambling have done nothing but talk to each other about what drinks they will have later. They have already had a lovely lunch, as we heard in the last debate. Now they are talking about having some more. One of the other multipurposes that is required for public enterprise is to assist in stabilising employment, which it has done time and time again in periods of difficulty. Public enterprise has done that and will do it again. It provides reliable services to private enterprise, the infrastructure base upon which private enterprise is able to work and trade successfully, both in Australia and overseas. One of the reasons we provide public enterprises is to underpin what we are doing in this country. They are the things that do not happen to make a profit, cannot make a profit, yet are basic requirements for making a profit. We need to look at whether or not we are dealing with the fact-as the Liberal Party would want us to believe-that the public sector is intrinsically inefficient. It is an interesting proposition that in the recent Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, Messrs Borins and Boardman reached the following conclusion in their submission which was based on a review of recent studies of public enterprise efficiency: Firstly, there is no consistent evidence that public enterprise is inherently less efficient than private enterprise. At least in mature industries, both in Canada and abroad, public and private firms tend to have comparable performance levels when examined on an industry by industry basis. Secondly, the environment of Crown corporations appears to be a stronger determinant of efficiency than the mere fact of public ownership. In particular, Crown corporations in competitive environments appear to perform as efficiently as their private sector counterparts. Langford concludes: `The results of modern studies clearly render anachronistic the traditional hypothesis that a change in ownership from public to private is bound to increase efficiency.' That is an interesting exercise from people who, unlike the rabble that have been actually dissembling themselves in the chamber today, have attempted to look at the studies that have been made on these items. Whether or not those studies will actually hold up remains to be seen, but at least somebody has taken the trouble to undertake some surveys, investigations and research, and then sought to review that type of research in a coherent and rational form. I think it is interesting when one does that outside the ideological humbug that goes on in this type of debate that inevitably one is drawn to the conclusion, as I have just read out, that what indeed matters, as anyone with a knowledge of business knows, is not so much the ownership, which is important, but the environment in which those particular industries exist and work. We cannot use, as some people seem to suggest we should, the criterion of profitability, because some of our essential services are inherently loss-making. One of those is the primary and secondary education sector. On any table of income and expenditure it costs a fortune. But anybody who knows anything about the role of education in our society would say, `Hang on; you are not counting all the factors. You should not just count the dollars and cents that come in and go out on a particular enterprise. You actually have to count the worth to the community of having primary and secondary education'. That is the crux of the argument that I am putting. We cannot just count the dollars in, dollars out. We have to work out what value that particular enterprise has to the general community. Someone might say, `In Australia we have a vibrant private sector'. What we do have in Australia is a non-profit making private sector, most of which is 95 per cent recurrent funds supported out of taxpayers' funds. It is a non-profit sector and in that sense it is not part of the private sector so-called. There has been interesting debate on some of the enterprises, but the institution which people feel quite happy to attack on as many occasions as possible is Telecom Australia. Telecom is a very interesting body. We have the very interesting cross-subsidisation exercise whereby city subscribers assist those in the country and business subscribers assist those who are private and present services subsidise future services. When we look at the sell-off of British Telecom an interesting fact emerges. There were 2.1 million original shareholders. That figure shrank to 1.7 million in 10 days. In 1986, the employees-remember that was the big thing at the time; employees were going to own it, and that was why it was all right to do it-held less than 5 per cent of the shares in British Telecom. Anyone who knew the private stock market would have realised that that was inevitable. The whole exercise was a pure furphy. Senator Maguire —The underwriters skimmed off 5 per cent of the take. Senator MACKLIN —That is true. There has been a 1,000 per cent increase in the charge for a local call from a public telephone box, and domestic subscribers now have to pay for what formerly were free services. Why is that? It is because we have removed the cross-subsidisation. Senator Alston was quite happy for the country people to pay more for Telecom. It is the country people who will suffer if the rabble on my right ever come to government and privatise Telecom. Public enterprises in Australia have been efficient. They are an incredibly important part of the economy. They need the support of the community because they assist in making our society the type of society it is-the best in the world. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.57) —We are debating a matter of public importance-namely, the Government's sell-out of Australian consumers and taxpayers by its craven capitulation to the trade unions and party machine on the privatisation issue. At the outset I take the opportunity of saying to Senator Macklin that I regret his intemperate outburst directed at me during his remarks which clearly was based upon a mishearing of what I had said. The only alternative explanation would be that he was misrepresenting me. I am not prepared to assume that he was. My interjection was to the effect that the private sector in this country provides jobs. How that can be regarded as an attack upon private sector profits, which is what Senator Macklin presented me as saying, is beyond me. I regard this debate as comforting. What we are debating in essence is the power of ideas. I have watched the idea that we need to get rid of protection policy being debated for the last 20 years in this country. I am glad to say that it now appears to be an idea whose time has come. It is an idea which even Senator Button has begun embracing to the extent of dipping at least a tiny toe-that is not a personal reflection upon Senator Button, I hasten to add-into the water. Next week's economic statement from the Government may begin to show some evidence that the time of the idea of getting rid of protection in this country has come. In the same way, when a few years ago a few other people and I began the H. R. Nicholls Society, directed towards provoking a debate in this country upon the need to address the most important single reform which is required for Australia's future today, namely, the deregulation of the labour market, we were reviled from every part of the left-hand side of politics. Indeed, a good many in the centre and somewhat on the other side were a little uneasy at some of the things we were then saying. I make no bones about that. We were assailed by people like Ms Pamela Williams, who wrote a famous article in the Business Review Weekly entitled, `The Union Busters'. At the time we were set upon by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who described us as `political illiterates' and `economic troglodytes'. We were assailed by the then Hon. Mick Young on the Channel 9 Sunday program in August 1986, who referred to the `sinister spokesman for the New Right'. In other words, we were subjected to the usual and absolutely foreseeable tired McCarthyism of the Left which is what the Australian Labor Party and this Government always put forward when they do not like what is being said from the other side of the chamber or the other side of the political spectrum. I will not spend further time talking about the contribution to that debate of such nowadays Labor party notables as Mr John Halfpenny, Mr Laurie Carmichael, the chief author of Australia Reconstructed, and people of that ilk. However, I remark that the kind of smear campaigns which were running rife at that time were characteristic of the sources from which they emanated. But what has come of it? Today almost everyone except the Labor Party recognises that our regulated labour market has to be freed. We have to deregulate or perish. The time has not yet come for that idea to be adopted, but it is well and truly on the way. The same can be said for that matter that is under discussion this afternoon-privatisation. Less than three years ago, in 1985, proposals for privatisation were put forward in the South Australian election campaign by the leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia. Those proposals were supported at the time by Mr John Howard, who I think had then recently become leader of the Federal Liberal Party. They were bitterly, mercilessly and intellectually shamefully attacked-- Senator Vanstone —Dishonestly. Senator STONE —Dishonestly-I thank the honourable senator-not just by the Premier of South Australia but by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and, of course, not least, the South Australian Public Service trade unions. So it was with some surprise that almost immediately after the Federal election last July we saw our Prime Minister launching into a vigorous campaign to persuade his Party and his old mates in the trade union movement that privatisation was a good idea, a great idea, after all. Of course, we have come to understand a little more about the capacity of the Prime Minister to change his mind on these issues. In passing, I note the incredible headline of an article in the Australian of last Saturday in which Mr Paul Kelly told us all about the dilemma that Mr Hawke was facing in that he did not know whether to keep his promise about the gold tax. That was confirmed by the omission, so to speak, this week by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). Why have we seen this volte-face by the Prime Minister and some of his key Ministers at this time? I suggest that what we have seen has been born out of a spirit of desperation on the part of a number of the key Ministers in this Government who are sufficiently economically rational to understand that they will never succeed in addressing effectively the economic problems of this country until the Government begins to deal with the problem of trade union power in this country. Obviously they cannot do anything directly about the trade union bosses because, of course, the trade union bosses have a far too powerful position within the constitution and, above all, the finances of the Labor Party. So this cabal of centrally located and very influential and powerful Ministers has cast about for means of doing something indirectly. That is why we have been hearing a bit more about cutting tariffs and about privatisation. That is why the Treasurer (Mr Keating) persuaded the Prime Minister to transfer to him, the Treasurer, responsibility for the Industries Assistance Commission without, I may say, consulting Senator Button who had previously been responsible for this body. That is why, as I say, the Prime Minister has suddenly swung around 180 degrees and charged off in pursuit of the privatisation of public enterprises. This Government knows, as we do, that it is the government business undertakings in this country which are at the heart of the power of the trade union movement. After all, it is a matter of public record that, in the private sector, only-I should perhaps not say only-35 per cent of the members of the work force are members of trade unions. Senator Alston —It is about double for the public sector. Senator STONE —As Senator Alston quite rightly points out, in the public sector it is about 75 per cent, about double that figure. Eighty five per cent of Australians want to break down trade union power. For years now every public opinion poll taken in this country has shown that between 80 and 85 per cent of the people believe that trade union power is excessive. If we want to break down trade union power, particularly by stealth and particularly from a position of supposed alliance with these people-of course, much more than this is needed but it is useful to make a start in this as in all things-we should begin to do it by cutting protection and privatising government business enterprises. That is precisely what this Government had set out to do in next week's economic statement. Indeed, I think it will deliver some part of it at least in relation to industrial protection, although of a diminished kind. Here again, the trade union bosses have told the Government that it must not do as much as it originally wanted to do. But the trade union bosses are not altogether stupid. Yesterday they told Senator Evans to stop it or he would go blind. Senator Alston —And he did. Senator STONE —He has been blind for some time. Senator Evans turned up at a meeting of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Executive held on the Gold Coast like a schoolboy to be chastened and confess his sins. At the end of the conference he was sent out of the room to issue publicly his mea culpa-- Senator Alston —Mea maxima culpa. Senator STONE —Mea maxima culpa; I thank Senator Alston. That public personal seppuku-the Japanese term for disembowelling-having been done, Mr Simon Crean, the President of the ACTU, emerged from the media conference to tell us that the privatisation debate was finished. `Privatisation is dead', he said. We read on the front page of the Australian newspaper this morning, `Evans admits defeat'. The more parochial reader of newspapers in this town who prefers the Canberra Times would have seen the headline `Evans concedes defeat in privatisation debate'. Senator Alston —Gareth kicked to death. Senator STONE —Senator Alston reminds me that `Gareth kicked to death' would be another suitable headline. Notwithstanding the interest of such headlines, Mr Crean is wrong. Characteristically, he is suffering from the delusion that the views of the trade union bosses are the same as those of the majority of Australians. The privatisation debate is not finished; it is just that the trade union bosses have told Senator Evans and his colleagues to stop pursuing it. That is not the same thing at all. I notice that in this debate-I have only a couple of minutes left for my contribution-the speakers on the Government side, apart from the hapless Senator Evans, who fled the chamber after delivering his impassioned diatribe, have been Senator Bolkus and Senator Collins. We also had a contribution from the Australian Democrats which, as usual, might as well have been delivered from the Labor Party side of the House, but I leave that aside. The real question is: Where is Senator Walsh; where is the Minister for Finance? After all he is the Minister who has general responsibility for the financial policy of public enterprises. In a major speech less than three weeks ago Senator Walsh described the views of those of his colleagues in the Australian Labor Party who have been battling against him in this matter as three great lies. Senator Walsh said: There are also the three great lies of the current debate on public and private ownership: public enterprise operates in the public interest; that the Government has benefited financially from its public enterprise investments . . . The third great lie really had more to do with the internal workings of the Labor Party; I will not bore the Senate with that. Senator Walsh went on to illustrate his remarks very effectively by saying that it is a gross error simply to assume that public enterprise operates in the public interest when too often it operates in its own organisational interests and the interests of its management and employees. I believe that Senator Evans's craven capitulation yesterday to the people who control the Labor Party-that is to say, Simon Crean and the trade union bosses-is comparable with the famous episode in this town some years ago when Mr Calwell and Mr Whitlam waited outside the doors of the National Executive of the Labor Party for the 12 faceless men to allow them to have something to say about the future control of their own party. What we saw yesterday at the Gold Coast is an identical situation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(3.12) —One wonders why at the moment the Australian public has such a cynical assessment of politicians, and one wonders how Senator Stone can talk about public opinion and put on a performance such that he spent 14 minutes of his speech criticising personalities and for the last 60 seconds tried to get to the guts of the issue in question. One can understand that cynicism. One can also understand that cynicism when this great crusader for the private sector is known by all to have been a parasite on the public sector for over 25 years of his life. He talks about the need to deregulate and lower tariffs. Who was it who, in the mid-1970s, as Secretary to the Treasury, strenuously fought almost to the death against a reduction in tariffs? It was Senator Stone himself. What about this cynicism? We have here today an Opposition that knows only one thing-negativism. Members of the Opposition oppose at all costs. They showed to the electorate a great example this week of that sort of negativism on the constitutional referenda. The Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, who has trouble agreeing with his own party let alone with the National Party, reached great heights of irrationality this week. Earlier this year he actually wrote to a council in his electorate advocating support for a referendum which would entrench local government. Senator Alston —Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I can understand the Minister's acute embarrassment but the subject matter before the Chair relates to the privatisation of public assets. It has nothing to do whatever with referendum questions, and I ask that the Minister confine himself to the matter at hand. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! This has been a wide ranging debate on both sides of the chamber. I am listening to what Senator Bolkus is saying. At this moment I believe there is no point of order. Senator BOLKUS —I was linking the Opposition's approach on this issue to its general approach, an approach that has been rejected by the electorate. On the one hand, John Howard, the Opposition Leader, says he supports local government being entrenched in the Constitution and, on the other hand, he says he will campaign against it. There has been no change of mind, according to John Howard. His explanation is that he wrote the letter to his local council as the honourable member for Bennelong and he has taken the other position in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition. We now have a schizophrenic Opposition Leader-one who cannot even agree with himself. That underscores the sort of opposition we are getting in this place. It is locked in ideological rigidity. It has never come up with a comprehensive strategy, not only over the last two or three years but also right through the time it was in government. It is a strategy, an ideology, on which it was soundly beaten in South Australia, in Western Australia and federally. Let us look at the Opposition's great god, Thatcher. What about the Thatcherite commitment to the sale of public assets. It failed because it did not confront the basic issues that the Opposition refused to face in this debate and in the debate that has been going on generally in Australia. Even Friedmanites believe that the British program has failed, because it never really addressed issues of competition and consumer interest and national industry and economic objectives. On the other hand, what has been presented in this place is a recognition by the Labor Party and the labour movement that the public sector does provide a service. No-one here from the National Party of Australia would disagree with the extent of cross-subsidisation by the public sector. It provides a service interwoven with the private sector. I refer to the degree of research provided by public institutions. Telecom Australia buys 90 per cent of its purchases from local industry. We recognise that there is a need for a continuing, viable and active public sector. We have been committed to a serious and sensible debate about where public sector policy should go. The two issues in the matter of public importance presented today show the great differences between the parties. The wording assumes that selling public enterprises will always benefit consumers. I mentioned the Thatcher experiment. After privatisation of telecommunications in the United Kingdom service to consumers declined so dramatically that Oftel, in July 1987, threatened to fine the new privatised British Telecom if service did not improve. Oftel figures showed that in 1987 in the UK 48 per cent of public phone box users had difficulty finding one phone box that worked. Since November 1984 the typical local residential consumers' call charge increased in the UK by 20 per cent and typical business calls decreased in price by 12 per cent. So clearly the benefits are not automatic. It is not just a case of blind ideology. The assumption by the Opposition, by conservative forces, is that private enterprises are necessarily more efficient. That is simply not the case. Senator Stone did not even try to address it. There is no empirical evidence to support that contention. In fact, whichever study has been done on this point has resulted in an inconclusive finding or a finding that the public sector is not less efficient than the private sector. In 1982 a study surveyed Canada, Switzerland, the United States of America and Australia. It found that private sector operations were less efficient. Another survey in 1982, by Richard Pryke, was inconclusive. What we forget when we are locked in blind ideological debate in this place is that the market does not necessarily always allocate the best. We forget about monopolies, externalities and current, as opposed to future, demands. What about things such as the unequal distribution of wealth? Does that really prevent inefficiencies or present consumers with the best choice? There is no blind ideological response to that. It is a very intricate question that needs to be addressed. We should look at the public sector in relation to the National Party and the extent of rural subsidies. The private sector works well because of the interwoven relationship with the public sector. This Government has to confront the Opposition's response, which is locked blindly into ideology with the great issues that have to be approached such as capital formation, efficiency and accountability. What has been the record of the Liberal Party's response on these matters? What about the serious question of developing a comprehensive and reasoned policy on the public sector? This is the first Government in Australia's history to take on the challenge of developing such a policy. Certainly the conservatives have never addressed it; they have continually messed around with ad hoc approaches to public enterprises. Let us look at their responses to the public sector in the long years of conservative rule when Senator Stone was in positions of power and influence that he now does not have. Their response was to introduce a whole lot of ad hoc controls. They included financial supervision by the Treasurer-and I suppose, in turn, the Secretary to the Treasury-the Auditor-General, the Public Accounts Committee and the portfolio Minister. They responded with personnel supervision from the Public Service Board and associated other mechanisms. They supervised capital expenditure by all sorts of mechanisms. This is not to mention general scrutiny by departmental representatives and so on. What they locked the public sector into was a web of administrative arrangements that led to appalling consequences for strategic planning and for competition. That is the way they responded. The serious issues are not those issues that have been addressed by the Opposition. As I said, its ad hoc responses when in government led to the situation we are in now. Another response has been well exemplified by what happened in the Menzies era with Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia. Conservatives have always skimmed off profits from public enterprises and starved them of capital. How is it possible to have a level playing field when one lot of players have their hands tied behind their backs? The Opposition claims to support competition but every time a public enterprise has been able to compete successfully it has been stymied in its competitive approach. Let us look at the situation of Australian Airlines. As Trans Australia Airlines it was going well; it was competing extremely well. What happened? Menzies forced fleet equalisation onto TAA and drew it back. Over the next 20 years Ansett was allowed to expand its capital base and improve its regional operations and networks, all under the protection of the two-airline agreement under Menzies. TAA was controlled in its fleet purchases and so on. It entered the 1980s with capital of only $15m. It is those sorts of legacies that this Government is now facing, but facing them not in an ideologically fixed way. The Government is committed to stating clearly what our objectives are for the public sector and for individual enterprises. We are committed to giving public enterprises the operational flexibility to achieve these objectives. We are committed to reforming the range of performance measures on which such enterprises can be assessed so that strategic planning can proceed on a sound, rational basis. This is the result of several years of steady, rational work in this area. What has been the greatest measure introduced in this Parliament in terms of the public sector and its operations? It was Senator Walsh's report on policy guidelines for Commonwealth statutory bodies and government business enterprises, tabled last year. It took a few years of work, but that sort of response is a bit hard for the bovver boys of the Right to accept. It took a few years of work. It provided a comprehensive basis for reform. It provided for corporate plans to state enterprise objectives clearly. That is the sort of comprehensive approach to reform that distinguishes our approach from the approach of Senator Alston's Party. It has to be recognised that the public sector in Australia is small-small compared to the public sectors of other countries, small compared to the public sectors of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. It has to be recognised for the contribution it makes to the private sector. It has to be recognised that the public sector here operates within a web of ad hoc constraints. We have to recognise in addressing this issue that the private sector really could not develop without the infrastructure provided by public investment-whether it be roads, rail networks, water, gas, telecommunications and so on. Basically, it provides the underpinning of our system. I will not say much more, but in finishing my contribution to the debate I will quote from someone about whom Senator Alston thought a lot in the past. That person said, `Public bodies have an important part to play in our national development because many things we do are too big in scope or too important for private people or even groups of people to undertake alone'. That was said on 22 February 1956 by Malcolm Fraser. Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(3.23) —One of the things that are most striking about the contribution from the Government side in this debate is the suggestion coming through that there are ideologues in the debate and that they all reside on the conservative side of politics. Of course, that is just another canard, one that is perpetrated endlessly by the majority of those unthinking members on the other side. Let me begin by quoting from a recent article in the Australian which reported a very important speech by Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh said that ideology would ground asset sales. He was reported as saying: Substantial savings from further large assets sale in the next Budget are unlikely in the wake of `ideological' opposition within the Labor Party to privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and Australian Airlines . . . But he said debate over privatisation would prevent any further large assets sales in the next Budget because of the length of time needed to set up the necessary machinery. . . . Although he welcomed the debate on privatisation, he said it should be conducted on a case-by-case basis rather than on ideological grounds. Never a truer word was said. The opposition to privatisation comes almost exclusively from those with a vested interest in the subject, or those who believe they represent them. Indeed, the fundamentalists, the true conservatives in the economic debate in this country on privatisation, reside squarely on the Labor side of politics. I regard that as a tragedy because all of the leading economic players in the Government fully appreciate the significance of efficiency and of ensuring that public enterprise is able to deliver at the lowest cost. Where it cannot, then its responsibilities can be transferred to the private sector. Mr Hawke said that almost 12 months ago. What has happened since then? We have had a number of tentative efforts by various spokesmen to try somehow to drag the Labor Party screaming and yelling into the twentieth century. But no, the latest abject capitulation by Senator Evans is just one in a long line of sorry cave-ins. In an article headed `Hawke throws down gauntlet on privatisation', it is stated: Mr Hawke is understood to have argued strongly for the need to allow the Government flexibility on the question of privatisation and to have urged the unions to explain the Government's position on the issue to their members. . . . Without a change of policy at the conference, the privatisation of Australian Airlines, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank-which are on Mr Hawke's hit list-will be blocked. The Government even went so far as to try to threaten some of the sacred cows of left wing ideologues. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did so only a matter of a couple of months ago. According to a newspaper article: Mr Hawke indicated in a rare extended news conference that aged care, education and training and lower taxation could all be casualties of the failure of the party to accept the Government's sell-off proposals. It is perfectly clear that the economic rationalists at the top echelons of the Government are acutely aware of the capital funding crisis that is besetting not just Qantas Airways Ltd, Australian Airlines and the Commonwealth Bank, but a whole range of public trading enterprises. There are many myths around. One is that we cannot privatise something that is making a loss. Let me tell honourable senators that Japan National Railways, which was a chronic income loser for very many years, has been successfully privatised to the extent that it was carved up into six separate companies together with a freight company. In the first year they all made profits. Privatised companies will bring in increased revenue to government. That is quite clear. The rate of return on capital is something like four or five times higher in the private sector than it is in the public sector. One gets different figures, but the rate of return is estimated to be anywhere between about 1 and 2 1/2 per cent on public enterprises compared to something like 12 to 13 per cent on private enterprises. It is a fact that is inescapable and it is a fact that is very well known to those who sit on bodies such as the Structural Adjustment Committee. That is why it is such a tragedy. Let us just look at a minor example. We see on the cellular mobile telephones issue that poor old hapless Senator Evans-I will not say hopeless-put the issue up and was able to persuade all his senior colleagues; but no, he got hauled in with Mr Peter Morris, another Minister, and what happened? They got kicked to death-7 : 4 against-and poor old Senator Evans then had to go back to the Structural Adjustment Committee, apologise profusely, say that he had been rolled and could he please have permission to change. As a result, when we get the May economic statement next Wednesday, we will find that there will be no liberalisation of that particular market. Although it is exploding and worth about $2 billion in the United States, and had something like 300,000 new subscribers in the last financial year-it is a growth area of the greatest potential-nothing is going to happen in this country. There will be a review in a couple of years time. It is a bit like all those other areas where the Government knows in its heart of hearts that it is a good thing, but it cannot quite bring itself to bite the bullet. Let me read to the Senate a classic example not only of monumental arrogance but of the way in which the Labor Party's blinkered approach to this whole issue proceeds irrespective of the public interest. This is what Senator Evans, the sell-off king who has just admitted defeat, had to say on 16 November 1987, about six months ago. Addressing an August confer- ence on privatisation in Australia, he said: . . . I hope you will forgive me saying that the only privatisation debate that really matters in Australia at the moment is the one that will take place in the Australian Labor Party in the run up to the next National Conference in June 1988. Unless the Party Platform is modified at that Conference, no matter what amount of rational debate or argument occurs anywhere else, and no matter how the pros and cons may weigh up in any individual case, no significant government business enterprise will be sold, in whole or part, to the private sector. Madam Acting Deputy President, can you imagine a more craven capitulation than that? The extent of the incapacity of the Government to extend the debate into the wider community, the admission that it is wholly and solely a captive of the trade union movement and the Labor organisation, is a tragedy for the public interest. I suggest that Senator Evans should face up to the inexorable logic of the case and insist that there be a public inquiry. That is what is required. But no; what he told the Australian Council of Trade Unions yesterday was that he now proposed the formation of a balanced party committee, with trade unions, parliamentarians and extra-parliamentary representatives from within the Party. It is an absolute disgrace. We will have more and more navel gazing, going absolutely nowhere, defying any concept of public interest. Only a few days ago we heard from Mr Keating-another victim of the abject cave-in by the so-called Labor strong man. He knows that the Commonwealth Bank is in desperate need of capital funds. He knows, as we all do from the Caucus paper circulated by Senator Evans, that there is a range of enterprises that need funding, but probably no need is more critical than that of the Commonwealth Bank. Mr Keating has refused to circulate his Caucus paper until after the May economic statement. But he has already thrown in the towel, because yesterday he said that he had postponed indefinitely any thought of partial privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. It is pretty wimpish stuff on the part of this man who would like to pride himself on his economic toughness. I do not suppose that he has ever thought of himself as a man of principle, but again this shows the primacy of politics in the Australian Labor Party. It will never let a policy get in the way of good political advantage. It is clear that once again the national interest has been cynically sacrificed on the altar of expediency. For more than 12 months we have been standing by watching a number of public trading enterprises bleeding to death. All that has gone on is this navel gazing on the part of the Labor Party. There is not a thought of the public interest; not a thought of how the debate might be widened, how rational considerations might be brought to bear and what the community interest really might be. Again, all we have is another pathetic suggestion that there be some sort of broadened internal debate. Senator Evans was laughing as he told the Senate today that we place emphasis on careful policy development. It is a pathetic charade; it is a tragedy and a travesty of sensible and rational debate. He said that it is a fast moving policy environment. It might be, but there are a lot of dinosaurs who have stood absolutely still for the last 12 months. Clearly that is because they do not want to face up to the consequences of efficiency in the public sector. The Government knows that we are not talking about dismantling every aspect of the public sector. We are not talking about selling off every public trading enterprise. We are talking about a rational and sensible assessment of the capital needs of those trading enterprises and looking at how their functions can best be performed. Probably no one said it better in terms of concept-but, as usual, very poorly in terms of expression-than the Prime Minister nearly 12 months ago. He said that the onus is on those who wish to keep these enterprises in the public sector to demonstrate why they can be more efficiently dealt with in that arena. That is absolutely right. I suggest that it is very difficult to discharge the onus of proof. Very few of these enterprises will be more efficiently managed in the public sector. That is because, as both Senator Walsh and Senator Button confirmed in Question Time today, they have their own agendas. They are not out there as paragons of national virtue. They are not concerned about what the public interest might be. They are ordinary human beings like all of us who think of themselves first. They have their own constituencies and they are worried about what the consequences might be in terms of industrial relations if they suddenly recognise the virtues of competition and deregulation. As Senator Walsh said, it is a naive assumption by advocates of public ownership that organisations which are publicly owned will operate in the public interest. We are not trying to force morality on them. All we are saying is that if one is in a competitive environment, one's mind will be concentrated on the things that count. In private enterprise that is called the bottom line and it has a lot going for it. It enables one to structure one's thoughts to deliver efficiency and ultimately to provide those services that are very necessary in a whole range of areas. One of the great tragedies-it is understandable why Senator Walsh calls the Australian Democrats the fairies at the bottom of the garden party-is that the Democrats persistently and wilfully misunderstand the notion of cross-subsidisation. There are many areas where it will not be possible to price services at cost and expect the consumers to pay for them. In that situation there is absolutely no reason why we cannot have a direct and transparent public subsidy from the government purse if it is justified. That is a political decision and a matter of judgment. It could be done by way of an internal levy. As in the case of British Telecom, it could be made a requirement of that organisation's licence. In Japan, NTT does not even worry about cross-subsidies; it gets on with the business because it is big enough to be able to carry the extent of the cross-subsidisation. I can tell the Senate that Senator Evans is very annoyed indeed because he believes that Telecom Australia has misled him about the extent of cross-subsidisation within Telecom and he will be giving it quite a bucket in the May statement, unless he is forced to take the words out before next Wednesday. He is very annoyed that Telecom's ambit claim of up to $2,500m of cross-subsidisation may well be a matter of $300m or $400m. There is a phenomenal difference, but it is a very interesting political position to take. It is one that frightens the horses and those startled fawns in the Democrats. It is a tragedy that those misunderstandings and misconstructions can distract attention from the reality of the debate, which is that we can continue to deliver services to rural and remote areas if we are prepared to pay for them, but we should not expect that that should necessarily operate, or should operate at all, by way of cross-subsidisation. We are about competition and efficiency. We are concerned not to be ideologues who believe in a nightwatchman approach and a laissez-faire economy. We believe in efficiency, as do Senators Walsh and Button, Messrs Dawkins and Keating and the Prime Minister. The difference is that we are prepared to say where we stand. We are prepared to stand up for our principles, to announce our policies in a whole range of areas and to accept the consequences that flow. But no, we have this doubletalk and double standards on the other side. Those opposite know in their heart of hearts what is right, but they are not allowed by Mr Crean and others to face up to those realities. They are simply told that it is not on. It is not on because it is not politically saleable to those who do not want to know. Paul Kelly calls them ALP traditionalists. I would have thought that `fundamentalists' was a more accurate word. Unfortunately, the end result is the same: they do not want to be told; they do not want to understand the facts of life and they do not want to understand that privatisation is a policy that has swept the world, not just industrialised countries. Many Third World countries beat a track to the door of the British asking for advice on how to implement privatisation policy. It is a policy that works. It is working in the United Kingdom. The British have already chalked up #25 billion worth of sales and they will double that over the next few years. There will always be problems and teething difficulties. Quality of service is the latest. But in no way does that affect the quality of the issue and the quality of the decision. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Giles) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(3.38) —One of the things that today's debate has brought home to me is that it must be a dreadful thing being a conservative backbencher. Senator Alston —You will get your chance. Senator COLLINS —To be a conservative backbencher? With respect, Senator, I do not think so. The matter of public importance accuses the Government of being captive of the trade union movement and the party machine on the privatisation issue. On other issues this week the Leader of the Liberal Party has tried to exert his non-leadership by trying to gag members of his own Party on important issues. The reality in the Australian Labor Party is that its entire back bench and front bench are jointly involved on this issue as they are on all issues. I am a member of two Caucus committees that have been dealing directly with this issue for some time. The issue has been around in the Labor Party in a real sense for only about six months, since it was launched by Senator Evans last year. The debate has been intense, stimulating and ongoing. Senator Chaney, when he opened the debate, said that the Opposition had offered its bipartisan support to the Government on privatisation. Being offered bipartisan support by the Opposition would be somewhat akin to being offered swimming lessons by a crocodile. Senator Alston talked about the great benefit to the Government of opening up the debate in this fashion because of the rational nature that the debate would then have. I must say with some feeling that the debate has given me an extraordinary insight into the operations of the Opposition's back bench. It is quite extraordinary. Honourable senators opposite came into the chamber today armed with pieces of paper, which they hid under their desks, then held up on a signal, like a bunch of pavlovian dogs. If anyone in the public gallery had done exactly the same thing, that person would have been thrown out, no doubt with the full support of those opposite. That was an extraordinary insight into the level of the contribution made to this important debate by those opposite. I can say without fear or favour-- Senator Lewis —It was a pretty good headline that they produced, was it not? Senator COLLINS —Whether it was or not, if the Government Whip, a Minister or anyone else-and I have this amazing vision of this bunch of parliamentarians being lined up in the party room next to the photocopier, being armed with the placards by the Whip and being told to hold them up when the whistle was blown-had given me a piece of paper and said, `You take this into the chamber and when we blow the whistle, hold it up', I would have told him what to do with that piece of paper. What happened today gave an extraordinary insight into the real attitude on this important matter that is being debated today. From whom does one have bipartisan support? From whom does one accept the offer? One thing that this week's events have shown very clearly is that it is in fact Senator John Stone who is running the Opposition in this Parliament. There is no question about that. I give full marks to Senator Stone. This week he has rolled John Howard on three very important and substantive issues: taxation, the referendum and, only in the past few days, an issue very important to me at least-a matter that would have been the subject of the first resolution passed in the new Parliament, a mild and utterly qualified motion drafted by Father Frank Brennan. To the credit of those opposite, Father Brennan had met with the Leader of the Opposition due to the assistance of some honourable senators opposite who had organised it and had the full support of Senator Chaney. Mr Howard had suggested some changes to the motion, which were effected. With his full support, that was going to be passed in the Parliament. One of the things I like about Senator Stone is that at least one knows where one stands with him. I prefer to deal with people like that. Senator Stone was quite forthright in the meeting that Father Brennan had with him. He said to Father Brennan, `I will fight this tooth and nail in the party room and I will win'. And he did. So in one week the Leader of the Opposition has been rolled on three very substantial matters by Senator Stone. So it is absolutely clear who is running the Federal Opposition at the moment. Good luck to him. Senator Chaney has an interesting mannerism. When he addresses the chamber he consistently turns his back on the Government and the President and addresses his own troops. If I had Senator Stone sitting behind me, I would be frightened to turn my back on him as well. Unfortunately, in the 60 seconds before the conclusion of this debate I cannot address another important issue in detail. But I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the Press which is available and to the analyses that have been done on experience overseas with privatisation. I am an absolute supporter of the full review and investigation of what is and what is not possible in this area. I commend the Labor Party for commencing this important debate and for continuing it. In the same rational and sensible fashion as the Labor Party has turned around the economic life of this country from recession just five short years ago to the economic prosperity we enjoy today, it will also succeed on this issue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.45 p.m.