Senator CAMPBELL (12.36 p.m.) —I oppose this attempt by the Government to give Parliamentary Secretaries the powers and functions conferred upon Ministers in relation to estimates committees. I hasten to say that my contribution is certainly no reflection on my colleague and, I would like to think, my friend Senator Sherry. Indeed, I congratulate him on his appointment as a Parliamentary Secretary. I make the point that he may well have many more ministerial qualities and be far more adept at performing the functions of Ministers than some of those who were appointed. Perhaps it was just an oversight by the Prime Minister (Mr Keating) that he was made not a Minister but only a Parliamentary Secretary. I have now upset all my Tasmanian colleagues on this side of the chamber.

  Some of the points made, particularly those coming by way of interjection from Senator Schacht, whom I have yet to congratulate on becoming a Minister, while Senator Bishop was speaking, were to the effect that `we won the election'—talking on behalf of the Government—`and that is why we can do what we want to do'. In a way, I think that highlights the problem of this proposal; that is, there is an enormous arrogance about the Prime Minister, having won this election—an election the Prime Minister did not expect to win. But he did win; the Australian people have passed their judgment, and I respect that judgment in the true democratic tradition.

  However, in this present era Paul Keating, Prime Minister, has had enormous power conferred upon him. In the last Parliament, the first Keating Government, clearly he won the prime ministership in a bitter leadership battle with former Prime Minister Hawke by a margin of, I think, five or six votes—Senator Sherry might be able to correct me on the numbers. Of course, the election on 13 March has conferred much more personal power on him. I believe that this demands that those of us who were also elected on 13 March, as well as senators who were elected in 1990, acknowledge that an extra responsibility has been placed upon us in this Parliament; that is, that we should be extra careful and extra diligent in our scrutiny of the Executive Government.

  I humbly suggest to the Democrats that their role, even though their vote diminished somewhat in the 1993 election, needs to be reviewed. I appeal to their leader, Senator Kernot, to look very carefully at any action they might take—certainly they have flagged their intention to support the Government's move in this respect—that would undermine the role of the Senate in scrutinising the actions of the Executive, its legislation and its expenditure, thereby diminishing the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament.

Senator O'Chee —The Democrats would be the big losers.

Senator CAMPBELL —The Democrats, of course, would be. They go around the country saying that they are keeping us and the Government—the major parties—honest. But, in a series of so-called parliamentary reforms being proposed here today and in subsequent days, the very accountability of the Executive to the Parliament is being undermined bit by bit, drip by drip, knife cut by knife cut. This so-called reform, of course, is the first in a series.

  I support the argument put by my friend and colleague from Western Australia Senator Crane, who spoke about the wool crisis and the importance of the problems of the primary industries. There are many people, many specialist woolgrowers in particular—pastoralists, people who rely almost entirely on the wool industry for their livelihoods—who are going through enormous trauma at the moment. Their livelihoods, welfare and wellbeing are being affected; they are living under enormous stress. That stress is spreading not only through the rural communities, the small country towns that have been the backbone of Australia as a nation for so many years, but also into the city, as many people who are being forced out of the country move into our urbanised regions. This is increasing unemployment, crime and the general demise of the balance between country and city that Australia has grown up with in the past century.

  A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of specialist woolgrowers in a town called Boyup Brook, south of Perth. They put to me the concept that even the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Crean) was not respected enough, or did not have enough seniority in the Government, to make statements in relation to the solution of the wool crisis and the problems of primary industry. They thought that the only way certainty could be returned to rural industries, and the wool industry in particular, and indeed to international faith in the wool market, was for the Prime Minister to make a statement in relation to the package for the wool industry. They suggested to me that we should demand a meeting with and a statement by the Prime Minister on this matter.

  Senator Crane quite properly pointed out, if I remember correctly, the problems caused by the former Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Mr Kerin, when he made a number of statements at international forums giving reassurances to international wool buyers and the market about the price of Australian wool and the reserve price scheme which were quickly overturned. The point I am seeking to make in perhaps a roundabout way is that we have an industry that is seeking the highest level of reassurance and commitment from this Government—indeed, from the Prime Minister, not even from the Minister. Yet the Senate, which is the only body in this nation that is responsible for scrutinising the activities of the department, the Government and expenditure through the very important estimates process, is being asked to have those questions and that scrutiny dealt with by, with no disrespect, a very junior Parliamentary Secretary.

  I think the Senate, and particularly the Australian Democrats, should give very strong consideration to whether they support this move. It is very clearly a backward step for the Senate in the very important estimates committee process to have to deal with a Parliamentary Secretary. The people of Australia passed their judgment on 13 March 1993. They also returned, in States such as Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, very high Senate votes for coalition senators. I would like to think that that is a reflection of the need people see to ensure that there is a check on the Executive Government and that the Senate has a very strong role to play.

  As Senator Schacht has reminded us on many occasions on this first business day of the Senate, we lost the election and we have to wait for three years for our next chance. I can assure the Senate that Opposition senators are not going to sit around and wait for three years. We have a very important role to play in this Parliament. That role must be to scrutinise the Executive and the activities of the second Keating Government and to ensure that the people of Australia respect the processes of accountability and scrutiny and checks and balances in our constitutional monarchy.

  I can assure Senator Schacht and his colleagues that Opposition senators have returned. Of course we are depressed at the result of the election but, having arrived back here in Canberra, we are very keen to do our job and to do it even better than we did last time. That is going to mean some improvement from our side as well. I must say, having served in this Parliament for coming up to three years—

  Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m.