Senator BURNS (9.49 p.m.) —I was rather saddened by Senator Brownhill's attack on me when he suggested that, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs, I should be ashamed to support this budget. As a member of that committee, I have always found Senator Brownhill to be very reasonable and fairly objective—in contrast to his irrational and hypocritical attack on myself and the government this afternoon. It just shows that he feels he has to attack the government regardless of the merit of the budget it brought down. I would not normally refer to a maiden speech but—

Senator Patterson —This is your annual speech, is it?

Senator BURNS —No, it is not. This is an important one. Senator Troeth made some comments about the way in which society should be organised and governed. She said:

There is no case whatever for taxpayer support of poorly managed rural businesses, including where wrong investment or production decisions lead to commercial failure. Government should not be in the business of subsidising primary producers every time they meet adverse conditions. History suggests that government intervention in the rural economy does more harm than good. Indeed, in this area, the 19th century philosopher Thoreau was correct in his view when he said that government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity and speed with which it got out of its way.

So it appears that the good senator believes that government should not assist rural industry in almost any circumstances.

Senator Tambling —What about taxing them out of existence?

Senator BURNS —Everyone knows that taxation is not popular. It does not matter what sort of tax a government levies, a person who is affected by it does not want to pay that tax at all. The same argument applies to any tax increase. But many sections of the community want social programs and assistance from the government.

Senator Panizza —We don't want social programs.

Senator BURNS —Some sections of the community do. I would like now to turn to a national drought policy document. The majority of the people on that particular committee were from the Labor Party. However, there were three people from the opposition and one Australian Democrat. When one looks at some of the recommendations of that committee, they show how well we worked together and how objective we all were, including Senator Brownhill. Let us have a look at some of the recommendations that were made in terms of how Labor Party people in a particular committee feel. Incidentally, there was no minority report; it was unanimous. The report states:

The Committee recommends that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy introduce an effective Income Equalisation Deposit Scheme. The Committee further recommends that the Minister consider the following possible provisions for a revised IED scheme:—

Senator Tambling —Did you do it? Is it in the budget?

Senator BURNS —We cannot look at the budget in isolation and Senator Tambling knows that. It continues:

.an increase in the size of the investment component;

.a reduction of the minimum amount of a deposit;

.a review of withholding tax provisions; and

.the introduction of specific IEDs for drought or disaster purposes only.

That decision was made by a committee comprising members from both sides of the parliament. Obviously those opposite were endorsing the attitude of the Labor Party when they agreed with that. Let us have a look at a few other things. The report also states:

The Committee supports the recommendations of the Task Force on land management. It considers that the management of the land—

Senator Tambling —Stop rabbiting on and say what was in the budget.

Senator BURNS —I would have to go really beyond the pale to keep up with Senator Tambling.

Senator Tambling —Yes, you would.

Senator BURNS —The recommendation continues:

on a sustainable basis is vital for the continued viability of the agricultural sector. The Committee supports the views expressed during the inquiry concerning the need for increased incentives for landholders to implement soil conservation measures.

Those are measures directed towards helping people on the land. The report goes on:

The Committee notes that at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting in February 1992 the Commonwealth Government agreed to consider the introduction of tax measures to encourage landcare activity.

Senator Troeth would not want government money to do that. So let us go a bit further.

Senator Calvert —We have read the report.

Senator BURNS —But you have not understood it, and that is your problem. I am trying to help you to do that. The report also states:

. . . the Queensland Department of Primary Industries gave the Committee detailed information on advisory and extension services provided during the drought that began in June 1991—

This is a Labor government—

Amongst other services, the State Government undertook the following:

  .a fodder and agistment register that was subsequently published in Country Life and made available on the CALM computer system;

  .a 008 drought hot line, including crisis counselling and referrals to other instrumentalities regarding crown rents, electricity and water charges; and

  .a molasses hot line.

If the farmers were so self-reliant and did not need government help, they would have done all these things for themselves. But the government helped, and the government did these things. The conclusions in the report stated:

The Committee agrees with the view that the introduction of new arrangements based on a self-reliant approach to drought management—

And I guess that goes a bit of the way towards what Senator Troeth said about standing on one's own two feet—

must be accompanied by information programs and relevant advisory services. The Committee recommends that the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, in consultation with other members of the Australian and New Zealand Agricultural Council, provide special funding for information and advisory services and training programs as part of the implementation of a national drought policy.

Senator Troeth would not want that either. She would stand on her own two feet. She believes that if farmers go down in the drought they go out, and some greedy bank or entrepreneur would come in, buy the farms cheap and make a few dollars. But the government does not want that. It recognises that farmers who stay on the land for many years and many generations are a great strength to this community of Australia. The report goes on:

The Committee encourages State Governments to share expertise and information on services and to co-operate in devising strategies to assist farmers to manage for drought.

Senator Tambling —What is the government's response to the report?

Senator BURNS —Senator Tambling apparently does not know about the Labor Party's attitudes and how we were able to get consensus on the committee by working together constructively in the interests of the rural community. There were further conclusions, which state:

The Committee is of the view that individual landholders within rural industries should be responsible for preparing and managing for variable climatic and seasonal conditions.

Again, I agree with Senator Troeth. We say that they should stand on their own two feet. But it goes on:

However, it considers that there are limits to the self-reliance of farmers—

Senator Troeth disagrees with that—

to cope with severe drought.

If they go down in the drought, let them go out the back door. We do not believe that though. We want to save them because we know that they are an important part of the community. The report goes on:

Invariably, as drought worsens, self-reliance will diminish. Therefore, even with sound management and planning, it may be difficult for a primary producer to withstand the effects of the most severe drought.

We believe that the whole community has to contribute in times of difficulty. We do not look at things in a vacuum or in little compartments; we look at our nation as a whole, and each of us should help the others in times of difficulty. The report then went on to say:

The Committee considers that the Commonwealth Government has a responsibility to provide additional assistance in severe drought, as it is in the national interest for the Commonwealth Government to protect and maintain Australia's agricultural base and productive capacity, particularly Australia's breeding herd and flock.

Senator Brownhill —Rural industries will be in perpetual drought under your policies.

Senator BURNS —Senator Brownhill agreed with all this. Those were the days when he was feeling sensible, not like today.

Senator Brownhill —I'm feeling very sensible and very worried for the rural community under your government.

Senator Crane —Shame on you. You ought to hang your head in shame.

Senator BURNS —I hold my head up high. I am proud to be part of a Labor government which sincerely cares about the whole of this nation, not a few grubby people over there who care about their own special interests. Let us look at the rural adjustment scheme report. What did it do?

Senator Brownhill —Senator Calvert is on the committee and he has not had a mention and Senator Crane is, too.

Senator BURNS —Yes, but Senator Calvert has not attacked me yet, and I know Senator Crane well, of course. The report states:

The present Scheme came into effect on 1 January 1989 following a review in 1988 as a result of which major changes were incorporated into new legislation—

They were changes for the good brought about by a Labor government—

with the objectives of operating the Scheme in a more flexible and innovative way and to more closely match the requirements for assistance of individual farmers.

Those opposite should note that—to match the requirements of individual farmers. Senators Brownhill, Crane and Calvert know that we listened very carefully to all those farmers. That is what we have done.

  We looked at the question of improving the farm. Part A of the scheme provides assistance for structural adjustment purposes. It goes to these questions: capital restructuring, increasing farm size, increasing capital intensity, changing farm programs and adopting technological developments. Assistance takes the form of a 50 per cent interest subsidy on commercial loans. Honourable senators opposite asked me what we were doing; this is what we are doing. Grants and loans are also available to eligible farmers to improve their farm management skills or to obtain professional advice to improve their farm performance. Surely the opposition is not objecting to that. It seems to me to be a fairly rational and reasonable approach. We do care, otherwise we would not be pursuing such a program.

  Part C of the rural adjustment scheme provides assistance to those people who leave the farm. Honourable senators opposite would say, `That is their problem. They made a commercial decision. Let them go down the drain'. We do not say that. We say that they are human beings and that they should be looked after. The community should assist them. Part C provides assistance to the farmers who have been assessed as being without prospects of a return to profitable operation. This provision enables them to leave the industry and it takes the form of household support payments and re-establishment assistance. Household support payments are equivalent to jobsearch or newstart allowances. We have done that.

  Senator Brownhill asked whether that should be so. Senator Crane asked whether that should be. Senator Calvert asked whether that should be so. We did that. Now we get attacked for trying to help rural people. The rural adjustment scheme's annual report says that once the farmer has left the land or made firm contractual arrangements to do so, a means tested re-establishment grant of up to $34,000 as of 30 June 1992 may be payable. The grant is indexed according to the quarterly consumer price index. One cannot do much more, when people are really down and out and finished, than assist them to leave in a way which enables them to start a life somewhere else.

  Then we get to the Commonwealth rural counselling program. It was interesting to hear the comment Senator Troeth made about standing on her own two feet—you make the wrong decision and out the door you go. As a very young person I first began to understand people on the land. I found that in those days, which was quite a while ago, people on the land were not highly educated. They really did not understand accountancy. If you talked about cash flow, they did not know what it was. So some farming families do have a problem.

  I think the family farmers are a very important unit in our community; I agree with Senator Troeth about that. So we decided that we should assist in that area. In 1986 we established the Commonwealth rural counselling program, with Commonwealth assistance provided under the authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. It provides grants that help rural communities to operate local counselling services which support and advise farm families in times of financial difficulty.

  Our committee heard from people in that community who had been really happy to get that sort of assistance. In some cases it had saved them. That was not done at the initiative of people. It would not have happened if the government had not assisted. What it did was help farm families identify their options and successfully adapt to change. Opposition senators may say that if people make the wrong commercial decision or they are not smart enough to run their farm then they will go down the drain. We reject that sort of proposition. We say that these people need assistance. Let us give it to them. The community will assist in that regard. We made sure that the rural counsellors were required to have experience in a wide range of issues affecting the rural community and were well able to handle the task they were given.

  In October 1991, Commonwealth RAS funding was increased by $30.64 million under parts A and B of the scheme and a new modified provision for farmers was introduced in December because of continuing difficult financial conditions, largely the result of a prolonged dry spell.

Senator Tambling —And created by Labor's recession.

Senator BURNS —The dry spell? The honourable senator is really brilliant!

Senator Brownhill —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I doubt whether what Senator Burns is saying is relevant to this debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman) —Senator Burns, I would appreciate it if you would relate your remarks to the subject before the chair.

Senator BURNS —I suggest that I am doing just that, more so than people on the other side ever do in any debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will listen carefully to what you have to say.

Senator BURNS —I am sure you will. I appreciate that and I accept that. A crop planting scheme providing $10 million in each of 1991-92 and 1992-93 was introduced in February of 1992. They are just some of the things that we have done. One might say, `But how does that affect an individual family?'. The opposition talks about generalities; let us have a look at the facts. The following example appeared in the 1991-92 annual report of RAS:

RAS in action.

New South Wales

The clients have been established Western Division graziers since the beginning of the century—

that is, the people Senator Troeth talks about, who really do not need help—if they go down, too bad, goodbye, ta-ta. What a terrible attitude, what a shocking attitude, for a person who has been in the industry herself!

Senator Panizza —I take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I have sat here for 20 minutes patiently putting up with this diatribe from Senator Burns but at no stage have I heard him address the chair. Could you please bring him to order and ask him to address the chair and not the rest of the chamber?

Senator BURNS —I am only too happy to take into account the honourable senator's comment. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to relate this example. The report continues:

. . . and were of the view that they needed to increase their farm size if they were to remain profitable in the longer term.

An adjoining property, which was a sub-economic land holding, was offered for sale in 1990 and was purchased by the applicants who borrowed 100 per cent finance to acquire the additional area.

One would not think that it was very smart in many cases to borrow 100 per cent of the cost of the additional land. However, they must have come to the conclusion that it would be better for them economically, that it would be more viable and that they could handle the loan. Of course, given the opposition's philosophy, we should have let them go down the drain. The report continues:

The purchase by the applicants represented good land settlement with the build-up area constituting 20 per cent of their basal land holding.

The subsequent convergence of adverse commodity prices—

opposition senators are going to blame us, I suppose, for the fact that overseas markets will not pay the price—

drought conditions—

is the opposition going to blame us for the drought? Why not? Be my guest. What about the economic conditions? The report continues:

. . . soon placed the farmers in financial difficulty and they applied for and were approved an interest subsidy under Part A of $20,000 per annum—

that is fairly hefty sort of assistance, and they deserved it, obviously, under the conditions of RAS—

to be reviewed in 2 years; part B carry-on $7,000 for 2 years only; and a training grant of $1,000 per annum for 3 years.

Obviously they needed some help and they get it in a number of ways. The report continues:

In addition, the Authority was able to further reduce the farmers' debt servicing commitments by negotiating with their bankers—

obviously they were not able to do it. Someone else helped them. I think that was good. The report continues:

a 1 per cent reduction in the interest rate charged on their core debt.

They were able to reduce the interest cost by one per cent. That might not seem a lot, but I am sure that to them it was fairly important.

  We have a clear indication of the attitude of the rural and regional affairs committee—one of absolute cooperation between both sides of the chamber. We should look at what the committee suggested, what has happened in terms of the government's response and how the government has dealt with RAS.

  On the spurious and emotional point about leaded petrol, I do not think anyone in this chamber would suggest that we should not try to eliminate the use of leaded petrol in this country. We should try to influence everyone around the world to get rid of leaded petrol. There is not any doubt—it is scientifically proven—that most of the lead in the air that goes into the bloodstreams of young children in this country and elsewhere in the world comes from leaded petrol fumes. It is a question of how we go about dealing with this problem.

  Up to one-third of the motorists now using leaded fuel can actually avoid increases altogether by simply using unleaded or minimise the impact by using leaded only occasionally. The amount of leaded fuel that is being used is far beyond what is necessary. Another one-third could use unleaded with only minor modifications to their vehicle. That is absolutely clear and simple. What about the price of petrol around the world? I am sure that many people in this chamber have been overseas and they know that, for instance, in Italy people can pay up to $1.50 for a litre of petrol.

Senator Panizza —What do they pay in Switzerland?

Senator BURNS —I have not been to Switzerland. I know they pay less in America and I know they pay less in Canada, but I am not aware of anywhere else where they pay less for petrol. I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that we need to reduce leaded petrol use in this country.

  When Senator Brownhill says that there is not a problem with lead in the air in the country areas, is he saying to this chamber that he really does not care about young people in the country areas or those living next to main roads where the fumes are very heavy? I would suggest that if people in country areas had to finance all the roads and other facilities that they use without the help of the general community then they would be in deep trouble, because it is the total community that has contributed to the building of roads and the facilities and infrastructure enjoyed by country people. Shame on Senator Brownhill for not caring about people in the city whose kids have problems—

Senator Brownhill —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I think that is a slur on my character and I do not thin that it was befitting of the senator from the other side to say that I do not care, because I do care. I am a part of the rural community and I care a heck of a lot more than he does.

  The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Ruling on the point of order, I suggest that Senator Burns was simply engaging in some robust debate, of which there has been quite a bit across the chamber this evening.

Senator BURNS —That is a fair interpretation, Mr Acting Deputy President. When one looks at and puts the spotlight on what we have done in the budget, one sees that we have honoured all commitments made to the farmers during the election campaign. The budget recognises the difficulties facing rural communities.

  I challenge any of those opposite, using their brains properly, to tell me that the government does not recognise the difficulties. Senator Calvert cannot say it. Senator Brownhill cannot say it. They know the government does. As has already been said, the rural adjustment scheme will receive $406 million over four years and $157 million in 1993-94—more than doubling the government's previous commitment to the rural adjustment scheme.

  The new RAS has been very well received by farmers, with over 5,000 approvals in the first six months of the year. That is a bit of proof—not like those opposite who are saying that the farmers are all upset. They may be a bit upset about tax increases, but everybody always is. Roughly half of these approvals have received support under the exceptional circumstances provisions. This additional funding will ensure that new applicants will be able to access the scheme, in addition to ongoing support for existing clients. As announced in Labor's election statement, Building a stronger rural Australia, $22.6 million has been provided for new rural marketing and business programs.

Senator Panizza —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have sat here for 25 minutes listening to this diatribe. Under standing order 187, a senator shall not read a speech. I say that Senator Burns has read for 24 minutes of the last 25 and I think it is time you brought him to order.

Senator Sherry —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that a strict interpretation of the standing orders in that manner would severely disrupt the smooth flow of speeches on both sides of the chamber. There are only four minutes to go. We all engage in provocative banter and I suggest that the point of order be ruled out of order and that Senator Burns be allowed to finish his speech in the next four minutes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I note that Senator Burns was reading from documents from time to time, but I also know that he was quoting from documents. It may well have been that that was when he was reading. I remind Senator Burns of the requirement not to read speeches.

Senator BURNS —I understand the standing orders in this chamber, but let me say that if that were observed by the people on the other side I do not think we would hear very many speeches.

  Rural telecommunications services will be upgraded through funding of $4 million over the next four years for the standard telephone service network. Telecommunications is very important for rural economic development. Difficulties such as congestion, call drop-out and delays in servicing will be targeted so that areas most in need gain the benefit of this funding. It is fairly clear that government intervention and government ownership of Telecom over the years has served the rural community fairly well. I would challenge anyone on the other side to argue with that.

  The national landcare program funding of $105 million will be allocated in 1993-94. The national landcare program includes $14.2 million for community land care activities, $12.1 million for land management, $10.2 million for catchment management, $1.6 million to improve sewage treatment at identified hot spots, and $11.1 million for flood plain management projects. All are meant to assist the rural community.

  An additional $1.2 million, on top of $2.8 million in the 1992 budget, has been provided for the establishment of telecentres in rural communities. The telecentres are community owned and operated centres where people can access modern computer and information technology for the purpose of increasing local employment, improving business, telemarketing of rural communities, and the delivery of community services, including education and training. Total funding of $4 million for the telecentre program will provide increased public access to this technology and the potential benefits it can bring to rural and remote areas of Australia.

  There is not any doubt, given the information that I have just placed before the Senate, that this government does care about the rural community and has for a long time—far more so than people on the other side. They may have a particular bias towards the rural community; that is their right. I myself have a particular bias towards trade unionists and the workers and lower paid people in the community. But we have done more for those people in the rural community than those who pretend to represent them. Those opposite had better lift their game. We have.