Wednesday, 25 May 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 11.30 a.m ., and read prayers. The PRESIDENT —I remind honourable senators that the four major television networks are jointly filming the first few minutes of today's proceedings and part of Question Time for use on future occasions to illustrate news stories concerning events in the Senate. I have permitted the filming to take place subject to certain conditions, the details of which were circulated to all honourable senators last week. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable The President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10(c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10(c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 15 citizens), Boswell (from 12,586 citizens) and Peter Rae (from 24 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Coleman (from 21 citizens), Macklin (from 14 citizens) and Robertson (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That Australia support the Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge all politicians to unite nationally to do all within their power to ratify this important Convention. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 73 citizens). To the members of the Senate. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully urge that the enabling legislation to protect the Franklin River in South West Tasmania be passed at the earliest opportunity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners do not want a Uranium Enrichment Plant constructed in South-East Queensland because: (a) there is no known way of safely storing uranium waste products; (b) there has not been an environment impact study conducted into the effects of such a Uranium Enrichment Plant; (c) Australia has adequate coal supplies to provide energy for industry; (d) the risks to local inhabitants from the operation of such a plant have not been established; (e) the products of such a plant will contribute to the prospect of nuclear war ; (f) the local area would become a target in the event of such a nuclear war; (g) the investment in such a Uranium Enrichment Plant would be better spent in research into clean, renewable energy sources such as solar energy. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: (a) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (b) reject all applications for the export of products from Uranium Enrichment Plants; (c) legislate to give power to the Commonwealth Parliament to make decisions on foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants; (d) reject all applications for foreign investment in Uranium Enrichment Plants ; (e) do all in the Senate's power to prevent the construction of a Uranium Enrichment Plant in South-East Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 89 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 25 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 31 May 1983, be 1.45 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m., and on Thursday, 2 June 1983 be 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. (2) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10 p.m. on these days. (3) That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 2.15 p.m. on Thursday, 2 June 1983. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern that over the past two decades large families have been subjected to increasing pressures from indirect taxation, as well as from direct taxation, and that moves to downgrade the spouse rebate and family allowances are a further example of this iniquitous trend of placing an inordinate taxation burden on large families, particularly one-income families. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent such senators as are members of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House attending a meeting of the Committee during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 1 June 1983. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. 2. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority-Annual Report 1981-82- pursuant to section 16 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. 3. Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee-pursuant to section 16 of the Chicken Meat Research Act 1969. 4. Australian Fisheries Council-Resolutions of the 12th Meeting held in Hobart, 15 October 1982. 5. Australian Wool Corporation-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 90 of the Wool Industry Act 1972. 6. Australian Film Commission-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975. 7. Australian National Gallery-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 42 of the National Gallery Act 1975-together with a booklet on the ceremonial opening of the Gallery. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.37) —I wish to make some remarks on the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement which has been tabled in the Senate today. Closer economic relations between Australia and New Zealand are, of course, but the latest feature of that relationship between our two nations which is symbolised by Anzac Day and which is featured in the free flow of peoples between our two nations. It is, I think, undoubtedly the case that there are close political, social and even personal ties of an historic kind which have evolved over the years which give a social and personal dimension to the close geographical relationship that exists between our nations. It is not surprising, therefore, that there ought to be evolving a closer trading relationship such as is embodied in the Trade Agreement which was tabled in the Senate this morning. Indeed it was in order to create a free trade market embracing Australia and New Zealand that negotiations took place over the last several years. The importance of the agricultural sector to both economies is well known to honourable senators. Indeed, it proved to be a sensitive part of the negotiations between our two governments and between the industries involved. But I wish to make a special point about Tasmania. Because we have such a similar geographical location to New Zealand, many of our agricultural, timber and fishing pursuits are much the same as those undertaken by our New Zealand counterparts. Therefore, it is a matter of great concern to Tasmania that this Agreement should not operate in a way which would have a detrimental impact on our agricultural, fishing and timber-based industries. Several meetings have been convened over the last year or so by me, and by Senator Brian Archer, whose interest in this matter I acknowledge. These meetings have occurred with those involved in dairying, vegetable products, fishing and timber. I mention here in particular the very able assistance of Mr Laurie Kelly of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association in helping to convene many of these meetings. Consultations have taken place on a government to government level which I believe have modified and, to some extent, helped more adequately to reflect the concerns expressed on both sides of the Tasman about the impact of this Agreement on our agricultural and primary producers. For example, in the dairy industry in particular, where it was thought that much difficulty would be found in coming to common accords, people got together and evolved a consensus in a spirit of such co-operation and compromise that the industry on both sides of the Tasman is to be congratulated in setting forth a model that could well be followed by the vegetable and other industries. In the few minutes allowed to me I just wish to sound a note of caution in regard to Tasmania's continuing worry, particularly in relation to timber and the dumping of some vegetables on Australian markets. Imports of forest products have become a very sensitive issue. Some dumping and countervailing duty actions have been pursued by the Australian industry and by Tasmanians in particular. One must realise that many Tasmanian townships and smaller settlements depend on timber based industries for their viability-for their very existence. For that reason, it is not surprising that in relation to the importation of sawn softwood timber, pulp and newsprint from New Zealand, considerable concern has been expressed and some negotiations have had to be undertaken to try to provide for a level of understanding between the common producers of these products in both countries. This level of understanding was sought to avoid a devastating impact. There would have been such a severe and detrimental economic impact that the industries would have crumbled under the strain. Agreements have been achieved in relation to forestry products, in addition to the decision to devalue which had some marginal benefit in helping to protect us against imports of timber products from New Zealand. For example, agreement has been reached in relation to the level and price of sawn softwood timber exports to Australia. We have some cause for a reasonable degree of optimism that the industries themselves, as happened in the dairy industry, may come to a reasonable agreement. I noticed that several pages in the Trade Agreement were devoted to dealing with anti-dumping action. Indeed, it is the case that action can be taken when certain goods are imported into Australia at less than their normal value, when such importing causes material injury or materially retards the establishment of some Australian and, in my concern, Tasmanian industry. It is the case that in recent weeks those who produce onions in Tasmania, who have shown great enterprise, flair and initiative in setting up a multi-million dollar onion export industry, have been vociferous in their complaints. Of course, this industry is based, in particular in the beautiful hills around Devonport. I hope that the Government will take note of their particular concerns. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I will make a few remarks with regard to this matter. This report is presented in the Senate at a most significant time. Of course, it comes against the background of the Government's recent announcements in regard to superannuation and the way in which lump sum payments are to be taxed. I draw the Senate's attention to a few facts set out in the report which I think will lead to further questions. The report indicates significantly that 3,930 commutation payments have been made to former members of the defence forces who have retired during the last financial year. A total of $62,139,977 was paid out to those persons. That works out at an average commutation payment to former members of the services of $38,620. We would all agree that that is a relatively small sum of money. However, that sum of money, in the circumstances of virtually involuntary retirement on the part of ex-servicemen, will, of course, put them within the net cast by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, last Thursday night during his economic statement. Superannuation payments of the order of $38,000 will, of course, be subject to a tax of 30 per cent; in other words, some $11,000 would be stripped from ex-servicemen in those circumstances, without taking into account the situation that might arise should people seek to invest that $38,000 in an annuity. Let me take the case of a person who is the age of, say, 40 years and who is a retiring major in the Army. Information that I have from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund indicates that his sum would be of the order of $35,000 in those circumstances-something akin to the average, as evidenced in my earlier statement. He could invest that $35,000, bearing in mind that he would have a life expectancy of something like 75 years. In other words, he would need to have an income for another 35 years or so. If he bought an annuity from an insurance fund he would find that he would get the princely sum of about $400 a month to live off. I think that would be a relatively low sum of money compared with the amount he might look forward to in his future career. One has to take into account the fact that a retiring serviceman would perhaps not have his own home, especially at the age of 40 or 45 years. Therefore, he may seek to buy a house to live in during his retirement. I put it to the Government that it would be worth while to consider a lump sum payment made in that situation being exempt of tax in order for people to buy their own houses. There is a further consideration that there could well be people at relatively young ages who, having left the services, find it difficult to get paid employment but who many choose to commence their own businesses. A lump sum of $ 30,000 or $40,000 would be useful in helping to establish such a business. A person may like to buy a newsagency, a milk round or something of that kind that would produce further revenue and employment in due course for people in the community. Why should he not be given some consideration when tax is to be applied in this fashion? I put it to the Government that this is typical of a rash of circumstances in the community generally where people would receive relatively modest lump sum payments through voluntary or involuntary retirement. But I indicate to the Government that a number of involuntary circumstances ought to be taken into account, particularly when people will suffer very significantly because of the Government's taxation of lump sum payments. I draw that matter to the Senate's attention because I think many people have it fixed in their minds that many retirees somehow will be demi-millionaires or something of that order. But we are talking about people in fairly ordinary circumstances with relatively low levels of superannuation lump sum payments. Therefore, I believe that the Government should closely examine the circumstances of particular classes of employees who find themselves in these situations. I draw the Government's attention to my suggestions in that area. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Resolutions of Twelfth Meeting Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Whilst the agenda item for the Australian Fisheries Council primarily concerns the development of Australia's fishing resources-Senator Archer and some others in this chamber are experts in that matter-the matter to which I want to draw the Senate's attention has been on the agenda of the Council now for the last four years and has now become largely resolved. I refer to the importation of exotic fish. Some honourable senators will recall that, particularly three and four years ago, I asked a series of questions and spoke in the chamber about the importance of there not being an overall ban on the importation of goldfish and other forms of tropical and exotic fish. After all, after photography, keeping fish in aquaria is the largest leisure pastime of Australians, I am told. The pet industry in Australia has been pulled together and consolidated very largely because of items on the agenda of the Australian Fisheries Council. Because there was a threat of government bringing down a ban upon the importers of fish, the pet industry in Australia formed itself into an organisation. The other day in Adelaide I was happy to speak to its national executive. Because of consultations between the industry and government that have been urged here in the Senate and in other places, a sensible outcome in the production of the list of fish that can be imported into Australia has been achieved. At one stage there was an open list of some 700 species that could be introduced. But, with some bureaucratic advice, this was to be reduced to less than 100 and goldfish in particular would have been excluded. As a result of careful consultations with the enterprising pet industry representatives and in particular the Australian Aquarium Fish Importers and Traders Association, we have seen a very happy outcome to this matter. I am sure that all honourable senators will rest much more happily and feel more relaxed when they see fish circulating in aquaria now that they know that the Australian Fisheries Council has largely resolved this matter to the satisfaction of the industry at large. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(11. 51) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to say a few words on the performance of the Australian Wool Corporation because it has indeed performed an enormously important task in maintaining a successful wool industry not only in 1981-82 but also for a considerable number of years before that. The stockpile was high in that period. It was a difficult period economically all around the world, which had obvious repercussions on the wool market and the operation of the stockpile. The Corporation was very significant in maintaining a relatively buoyant wool industry. In itself this was even more significant because last year there was almost a total failure of Australia's wheat crop east of Western Australia. That emphasised the importance of wool and the Corporation that governs its marketing very significantly. As is highlighted in this report, the wool industry is very receptive to the problems of internal costs in this country, for the obvious reason that it relies almost 95 per cent on an external market, the price levels of which it has little control over. The market support fund, which has now begun to revolve , is in a strong position, as this report indicates. I will conclude my remarks by referring to a highly competitive industry in which there will be a continual necessity for funds to be available. I refer to the fibre industry around the world and to the field of promotion. Promotion has proved to be a very effective measure. I believe the need for it is gaining ground in present circumstances as the promotion and competitiveness of other fibres become more clearly apparent. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the attendance in the public gallery on my left of former Senator Gordon Davidson of South Australia. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to ex-Senator Davidson a warm welcome on his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Annual Report Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave not granted. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(11.57) —I congratulate the Australian Film Commission on a fairly comprehensive report. Once again we are in a situation in which a report has reached the chamber fairly late in the piece and in which a number of the matters questioned in it are either in process of change or could be subject to change. But some of the points made by the Chairman of the Commission, Sir James Cruthers, are extremely important and I think bear repeating to the Senate. For instance, he makes the point that this is a time of great change in the Australian film and television industry. He goes on to discuss in some detail the problems that are being created by the policy of having tax incentives in the film industry. It has caused a great number of problems, particularly, as he points out, the bunching of productions into a narrow time frame and normally in the second six months of a tax year so that investors may take advantage of the tax rebate in that period. He also makes the very valid point that it has led to a major problem confronting the film industry; that is, the disturbing escalation of the production costs of films throughout Australia. We have one of the oldest film industries in the world. It is heartening to see what whilst we are not doing everything that is necessary, I believe, in the preservation of the old films, at least there is now a move by governments and private enterprise to bring to the attention of the Australian Archives that there are films available so that they can be preserved. I hope too that a greater resource will be available to the Archives so that more films can be treated and preserved for posterity. If one were watching television last weekend one might have been made aware that one of the very first films which was taken in Papua New Guinea, which I understand was taken by an Australian firm, was located. It is now 80 years old and has been recently presented at the Cannes Film Festival. This is an indication of the value of having these things available for people of future generations. I would like to think that at least, if we did not do so in the past, we now recognise that we have a responsibility to the future to have these films maintained in a viewing situation so that people in the future will be able to see them. The film was particularly interesting in that it was the first film taken in New Guinea of New Guineans. The reactions of the people of New Guinea to white people going in to take film and show them products which were at that stage considered to be normal in Australia, such as a record player, were quite remarkable. It was a very interesting experiment. We know that a larger number of films of similar age are available throughout Australia, but unfortunately they have not been preserved. The report of the Australian Film Commission is comprehensive in that it details all of those films which have received funding. A number of areas cause me some little concern. It has not been possible, obviously, for the Film Commission to grant as much money as was needed to various producers for films that were of importance, but at least it was able to give them a start. I should like to think the Commission will have more money available to it to spread, not more wisely-it has obviously done a very good job-but over a much broader range to ensure that people may see that the contributions they are making for Australia now and for the future go ahead. Debate interrupted. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact, as claimed by Mr Unsworth, that at the end of the National Economic Summit Conference, when the Government was bringing Australia together and when it had full knowledge of the economic circumstances, the Prime Minister gave the Australian Council of Trade Unions an undertaking that there would be no increase in taxation on lump sum superannuation payments? Why has the Prime Minister and the Government broken Mr Hawke's promise to the unions as well as, of course, his earlier promise to the Australian people before the last election? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the claim by Mr Unsworth. I am unaware of any undertakings given by the Prime Minister. When I say I am unaware, I am not denying that undertakings were given; I just do not know. I will certainly investigate that matter and give the Leader of the Opposition an answer to that question at a later time. A suggestion of broken promises has been made. The prime objective of this Government is to restore economic growth in this country and to create employment for almost one million Australians who are unemployed. In the course of the election campaign some matters were referred to which will have to be deferred or reconsidered by the Government because of that prime commitment which we have to embark upon in the light of the disastrous situation in respect of the economy of this country which we discovered only when we were elected to government. Of course, that discovery was possible only at that time because of misleading statements made to the people of Australia by the now Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As I pointed out in my original question, this promise was made at the conclusion of the Economic Summit, when the economic facts were known to the Government. I therefore ask the Leader of the Government: What relevance has the pre-election view of the Government to that promise? I also ask: Is the position, as Mr Crean suggested on AM today, that the Government has in fact an open attitude on this matter and may vary the decision? Senator BUTTON —I thought that Senator Chaney's original question referred to broken promises, and I am sure that the Hansard record will show that it did. His question is now more specific in relation to a comment allegedly made by the Prime Minister after the Summit. I said in answer to Senator Chaney's question that I was unaware whether that statement had been made and that I would investigate that question. Senator Peter Baume —Very convenient. Senator BUTTON —Of course it is convenient; it is also correct. I said that I would investigate that matter and give the honourable senator an answer as soon as possible. The relevance of my answer has been questioned. I answered the previous question on the basis that I thought it was addressed to general promises. Senator Chaney also referred to a statement made by Mr Crean this morning. All I can say about that is that Mr Crean has his views and his constituency. The Government yesterday had consultations with the life offices and the superannuation funds regarding the implementation of its program and next week will be having discussions with a number of other bodies, including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, of which Mr Crean is Vice- President. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. What surveys have been undertaken in his Department on incorrect payments to social security recipients? In what pension or benefit category have incorrect payments occurred most commonly? It is suggested in recent newspaper articles that fraud, which is usually associated with incorrect payments to the claimant, is most rife amongst the unemployed. Is this the case to his knowledge? If not, where are the problems on overpayments within the Department? Senator GRIMES —Surveys have been done in the Department of Social Security on overpayments. They are done regularly and they were done before I became Minister. One of the last answers to a question on notice I put down as a shadow Minister came from the previous Minister on this subject. It is interesting to note that overpayments in these surveys, from memory, made up about 4.7 per cent of a very considerable number of payments. It is also interesting to note that the highest percentage of overpayments occurred in the age pension area and the widows and supporting parent's benefits area. In the former case, the percentage was something like 29 per cent, which reflects the difficulty of calculating payments and calculating the income tests in these areas. In the area of unemployment benefit and special benefits, the overpayments were of a considerably lower percentage-I believe about 4.3 per cent-which may surprise honourable senators. These figures reflect the difficulty in the calculation of payments in the area of age pensions and the relatively greater ease in calculating payments in the unemployment benefit area. It is a general misconception, fostered by some sections of the media and unfortunately by some politicians, that the area of difficulty is the unemployment benefit. The surveys in fact show that is just not true. Senator MARTIN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that approximately 1.8 million wage and salary earners are involved in superannuation funds? Is it a fact that a significant majority of these people are of modest income earnings? Are the great majority of these people-particularly those in the private sector-members of superannuation schemes which involve the payment of lump sums and not annuities? Did not all these people and their employers enter upon such superannuation schemes and arrange their assets and retirement plans on the basis that the principles of those schemes would be maintained? Why, therefore, is the Government intending to force people to surrender their capital acquired over a lifetime and to depend on an annuity which disappears without capital residue at death? How does the Government justify the use of punitive taxation to attack the capital assets of superannuitants, while not directing its attention to those others of the community who acquire capital by means other than superannuation? Does this foreshadow a capital gains tax? Senator BUTTON —I will answer the last part of the question first. I hope Senator Martin's question implies her support for a capital gains tax. If members of the Opposition are keen to have a capital gains tax I am sure they will let us know and we will see what we can do to accommodate them in that matter. The first part of the question relates to whether 1.8 million wage and salary earners are members of superannuation schemes. I am unable to answer that part of the question insofar as it relates to a matter of fact. I will obtain the information from the Minister and provide it to the honourable senator in due course. I am also not able to say what percentage of the alleged numbers of wage and salary earners are involved in the payment of lump sums as an entitlement of part of their superannuation scheme. I remind the Senate, however, that there is no element of retrospectivity in the Government's announcement on this matter. The reference in the honourable senator's question to lump sums accumulated over a lifetime is, to that extent, incorrect. As I have indicated, I will obtain an answer for the honourable senator in due course on the other aspects of the question. Senator MARTIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Government has answered that he does not know and has to find out how many wage and salary earners are involved in superannuation funds and whether a majority of these are people of modest income earnings, does that mean that Cabinet did not have this information in front of it when it made its decision? Senator BUTTON —It does not mean anything of the sort, of course. I make no pretence that in any government, Cabinet makes decisions about these matters. No Minister is necessarily conversant with all the facts, but I will certainly find them out. If the Opposition finds that admission offensive, I am sorry. The only other aspect of the honourable senator's question to which I refer is that it seems strange to me that the economic statement was brought down last Thursday, yet there has been a massive silence from the Opposition about all these issues until Question Time today. Not one question was asked about these issues yesterday. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The relevant papers have not been introduced into the Senate by the Government. Senator BUTTON —In relation to Senator Chaney's point of order, I just make the point that the fact that the statement has not been introduced into the Senate has not deterred Opposition senators today from asking questions about these matters. Of course, the claims that are being made in questions asked here today are claims which the Opposition has had assistance with from a number of programs in the media, many of which have been ill informed as to the facts. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the decision by General Motors-Holden's Ltd to cut its work force by 2,800 and, in particular , to its decision to cut back its Woodville plant work force to 600. Does the Minister intend to have further consultations with GMH management in the immediate future? What special employment assistance will the Federal Government give to South Australia, in view of the State's heavy reliance on the car manufacturing industry and the likely social hardship which will result from the company's decision? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is yes; the Government will have further discussions with General Motors about its announced plans. It will do so in the middle of next month in the context of general considerations about the future of the motor car industry in Australia. The second part of the honourable senator's question relates to whether special assistance to South Australia should be considered by the Government in view of the particular regional impact of the decision of GMH on South Australia. All I can say is that that matter will be considered by the Government. I remind the Senate, however, that the terms of the program announced by General Motors- Holden's Ltd do not provide for any immediate retrenchments. The process of work force reduction is to take place over two and a half years. Of course the Government deplores the social and regional consequences of the company's decision. Nonetheless, we recognise that it is a problem which has to be faced up to by governments, both State and Federal, and we will certainly be talking to the South Australian Government about the particular problems which have arisen. We are not in a position to announce any particular programs at this stage. Indeed, there is no need to do so. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It follows the answer he gave earlier to the Leader of the Opposition in which he expressed the Government's desire to cure unemployment in this country and create jobs as rapidly as possible. Is the Government aware of a large and growing body of opinion in the community for a system of part time work and job sharing in appropriate circumstances for those who want it? Would the Minister agree that these measures would share available work more fairly and so reduce unemployment? Is the Goverment currently negotiating with the trade union movement to gain its acceptance of these principles? If not, when will the Government do so? When can we expect changes in the industrial law to provide for a fair and regulated system of part time work in which at present many young people in particular are being shamefully exploited? Senator BUTTON —There are a number of general issues in Senator Mason's question relating to employment. I will discuss with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the specific suggestions which are implicit in the question . I think I can say now-I am not certain of this-that there are no current negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions or any other peak union authority regarding part time employment. That does not mean that they should not take place. Of course consideration must be given to these issues, in a much wider context perhaps than the honourable senator implies, in discussions with the trade union movement in Australia. I believe that consideration has to be given to a number of other factors which affect the level of unemployment such as the very high participation rate of young people in Australia in employment. That matter should perhaps have some priority over the question of part time employment discussions. The Government is giving general consideration to these matters. It is discussing a wide variety of matters with the ACTU but I do not believe that specific discussions on part time employment are taking place at present. No doubt that matter can be brought forward. I will advise the Minister of the honourable senator's question . Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What have been the reactions from veterans' organisations, chemical companies, interested countries and the media to the setting up of the Royal Commission into the Use of Chemical Agents in Vietnam? Senator GIETZELT —There has been a large measure of support and response from ex- service organisations and veterans' organisations about the Government's decision to establish the royal commission. Indeed, there has been an interested response from the United States Government and the New Zealand Government about the course of action which prompted the Government to honour its election commitment to establish a royal commission to look into the problems of herbicides and other chemical agents which may have affected the well-being, both physical and mental, of 45,000 veterans who served in Vietnam. The royal commission is getting a degree of interest overseas as it has in our country. I remind the Senate that practically every newspaper in the country commented very favourably upon the Government's decision to establish the royal commission so that we can determine, on the basis of fact and statistics, what happened when the Australian Government was persuaded to become involved in the use of herbicides which were introduced into Vietnam by the American armed services. During 1984 perhaps we will see that matter resolved by the inquiry. I am sure that the governments that I have mentioned-the United States Government and the New Zealand Government-will watch very carefully with interest the way in which the royal commission carries out its function. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Did not the Government give a pre-election undertaking not to remove the income tax concession for health insurance until the introduction of Medicare? I further ask: What is the immediate cost to a family, per week or per month, of this broken promise? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware that the pre-election statement was made in that context. However, if the honourable senator wants me to provide that information , I will do so. I will also seek from the Treasurer a statement of the exact cost, as the honourable senator puts it, to families. Senator COATES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that today is 'No Butts Day'-a major anti-smoking campaign in at least one State? In view of the fact that the Minister was a signatory to the 1977 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare I raise the question of banning the advertising of tobacco products in areas under direct Commonwealth control, for example, at airports and in the Australian Capital Territory. In particular, I ask whether the Minister saw a letter some time ago from a number of medical students who commented that they: . . . continually see patients seriously debilitated or dying of diseases that are a direct result of long-term cigarette smoking. Active encouragement of cigarette smoking, particularly in the light of increasing local and national awareness of its well-documented ill-effects on health and consequent drain on Government resources, is at best irresponsible. Will the Minister ask the Minister for Health, the Minister for Aviation and other appropriate Ministers to take urgent action in this area as an indication of the Government's concern about the nation's health? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that today is 'No Butts Day' in certain States. I was reminded of it this morning every time I lit a cigarette by several of my colleagues, including some of those reformed smokers such as Senator Coates. I certainly do remember signing the 1977 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which dealt with drug problems in particular, the most serious drug problems we have in this country being cigarettes and alcohol. At the time the difficulty of the Commonwealth Government, because of its limited powers affecting advertising, was brought forward. We had a discussion at that time on how best we could influence the effects of advertising on the consumption of cigarettes. It has been of great concern to us that, whilst the consumption of cigarettes amongst the older age group has been dropping, the consumption of cigarettes amongst the younger age group, particularly young females, has been increasing. We have been concerned about the effects that advertising has had on this group. I am well aware of the medical effects of smoking, of the addictive nature of cigarettes and of the difficulties people have in trying to give up cigarettes. I believe that anything we can do as a parliament and as a government to cut down the consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products would be a worthwhile effort. I will refer to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Aviation Senator Coates's suggestion that there are areas where the Commonwealth Government can affect advertising, particularly at airports. I will seek from those Ministers an early reply to see whether the Government can, or should, affect this advertising and, therefore, reduce the effective advertising for the consumption of tobacco in the community. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the majority of Australian families maintain health insurance, will not the mini-Budget mean that, after the introduction of Medicare, such families thereafter have to pay both the levy and health insurance if they wish to maintain anything other than the basic health cover? Indeed, I point out that in Queensland they will have to pay for what they already get for nothing. Senator BUTTON —The burden of the abolition of the rebate will not be felt until the income year 1984-85. By that time the Medicare proposal will be in place. Senator Walters —Be honest. Senator BUTTON —I am being perfectly honest. That statement is correct. I am not able to say the precise numbers of Australians who are currently in private medical funds but I will obtain that information from the Minister and advise the honourable senator. Senator CROWLEY —The Minister representing the Minister for Health is no doubt aware of the comments made by the shadow Minister for Health complaining about the proposed changes to health insurance by our Government. In particular he complained of the potential loss of jobs and the extra cost. Could the Minister explain to the Senate how the shadow Minister is wrong in his facts and figures and his interpretation? Further, could the Minister say how much it cost to dismantle Medibank when the previous Government came to office? How many jobs were lost by its callous breaking of an electoral promise? What is the estimated size of medical fraud, which became so easy once the previous Government dismantled the one central Medibank computer that was the most important check against such behaviour? How many medical schemes were there under the previous Government and what was their increasing cost to the community? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Crowley for her question. It gives me an opportunity to comment not only on her question but also on some of the other remarks that have been made here today. The Senate should be reminded of the record of the previous Government in the health insurance area. I well remember sitting on this side of the chamber in 1975 when the Medibank legislation was introduced, and watching the Opposition oppose the introduction of the Medibank levy. In fact, it had sufficient numbers to do so. It opposed that levy and the legislation was defeated. The Governor-General used the rejection of that legislation as one of the excuses to call the infamous double dissolution in 1975. The previous Government marched into Parliament and introduced the same legislation to introduce a levy which it had opposed only a matter of months before. In the election campaign of 1975 Mr Fraser, the then Leader of the Liberal- Country Party coalition, made this infamous statement in his policy speech: 'We will preserve Medibank'. The previous Government, when it came into power not only dismantled Medibank; it proceeded to introduce over the next seven years no fewer than seven health schemes. I was the shadow Minister representing the Health portfolio in this place. Regularly each year a series of health amendment Bills were introduced and regularly at the end of the debate I said: 'I will see you here again next year. This won't work. This will be too expensive. This will be hopeless'. Regularly every year the Minister for Health, whoever he may have been at the time, felt a new health scheme coming on, and introduced it. We had seven years of disastrous confusion. We had seven years in which no one knew where he stood in relation to health insurance. Medibank was dismantled in 1975, with no regard being paid to the loss of jobs. There was no job program such as the one which has been announced by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in another place today and which will be announced by me in this place in a statement later. I remind honourable senators that this Government had clearly in its election policy the introduction of a universal health insurance scheme called Medicare. We spelt it out over a period of two years before the last election. I remind honourable senators opposite that we overwhelmingly won that election. The health insurance funds, the patients and the doctors knew what our policy was. Although the scheme will not be introduced till February, Dr Blewett has spelt out, and will continue to spell out, exactly what he and the Government will do in February so that we can have proper discussion. I am pleased to note that the health insurance funds now seem to agree with Medicare because they are very keen to run it. Unfortunately, we will not be able to oblige them in that regard . We will have not only a fair and equitable health insurance scheme, but a system whereby the Government will be able to monitor the overservicing and fraud which are rife in the present health insurance system. I believe that the situation now is different from that of 1975. I vividly remember in 1975 Senator Baume, who was then the spokesman for the Australian Medical Association in this place, saying: 'Doctors will co-operate with anyone except the Labor Party'. In fact, the majority of doctors are responsible citizens who will co-operate with Medicare. Medicare will be introduced. We will have a fair health insurance system which will last longer than the six months or nine months that the previous Government's schemes lasted. People will have certainty. They will know where they are. We will have at last a fair and equitable economic health insurance scheme. If I have missed anything in Senator Crowley's question, I will seek the information from the Minister and give it to her later. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Arising out of Senator Grimes's answer that he could not accommodate the private health funds in the new Medibank scheme, I ask: What plans has the Government to find alternative employment for the thousands of employees of private health funds who will be displaced following the introduction of Medicare and who will not be absorbed into the new Medibank? Senator GRIMES —If Senator Hamer had read the statement brought down in the other place yesterday by Dr Blewett or if he could contain his impatience and listen to the statement that I will bring down in this place today, he would have known or he will know the answer to that question. But, first, there will not be thousands of unemployed people displaced from health insurance funds who will not be able to be taken up under the new Medibank scheme. Of course the Government is concerned about the potential employment consequences of this decision. I repeat that of course we are concerned about it. We are far more concerned about the disemployment in this situation than the previous Government was when it came to office and threw all those employees of Medibank out of a job in 1975. It did absolutely nothing about the re-employment of those people. We are taking several measures in this area. First, the Health Insurance Commission, which runs Medibank Private, has been requested to offer preference in clerical employment to those people who will be displaced. Of course people will be displaced. We have never hidden that fact. Discussions are being held between the Department of Health and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on this whole matter of employment preference. We are discussing the matter with the trade union movement-something the previous Government never did. All those trade unions, particularly the clerks' union, that are involved in the private health insurance industry are being considered. The Minister for Health has already had discussions and will continue to have discusssions with State departments of health and State governments about preference for clerical employment. But I remind honourable senators that in this voluntary health insurance area there is a very high turnover of staff-something like 25 per cent. A combination of those measures taken to ensure that people receive employment, plus this high staff turnover, will in fact mean that we will show concern and act on that concern for the unemployment which will be caused by this changeover. But we cannot allow the consumers of health care in this country not to have a fair and equitable health insurance scheme. We intend to proceed with that but, at the same time, to make provision for those who will be directly affected. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns the Freedom of Information Act. How many requests have been made under the Act since it commenced operation on 1 December 1982? Does the number of requests justify pre-Act concerns about the burden of the Act on agencies? Senator GARETH EVANS —I happen to have some figures available about the number of requests received in the first four months of operation of the Freedom of Information Act. They represent only a tiny fraction of the number of anticipated demands under the new legislation. The total number of requests has been 2,778 until the end of March-an average of 700 a month plus or minus. Requests have been directed to less than a quarter of all government departments and agencies. That is to say, some 75 per cent of government agencies and departments have received not a single request under the legislation. The number of requests certainly has been substantially less than the predictions that were given to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs by the Public Service departments in 1978-79. For example, in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs there have been 179 requests in three months as against a prediction to the Senate Standing Committee of an annual number of 103,700. In the Public Service Board there was a prediction of between 2,000 and 5,000 requests per annum. In fact, there have been 34 requests in three months. In the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet there was an estimate of between 1,000 and 2,000 requests per annum. There have been 14 requests in the last three months. However, I think one of the most interesting figures is in relation to the Department of the Treasury. There was a departmental communication at the end of February stating that the work arising out of the FOI Act was proving to be particularly consuming of both time and resources. At that stage Treasury had had 10 requests in three months, as against the prediction of something like 12 per week. I will say one other thing. The actual pre-Act predictions of increased work load on agencies have not been borne out not only in terms of numbers of requests but also the numbers of staff and resources that have been required to meet the activities arising under the Act. In mid-1982 the Public Service Board, after having been fully aware of the content of the current Act and the predictions of the Department based on the actual text of it, advised that 685 full time Public Service Act positions would be necessary to accommodate the new legislation. Although these bids were best estimates and subject to review within 12 months of the Act coming into operation, to date a number of agencies simply have not taken up their pre-Act staff ceiling allocations. The six agencies which account for 472 of those positions have filled only 205 of them. Defence, for example, has taken up only 28 of the 75 positions allocated to it. Veterans' Affairs did not take up 50 out of the 79 positions that were allocated to it. That experience has been repeated right across the entire Public Service. So much for floodgates arguments about freedom of information. Senator Chaney —Could the Minister table the paper? The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Opposition has asked that the paper from which the Minister was citing figures be tabled. Senator GARETH EVANS —I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a more detailed tabular statement of the information on which I was speaking. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT: NUMBER OF REQUESTS Number of requests (December 1982-March 1983)*- December: 716 by 87 agencies; January: 593 by 77 agencies; February: 699 by 78 agencies; March: 780 by 85 Agencies. In the first four months of the FOI Act's operation some 75 per cent of all agencies have not received a request. However, requests have been received by all ministerial departments and the largest statutory authorities. The majority of requests (nearly two-thirds) were directed to client-orientated agencies as follows- Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Department 82 83 83 83 Total Social Security 174 124 165 168 621 Taxation 103 104 152 186 545 Veterans' Affairs 62 63 82 109 316 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 65 42 72 103 282 Other agencies in the ''top ten'' of agencies receiving requests were- Defence 51 28 46 52 177 Australian Federal Police 20 29 24 19 92 Home Affairs and Environment 16 18 17 10 61 Public Service Board 14 13 7 8 42 Attorney- General's 12 7 9 10 40 Health 14 8 9 8 39 Another 8 agencies have received 20 or more requests in the period December 1982 to February 1983- Employment and Industrial Relations 29 Telecom 28 Capital Territory 27 Commissioner for Superannua- tion 26 Industry and Commerce 23 Foreign Affairs 22 Aviation 20 Australian Post 20 Note: More detailed statistics will be made available to the Parliament in the Attorney-General's Annual Report on the FOI Act. * Due to recent amendments to the Administrative Arrangements Order and the consequential changes in the structure of some Departments these details are expressed in terms of the old administrative arrangements. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that approximately 40 per cent of all Australian families- many of them on low incomes-are currently in the process of paying off their homes? Is it also a fact that the Fraser Government's housing interest subsidy had the effect of reducing the interest burden of current home buyers by about 2 per cent? Did the Australian Labor Party give a firm election promise that it would maintain the housing interest subsidy? Will not the removal of the interest subsidy by the Hawke Government, in breach of its election promise I believe, add a substantially higher interest burden to home buyers? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to say whether approximately 40 per cent of Australian families are currently paying off their homes, but I believe that to be a fairly accurate estimate. I was asked whether the Fraser Government scheme for home buyers reduced the interest burden by about 2 per cent. I believe that to be so. There was in fact a necessity in the case of most home buyers to reduce their interest burden by much more than 2 per cent under the Fraser Government's economic policies, because the interest rate has never been as great as it was in 1982. The Fraser Government presided over record interest rates in Australia. That is a fact from which I think the Opposition cannot retreat. The Government did give pre-election undertakings that it would initiate schemes which would provide maximum access to home ownership in Australia, and we believe we have done that in the course of the May statement which was released last Thursday. Senator BOLKUS —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, refers to the motor vehicle industry. In light of the difficult situation faced by car manufacturers in Australia, does the Minister believe that there are any prospects of mergers or other rationalisations in the Australian motor vehicle industry? What effect does the Government believe such changes would have on the long term interests of this industry? Senator BUTTON —Yes, I do believe that there is a capacity for mergers to take place within the motor car manufacturing industry in Australia. It is not my task to suggest how those mergers should be accomplished at this stage. If there are mergers of the activities of motor car manufacturing companies in Australia, they will be following trends which have emerged world wide because of the cost of motor car manufacture and the general decline in demand for motor cars throughout the world. I mention, for example, the effective merger agreements between General Motors and Toyota to manufacture in California. I cite other examples between Alfa Romeo and Nissan, and in the United Kingdom between British Leyland and Honda. All I am saying is that there is a world-wide trend towards rationalisation of the activities of the major motor car manufacturing companies. In suggesting that mergers might take place, I think it is also important to consider that there is always the capacity, even without formal mergers, to arrange for cross-sourcing of supplies to motor manufacturing companies. For example, General Motors-Holden's Ltd has been supplying engines to Australian Motor Industries Ltd, a Mitsubishi subsidiary, and another company has been supplying shock absorbers to all producers in Australia. Those sorts of rationalisations of the manufacture of component parts of motor cars have been taking place under the existing schemes within the industry. What the Government looks forward to, of course, is a motor car industry in Australia which is rationally organised, efficient and employs a secure work force well into the future. To do that the industry will have to be perhaps more competitive and more efficient than it has been in the past. We hope that in conjunction with the sorts of things that I have suggested those things will take place. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It follows his failure to answer specifically parts of the previous question from the Opposition. Does the Minister recall his party's election commitment to provide the existing tax concessions on mortgage interest payments ? Can he indicate whether, in the light of that commitment, the Government will review the decision announced last week to terminate those concessions, the effect of which will be to increase mortgage interest rates at a stroke by up to 2 per cent? Senator BUTTON —I do not personally recall that pre-election commitment. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator BUTTON —Opposition senators might laugh. I would like to hear them recall some of their pre-election commitments. That would be an interesting exercise. I will certainly jog my memory for Senator Hill about the first part of the question before the next Question Time. In answer to the second part of the question, which I take to be the most important part, there will be no review of the Government's decision announced last Thursday. Senator ROBERTSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of statements by the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, that he intends to sue the Commonwealth in the High Court of Australia over an alleged breach of agreements on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, and that there were precedents for the Commonwealth building State railway lines at its own cost, for example, the transcontinental line? Does the Minister see any basis of fact in these statements? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Robertson has asked a question which clearly is of great interest to the residents of the Northern Territory. Of course, this matter has been substantially exaggerated by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. At no stage has the Government withdrawn its support for the building of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. In the light of the information that became available to it after the election-instead of inheriting a $4.5 billion deficit it found itself faced with a $9.5 billion deficit-the Government has had to recast its attitude in respect of a whole number of public works activities. We have not withdrawn our support for the construction of the railway. What we have done is to suggest to the Northern Territory a new arrangement under which the railway can be built. As is usual with Mr Everingham, he shoots from the hip. He does not always speak with any degree of accuracy in his comments relating to his relationships with the Commonwealth Government. When he talks about more than one million Western Australians not contributing to the cost of the east- west transcontinental line he of course ignores the fact that one of the conditions that applied at the time of Federation was that the Commonwealth would accept its responsibilities in respect of the construction of the rail line from Western Australia to the east coast of Australia. Consequently, the Western Australian Government, having accepted its responsibility, provided out of its own funds for the construction of the rail line from Perth to Kalgoorlie. Any suggestion that the Northern Territory is being treated differently from what Western Australia was at the time of Federation is incorrect. I remind the Senate that at the beginning of the century a lot of reluctant colonies had to be persuaded to come into the Federation. One of the conditions was that the Commonwealth accept responsibility in regard to the construction of that rail line. That is not the position with respect to the Northern Territory. I remind honourable senators that the Commonwealth Government pays per capita to the Northern Territory something in excess of $5,600, which is five times the average amount paid to the other States per capita, in terms of tax reimbursements. So the Commonwealth has in no way reneged on its responsibilities. It has suggested a form of financing of that construction and has suggested to the Northern Territory Government that it has the legal power to raise the funds in the form of loans, either from the Commonwealth or elsewhere. The Commonwealth has indicated that it would assist in that process. I also remind the honourable senator that the Commonwealth has already built the Tarcoola-Alice Springs section of 830 kilometres at no cost to the Northern Territory. The contribution sought from the Northern Territory should not be seen as a contribution of 40 per cent of the cost of construction. In real terms it represents only a contribution from the Northern Territory of some 25 per cent. Senator Kilgariff and his confreres in the Northern Territory, including Mr Everingham, are completely astray in their critisicisms of the attitude taken by the Commonwealth. Senator ROBERTSON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question which has been prompted by some of the comments by our friends on the other side of the chamber . I ask the Minister to indicate to us how much of the building of railways since 1911 has been initiated by the other party opposite? Senator GIETZELT —The construction of railways has always been a responsibility of the States. Of course the Northern Territory wants to be regarded as a State. It is regarded by the Commonwealth as a State, and therefore it should accept its share of responsibility, as indeed all the States have done in regard to the construction of their public railway systems. Senator HARRADINE —Is the Minister representing both the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance aware of the different attitude being taken by the Australian Taxation Office in relation to donations of cash as distinct from donations in kind for the victims of the Victorian and South Australian bushfires? To give an example, there was an appeal for fodder and dairy cattle for the farming victims and a number of dairy farmers, including Tasmanians, made contributions of dairy cattle. Is it a fact that the Australian Taxation Office has decided to interpret certain provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act so as to require farmers who make donations of farm produce and livestock to charitable appeals to pay tax on the value of such gifts? If so, is that not distinct from the attitude of the Commonwealth in respect of these appeals? Senator WALSH —In reply to the first part of Senator Harradine's question, I am not aware of what distinctions, if any, the Taxation Office is drawing between donations of cash and donations in kind. I will seek that information from the Minister. I can, however, see that an argument could be mounted for making a distinction between the two types of donations. Expenses incurred by a farmer in producing the two commodities that Senator Harradine has cited-fodder and animals-have been tax deductible. If, in addition to that, the item that was donated was allowed as a tax deduction at full market price there would be an element of double counting. Whether that is the basis for the Taxation Office's distinction, if in fact it draws such a distinction, I do not know. But I just raise the point that that could well be the case. I will seek a definitive answer from the Minister. Senator TATE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the concern of some Tasmanian farmers who have shown great initiative in establishing a multi-million-dollar onion export industry. Their concern is that New Zealand onion growers are undermining the viability of the Tasmanian industry by dumping onions on the Australian market. Do closer economic relations with New Zealand require any sector of the Australian agriculture, fishing or timber industries to accept any level of imports detrimental to those sectors? Will the Minister acknowledge the need for a viable and diversified agricultural sector in Tasmania with all the multiplier effects in employment, especially in this era of post-hydro- industrialisation? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether this question should be directed to the Minister for Primary Industry or the Minister for Trade, but I represent both, anyway, so either way I can answer. The matter to which Senator Tate has referred has been brought to my notice. The middle part of his question-I paraphrase it-was: Do Australian industries have to accept any level of import competition under any circumstances? The answer is that provision is made within the CER agreement under which action can be taken. I am not familiar with all the details, but it is required that the country taking the action to restrict imports must determine firstly that a local industry, actual or potential, has been harmed and that dumping is in fact taking place. There is also a very comprehensive obligation on the country contemplating such action to notify the other party to the agreement both very fully in detail and very quickly. If any action is taken it has to be reviewed at the end of about six months. I will contact the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Primary Industry and see whether they have anything to add to that reply. If they do, I will provide it to Senator Tate. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the Government indicate when telephone charges will rise as announced in last week's mini-Budget? Will postal charges rise for a similar reason? Were any estimates made, before this decision was taken, of the effect of these rises on small business? If so, what were those estimates? Senator BUTTON —In answer to the first part of the question, I am unable to say when telephone charges will rise. That is a matter for Telecom Australia to determine. It will depend very much on Telecom's availability of capital to carry out its current works programs. I am asked whether postal charges will rise on the same basis. I believe not. The answer to the third part of the question, as to whether a small business impact study was done in respect of postal and telephone charges, is no, because the first two questions were not strictly before us. Of course, the overall economic impact of last week's statement in respect of small and large business and all sectors of the community was taken into account. The guiding philosophy of the statement was that there should be a sharing of the burdens of the current economic difficulties. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from that answer that it was not considered that the interests of small business warranted a special investigation. The PRESIDENT —I say to honourable senators that the supplementary questions are becoming a bit loose. I am going to watch them more closely in future. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator BUTTON —I have already indicated that the interests of all sectors of the community were taken into account in preparing the economic statement. Seeing Senator MacGibbon is trying to make a big fellow of himself, presumably, with small business by asking these questions, I might say that the interests of small business were taken into account quite specifically in relation to a number of matters considered prior to the making of the economic statement. Of course, one of the things which small business has suffered from most, amongst others, is the high level of inflation which this Government inherited from the previous Government. That matter was specifically taken into account in dealing with the economic statement. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Prior to the March election, did the then Opposition indicate that, on becoming the Government, it would remove the entrance fee to the Australian National Gallery, a fee which was imposed by the Fraser Government? Is a fee payable for entry to other Australian Government buildings of national significance in Canberra, for example, the Australian War Memorial, the National Library of Australia and the Royal Australian Mint? Does the Government intend to remove the entrance fee to the Australian National Gallery and, if so, when? Senator RYAN —The answer to the honourable senator's first question is yes. It was a part of the Government's pre-election undertaking to remove the entrance fee to the National Gallery. The answer to the second part of the honourable senator's question is no. No other national institutions in the Australian Capital Territory have such an entrance fee. Senator Gareth Evans —Not even Parliament. Senator RYAN —Not even Parliament, as my colleague Senator Evans points out. Nor is it the intention of the Government to impose an entrance fee on Parliament or any of the other national institutions. As to the timetable for the Government's implementation of its intention to wipe out the entrance fee to the National Gallery, I will have to consult the Minister who is responsible for this area, Mr Barry Cohen. I will let Senator Colston know as soon as possible. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it true that the Government intends to review family allowances with a view to imposing taxation on them or restricting eligibility? Senator BUTTON —All matters of Government economic policy will be dealt with in the context of the forthcoming Budget. As far as I am aware, it is not the intention of the Government to review family allowances in any particular respect. But, of course, family allowances, like all other government benefits, will be considered in the overall context of the Budget. Senator Watson and other honourable senators will, of course, be informed in due course if there is any decision in relation to family allowances or any other allowances which the Government seeks to review. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence give further details of an incident involving the shelling of the HMAS Buccaneer by one of its own guns? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not entirely unknown for people to shoot themselves in the foot but to my knowledge this is the first time it has happened to a ship . Senator Walters —The Government is doing it regularly. Senator GARETH EVANS —Oh, Shirley, you are so acute. The information available to me from the Department of Defence is as follows: HMAS Buccaneer, an attack class patrol boat based in Darwin, was taking part in a squadron task element exercise in the Beagle Gulf area when, on 23 May during a saluting gun practice evolution-whatever that is-it accidentally fired a 40 millimetre Bofors round through its forecastle bulwark plating. I hope Senator Hamer will correct my pronunciation if I have all that wrong. The evolution had taken place with Buccaneer using high explosive fitted with tracer-HET-rounds instead of breakup shot or practice weighed and plugged-PNP-ammunition. The accident occurred when gun clearing procedures were being carried out. The gun had been trained on a safe bearing but it was not sufficiently elevated. Damage to Buccaneer was restricted to a 40mm diameter hole through the bulwark plating. No injury to personnel took place. The HET round did not detonate on impact with the bulwark because the round's safety and arming device would not have allowed the fuse to be armed after travelling for such a short time. Buccaneer's participation in the squadron exercises was not affected by the incident. The squadron returned to Darwin on 25 May on completion of the exercises. An investigation into the cause of the accident is taking place and a further report will be forwarded to the Department of Defence when the results of the inquiry have been forwarded to Navy Office. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Can the Government indicate whether it expects any further prices and costs to rise as a result of its mini-Budget last week in addition to telephone charges, superannuation, mortgages, health insurance, air fares and petrol prices in non-metropolitan areas? Senator BUTTON —Without conceding any particular item in the extraordinary list which has been read to us by Senator Lajovic, the answer is no. Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-Allegations made yesterday by a Mr Volkman before the Stewart Royal Commission into the Activities of Nugan Hand, to the effect that he had been intimidated from the highest level have been widely reported in the media both last night and today. His allegations have involved the Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, and the honourable member for Farrer, Mr Fife. However, it appears that the allegations of intimidation have been directed principally at myself as a result of a prosecution brought by me against Mr Volkman and others when I was Attorney-General. Similar allegations were made by the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the House of Representatives last October and November. At the time, I was convalescing and I was unable to answer them. I completely repudiate these allegations which make the gravest reflections upon me. The facts are these: Mr Volkman and four others were charged with conspiring together and with one other person in 1979 to export Australian native birds, which are a prohibited export. Conspiracy charges were laid under section 86 of the Crimes Act and, in the circumstances, carried a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment. Committal proceedings on the conspiracy charges were heard before a magistrate in Sydney in 1980. At the end of the proceedings, the magistrate found a prima facie case against all defendants but declined to commit them for trial. On 13 July 1981, acting on firm advice from a most experienced senior counsel, Mr R. J. Marr, Q.C., I signed an ex officio indictment against all defendants. This was not the only case in which an ex officio indictment was presented by me when I was Attorney-General. One consequence that can follow an ex officio indictment-namely, that the accused does not have the benefits that go with committal proceedings-did not apply in the case of Mr Volkman. On 10 May 1982, one of the accused pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. He was subsequently released on a bond to be of good behaviour for three years and he had to pay a fine of $1,000. The trial of the remaining accused, including Mr Volkman, commenced on 10 May 1982 but, on the application of the accused, the jury was discharged before the trial was completed. The retrial of the accused commenced on 13 September 1982 and concluded on 12 October 1982. At the close of the Crown case, the trial judge directed that one of the accused be acquitted but found that there was a case to answer in respect of the remaining accused, including Mr Volkman. After deliberating for six and a half hours the jury returned verdicts of not guilty against the remaining accused, again including Mr Volkman. The charges against the accused were serious and it was clearly proper for the prosecution to be brought. My decision to proceed with the trial was made on the advice of senior counsel. The trial judge ruled that there was a case for Mr Volkman to answer. I utterly repudiate the allegation of malice by me in the prosecution of Mr Volkman. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-Last night in another place the honourable member for Braddon, Mr Ray Groom, made an allegation, as I see it, against my character and my integrity. In the course of a five-minute contribution on the subject of the decision by this Government not to proceed with the upgrading of Wynyard Airport, which five minutes he devoted to a tirade of abuse against me rather than mounting any argument concerning the case for the Wynyard Airport, he stated, amongst other things: Senator Tate . . . Was: party to this false promise . . . He stated further that I: . . . had advance knowledge that this promise was likely to be broken . . . At no stage have I been a party to any false or deliberate misleading of the Tasmanian public or of my constituents. I was never a party to any contrived deception in this regard. I was a party to the undertaking which the Government has decided up to this point will not be proceeded with because of compelling economic arguments regarding the Budget deficit. I was not a party to a false promise. As to the allegation that I had advance knowledge that this promise was likely to be broken, that is also false. From departmental contacts-I am sure Mr Ray Groom is as aware of the rumours as I am-I knew that the Wynyard Airport project was vulnerable. Being concerned I sought a conference with the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley), Mr Hugh Loane, the Master Warden of the Burnie Marine Board, Mr Brian Loring, the Executive Secretary of that Board and Mr Ray Groom on Tuesday of last week, which meeting took place. At no stage was I privy to any decision by the Government. Indeed, the Minister was completely honest and thoroughly infuriating in not indicating what the Government's decision in this matter would be. As I have said, to that extent I have been grossly misrepresented in the statement made by Mr Groom last night. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The disastrous impact on family incomes of the Government's mini-Budget proposals and, in particular, the abolition of the home interest and the health insurance rebates. 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 MESSNER(South Australia)(2.21) —As a result of the mini-Budget brought down last Thursday, it is likely that the average family in Australia will be worse off to the tune of almost $20 a week. This figure results from a calculation of the costs of the abolition of the housing rebate, the health insurance rebate, a rise in the threshold of concessional expenditure rebate and other incidental rises that have resulted from what might be termed 'Keating's kickshaw'. The Government should note that the people of Australia simply will not swallow this package. I note in today's Press the comments of the Secretary of the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, Mr Barrie Unsworth about the superannuation changes announced in this mini-Budget. Clearly, he was making the point that the Whitlam Government's decision of a 25 per cent tariff cut was just as disastrous to the electoral prospects of the Whitlam Government as this decision is likely to be for the Hawke Government. Of course, we are facing a by -election this coming Saturday. This may well be the litmus test for the mini- Budget. This mini-Budget represents an attack on the thrifty. If people save their money, invest in their retirement, invest in their health, invest in sending their children to school, invest in the jobs of others by investing in Australian industry as small stockholders if people work hard to increase their incomes to save for homes, they are the people who will be penalised. As we all know, this has come at a time when the average Australian can least afford it. The mini-Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was one of the most amazing documents that has ever been presented to this Parliament. While it was portrayed as a simple exercise in expenditure restraint, it was nothing more than an exercise in raising taxes-taxes that will be paid for by all Australians . The business editor of the Age, Terry McCrann, has been one of the few journalists not to be duped by last Thursday's statement. He said yesterday: . . . on Thursday night, Paul Keating, spoke of savings on the 'expenditure and tax expenditure programs' of the previous Government which would total $985m in 1983-84. 'Mr Keating could have expressed this slightly differently. He could have said cuts in spending would slice $532m off expenditure in 1983-84 while removal of various tax concessions-more explicitly, tax increases-would add $452m to revenue.' Under the mini-Budget those tax increases will rise dramatically in the years 1984-85 and beyond. Tax increases will amount to $1,437m in 1984-85 and $1,590m in 1985-86. The Australian people need to have that fact brought to their attention because they are the ones who will have to pay the increased taxes that are hidden in this mini-Budget. That shift brought about in the mini-Budget of higher taxes has come about despite an election commitment. We know how worthless those are of course, as evidenced by Senator Button's remarks in this place this morning when he could not even remember what the promises were. But he did say that one of the promises was an immediate reduction in income tax for six million Australians. Now ten weeks later taxes are increased by $0.5 billion. I point to three areas- housing, health and concessional expenditure rebates-in which, in one stroke, those same 6 million people will face immediate tax increases. The housing rebate is an example. As a result of the abolition of the housing interest rate rebate the average first home buyer will be worse off by $6 a week. This figure assumes that he or she has a loan of $30,000 and is based on an interest rate of only 13.5 per cent. Both of those figures are reasonably conservative in today's world. The Government's decision to abolish the rebate has, in one stroke-this is tacitly acknowledged by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford )-put up interest rates effectively by 2 per cent. Let us consider the case of a person who borrows $50,000 and is required to pay to a building society or bank an interest rate approaching 14.5 per cent. The extra cost to that person will be $13 per week. A person who borrows even $20, 000 at the same rate of interest will suffer increased costs of $5.20 per week. So a range of taxpayers will suffer a very significant loss of income as a result of the abolition of the rebate. This is occurring at a time when interest rates are still very high and under pressure. The effect of the decision upon those first home buyers who decided to purchase a house because the rebate was in existence is utterly immeasurable. I ask the Government to consider that situation. There is no doubt that the scheme assisted many people to make the decision to buy their own house. This decision by the Government, which is so disastrous, will affect families. It is not simply the view of the Opposition. Last Friday a spokesman for the Australian Taxpayers Association, Mr Robin Logan, stated: This mini-budget will hit the average family man-the man who is most likely to spend to get this country going again. Another alarming matter is the decision to abolish the special home loan interest tax rebate which was introduced by the Fraser Government in March last year specifically to aid low income first home buyers. This special rebate is to be abolished from 30 September until the new First Home Ownership Assistance Scheme comes into effect. The Treasurer stated in the course of his address last week: We have placed emphasis on . . . directing assistance to those in need and on removing unwarranted concessions. In relation to the housing package generally, he stated: Assistance will be directed to those most in need. Clearly, that is an objective which all of us would have. Yet the Government, in its rush to raise revenue and increase taxes in the mini-Budget, has cut out a program directly assisting, and designed to assist, those most in need. Again, I refer specifically to the package brought in last March. One of the main reasons for the change in policies in the housing area is allegedly to provide more funding for the whole area. Let us examine that situation. It is simply not true. In 1983-84 it is true that an extra $77m will be provided in the Budget for housing. But in later years the position changes dramatically. In 1984-85 savings from the abolition of the home rebates and the Home Deposit Assistance Scheme will amount to $240m; that is, a net loss to the housing sector of $420m. The new assistance scheme will entail an expenditure of $165m, leaving a surplus in favour of revenue of $255m. Part of this amount will obviously go towards welfare housing. But how much? The Government has not spelt that out. Let us assume that it might entail an amount of $150m-an increase of 20 per cent-which is by no means an ungenerous figure over last year's amount. That would still mean a net reduction in housing funds of about $100m. Similarly , in 1985-86, without an allocation to be determined for welfare housing, overall savings would be about $265m. How can Australians be convinced, in the light of that information, that this Government has been generous in the housing area? It has implemented a superficially attractive scheme which, when examined, actually makes savings to revenue in the whole housing area. This illusion was recognised in the editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald last Friday, which stated: The element of illusion in the housing package is simply the extent to which it will assist first-home buyers. Despite Mr Keating's assurances to the contrary, the additional demand for housing must, to some extent, push up home prices. Part of the benefit will go to existing home-owners. It is, of course, also absurd to regard anyone who is within striking distance of acquiring a home as being in urgent need of the taxpayer's assistance. They must, at least, have a job and a fair amount of money in their savings account to be able to take on a housing loan, even a heavily-subsidised housing loan. Again, the Minister for Housing and Construction, in answer to a question asked in the House yesterday, said that the package would have a downward thrust on interest rates. He stated further: A one per cent reduction in interest rates will have far greater effect for the vast majority of Australians than will any general tax rebate. Is the Minister, who is not exactly known for his success in the area of economic policy, guaranteeing Australians a reduction in interest rates? Is he saying that interest rates will be lowered and that that will offset the disadvantages? Is that what he would have us believe? Is he telling people that his policies will do this? The abolition of the health insurance rebate will cost the average family which has basic private medical and hospital insurance some $5 to $6 a week next year. It has been brought in six months before it was necessary. It removes an incentive for people to enter health insurance schemes in the six months between July and the introduction of Medicare on 1 January. This will obviously have a very costly effect on many people in the community. The decision to abolish the rebate will obviously increase the overall costs of families. Medicare, or Hayden's 'Medibank Revisited', or, as some people call it, 'Mediaeval', will provide Australians with 85 per cent of medical and hospital cover, paid for by the levy. It is supposed to be a one per cent levy. But the private funds suggest that that figure is unrealistic, given the enormous administrative costs involved in the operation, now that the Minister has rejected moves for the offices of private funds to be agents for Medicare. But people requiring optometrical, dental or other services will have to take out extra private insurance. Without the rebate, costs will not be offset and people will be discouraged from taking the necessary extra cover. The results of that could be potentially disastrous. I turn to the concessional expenditure rebate. The increase in that rebate threshold from $1,590 to $2,000 will result in a tax increase of $136.60 per annum for each individual who falls into that category. Fifty per cent of income earners who earn an average salary below $6,000 per annum and who were able to claim concessional expenditure rebates are $136.60, or nearly $3 a week, worse off. That is based on 1980-81 figures. Nearly 50 per cent of income earners earning between $9,000 and $11,999 per annum-very modest levels of income-who were able to claim concessional expenditure rebates are, again, $136.60, or nearly $3 a week, worse off. Of income earners at or below the level of the average wage earner who were able to claim concessional expenditure rebates 54.5 per cent will be $3 a week worse off. Raising more tax from so-called low income earners is what this mini-Budget is about. The general concessional rebate was introduced to make a more equitable distribution of the tax burden. That was acknowledged as a fair thing when it was introduced in the Hayden Budget of 1975 . This mini-Budget reverses that process and goes down the way of laying increased tax burdens upon low income individuals. The increase in that threshold is, I believe, a direct attack upon the self-employed, the small businessman who, by taking out insurance and superannuation, prepares for his and his family's future security. These people do not have the advantages enjoyed by public servants and workers in large industries. They must fend for themselves. The Government has made their task, particularly, harder. Let me turn to the superannuation payments. Last Thursday night the Treasurer stated: We have been determined not to rush into decisions which require more thorough study and deliberation. Yet, on the same evening, he committed the Government to a decision with respect to superannuation which has all the hallmarks of a decision made without study and without deliberation. Obviously there are other costs in the Budget-my colleagues will deal with those matters-which have to be borne by the family. Telephone charges are but one of those matters. I do not remember them as being part of any election promise. But, as we were told today, election promises are very hard to remember once one gets into government. The mini-Budget will have many indirect effects on family budgets as well. It will push up prices. It will increase the demand for higher wages. Inflation may well be affected by the mini-Budget and interest rates could rise as a result. All of these factors will have a very costly effect on the average Australian family. It could well be that that $20 a week figure is just the beginning. In this mini-Budget Labor has reneged on all those who supported it on 5 March. Then it captured, as it claims, the middle ground of the electorate. It is now squeezing those people dry. The Government stands condemned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.37) —I must say that Senator Messner and the Opposition really take the prize for cheek this afternoon in producing a matter of public importance with this sort of wording at this time. (Quorum formed). The MPI states: The disastrous impact on family incomes of the Government's mini-Budget proposals and, in particular, the abolition of the home interest and the health insurance rebates. I think this MPI is a bit rich coming from Senator Messner, who was a Minister in the previous Government, whose polices had such a disastrous effect on the economy of this country and on the well-being of all but a few wealthy people. Such was the effect of the previous Government's policies and actions that I would like to remind supporters of that Government that they were tipped out of office on 5 March, at an early election, an election of their calling in which the Australian Labor Party received a huge swing and the mandate of the people. On a Wednesday afternoon so soon after that election we have the Opposition coming in to this chamber pretending that it has some concern about family incomes and about the economic situation of families. Yet it was the previous Government which, over seven years, created the greatest tax rip-off in Australia's history. The Government that we have just deposed saddled the incoming Government, the Labor Government, with the monstrous deficit we have to face. This deficit is largely the result of uninhibited vote buying in the 1982 Budget and the disastrous economic policies of the previous Government. In 1975 Mr Fraser promised: We will reduce the tax burden . . . We will fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years. In 1977 he said: We have ended the big tax rip-off . . . The Government will bring taxes down further-not increase them. What happened? In the Fraser Government's seven years in office it collected more taxes than the total collection of all governments for the prior 74 years. Tax indexation in those few years in which it was practised was, in fact, a sad farce. As a percentage of national income, tax receipts rose from 23.3 per cent in Labor's 1975 Budget to an estimated 25.5 per cent in the coalition Government 's 1982 Budget. This was despite the massive tax avoidance and evasion industry that flourished in those years. In this time pay-as-you-earn taxpayers were the hardest hit. These are the ordinary families about whom Senator Messner was allegedly talking. Over this time the increases cost Australians $4,000m a year, an extra $17 a week for an average household. Now this Opposition comes into this chamber and professes concern about the living standards of families and the amount of taxation they will have to pay. The fact is that the coalition Government left this country in such a parlous state that we are faced with no real choice except to try to distribute the burden-the burden being the cost of the previous Government's incompetence-more equitably. Let us look at those costs. This year the Australian economy has actually contracted for the first time in 30 years. Each percentage point loss of potential growth means a $1.5 billion loss of national output and a huge cost to the budget in lost taxes and, in fact, higher unemployment benefits. In the 1982 Budget, unemployment benefits were estimated to cost just less than $1.6 billion . At that time we recognised that this was an absurd estimate. That very Budget night we pointed out that it was an absurd estimate. It proved to be more so as the economy dropped through the floor. So two adjustments later we have come to the present situation where the cost is estimated to be $2.2 billion-even more than we thought possible when the Budget came down last year. In fact, these estimates may be very conservative. That is just part of the cost of unemployment. How much greater are the individual and social costs of three quarters of a million Australians out of work-some 10.3 per cent of the labour force? That result is entirely due to the economic failures of the previous Government. Let no one in this chamber or anywhere else be in any doubt about just what those failures were. First, an erratic and generally contractionary money and fiscal policy was conducted over the years and this added to rather than counteracted other fundamental factors which were inducing recession at the time . In the face of a steep and prolonged international recession Australia experienced a loss of international competitiveness brought on by the appreciation of our currency which was compounded for some time by an acceleration in our costs relative to those of our major trading partners. The resource boom euphoria, which was induced by the previous Government and which those of us in the chamber heard Senator Sir John Carrick drumming up every day at Question Time and whenever he had the opportunity, was a major contributing factor to these sorts of developments. The inflationary consequences were met by that Government with a tight monetary policy which resulted in higher interest rates, which further contributed to higher business costs and which severely affected the housing industry and every other industry in this community. The result was a severe squeeze on business cash flows and profits and the massive retrenchments that we in this country have been facing over the last few years. With the economy in a tail spin, it is no wonder that the Budget deficit had blown out. This, of course, was exacerbated, as I have said, by the tax expenditures which were entered into by the previous Government in the last Budget in a desperate attempt to hold office. It concealed from the Australian public the true costs of this spending spree by making sure that the bulk of the costs, about $3,000m, would first come to account next financial year. When it was revealed that the true extent of the 1983-84 deficit was likely to be $10 billion, Mr Howard, Mr Fraser and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle conspired to conceal this fact too, not only from the then Opposition but also from the public at large. Only weeks before the election Mr Howard was talking about a likely deficit of the order of $6 billion and was suggesting in fact that that was too high. We do not have the obsession that Mr Fraser and Mr Howard allegedly had with Budget deficits, but we recognise that we need to achieve a reasonable balance between the financial demands of the public sector and the private sector. We know the likely effects on interest rates if that balance is not achieved. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It said it would have taken steps to reduce the 1983 deficit. Before the election Mr Howard spoke in terms of a maximum deficit of 3 per cent of gross domestic product, which would have meant a deficit of $5 billion-not $10 billion. We must first ask Opposition senators, before they bleat here in the way they have done, what they would have done to reduce the deficit. What taxes would they have raised to reduce the deficit? What expenditures would they have cut? One can sell something like the Belconnen Mall only so many times. One has to raise taxes or cut expenditures if one is to cut the deficit. Senator Messner and his colleagues can throw stones at the Labor Party's measures, as they have done. I point out that every single item in the economic package which was brought down last Thursday night has been opposed by one or other member of the Opposition. Honourable senators from Queensland have been bleating about Brisbane Airport. Looking at the speakers' list, I dare say we will have that again this afternoon. We have heard people talking about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. We have heard Senator Messner opposing everything in this package. Every single item has been opposed. Is it not then reasonable to ask: What would the Opposition have done? Would it have done nothing? Would it in fact have allowed the deficit to blow out to the $10 billion that it was going to blow out to? I put it to the Opposition that there has been general support for this economic package. Certainly there is universal support from the housing industry . On listening to Senator Messner this afternoon, one would have thought that the housing industry was in fear and trepidation that it would collapse. In general it supports this package, and Senator Messner knows that. Senator Messner knows that the business community generally has in fact supported the overall effect of this package. Everyone except the extremely conservative economic writers in this country has supported it. Of course, there has been some opposition, fed by the grossly misleading propaganda put out by Senator Martin and Senator Messner today in regard to some people receiving lump sum superannuation payments. We received grossly misleading information from Senator Martin in Question Time today when she implied quite clearly that those who had accrued lump sum payments up until now would be paying tax on them from this day . She is clearly attempting to stir up strife in the community. People will come to realise what it means. All the groups I have mentioned and general community groups have accepted this economic package, but all we have from the Opposition is opposition item by item to everything in the package. We have not heard anything from the Opposition about what it would do. I repeat: The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Its former Treasurer cannot say that the deficit should be $5 billion; honourable senators opposite cannot say that the deficit of $10 billion is far too high, but that it is not a true deficit; they cannot say: 'Had we been in government we would have reduced it to $6 billion', and at the same time oppose every economic measure that has been produced in this package. We sought savings in areas where those affected can most readily afford to shoulder the burden. In fact we have spread the tax burden as best we can and have had to make difficult decisions in doing so. We have had to face the difficulties for the good of this country. Time after time the previous Government sought to conceal the true costs and extent of its regressive redistributional policies by hiding them in the tax system as tax expenditures. Assistance for health, for housing and for retirement incomes all became increasingly concentrated in the tax system, not for reasons of equity, efficiency or administration, but so that the Australian public would not see what was going on. The Labor Party and the Labor Government believe that, in general, direct expenditures are more accountable and more fair to low income earners than tax expenditures. Our recent moves in housing, health and occupational superannuation illustrate this principle. Senator Messner spent a long time in his speech making general accusations about the effects of what he sees as an unfortunate economic package. At the end he skated over the main items that he introduced in his matter of public importance. I will treat them in the same way and deal with them now at the end of my speech. I repeat: There has been general support from the housing and the building industries because they realise that the position in which only 106,000 new dwellings were to be commenced in this country in the present financial year could not continue. This is the lowest annual level of housing commencements since 1962-63 and compares with 132,300 in 1981-82 and nearly 150,000 in 1980-81 . The previous Government's combined economic and housing policies had resulted in the last financial year in the lowest number of new dwellings commenced. The previous Government's policies in this area had quite clearly failed. Yet Senator Messner, faced with an economic statement which introduces a new housing scheme and greater expenditure in that area and which distributes that expenditure more efficiently so that people can start new housing, although the scheme is welcomed by the housing industry and the builders, says: 'No, you should not do this. You should go back to what we were doing'. This is despite the fact that what the previous Government was doing resulted in the lowest number of housing starts since 1961-62. Our housing package removed some of the inequities which were in the previous Government's program and enabled an amount of money to be spent and distributed to those in most need, in particular to first home buyers. The policy is consistent and is aimed at directing scarce resources to the needy. Sure, the general tax rebate scheme will be terminated on 30 June, but this was a highly inequitable scheme. The great bulk of the assistance was going to those high income earners who were able to take out the sorts of high loans about which Senator Messner was talking. Less than 20 per cent of people claimed the rebate through the pay-as-you-earn system, showing that they did not need the rebate to assist them to meet their regular mortgage payments. The average savings bank borrower in Australia will in fact lose about $4 a week through the abolition of this scheme. We had previous to that the March rebate scheme for first home buyers. In order to meet this Government's social commitments and obligations this scheme will be continued for low income first home buyers who entered it before 1 October. The scheme will continue for low income earners on an income tested basis set at the same level as that for the new first home owners assistance scheme. This will ensure that lower income first home buyers who enter home ownership at the time of high interest rates will continue to receive assistance to the end of their first five years of home ownership. The new package will provide a significant boost to building activity, increase commencements to about 130,000 in 1983-84 and create an additional 25,000 jobs on building sites and in related building industry suppliers. The first home owners assistance scheme and all the other increased expenditure will do this; yet Senator Messner has got up and said: 'We should return to what we had before'. What we had before was inequitable. It was aimed primarily at those who could afford the high loans that Senator Messner was talking about and would result in a disastrous fall in the number of new home starts. Senator Messner then went on to make great play-he thought-about the health insurance tax rebate. As I said, we were faced with a disastrous budgetary situation which was bequeathed to us by the previous Government. This left us as a government with no alternatives but to make tough decisions on government expenditure. If we were to have the funds available for necessary expenditure on job creation and housing we had to do this. I remind Senator Messner and this chamber that all Australians will receive a full year's tax rebate for their health contributions in this year's tax return. There will be no increase in the out-of-pocket cost of health insurance as a result of the abolition of the rebate and the introduction of Medicare from 1 February will halve the cost of basic health insurance for a family in receipt of $450 a week. So most people will pay less for health insurance in 1983-84 than they pay currently. Senator Messner knows that. This MPI is nonsense. I am sure that the speakers who follow me will demonstrate even further that it is nonsense. I believe that we should dismiss it as such. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(2.58) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The disastrous impact on family incomes of the Government's mini-Budget proposals and, in particular, the abolition of the home interest and the health insurance rebates. Senator Grimes spent some time at the beginning of his speech on the subject of what the Opposition would have done to reduce the deficit had it been in government. It is not for me to write an alternative Budget for the present Government. Perhaps it would like a few clues-it could probably use some-but I think I can say one thing fairly confidently. This Opposition, had it been in government, would have done the same thing in the first instance as will the present Government, that is, it would have substantially reduced the forward estimates of parliamentary departments, which are the upper level of spending in any event. The Government will not find it very difficult to take several billion dollars from that so-called projected deficit of $9 billion without affecting present policies. Then, of course, it will add in a couple of million dollars new expenditure and claim that it has actually saved money. The Government's management is not as good as it has claimed. The mini-Budget presented last week was an interesting document in terms of just how quickly this Government has moved to break election promises. There was not much surprise in the Government's moving to break election promises. Indeed, before it was elected, which is quite extraordinary for an incoming government, it made it fairly clear that it would look around to see which promises it considered to be of least priority so that it could break them. What are extraordinary are the targets that the Government has chosen. I would have thought that it was accepted wisdom throughout politics in Australia, whether in the Parliament or in the public at large, that family groups are basic to the welfare of this country in a number of ways. I thought it was accepted wisdom for quite some time that a high priority would be put on home ownership. I would also have thought, from all the debates in this chamber in the last year, that there was a quite good awareness amongst those who are now in government of the effect that higher interest rates have on people's ability to own homes. Let us make no mistake about it; this Government has, through this mini-Budget, increased taxes. Removing a tax rebate, which means that someone pays more tax, is the same as increasing taxes. The Government has increased government revenue by $452m through this mini-Budget, that is, the Government take is $452m higher. That squares rather strangely with the promises made by the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, during the election campaign of an immediate reduction in income tax for six million Australians. What we have is dashed expectations for all and a particularly disastrous impact on families. In an article in last Friday's Melbourne Herald Mr Robin Logan of the Australian Taxpayers Association was reported as having said: This mini-Budget will hit the average family man-the man who is most likely to spend to get this country going again. The average family-we are talking about average income and average size-is a dedicated consuming unit. It spends its money, and it spends it on things such as housing because it has to. That represents a high proportion of the family's income but in doing that the family is fulfilling its dream of owning its own home. Early this afternoon we had the extraordinary spectacle of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the principal spokesman for the Government in the Senate, not being able to remember the Government's election promises on various items-not obscure items, not little nooks and crannies in the election campaign, but basic stuff such as housing interest rebates and health insurance rebates; stuff which was concentrated on during the election campaign and to which the then Opposition, now the Government, was pressed to give its attitudes. The then Opposition, now the Government, gave its attitudes. I really find it difficult to believe that leading members of the Government can no longer remember what they were saying on the subject of health insurance rebates and mortgage interest rebates. Someone really ought to send all members of the Australian Labor Party in this Federal Parliament copies of their own policy speech and of their major statements during the campaign. There are a number of areas in which this mini-Budget will hit the family and hit it hard, thus reducing the family's disposable income. Senator Messner, leading for the Opposition in this debate, has outlined a number of them. I wish to refer just briefly to one of the matters which were touched on this afternoon again in Question Time and which will affect most Australians and certainly families. I refer to telephone charges. When Senator Button was asked whether the Government could indicate when telephone charges were likely to rise as a result of last week's mini-Budget, he said that really that was up to Telecom Australia, that that was Telecom's decision. If ever there was a three card trick it is this one. Telecom will have to increase local telephone calls, it is estimated, by one cent a call, STD calls on a proportional basis and rentals by $10 a period as a direct result of government action. This Government is increasing its revenue from Telecom sufficiently to force Telecom to implement those sorts of increases. It is all very well for Senator Button to say that increases are Telecom's decision. There really is no difference in kind from the Government having made the decision, a very conscious decision, to take extra revenue out of telephone users' pockets. Telecom may actually issue the bills but the fact is that increased charges will be specifically because of this Government's decision, as announced in last Thursday's mini-Budget, and not because of some general cost increase or because of general circumstances. It is almost an arms length taxation policy, Mr Acting Deputy President. In fact Australians and Australian families will know when they regularly pay those higher charges through the year that it is directly as a result of Government action. The abolition of the health insurance rebate will cost each average family an additional $3 a week. That is $3 a week they will not have in their pockets and it is that much extra revenue the Government will have. It amounts to a tax increase. That increase is not, I reiterate, in line with Mr Hawke's very clear and firm promise of immediate tax reductions for six million Australians. Instead there will be a substantial and almost immediate tax increase for millions of Australian families. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has been quoted as saying: Medicare will be introduced early next year, and by the time the rebate would have become payable most Australians would have had reduced health costs for over six months. I shall not dwell on just what brand of cynicism Dr Blewett has displayed in that statement, but I should like to comment on a couple of aspects of it. First of all, he said: . . . most Australians would have had reduced health costs for over six months. That is if they go to a doctor or to the hospital and accept the public health system, and do not choose private health care instead. They will not experience reduced costs in their health insurance. On the contrary, the indications are very clear; they will experience increased health costs for their health insurance. They will also pay a tax levy of at least one per cent on top of the tax that they are paying at the moment. They will be very aware very quickly of the fact that they will pay extra tax for health care they may or may not need in that period. I query the daring of the Health Minister to refer also to 'most Australians'. How does he know most Australians who need health care in that period will avail themselves of the public health system? Is he so sure that most will not insure or is the Government trying to make it so much more expensive that most Australians are forced out of the private funds? If that happens, will the Government therefore make the next daring conclusion that most Australians would prefer to have Medicare to the present arrangement of a reasonably priced, although not cheap, health insurance? If Dr Blewett is tempted to think that, I suggest that he take a brief glance at the situation in Queensland, particularly as it used to obtain. The situation is that for decades Queenslanders have had and have been conditioned by access to free medical and hospital treatment if they need it. When they also had access to reasonably priced health insurance the behaviour of Queenslanders was very interesting. A lower percentage than national average had hospital insurance-that is, they took a chance on the extremity of having to go to hospital. However, the medical insurance pattern of Queenslanders, even though they had free medical treatment, was similar to the national medical insurance pattern. In other words, people who had been conditioned for a long time to access to free medical care nevertheless chose to take private medical insurance at least, and a substantial proportion of them also chose to take private hospital insurance. If, as a result of the introduction of Medicare and the other economic policies of this Government, families cease to take private health insurance, I do not think Dr Blewett can console himself with the thought that he has brought in something more attractive. On the contrary, it will mean that he has priced private health care and private health insurance out of the reach of average families. That is one issue that will have an impact on family incomes, and it is probably one that people will decide that they have to dispense with. Does the Government really think people will not notice in that six month period, as indicated by Dr Blewett, that they are paying more tax each week, courtesy of the tax levy, and that at the end of the taxation period they will have a lower taxation rebate than they otherwise would? Of course, an area in which most of these families who are affected by this mini-Budget will give a high priority to not changing their present pattern of consumption is that of home ownership. Most Australians will, if they own a home , try to keep it at any cost. The Labor Party gave a firm election promise that it would maintain the mortgage interest tax rebate. It has broken that promise. Whilst Australians might put a high priority on owning their own homes, the Hawke Government-(Quorum formed). Mr Acting Deputy President, I say in conclusion that Senator Robertson has managed to interrupt everything I had to say in relation to housing rebates because Government senators were not interested in this debate on the impact on family incomes of the Government's mini-Budget proposals. If Senator Robertson had not called a quorum two minutes before the end of my allocated time, I would have been able to detail those matters. Senator Robertson —Don't waste it. Get on with it. Senator MARTIN —We had to wait. I now have five seconds. What is the point? I will not be cut off in the middle of my argument. Senator Hamer, who will follow from this side in this debate, will, I am sure, deal with the subject more than adequately. The Government will have to listen to the effects of its own decisions, the impact that its policies have had on families and the effect that they will have on the opportunities for ordinary Australians to own their own homes. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.13) —I find it remarkable that the honourable senator opposite actually talked about this Government breaking pre- election promises after the challenge that I had answered so well this morning in terms of what her Government did with Medibank. Opposition senators should well know a broken election promise! The other claim that Senator Martin laid on us was that the average family man is the one who will spend us out of recession . Bless her heart! He has had a long time to do it, and he certainly is not doing it. The inflation that the previous Government lumped on us made sure that no average family man was about to spend anywhere. What I find interesting about honourable senators opposite is that they fail to realise that this Government is quite unashamedly changing the incomes of various families in this community. Higher income families are faced with the fact that they will redistribute their incomes to lower income families. At the same time we will produce a redistribution of money into the building industry to create not only jobs but also houses in the public and private sectors. The Government unashamedly sets out to do that. That is its principal election promise. It realises that the biggest damage in our community is caused by unemployment and is a vestige of the previous Government's seven years in office . That is what it has principally addressed itself to. The previous Government had seven years. Senator Messner, who proposed this matter of public importance, was part of that Government. He had the opportunity to protect family incomes, to guarantee jobs and incomes to all Australians. What did he and his Government do? They allowed unemployment to rise at an ever-increasing rate, till it reached the disastrous figure that it is now. In April 1983 we had 10.2 per cent unemployment-a total of 707,300 unemployed people. Tell me about their family incomes, Senator. That is only the measured figure too; it does not take into account the hidden unemployment that is assessed by many to be at least equal to the measured unemployment. Again I ask honourable senators opposite: What did that do to family income under their Government? The Opposition, when in government, callously and disgracefully reduced family incomes of thousands, in fact nearly a million Australians. Yet it has the gall to challenge this Government on its humane and fiscally responsible program to spread the wealth of Australia over many more families, to create jobs by stimulating the building industry, with increased construction of private homes and public sector homes, and by the Government's specific job creation scheme. I find it quite remarkable that the Opposition, with its own previous record, complains so loudly about family incomes. Mr Keating's economic statement delivered on 19 May could be summed up as an exercise in three Rs: Reduction, restructuring and redistribution. As such, it reflects the different priorities of a new government compelled by the actions of a previous government. (Quorum formed). Mr Keating's economic statement reflects, unashamedly, the different priorities of a new government compelled to take immediate action, faced with unsuspected financial difficulties and daunting economic problems that it inherited. The aims of the mini-Budget are to reduce the deficit to responsible bounds, or at least to take a first step towards that, to restructure tax concessions and to redistribute income from better off members in the community to the more needy. Most of the measures announced can be justified in terms of economic responsibility and social equity . In round figures, the mini-Budget slashed $1,000m from Government's projected outlays and concessions in 1983-84. On the other hand, it proposed to spend about $500m, mainly on housing and job creation schemes, leaving a net reduction in the Budget deficit of about $500m. To achieve savings of about $1,000m has been no mean feat. By comparison, the previous Government's notorious razor gang which deliberated for 12 months before producing proposed economies produced savings totalling only $600m, many of which were subsequently reversed. Most of the new cuts in expenditure by this Government, in its mini-statement, unlike the razor gang's cuts, will produce even bigger savings next year and in subsequent years. To reduce the deficit and yet provide funds to create jobs, build houses and help the needy, the Government has had to cut heavily into many of the expensive, inequitable and largely electorally motivated subsidies and concessions provided by the last Budget, for example, the home interest rebate scheme. This Government has taken the courageous decision to eliminate some of the tax benefits enjoyed mainly by those who may be judged to be sufficiently well off not to need them. I will quote from an editorial in the Advertiser of 20 May. The Advertiser is no radical journal. It states: The Government's clear intention is two-fold: to assure business that it is determined to get the massive deficit down to more manageable proportions, and to head off an inevitable spiral of interest rates in the long term; and secondly, to make a start on fulfilling the pledges to stimulate the economy and to bring down unemployment. . . . . It is clear that wealthy older people, farmers and middle-class families have been asked to bear the brunt of the austerity program. The poor have been rightfully protected, and at least a start has been made on tackling the crisis of the jobless. I will also quote from an editorial in the Age on the same day, 20 May. It states: In social terms, the redistribution of concessions from those who need them less to those who need them more must be welcomed. Politically the mini-Budget may lose the Government some of the support it had won from the middle class. But if hard decisions had to be taken and if sacrifices had to be made, it is best that they be taken sooner rather than later and that they be shouldered by those best able to bear them. That is unashamedly the aim of the mini-Budget. That is why I find it remarkable that Senator Messner decides to go into bat against the very stated claims of this Government. I shall itemise some of the individual points of that mini- Budget to make the point even further. One of the claims the Opposition makes is that we are going to ruin people for ever by doing away with the health insurance rebate which was introduced by the Fraser Government to soften the impact of rising premiums and the withdrawal of free hospital treatment for the uninsured. This was one of its many variations on medical health care during its time in government. The removal of this rebate is supposed to sock the average family $4 a week. For a start, it will not affect any family until June/July 1984. As it will apply to only six months-that is, the first six months of the next fiscal year or the last six months of this ordinary year-in effect, a very small amount of money will be involved. By the time people have enjoyed the benefits of the Medicare scheme, once it is introduced early next year, the initial loss of the health insurance rebate will be absorbed. The complaints about the health insurance rebate amount to a very small or insufficient basis on which to impose this matter of public importance. Taxpayers will still be able to claim their health insurance rebate this year. When they submit their tax next year they will have found the benefits that I have listed with Medicare will have balanced out the loss. The number of home loan interest problems that the previous Government introduced have also been done away with, causing some outcry from the Opposition. The home loan interest rebate now available to all home buyers, regardless of income, was perhaps the most blatantly political and the least justifiable on social equity grounds of the Fraser Government's pre-election Budget measures. In its place the Government has planned a generous home ownership scheme. (Quorum formed). This is becoming a most entertaining up and down contribution to the matter of public importance. I thought it was only in Question Time that we were up and down like yo-yos. I will not spend too much time spelling out the advantages of the housing program under the mini-Budget. Senator Grimes has done that most adequately. It is interesting to note though that a number of the organisations in our community are very supportive of and sympathetic to the broad aims of this mini-Budget, in particular the housing proposals. On 20 May the Age stated: Australia's largest employer group, the Confederation of Australian Industry, described the statement as ''a responsible document'' which imposed additional sacrifices on some sections of the private sector . . . The national chief executive of the Housing Industry Association, Mr Bill Kirkby-Jones, said that the moves would considerably improve prospects for lower income earners to afford homes, while boosting employment in the industry by 20, 000 . . . The Confederation of Australian Industry called the statement a ''responsible document'' . . . although it imposes additional sacrifices on some sections of the private sector'. These people are not members of the Australian Labor Party and, I would have thought, not necessarily Labor voters who are looking at this mini-Budget and seeing it as a responsible document in keeping with the proposed outcome of the principal Government policy. The Opposition says that the Government has broken its promises in all sorts of ways, but this Government was elected with a massive vote from the Australian people on the principal aim of reducing unemployment. Unemployment is the social cost that this Government says it will not tolerate any more. It says that it is prepared to take some money from various small places so as to make at least a start on this job creation scheme. Through a boost to the housing industry it will not only provide homes but also stimulate employment. In summary, I think the mini-Budget is what Mr Keating claimed in his statement -a document that represents this Government's belief that the Australian ethic of a fair go provides the will to share the burden, that all Australians are prepared to take these bits and pieces of cuts and not complain, as the Opposition has been doing so ineffectually, about bearing that small burden to enable the unemployment figures to be reduced so that all Australians can start sharing in the wealth of this country. Senator Bolkus —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Time and again this afternoon the Opposition, despite having put up what it claims to be a matter of public importance, has not raised its level of participation in this chamber to more than a handful of honourable senators. What I put to you, sir, is that the matter of public importance is either not a matter of public importance or not sufficiently important for members of the Opposition to be here. If that is not so, the Opposition's frustration with the Senate should in some way be curtailed. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I think the honourable senator realises that there is no point of order in that statement. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(3.28) —The Senate is considering a matter of public importance- Senator Haines —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I realise that Senator Martin followed Senator Grimes in the list of speakers that is before you, but surely that does not alter the fact that I still follow Senator Crowley. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Senator Haines, I have a list before me which I am following. I expect that is the one that has been arranged. It shows you as speaking after Senator Hamer. Senator Haines —Thank you. I would have appreciated a little earlier acknowledgement of that. Senator HAMER —The Senate is considering a matter of public importance in these terms: The disastrous impact on family incomes of the Government's mini-Budget proposals and, in particular, the abolition of the home interest and the health insurance rebates. Throughout this debate we have constantly heard as an excuse for the Government' s performance and for its broken promises talk about the $9.6 billion deficit. That deficit is for next year. The deficit for this year, the last year for which we bear direct responsibility, is just over $4 billion. What happens next year is up to the Labor Government. It will now have to make decisions. We hope they will be good decisions. We will examine them to see what the Government is doing. The deficit next year is entirely the responsibility of the Hawke Government. The deficit this year is our responsibility. We all know that the economic climate is very difficult. We have a depressed mining export industry with low commodity prices. We have a collapse of primary industry because of the drought, though the drought is now over. We have declining manufacturing exports because of the explosion of wages last year. I agree that it is necessary for any government to take tough decisions. However, decisions, as well as being tough, must be fair and well directed. It is proper for the Senate to examine the decisions this Government is planning to take to see whether they are tough but fair. Senator Bolkus —What is your alternative? Senator HAMER —I will come very quickly to where I think the Government is going wrong. It is necessary to deal with the terrible problem of the 700,000 unemployed, which is socially disastrous and a great loss to our economy. It is necessary for the 90 per cent in work to make some sacrifices so that work can be provided for some-or all, if we can-of the 700,000 unemployed. This is where this Government is failing. It has failed to take action. It knows that on economic and on employment grounds it should be pressing for the wages freeze to continue into next year. It is not doing that. The Government is committed to supporting the campaign of the Australian Council of Trade Unions-committed by its own prices and incomes accord with the trade union movement-for quarterly indexation, although it knows that this will be disastrous for the unemployed, will do great social damage and will not decrease unemployment. By its own figures, it will increase unemployment by something like 100,000 people. This mini-Budget has increased costs to the average family by between $8 and $9 a week. The home loan rebate has been abolished. That is despite a promise in the election campaign that it would be retained. That will push up interest rates by about 2 per cent. The health insurance rebate has been abolished, despite a promise that it would be retained until Medicare was in place. The concessional tax rebate floor has been raised to $2,000. The average cost of that will be something like $3 a week. Pensions for the over 70-year-olds are now to be means tested. My party believes that social security benefits should be given on the basis of need. I cannot oppose on principle the idea of reimposing the means test for those over 70-year-olds. However, when the Government makes changes like these, particularly with elderly people, it must give them a chance to plan for them, and not make them abruptly against all the promises and commitments of the party making them. It is worth remembering that while we were in government we introduced automatic indexation for pensions and family allowances, both major improvements in social security. Now, in one sweep, the means test for over 70- year-olds has been introduced. Worse still, and more clumsy, particularly as the Treasurer, Mr Keating, has said that we must not rush into decisions, is the decision in regard to taxing lump sum superannuation, which is certainly a case of rushing in. The Treasurer does not know-nobody knows-what it means. He is now having meetings to try to find out what he meant when he said it. This is a ridiculous situation. There are great problems with his decision. Something had to be done about lump sum superannuation payments, but not in isolation. If one makes a change I think that one must look at the ramifications, the alternatives and the impacts and that was not done when this Government rushed in. I suppose its explanation, which we have heard so often, is that it seemed like a good idea at the time. The Government is still trying to find out what it meant. The other, and in some ways very significant, effect of the mini-Budget was to take away the tax rebate on the first $1,000 of dividend income. The purpose of that was to encourage Australians to have a part-ownership in their own enterprises. The Labor Party claims to be in favour of that. What does it do? It wipes out this incentive. I think we can all remember the promise that the Government made before the election. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said: This is not a fistful of dollars to be snatched away. We are promising immediate tax cuts for six million Australians. What the Prime Minister has given Australians is not immediate tax cuts but immediate tax increases and he is charging-in my view totally fraudulently-that the reason for this was the unknown deficit. Last year all Labor pressure was for an increase in the Budget deficit-more expenditure. If we had listened to what the then Labor Opposition said last year at Budget time the deficit this year would have been about $9 billion and much more the following year. All the pressure from the Labor Party was for an increase in the deficit. During the election campaign members of the Labor Party made promises, regardless of their effect on the deficit, of more expenditure in every area one could conceive. I turn to the details of a couple of areas of the mini-Budget. The first one at which I think we should look is its effect on housing. In the early months of the year housing starts were rising. Last year was disastrous for the housing industry. The effect of the way this matter has been handled by the Government- it has promised that the benefits it is offering will come into effect in October-will be a four-months fall in housing commencements. There will be damage to the housing industry. A good heading in the Sydney Morning Herald states 'Housing slump likely as buyers await new aid'. The Government is saying that it is trying to help the housing industry. I would hate to be helped by the Government because the sort of help that it gives is nearly always damaging. In addition, because of the changes the Government has made in abolishing the home loan rebate, pushing up interest rates by probably 2 per cent, the cost to the average family with a loan of $30,000 will be about $5 a week. Honourable senators must remember that about 40 per cent of families are paying off their homes. This is the damage that is being done by this mini-Budget to housing in Australia. It is harming the average family by the inept way the measures are being introduced. It will damage the housing industry which Labor claims it is trying to help. This is very clumsy and incompetent. The decisions that the Government made may have been tough but they have also been foolish. Worse still, a recent tax decision is very damaging to property investors. Several of Australia's biggest property developers have shelved projects worth up to $1 billion because of Australian Taxation Office rulings. Senator Tate —Oh! Senator HAMER —I think Senator Tate should look into this matter. It is not a minor matter; it is a very serious matter for investment in property. The consequence of this decision, unless it is reversed by the Government and there was no mention of reversing it in the mini-Budget, will be to cause further unemployment, reduce overall tax collections, push up residential rents and further depress property prices. These are all serious matters and the Government in the face of this has taken no action at all. These are very unfortunate matters which show the way in which the Government, claiming to be helping housing and claiming to be helping the family, is in fact damaging both. I now turn to the effect of the mini-Budget on health insurance. I think it is acknowledged that the Medicare scheme will cost $400m extra in government expenditure. That, I suggest, is a minimum. We have to remember that in the time of Medibank its cost went up four-fold in three years. I think health expenditure will probably increase a lot more with Medicare. Some wise words were said about Medicare. They were actually said by a Labor man, the former Labor Party spokesman on health, Dr Klugman. He said: . . . Medicare should not be introduced. His further words were reported as follows: He argued that Medicare would encourage doctors to over-service patients because medical and hospital fees could be bulk-billed directly to the Government. Dr Klugman, a general practitioner for 15 years, said Medicare was wasted on the very poor who would not be better off. As holders of health care cards,-- At present, that is- they were entitled already to free treatment, while families earning up to $15, 000 a year would only save about $2 a week. Dr Klugman, the former Labor Party spokesman on health, said that Medicare should not be introduced. I must say that I agree with him. The consequences of the way that this matter has been handled will cause confusion and damage to the people who are presently insured, who will lose their tax rebates. Next January the Government will introduce an expensive scheme which, according to a Labor spokesman, and I agree with him, should not be introduced because it will not be beneficial. I entirely agree with him. This is part of a pattern of muddle and confusion. Muddle and confusion are the characteristics of this Hawke Government . We all know that we are in a very difficult economic situation but people are looking for tough but fair decisions. What we are getting is just confused Hawkespeak. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.42) -The matter of public importance before the Senate today is: The disastrous impact on family incomes of the Government's mini-Budget proposals and, in particular, the abolition of the home interest and the health insurance rebates. Given the rather Alice in Wonderland tenor of the whole debate today, with quorums being called punitively from both sides of the House, I wonder why, Mr Deputy President, I called your attention to the fact that the speaking list has been changed and that I was not a little higher in the speaking order. Of course there can be no question at all that the mini-Budget will have a considerable impact on the incomes of the average Australian family. However, it will not be quite the disaster that some speakers from the Liberal Party have suggested. It is certainly not the panacea for all ills that the Government has suggested it is. That has been acknowledged in the reaction from various groups in the community, which have indicated that there is less than complete approval of the provisions in the mini-Budget. So much for Mr Hawke's much vaunted theme of consensus. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, health care professionals, businesses, farmers and ordinary individuals have all expressed concern for, and in some cases condemnation of, the proposals put down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week and by some Ministers, notably the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, this week. The matter of public importance raised by the Liberal Party mentions only two of those matters; there are others that I will mention a little later, some of which I consider are far worse. Certainly the changes to the housing interest income tax rebate scheme are going to inconvenience many families who, quite legitimately, planned ahead following last year's introduction of the scheme by the previous Government and who now find that a rebate they had depended upon has been taken away from them. Of course for some families that inconvenience will be compounded by very real economic hardship. For instance, those families who have taken out what is about the average loan of $30,000 at what is quite a low interest rate of 12 1/2 per cent from some State banks, will be somewhere in the vicinity of $4 to $5 out of pocket per week as a result of this proposed change. People with loans from building societies for instance which offer higher interest rates on mortage loans will have an extra cost imposed on them. One could argue that the scheme introduced by the Liberal Government last year will be of decreasing value to the people who are making use of it as interest rates fall. But that is assuming that interest rates will fall and, therefore, will negate the tax rebate that accrues from interest rates of over 10 per cent. But interest rates are hardly likely to fall in the face of a record $1.5 billion bond tender which, certainly in the short term, will mitigate against this happening. I am not alone in my fears about that. On 20 May the Sydney Morning Herald had an article headed '$1.5 billion bond tender to fuel rises in rates'. The first paragraph of that article stated: Short-term interest rates are expected to soar from today following the Federal Treasury's huge $1.5 billion Commonwealth Bond tender announced last night. Presumably, when talking about short term interest rates, we can say that they will extend perhaps no more than six months, in which case there was no need for the present government to reduce both halves of the 1983-84 rebate on housing interest. The Government asserts that its new measure is intended to assist first home buyers and to provide additional funds for welfare housing. For this it is to be commended. However, I insist that it is regrettable that it does this by placing an additional financial burden on people who, in good faith, arrange their affairs in this area because of the last Government's 1982 policy. However, a more drastic cost affecting families will result from the abolition of the health insurance rebate six months earier than the Government indicated would be the case during its election campaign. The Government then said that the advent of Medicare would obviate the need for this and it would in part be funded by removing the rebate. I guess that that is fair enough. However, as I have said, this was introduced six months early in a purely cost cutting measure and not to offset any other consideration that the Government will be introducing. According to the Victorian Taxpayers Association the cost to the average family is of the order of $4 a week-another $4 a week on top of the amount that families will lose with the abolition of the housing interest income tax rebate scheme. As a result of the Government's reduced contribution to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund the cost to the average family could rise to $4.50 a week. I believe that this action by the Government-that is, the Government's reduced contribution to the HBRTF-is a direct attack on the chronically and terminally ill. The rest of the Government's action-the reduction or the removal of the health insurance rebate-is an attack on those with the foresight and the concern to take out health insurance cover. It is also an attack on the private health funds. I believe it is nothing more than an ideologically inspired move by a socialist government to eliminate the private sector, to remove people's democratic right to choose and to turn us into a mob of sheep with Dr Blewett acting as a yapping heeler, forcing us into its universal health sheep dip. Senator Colston —Lovely imagery. Senator HAINES —It is probably more than appropriate. No one questions the fact that some hard decisions have to be made if the legacy of the previous Government's deficit is to be reduced, although, as Senator Hamer pointed out, the extremely high figure that is touted in the community is next year's figure rather than this year's figure. But hitting the average family is not the way to do this. As Senator Martin pointed out, these people are the big spenders; the consistent, regular spenders in Australia. They are the ones who buy goods and who keep the economy moving. The ordinary family has been hit time and again to the tune of at least $8 a week by this mini-Budget. That is only a minimum estimate because other areas in this mini-Budget will also have an impact and have yet to be costed. Let us look now at some of those areas, in particular those related to people in the country. I must say that I am suprised that the official Opposition did not make more of the impact that this mini-Budget will have on people in country areas. Not only, of course, are they faced with a reduction in the rebates that have already been mentioned but also they are faced with two fairly dramatic items-which are small in themselves as far as this mini-Budget is concerned but fairly large in their effect on country people. Senator Martin —We did make the point during Question Time this morning in relation to extra charges that would affect country people. Senator HAINES —I acknowledge that. Senator Martin —And telephone calls, including STD calls, were very much affected. Senator HAINES —No doubt that will save me a number of minutes. No doubt that time will be taken up by the inevitable quorum call. Senator Gietzelt —You are lucky you are escaping that. Senator HAINES —I am not asking for one. Let me turn to the point affecting country people about which I am particularly concerned. The very likely increased costs through Telecom Australia and the Australian Postal Commission will impact on rural families far more than they will on urban dwellers. Under the heading 'Economic Services' to be found on pages 56 and 57 of the printed mini-Budget there are increases in the rate of excise on aviation fuel, specifically avgas and avtur by 2c a litre, and an increase from 1c to 1.1c a litre in the non-subsidised part of the cost of freighting certain petroleum products. It would not surprise me at all if the Opposition were to support these measures when the enabling legislation comes down. In the past two years it has proposed its own increase in air navigation charges which has had a similar impact on the cost of transport in country areas and hence the prices in country areas, particularly the more isolated areas. Senator Cook —Senator, the impact on the CPI in a full year is 0.17 per cent. It is very light. Senator HAINES —That may well be the case, Senator Cook, but one knows what happens when one starts using statistics: They can be used to prove almost anything. I venture to suggest that those country people who are losing $8 a week from their income, plus whatever other impact there will be from this mini- Budget, do not really care whether the figure is 0.7 or 0.07 or 7 per cent. Senator Cook —It is 0.17. Senator HAINES —I do not think they would really care even if it were 0.17. It is affecting them and they do not like it, particularly as they are coming out of one of the worst droughts from which they have suffered. What is the Government doing to stimulate the economy, to increase employment and to boost business confidence-all elements that the Government asserted this mini-Budget was designed to promote? I suggest that most of it appears to be a sleight of hand. Perhaps the easiest way of dealing with this matter is for honourable senators to have a look at page 58 of the mini-Budget and in particular that section relating to the establishment of a community employment program involving a large number of additional outlays. I question a number of these and ask the Government: Why spend $315m on job creation schemes while apparently saving $20m on extensions to the Brisbane Airport, which must be labour intensive, $20m on the rail link and $70m from water resources programs which appear to have been replaced but I am not quite sure in exactly what way. I would like to know whether the $70m which has been allocated for jobs on roads under the Community Employment Program is in addition to normal road funding or instead of normal road funding since it is a favourite trick by governments to try this semi- substitution racket. I point out also that, as far as I can see, the jobs that are likely to be created under the CEP will be almost entirely male occupations. I ask: What is the point of all this if Medicare will cost the number of jobs in the health care industry that it has been suggested it will cost? This mini-Budget purports to save the country less than $0.5 billion in 1983-84 and something over $1.3 billion in 1984-85. In the meantime, it has reduced the spending power of the average Australian family, caused chaos in the health care industry, offered a well-intentioned but short term job creation scheme designed primarily for males, and broken a number of election promises, including one relating to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. A previous speaker suggested that this mini-Budget directs the limited funds available from the Government from the wealthy to the needy. I suggest that in many respects it does not. In fact, it directs assistance to the needy by taking it away from those who need it only slightly less. I find it hardly an egalitarian document. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(3.56) —This afternoon, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) spoke of the absolute cheek of the Opposition in proposing for discussion a matter of public importance of this nature after the disastrous effects of seven years of Fraser Government in Australia. Initially, I will not be quite so harsh. I will not talk about the absolute cheek of the Opposition. But I cannot agree with most aspects of Senator Messner's matter of public importance. I say at the outset that one part of the terms of the matter proposed for discussion with which I cannot agree is the reference to the Government's mini-Budget. An economic statement was brought down in the House of Representatives last Thursday night. It was not a mini-Budget. I will not have any real hassle if the Opposition wants to talk about it as a mini-Budget. ( Quorum formed). I am surprised that such a mild mannered person as I am should have a quorum called against me. As I say, it was not a mini-Budget. On the day after the economic statement was brought down, the editorial of the Australian Financial Review stated: The statement last night by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, fell far short of a mini -budget. The clear message of the statement- I emphasise the word 'statement'- was one of caution and reassurance. I also do not agree with the Opposition's statement that it will result in a ' disastrous impact on family incomes'. A continuation of the previous Government' s policies-that is, the Fraser Government's policies-would have been disastrous. Those policies have led Australia into the economic morass which was inherited by the present Government. I will put last Thursday's economic statement into perspective. In the March election, the Australian Labor Party was overwhelmingly elected to govern to this nation. There were many reasons for this. I will mention two of the principal reasons. One reason was the Labor Party's excellent policies, and the other reason was the disastrous policies of the previous Government. Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Representatives, fully acknowledged this point. Last weekend he stated: We were dumped on the fifth of March, absolutely dumped. This is what happened: The previous Government had disastrous policies and it was thrown out of office. When the Labor Party was elected to government, it found that it had inherited massive unemployment. As Senator Crowley mentioned, over 700,000 people in Australia are out of work. Over one quarter of people in the 15 to 19 year age group is unemployed. Overall, over 10 per cent of the work force is out of work. If that state of affairs did not have some impact on family incomes, I do not know what would have an effect on family incomes. The family incomes of all of the 700,000 people out of work were affected. Yet the Opposition has the cheek-to use the word used by Senator Grimes earlier this afternoon-to speak of 'a disastrous impact on family incomes'. The policies of the previous Government had a disastrous impact on family incomes during the seven years that it was in government. What else did the Hawke Government inherit when it took office after the March election? It inherited an unacceptable level of inflation of over 11 per cent. In the seven years that I spent in Opposition, year after year I would see a Budget handed down, in which the previous government would say: 'We will get inflation down and, as we get inflation down, employment prospects will increase '. What happened during those seven years? Inflation remained high and unemployment grew worse and worse. What else did we inherit? We inherited high interest rates. When I entered this Parliament in 1975 when we were in Opposition, interest rates were well under double digit figures. Yet interest rates on home loans ranged from 12.5 per cent -the lowest rate that one could obtain-to over 20 per cent, when we took office. This was the result of the previous Government's initiatives or, perhaps I should say, lack of initiatives. What does the Opposition expect the Labor Party to do, given the mess with which it was left? The Labor Party has no intention of sitting back and hoping that the problems will go away. This was the approach of the Liberal-National Party coalition. It had an ostrich-like approach which resulted in Australians being confronted by economic disaster over the period it was in government, culminating in its defeat earlier this year. The Labor Government does not intend to sit back. It intends to act swiftly and decisively to ensure that the Australian economy returns to an even keel. Some decisions that we must take, given the mess that we inherited, will be unpalatable, but we were given a job to do and we will not shirk the responsibility given to us by the Australian electorate. The economic statement was well accepted despite the pessimism shown to it by Opposition senators. Senator Crowley quoted from the Adelaide Advertiser. She said that it was not a radical journal. Similarly, I will quote from the Courier -Mail, which equally is not a radical journal. On the day after the economic statement was brought down, amongst other things, the editorial, in relation to the statement, stated: It is, within the bounds of ALP policy and Treasury advice, a responsible document. It recognises the enormity of the problems faced by the Australian economy. It seeks, as Mr Keating said, to share 'the equality of sacrifice'. The article goes on: The Government holds little hope for a quick recovery. This is true. We made a statement during the election campaign that we were not promising immediate recovery. We were not promising that things would get better overnight. We realise this and the Courier-Mail reaffirms it. The article goes on: It believes that if there is to be an improvement, the public sector must lead the way. It has boosted housing, trimmed some other spending, and pinned its hopes on job creation schemes. When the economic statement was introduced the other night we were acting in a decisive and responsible way. In the MPI brought forward by the Opposition home construction is mentioned. Let us look at the Government's record on home construction. Figures show that over the past years the state of home construction in Australia has plummeted. In the current financial year it is expected that 106,000-(Quorum formed). It is amazing that the Opposition, through Senator Messner, has introduced a matter of public importance; yet it continually tries to frustrate those on this side of the chamber by calling quorums. It is worth while mentioning that one person who has spoken in this debate and who has not been interrupted by the calling of a quorum is Senator Messner. I was mentioning home construction. During the current financial year 106,000 dwellings will be constructed in Australia. This is the lowest number of constructions since the 1962-63 year. That compares with 132,300 dwellings constructed in 1981-82 and 150,000 dwellings constructed in 1980-81. Labor will increase the housing construction rate to 130,000 to 135,000 dwellings a day. This will increase employment not only in the housing industry but also in related industries. I could mention our housing package but I will not be able to because the time available to me has been reduced by the calling of two quorums. For those who are interested, our housing package was well set out in the economic statement which some members of the Opposition who have spoken this afternoon have not even bothered to read. Health was mentioned by the Opposition in the MPI. Again, I will not have the opportunity to go through all those aspects of health changes I would like to mention. But most of us who have been senators for a number of years can remember the extensive changes to health arrangements that were made by the previous Government so that in the end nobody knew where they really stood. In the time I was in Opposition-for seven years-there were six changes. One year it was delightful; there was not any change at all. But in each other year a change was brought in. Despite the fact that at one stage Mr Fraser said he would retain Medibank, all he retained was a messy health insurance system. I repeat Senator Grimes's question: What would the Opposition have done, given what we have inherited? Given the economic conditions that prevailed after seven years of Fraserism, what would the Opposition have done? The MPI talks about the disastrous impact on family incomes. What would have been disastrous would have been a continuation of the extraordinarily inept Government of the past seven years. I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-During Senator Colston's remarks the point was made that the Opposition had been calling quorums on every speaker and that I was the only person who did not have quorums called while I was speaking. I would just like to point out that that is not so. Senator Grimes, Senator Haines and Senator Hamer did not have quorums called while they were speaking. In fact, the first person to call a quorum was the Government Whip who saw fit to do so when Senator Martin was speaking. Senator Colston —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave not granted. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That consideration of committee reports pursuant to sessional order be not proceeded with this day. Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-I am making this statement on behalf of Senator Grimes. The Government has made the following decisions in respect of Medicare. Medicare will commence on 1 February 1984. The payment of medical benefits will be administered by the Health Insurance Commission, which currently runs Medibank Private. Medibank Private will be able to offer the same range of additional private cover as the other private health funds will be offering. This is to cover private treatment in public hospitals, private hospital treatment and ancillary cover for items such as dentists, physiotherapists and chiropodists. The Department of Health will retain overall responsibility for detection and investigation of doctor fraud and overservicing, using information supplied by Medicare, and overall policy direction. Medicare is a major social program of this Government. It will ensure basic medical and hospital cover for all Australians and will not leave two million Australians without any health cover, as the current inadequate private insurance system does. The Government has chosen the Health Insurance Commission to run Medicare because it is the only health fund with a nation-wide network of cash payment centres that will provide quick and efficient service to the public. By using the Health Insurance Commission we will avoid the waste and duplication involved in having 70 different private funds making Medicare payments. The Health Insurance Commission has a proven record in health insurance, including the successful implementation of Medibank in 1975. By having one paying agency Medicare can ensure confidentiality of patient records and can provide better controls to prevent fraudulent payments and better information for the detection of medifraud. The Government is concerned at the potential employment consequences of this decision, and we are taking several measures to ensure that no current health fund staff is disadvantaged. The HIC has been requested to offer preference in clerical employment to current fund staff. Discussions have already commenced between my Department and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on the matter of employment preference. We will be discussing the changeover to Medicare with the trade unions involved in the private health insurance industry . I have begun discussions with the State Health Ministers on their offering employment preference in the clerical areas of the State health systems. These measures combined with the 20 per cent annual turnover in fund staff will minimise the net employment effect of Medicare. We welcome the commitment of the private funds to Medicare, as exemplified by their bid to run it. Though it has not been possible to accept their offer we believe that co-operation between the funds and government will ensure an improved, cheaper health insurance cover and guarantee the interests of their employees. Staff currently employed in direct billing activities within the Health Department will all be offered continuity of employment in the Health Insurance Commission. There will be no relocation of staff employed in the regional processing centres of the Health Department. I am also aware that there are local health funds in some regions which are significant local employers. I have requested the HIC to enter into discussions with these funds to ensure that the service provided to local communities is continued. This is the first step in the restoration of a simple, equitable and cost efficient health plan for all Australians. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.17) —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Robertson —If you have to seek leave, you will be in trouble. Senator PETER BAUME —I certainly do not have to seek leave. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) moved a motion and I am speaking to that motion. In the last few days Dr Klugman has said it all and I believe that you, Mr Deputy President, while speaking in a debate earlier this afternoon, drew attention to his comments. He said then that Medicare should not be proceeded with. He said that it provided nothing for the poor that they did not have now. He cast some considerable doubts on what it will mean for people in Australia. The Opposition is concerned that, if he is right, the Government is pursuing another sterile line of activity. The argument that state monopoly will produce better outcomes is at least speculative, and the assumption that moving to a state monopoly in health ensures the public will be better off remains to be proven. To replace the existing system may not help Australians in their search for more certain health insurance cover. Our concern is how the new arrangements will affect the people of Australia. For example, we are concerned- I think Senator Bjelke-Petersen made this point in a question this morning-that all Queenslanders, who at present do not need to take out health insurance, will have to pay more under the system which the Australian Labor Party is proposing. We are concerned that Australians will lose the tax rebate which they have enjoyed. We recently considered in this place the annual report on the operation of the health insurance funds in Australia. That report sets down for the Parliament an account of health funds which are well run, well operated, are considerable employers, carry out a major function in protecting people and take a major part in the co-payment of their medical costs. As I recall the report, it set down that more than $1,000m of contributors' money was paid out last year by way of benefits to those who were in hospital or had incurred medical fees. It sets out that the funds have more than $120m in fixed assets-buildings and equipment- which belong to the contributors. I can see nothing in this statement which tells me how those assets are to be protected or what is to happen to them, and how the interests of contributors to health insurance funds are to be protected under the new arrangements which will come in when the Government establishes and starts to operate Medicare, as it has a right to do. Because Medibank was not included in the report on the health insurance funds, the report did not set out that Medibank, which has been given the carriage of this new scheme by the Government, has been insolvent for the last several years in several States. It should not escape notice that the Government is entrusting its new scheme to a health fund which in at least four States of Australia could not even operate profitably. With all the advantages that it had as a government-backed, government-supported and, at one stage, government-subsidised scheme, it was still not operating profitably; it was operating at a loss; it was technically insolvent in several States of Australia. That is something which would concern people, because we have to know that the Health Insurance Commission can do this job and that Medibank is in fact capable of fulfilling the hope which the Government has placed in it. This statement brings home once more what Australians are going to lose, what they have lost; in particular that they have lost, in direct abrogation of an election promise, the rebate on health insurance premiums they enjoy today. Australians today can claim as a tax rebate some of the amounts of money they pay for health insurance. Before the election the Labor Party led the Australian people to believe that they would conttinue to enjoy the right to claim that rebate until Medicare was introduced. Last Thursday that right, promised to them in the election by the Hawke Government and the Labor Party, was withdrawn. It is just one of a number of broken promises which already characterise this Government. It is unnecessary, because if in fact the Government wishes to introduce Medicare in six or nine months why does it have to penalise Australian families an extra $4 a week when it promised it would not do so? I will not redebate the economic statement of last week. The ministerial statement that has just been made is interesting because it means that Labor, at the time it is preaching financial restraint and the generation of employment, is to increase the deficit immediately by an amount of $40m to $50m as a result of expenditure on Medibank, and eventually by, say, $400m. Although Senator Button, on behalf of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), has made some reassuring noises, there is no guarantee about the employment of those people who work for the private health funds. Medicare will not come into operation for another six, seven or eight months, or however long it is going to be. What is an employee of a private health fund to do in the meantime? Is he or she to stay with that fund while it continues to do its job for the Australian people whom it has insured, or is he or she to cut and run and join the new Health Insurance Commission? In any event, every employee of the funds knows that the jobs available and being offered are fewer than the number of people who will want jobs and who are presently working for the private health funds. So, we have extra expenditure, an increase in the deficit, diminished employment and increased immediate cost. We have the breaking of a specific election pledge to the Australian people. We now have the information that the Labor Party has given the monoply for the operation of the new scheme to a Health Insurance Commission which has been operating unsuccessfully in most States of Australia. We will look to see just how effectively the scheme can be put into operation. We want effective health care cover for all Australians. If this can be achieved, we will be well satisfied. But the statement raises more questions than it answers. It is another example of the fact that this Government cannot keep its word, and it offers no comfort to the many employees of health insurance funds who at present face a very uncertain future. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —by leave-During the debate on the matter of public importance a short time ago, I made some statements towards the end of my speech about the number of honourable senators whose speeches had been interrupted when quorums were called. It is quite in order for any honourable senator to draw the state of the House to the attention of the Chair. Normally in this chamber that is done only rarely but there has certainly been open warfare this afternoon. That open warfare started from the Opposition benches. Senator Peter Baume —Not so. Senator COLSTON —It is so. That is the point that I want to make. When I sought leave a short time ago to make a personal explanation on this matter I was refused leave but I told Senator Messner across the chamber, I must confess in a disorderly way, Mr Deputy President-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Your remarks were not audible to the Chair, Senator. Senator COLSTON —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I made the comment that the quorum was first called when Senator Grimes was speaking. That was denied but that is in fact so. I wish to indicate what happened this afternoon. The first person to speak in the debate on the matter of public importance was Senator Messner. He was heard in relative silence and was not interrupted. The second person to speak was the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. He had been speaking for only a short time when Senator Kilgariff drew the attention of the occupant of the Chair, who at the time was Senator Sibraa, to the state of the House, whereupon a quorum was then called. So the action was initiated from the Opposition benches. The next person to speak was Senator Martin. A quorum was called when she was speaking. I do not know why but I should imagine it was in response to the fact that a quorum was called during Senator Grimes's speech. The next person to speak was Senator Crowley who, if I remember correctly, was twice interrupted. She was followed by Senator Hamer. At that stage the Government did not continue what had happened all afternoon. Senator Hamer was not interrupted and neither was Senator Haines. I was the next person to speak and I was interrupted twice. The point that I really want to make is that it was intimated earlier that the action commenced on this side of the chamber. The action did not commence on this side; it commenced on the Opposition side when Senator Kilgariff drew Senator Sibraa's attention to the state of the House while Senator Grimes was speaking. Senator ROBERTSON(Queensland) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the third report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Bill 1983, the Bounty (Steel Products) Bill 1983, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983, the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 and the Customs Amendment Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —On behalf of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 4 dated 25 May 1983. Motion (by Senator Mason) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to remove provisions for deductions from taxable income in respect of the removal of indigenous trees. Bill presented by Senator Mason, and read a first time. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.30) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to remove from the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 the provision of an income tax deduction for the destruction and removal of indigenous timber. This is in line with a recommendation of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate of 1974, which was re-iterated in the Australian Heritage Commission Report of 1982. The Committee of Inquiry made the following observation: 'Whilst the agricultural and postoral potential of Australia may not yet have reached a stage of full exploitation, it has reached the stage where the extension of it to new places may not be of any lasting value to the community. In some cases, it may cause considerable irreversible harm. Without proper land use surveys and planning it cannot be said that there is no land which should not be cleared or re-cleared for the purpose of primary industry. However, it is one thing for the community to allow a farmer to fell trees and to drain swamps, quite another for the community to encourage him to do so by giving him special tax concessions.' The subject was raised again very recently in the other place when the member for Fraser asked the following question of the Minister for Finance on 18 May 1983: Mr Fry: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. In view of the fact that in less than 200 years the European occupants of Australia have succeeded in destroying about two-thirds of our natural forests, including most of the natural habitats of koala bears, which are important to our tourist industry, will the Minister undertake to review the guidelines for the taxation deduction presently allowed for the clearing of natural forests which I believe provides an undesirable incentive for the continued destruction of our forests? Mr Dawkins: I thank the honourable member for his question. He will be aware that the last Labor Government did act to deal with the taxation treatment of land clearing. There is an important question of not wanting to discourage the further development of agricultural land in this country, but at the same time, not providing a taxation incentive for the indiscriminate and wanton destruction of important parts of the Australian bushland. I think they are important questions that have to be addressed. The honourable member quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the taxation system through the allowances for these kinds of expenditures does have an effect on the rate and extent of clearing on particuar properties. As I indicated before, the last Labor Government did act to ensure that a balance was returned to the taxation impact of these sorts of actions. In the light of the honourable member's question, I would be happy to see whether further action is required to prevent the sorts of circumstances about which he is talking. The woodland area of Australia is found almost exclusively in the coastal strip which is about 300 km in width. This area also supports 99% of the population and provides the water catchment area for almost all rainfall on the continent. Australia has 42 million hectares of forest land which is, as the member for Fraser pointed out, only one third of the forested area existing before European settlement of this country. 21% of this forest is privately owned. Much of this privately owned forest is in the form of corridors of land between tracts of publicly owned forest such as state forests, or national parks. In some cases, the only reasons for clearing these corridors of forest are economic ones, for short-term monetary gain from this income tax deduction. Obviously, the clearing of forests for this reason is not in the best interests of the country. There are many compelling reasons for strict controls on the clearing of indigenous forests. Indiscriminate clearing leads to erosion and leaching of soil and severely depletes the natural habitat of many species of native fauna, including endangered species. The most obvious and easily introduced control is that proposed by this amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act. I urge all honourable senators to support this Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, by introducing this Bill the Government is honouring an undertaking given during the recent election campaign to review the provisions of the parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. The changes to the scheme contained in the Bill were foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his statement of 28 March. The Bill provides for three changes in the Scheme. The first change relates to commutation. In future, a retiring senator or member will be permitted to convert no more than one-half of his or her retiring allowance to a lump sum benefit. This contrasts with the present arrangements under which a retiring senator or member may convert the whole of the retiring allowance to a lump sum. The Government believes commutation of the whole retiring allowance conflicts with the basic purpose of the Scheme which is to ensure income maintenance in retirement. Of course, senators and members who elect to commute in future will be affected by the changes to the income tax arrangements announced by the Treasurer in the economic statement on 19 May. The second change relates to spouse's benefits. Under the law as it stands, commutation of the senator's or member's retiring allowance does not affect the amount of the annuity payable to the surviving spouse because the spouse's annuity is calculated as if the former senator or member had not commuted his or her retiring allowance. The Government considers that it is more appropriate to relate the spouse's annuity to the senator's or member's residual pension and not the pension that would have been payable had the senator or member not commuted. Consequently, the Bill provides that, for senators and members retiring after the date on which the amendments come into operation, the surviving spouse will receive five-sixths of the residual retiring allowance that would have been payable to the former senator or member. Special provisions have been included in the Bill to ensure that the spouse of a senator or member who commuted under the existing provisions will not be disadvantaged by the new arrangements. The third change contained in the Bill will impose restrictions on the payment of a parliamentary retiring allowance or annuity to a person who is in receipt of salary as the holder of an office of profit under the crown or a pension arising from the holding of such an office. Where the former senator or member or the spouse of a former senator or member receives such a salary or pension, the parliamentary retiring allowance or annuity will be reduced by the lesser of the amount of that salary or pension, or one-half of the parliamentary retiring allowance or annuity disregarding any commutation. For the purpose of this provision, former senators and members and their spouses will be required to give notice of taking up an office of profit under the Crown and provide information about any salary or pension they derive from such an office. The restrictions will only apply to a senator or member who retires from the parliament after the date on which these amendments come into force, and the spouse of such a senator or member. The existing provisions will continue to apply to those senators and members who have already retired from the Parliament and the spouses of such senators and members. The Australian Government Actuary has advised that he expects the net effect of these three changes will be a reduction in the overall cost of the Scheme. The Bill also contains a number of consequential and other technical amendments . I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had made the amendment requested by the Senate. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That this day the sitting of the Senate be suspended between 6.58 p.m. and 8 p. m. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That leave be granted for the Select Committee on Statutory Authority Finance and the Standing Committee on Publications to meet during the sitting of the Senate this day. Consideration resumed from 24 May 1983. The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.37) —At the time Senator Jack Evans moved an amendment to the Bill there was some contribution from Senator Peter Rae. It was agreed across the chamber, as it were, that Senator Jack Evans as the mover of the motion, and Senator Peter Rae would have the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendment with officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am advised that those discussions have now taken place. It is pursuant to those discussions that I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, have written to Senator Jack Evans. It is up to him to indicate his position, but I believe there is no desire to proceed with the amendment. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.38) —I seek leave to withdraw the amendment. I am satisfied with the explanation. I express my appreciation to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) for the steps which will be taken pursuant to the introduction of this legislation and which will cover the anomalies as I perceive them but which I have subsequently recognised can be covered in other ways. I am grateful to the Minister. I understand also that the Opposition agrees with the steps that have been proposed by the Minister and that generally the Senate is happy to have that amendment withdrawn. Leave granted; amendment withdrawn. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.39) —The Opposition supports the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Bill which gives effect to a decision of the former Government. In fact an announcement was made in the last Budget Speech that the penalties for late payment would be increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. A strong case clearly existed, in our minds, for an increase in the penalty rate for late payment. The relatively low amount meant that the opportunity for non-payment was exploited, particularly in large tax avoidance arrangements. The then Government decided to increase the penalty rate and to abolish the 50-50 rule which had acted as an incentive for indefinite dispute regarding outstanding tax liabilities. It was considered by the former Government that if the taxpayer in dispute with the Commissioner of Taxation won his case he should receive some interest on the amount of tax refunded to him. We therefore support the Bill which has been introduced by the Government and we wish it a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.41) —Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) I wish to move an amendment to clause 12. The request amendment has been circulated. I move: Page 7, clause 12, line 37, at the end of the clause add the words 'in respect of any period in relation to which the agreement, arrangement or indication, as the case may be, applies'. It is desired that the Committee agree to the request for the amendment to clause 12 which has been circulated on behalf of the Government. The Government' s attention has been drawn to a problem that exists with clause 12 as originally proposed. As was pointed out in the second reading speech, the Bill provides that, where an amount paid under a so-called 50-50 arrangement of the kind formerly entered into by the Commissioner of Taxation is ultimately refunded, the refund is to be paid to the taxpayer free of interest. That is the effect of clause 12 of the Bill. In its present form the clause provides that a taxpayer who entered into a 50- 50 arrangement with the Commissioner in respect of a particular amount of disputed tax is not to be eligible to receive interest in respect of any amount paid in accordance with the arrangement. On further examination the Government has decided that, where one of these old 50-50 arrangements has run its course, it is appropriate that any amount previously paid under the arrangement should carry interest, but only from the time when the arrangement comes to an end. This means that taxpayers who paid disputed tax under such an arrangement and those who pay disputed amounts in the future without the benefit of a '50-50' arrangement will be on an equal footing as regards the receipt of interest on amounts ultimately refunded as a result of a successful objection or appeal. I seek the Committee's agreement to the making of this request to give effect to the Government's decision. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.43) —The Opposition supports the request made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and does not oppose the decision of the Government to seek the request in this instance. Request for amendment agreed to. Bill agreed to, subject to a request. Bill reported with a request; report adopted. Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 5 May, on motion by Senator Reynolds: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency the Governor-General MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY- We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. upon which Senator Peter Rae had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion add: ', but the Senate is of the opinion- (a) that the program outlined in the Governor-General's speech will result in higher unemployment and represents a callous disregard of the needs of the Australian people, and (b) that the Governor-General's speech fails to identify a legislative program for the implementation of the policies promised by the Government during the recent election campaign, for instance- (i) it fails to develop a viable blueprint for economic recovery and development, (ii) it fails to honour the commitment to reduce taxation, (iii) it fails to develop any programs for better industrial relations, (iv) it fails to develop any policies for the steel industry or manufacturing industry generally, (v) it fails to honour the commitment to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, and (vi) it fails to provide any specific measures to assist primary producers who are recovering from the drought'. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.45) —Some two weeks ago, I had just commenced to speak in the Address-in-Reply debate when the debate was interrupted. Since then many things have happened. We have seen the tabling of the economic papers and the presentation of the mini-Budget. These developments, although containing some good elements, have caused concern to the nation. As a Liberal senator for the Northern Territory, I am particularly concerned about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. This matter has been debated throughout the nation and has been a topic of major concern for a long period. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Paul Everingham, has made a desperate bid to save this project which is of immense value not only to the Northern Territory but also to Australia. One of his latest moves has been to endeavour, with the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly , Mr Collins, to bring a delegation to see the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, in order to discuss this matter. I believe that nothing has been achieved in that aspect to this point. I wish to recall one or two aspects of this matter. I indicated in the adjournment debate last night that the Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to build the railway. On 22 April, Senator Gietzelt stated: . . . no steps will be taken that will curtail that election commitment. That is recorded in Hansard. Yet, last Thursday night, the Government broke that promise. Despite what Senator Gietzelt has said in the Senate today, he misled the Senate and has continued to do so. Yesterday he said that it was an established practice for States to fund railway projects in Australia jointly. Yet, today in Question Time, he stated: I also remind the honourable senator that the Commonwealth has already built the Tarcoola-Alice Springs section of 830 kilometres, at no cost to the Northern Territory. He also admitted that the Commonwealth fully funded the east-west trans- continental railway. Only one small section was not funded by the Federal Government. This was an internal railway from Kalgoorlie to Perth. How can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) maintain that the joint funding of such projects is an established practice? It has been suggested by the Federal Government that the Northern Territory should fund 40 per cent, some $280m, of the railway project from Alice Springs to Darwin. The Minister outlined the projects where there has been no joint funding by referring to the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line and the line from Port Augusta to Western Australia. The Government is desperately trying to wriggle out not only of an election commitment, but also of a guarantee that the Minister gave on 22 April, well after the possible size of the deficit was well known. The Minister cannot hide behind the excuse of the deficit when a guarantee to build the railway was given after the level of the deficit was known. I think the most sinister aspect of Senator Gietzelt's approach is his insistence: At no stage did the Government withdraw its support for the building of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway. That is nonsense. The Government has made an offer which it knows the Northern Territory cannot possibly afford. How can the people of the Northern Territory- every man, woman and child-afford $20 a week? If the Government does not fully fund the building of the railway, it will not go ahead. The responsibility for this very important national project falls squarely at the feet of the Commonwealth. How can the Minister say that the Federal Government has not withdrawn support? Of course it has. By continually referring to levels of per capita grants, the Government is mounting its own case for hostility towards the Territory. One has to remember when referring to this level of per capita grants from the Commonwealth Government to the Northern Territory that this results through the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. That independent authority reviews the situation. I remind the Senate of the considerable support that the mendicant States have received. The Commission has made recommendations as to the funding that should be sufficient to meet the needs of the Northern Territory. I remind honourable senators also that the Territory has a limited population of 150,000 to 160,000 people. However, that population is growing more rapidly than the number of people in any other part of Australia. Many of the people in that number have little or no income. I refer in particular to the Aboriginal component in the Northern Territory which would account for between one-fifth and one-quarter of the population. That is an element of the problem. In the memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory which was arranged when the Territory accepted responsibility for self -government, there is a clause which says that, if the Grants Commission finds that there is reason for specific or special funding in some areas, those areas are funded. So let us have no nonsense about this level of per capita grant funding. Last week in the mini-Budget it was said that some $350m has been put aside to be spent on the creation of jobs. Unfortunately any jobs so created must be looked upon as artificial. The money is withdrawn from projects such as the railway project which create real and lasting jobs. The railway project creates some 1,250 jobs directly. Goodness knows how many jobs would be created indirectly if the project were complete. The steel industry in South Australia is in a very sorry plight. It would have orders for some 150,000 tonnes of steel for that rail project while billions of tonnes of concrete would be needed for sleepers and bridges. There is vast potential in the tourist industry and in trade and commerce. I urge every honourable senator to take more interest in this project because it is most essential to give impetus to the industries that will bring development to the north and assist to provide a much more adequate defence of our northern coastline than we have ever had before. The development of uranium is absolutely vital for Australia. I know that some honourable senators on the other side are concerned about this matter. At the close of my speech, I would like to table statistics showing the number of nuclear plants that are operating in the world now and those that are under construction. Of course, many more are on the drawing board. Note that many of these nuclear power plants in the world are in Third World countries. This must be the form of energy for these people in the future, to allow their living standards to rise and to approach parity with ours. In the Northern Territory we now see this depressed situation. Koongarra and Jabiluka, million dollar investments with thousands of jobs, are ready to go. The most ridiculous aspect of the situation is that while the Commonwealth Government says that the Territory must help to fund projects such as the construction of the Alice Springs-Darwin railroad, that it must do this and that , this major industry-a source of development which could bring a large amount of funds into the Northern Territory which would allow it perhaps to fund such projects-has its hands tied behind its back. What a ridiculous situation. I say that the Commonwealth should allow uranium to be sold to the markets that are now very apparent in the world. Let us have no nonsense about there not being markets for uranium. There are markets. As we saw the other day, South Korea has gone to Canada for uranium. Senator Crowley —It has gone to water. Senator KILGARIFF —It has gone to water, quite correctly, because it will not buy Australian uranium. It is now looking to Canada. A vast amount of money could have come into Australia. I believe in the idea put forward by the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, regarding the sale of uranium to France. He said that Australia, by selling to world markets for uranium for nuclear energy, would have much more influence on other countries. For instance, if Australia sold uranium to the French, it could persuade them to stop nuclear testing in the South Pacific. By supplying Australian uranium to other countries we would have more influence on them. If we supply uranium to France, we would have much more opportunity to say: 'Fair go, cut out the tests' . I think we would have much more chance. Pancontenintal and Denison mines have markets, as do Jabiru and Ranger. They are now producing uranium at economic prices. I believe that markets are available now, even though they may be depressed. Prices will certainly increase in the next decade, but those prices are now economic. Figures issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development show that by 1985, 55 per cent of electricity in France will be provided by nuclear power. The figure for other European countries is 20 to 40 per cent. I also believe that, as the Federal Government has indicated its concern for Aboriginal people and said that they should be consulted and should be part of the consensus, it should listen to the wishes of the Aboriginal groups. No matter what is said here or in other places, it is the intent of Aboriginal groups in the Arnhem Land area to allow the development and sale of uranium. This has been said quite publicly by the Northern Land Council and by the traditional owners. They want to have uranium developed because they wish to see royalties come their way. Surely one way these people can be assisted materially in upgrading their living standards is by royalties coming to them. I refer briefly to the paragraph in the Governor-General's speech to a committee that is to be set up to examine major airports in Australia. I do not decry that move at all. I think that Australia is in need of a complete review of its requirements for the development of airports, not only the major airports in Australia but also the lesser ones. The aircraft industry in Australia is developing very rapidly. I hope that Darwin Airport will be looked upon as a major airport. The international terminal there, the gateway to Australia-it sounds odd, but it is still amazingly so-is still in the Worl War II hangar, modified year by year in an effort to bring some sort of semblance of a suitable gateway to the north. Of course this is ridiculous. What a shock people travelling from Singapore, which has a most sophisticated terminal, get when they arrive in a hangar in the north of Australia. As a front door to Australia it gives Australia a bad image. Senator Cook —You should have done something about it with Fraser. Fraser had seven years to fix it up. Senator KILGARIFF —There is an interjection: 'Why did not the previous Government do it?' Well, Senator, I hope that instead of making such remarks you do a little homework. The plan for the international airport in Darwin has been brought to the stage where it is to go before the Joint Committee on Public Works. The point I am now making is that I hope that the Government will rectify this situation and allow the development to take place. For people to come in from overseas and to be handled by Customs in such a terminal is really appalling. It takes two hours at times for people to be processed. I have heard from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in the last week. I refer here to the network of the Australian Broadcasting Commission throughout the outback of Australia. Honourable senators might remember that when Cyclone Tracy struck in the north Radio Australia was blown apart. At that time the Government had plans to set up inland transmitters so that the people of the outback could receive the ABC as do the people of the more heavily populated areas now. According to the original plan, before the inland transmitters went to Shepparton, they were going to beam out from Coffs Harbour through the outback, bringing some semblance of reasonable communications to those people. I notice that in the last 18 months to two years there has been a new plan for the people of the outback. These inland transmitters will not be placed at Cox Peninsula, but a series of transmitters down the centre of the country-at Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs-will beam out like an umbella to cover all the people of the outback. I would have thought that the people opposite who apparently wish to object-at least they are trying to interject now -had a little more sympathy for these people. Obviously they have not. As I understand it, this type of umbrella communication is going to continue. I commend the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) for that. He has advised me that it will continue. I look forward to developments in the next year. Another matter that the people of the outback are concerned about was referred to in the Governor-General's Speech. It was indicated that, in accordance with a plank of the Labor Party platform, legislation would be prepared to bring about one vote one value in elections. Senator Cook —That is democracy. Senator KILGARIFF —It is democracy depending on where one lives. To the people of the outback one vote one value means that there will be less representation for them, the rural community. There will be a concentration of power in big cities and the contribution of rural communities to the economic health of the country will be ignored. Representation of those who live in the outback will become more difficult because there will be fewer people to do it. Outback communities will be left without proper representation, or at least their representation will be whittled down. Senator Robert Ray —Because you blokes are not competent to do it. The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr President, I do not mind the interjections, because this debate is on the air. The PRESIDENT —You might not, but I do. Senator KILGARIFF —The interjections do not concern me. They merely indicate to the people of Australia who are listening to the debate on the radio now that there is a lack of sympathy for the people of the outback in the policies which have been enunciated by the Labor Party. This lack of sympathy has been clearly indicated. The knocking of the railway link from Alice Springs to Darwin is a national calamity. If the present Government will not fund this most vital link, and if it will not fund development, research, defence and so on, I can say to Australians today, after looking at the mini-Budget, that they will not have to wait long for the funding; they will have to wait only three years. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before calling Senator Richardson I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that it is Senator Richardson's first speech in the Senate, and I ask all honourable senators to accord him the usual courtesies . Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.7) —Thank you, Mr President. I rise for the first time in the Senate to speak to the motion for the Address-in-Reply. Mr President, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to your new position. I am sure that your wisdom and experience will be appreciated by all honourable senators over the course of this Parliament. As I have known you over many years, you may rest assured that I will draw upon that bank of wisdom and experience as often as I am permitted. The rejection of Supply by the Senate in 1975 finally debunked all of the myths about this being a States House. The systematic and ruthless bringing to heel of the Senate indians by the chiefs in the Liberal and National Parties, while chilling to recall, is nevertheless instructive for it showed that rigid party loyalty and discipline were the important principles in this place. For my part, I do not quibble with this, provided that it is acknowledged by all and provided that I am forced to witness and endure no more of those turgid diatribes about States rights from the mouths of those who dealt that principle such a devastating death blow only seven years ago. In the premature election that followed Kerr's act of political banditry in sacking the Whitlam Government, we in the Labor Party watched our support slump to an all time low and saw the dreams, the confidence and the hopes of our long- awaited triumph in 1972 all but obliterated. But it was in those desperate hours , with morale low, with our shell-shocked party wondering just what could happen next, that we were able to demonstrate the rekindling of resilience and spirit which today leaves us as the dominant political force in the nation. Within six months of our most depressing defeat the flag of Labor was once again hoisted over Australia's most populous and prosperous State-New South Wales. But while Neville Wran had achieved what many believed to be impossible he had incurred the wrath, indeed the undying enmity, of Malcolm Fraser. Both Neville Wran and the electors of New South Wales had displayed an impertinence in that they had dared to disagree, and for Malcolm Fraser this impertinence was too horrible to contemplate. In the seven years of Liberal-National Party Government the States bore the brunt of the Budget cutbacks. But no State suffered more than New South Wales, the State I represent in this chamber. The Fraser Government deprived New South Wales of its rights under the Commonwealth Grants Commission and discriminated against New South Wales in its infrastructure borrowings. The reason for the Fraser Government's attack on New South Wales was clear. New South Wales would be the base for the revival of the Australian Labor Party and the eventual electoral defeat of the Fraser Government. At least in seven years it got something right. The Fraser Government's unsuccessful attempts to balance the Budget concentrated the cuts in one area, in payments to the States. The champions of States rights in this place have failed to chronicle this phenomenon, yet even a cursory examination of the facts makes it clear. In the seven years from 1975-76 to 1982-83 Federal outlays increased by 115 per cent, while payments to the States from the Federal Budget rose by only 81 per cent. The Fraser Government hoped that public resentment for these cuts would be focused on State governments rather than itself. Savage cuts in specific purpose payments to all the States occurred in the areas of pre-school and child care and welfare housing. Schemes for upgrading urban public transport, sewerage and hospitals development introduced by the Whitlam Government were abandoned altogether. Payments to the States from the Federal Budget fell in real terms during the seven years of the Fraser Government. However, the Fraser Government took particular steps to disadvantage the New South Wales Government, which from May 1976 was the only Labor Government to serve continuously for the remainder of the Fraser Government's term. There are many cases of this discrimination, among them the following two blatant ones. The first case was in June 1981, when the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended that New South Wales should receive a larger share of the general revenue payments to the States. If that recommendation had been accepted New South Wales would have received an extra $140m in 1982-83. The Government then asked for a second report by the Grants Commission. Again the Grants Commission recommended an increased share of the grant to go to New South Wales. The second report recommended a smaller increase for New South Wales because of the significant rise in State revenue from the property boom in 1980-81. Two successive inquiries by the Grants Commission recommended significant increases in the share of Federal general purpose revenue funds paid to New South Wales but the end result was that the New South Wales share of general purpose revenue funds was reduced by $2m. The hostility of the Federal Government to a successful Labor government in New South Wales was such that by convoluted logic two Grants Commission recommendations for an increase in the New South Wales share in Federal general purpose grants were translated into a reduction. The second case was in 1978, when the Federal Government launched its infrastructure borrowing program. The purpose of the program was to allow the States to borrow to provide infrastructure for major industrial developments such as railway lines for coal transport, port developments for the export of coal and minerals and power stations for new power consuming industries. In a Press conference on 4 December 1979 Mr Fraser criticised New South Wales for not constructing power stations at what he considered a satisfactory rate. He claimed that one aluminium smelter could not be sited in New South Wales because of the lack of power. In 1980 New South Wales submitted a detailed program for a further acceleration to its power stations construction bid. This proposal was rejected at the Premiers' Conference in June 1980 on the ground that the proposal had been submitted late. Yet Victoria and Western Australia had submitted less detailed plans for power stations later than New South Wales. Both the West Australian and Victorian proposals from the then Liberal governments were approved. At the same meeting approval was given for borrowings for new railway lines in Queensland despite the fact that no formal proposal at all had been made by Queensland to the Loan Council. Under a Hawke Labor Government these tawdry, mean examples of political point- scoring will be, like the Fraser Government's claim to being a good economic manager, a thing of the past. No Australian will be discriminated against merely because a particular State government is of a different persuasion from our own. The strategy of the Fraser Government was to impose financial pressure on New South Wales and then hope that this would turn voters away from the Federal Labor Party. This is best illustrated by advertisements in Sydney newspapers, for example, the Daily Mirror on 3 March 1983, two days before the former Government's eventual defeat. The advertisement referred to New South Wales taxes and ended with the exhortation: 'Don't let Hawke's Labor Government bankrupt Australia'. If Bob Hawke and Paul Keating can match Neville Wran in the field of financial management, they will have served Australia well. Despite the Fraser Government's shabby treatment of New South Wales, the Wran Government can proclaim a Budget deficit per capita of just $104.31. This is in stark contrast to that of Queensland where the Budget deficit per capita is a staggering $452.88-four and a half times greater than that of New South Wales. The last election was won by the Australian Labor Party on the issue of unemployment. This Government will sink or swim on its performance in providing jobs. It is worth examining why the Fraser Government's record in unemployment finally proved its undoing. On 11 October 1982, Mr Peacock, the prodigal son, was welcomed back to the Ministry as the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Since that time more people have lost their jobs than in any other period of Australia's history, including the Depression. Under Mr Peacock's term as Minister for Industry and Commerce, in just six months a further 225,000 people lost their jobs and unemployment rose by 3.1 per cent. In the past 12 months 96, 000 jobs were lost in manufacturing industries and nearly 9,000 were lost in construction industries. How did the Liberal Party reward the Minister who presided over that disaster? It made him its leader. The task before this Government is clear. It must not only stop this process of rapid decline for Australian industries but also reverse it. The most alarming feature is that many of these lost jobs may never be recreated. Without sound manufacturing industries Australia will have no base for recovery once the recession is over. Without industry Australia would be at the mercy of world forces and transnational companies. The answers to the problems faced by Australian industries are not simple. But for us to sit idly by and let our industries disappear in the name of economic rationalisation is a crime-an organised crime-against the Australian people. What industry needs-in fact, this was stated at the National Economic Summit Conference-is not an increase in protection but a moratorium on the phasing down of protection for Australian industries. The Government's position on this question was stated quite clearly by the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, when he delivered Labor's policy speech at the Sydney Opera House on 16 February this year. He said: We cannot satisfactorily rebuild our work force unless at the same time we rebuild our manufacturing base. This requires both measures to deal with the immediate crisis, and measures for long term reconstruction. Until this crisis is overcome, there will be no reduction of existing protection levels. Futhermore, the conclusion drawn from the investigation of the Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment in Australia is that the phasing out of protection cannot take place during a recession. These schemes can be introduced only during periods of growth, when people who lose their jobs have the opportunity of finding alternative employment. Even then, according to the Crawford Committee, these schemes can only occur when a package of assistance measures are in place and working. In the area of industry protection Australia is still in the learning process. Industries in other countries enjoy sophisticated, specialised assistance and protection schemes which place Australian industries at a decided disadvantage. Australia needs to examine these options and it needs to examine them now. We need to consider strengthening the anti-dumping legislation. The dumping of cheap, imported goods on to Australian markets is currently crippling Australia' s manufacturers who cannot possibly compete. Honourable senators would be aware that the Government is taking the lead in this area with the amendments to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975, which go a long way to alleviating this problem. We need to conduct a full review of developing country preference status, examining both the countries receiving the preferences and the grounds by which these preferences have been granted. At present there are 170 countries receiving developing country preferences. While it is true that all these countries in some form or another are still developing, it is ludicrous to suggest that all countries on the list are developing in all industries. For example, South Korea's steel products are still afforded developing country preference assistance when South Korea's steel industry is far more technologically advanced and far more efficient than our own steel industry. We need also to examine the whole area of government purchasing. Under Fraser the Australian Government would not guarantee Australian manufacturers preferences in government purchases. Under Fraser the Australian Government turned its back on Australian industries. The obvious motive was to increase Fraser's own prestige amongst our trading nations. But where did that get us? In the last year alone 96,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing and more losses are pending. The policy of Australian industry preference in government purchasing must be reinstated now and must incorporate all government departments and all statutory corporations such as Telecom Australia. Besides these relatively unexplored areas of assistance to industry, we must also fully examine the more orthodox measures of assistance such as tariffs, quota system and subsidies. In the present economic climate where Australian industries are under their heaviest assault since the Depression, we must not be afraid to increase short term tariff production to our industries if the situation warrants it. This plea comes from employers and employees alike. It should not be besmirched or belittled for it is a noble plea which expresses the pride of all those generations who have been conditioned to believe that the right to work is among the most basic rights of all Australians. If real assistance is not forthcoming to Australian industries, their rapid decline will be accelerated. If protection and assistance levels are lowered, it will lead to a substantial loss of jobs amongst our manufacturing industries; it will lead to the creation of large depressed regions; it will lead to massive increases in Australia's social welfare payments; and it will lead to a community divided between those people with jobs against those without. Supporters of lower protection argue that greater opportunities will arise to other Australian industries. Mr Anthony, shadow Minister for Trade, in a speech made to the Australian-British Trade Association on 20 April, this year, stated that, in Australia's case: Increased protection will limit the potential for increasing the standard of living of its people. I ask him: What are the standards of living like for people in areas such as Wollongong, Newcastle or Whyalla who have lost their livelihoods as a result of those policies? What are the standards of living like for the 707,000 people who no longer have jobs, no longer have hope or opportunity and now face life on a dole queue? Such is the legacy that Fraser and Anthony have left behind! Lower protection or economic rationalisation may have some validity and even applicability to Australia, if it were a global trend-if the rest of the world's nations were genuinely reducing importing restrictions or if the major industrial nations were embarking earnestly upon a free trade policy. The fact is that most countries are moving towards increased protection for their domestic industries. In the steel industry, for example, since 1975, the European Economic Community's aid payments to its steel industries amount to $ A30 billion or $A45 per tonne of raw steel alone. The EEC has also introduced a system of import quotas, protecting its industries even further. On the other side of the ledger, the EEC under its common agricultural policy is excluding all Australia's rural products. In the United States of America, the steel industry has benefited from regulations that limit exports to low proportions of the United States market. For example, the EEC is limited to supplying only 5.75 per cent of the United States steel market. American steel producers also enjoy substantial depreciation tax provisions. In Australia, while we contemplate protection for our steel industries, 15,263 jobs have been lost already and a further 13,000 jobs are under threat. If Labor is to fulfil its election promise to maintain a viabile and efficient steel industry, it will need to give this question urgent and positive consideration. The first line of the Labor Party's national economic platform reads: Labor believes the ultimate aim of economic policy is to promote the well-being of the people. I am committed to this proposition. The destruction of Australia's manufacturing industries is not for the well being of the people. And to consider seriously substantially reduced protection measures as an option at the present time, in the present climate, is to jettison the future of too many Australians, young and old, who look to the Australian Labor Party and Bob Hawke as their saviours, not their executioners. I now wish to direct my attention to the area of electoral reform which is of particular concern to me. As a former General Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Labor Party and the campaign director for both Federal and State elections for the last seven years, I am acutely aware of the need for reform of our current electoral procedures and practices. For parliamentary democracy to function effectively, viable and healthy political parties are essential. To achieve this, political parties need to have sufficient resources available to them. The cold reality is that it is becoming more and more impossible for political parties to finance their campaign obligations and still retain their integrity. Parties are estimated to have spent between $7m and $8m on electronic media coverage alone in the last election. To pretend that we can cope with that by collecting donations from loyal supporters is to refuse to face facts honestly. Even our conservative opponents, who enjoy considerable financial advantages over the Australian Labour Party, are starting to feel the pinch of campaign financing. Honourable senators should just ask the New South Wales branch of the Liberal party-I might say it is now asking for public funds from the New South Wales Government-which is in the process of eliminating a $2m debt or the National Party of Western Australia, which has now gone into receivership, whether they need funds to remain viable political units. Why, then, should public money be used to finance political parties in election campaigns? The answer is, simply, to prevent even the possibility or appearance of governments being bought by those who make large, and mostly secret, contributions to party funds. There can be no issue more central to our system of government. We destroy the integrity of our political parties we destroy democracy. Public funding should be available to all political parties and independents who poll enough votes to demonstrate a significant level of public support. It is important that public funding must not be brought into disrepute- perhaps irreparable disrepute-by the electorate perceiving that public funds were being made available to what might best be termed ratbag candidates or fringe parties. Therefore, the threshold for public assistance needs to be high enough to ensure that those political parties which are anathema to the overwhelming majority of electors are not the recipients of public funds. The public funds should be made available to the parties for the conduct of their election campaigns, both in regard to the costly media campaigns and for essential campaign material; for the conduct of by-election and referenda campaigns; for research into specific policy issues and electoral behaviour; for education of rank and file party members and for the general public; and for the general running of party organisations. It is apparent from these views that I see public funding as being more than just for elections. The people of Australia are entitled to more than just a cursory look at alternative policies in the climate of a frantic four-week election campaign. As a society we must ensure that the level of understanding of our people is elevated and that parties have the major role to play in that process. The financial cost in that context becomes almost insignificant. To administer and oversee public funding an independent electoral funds commission needs to be established. One of the major tasks of this new commission would be to ensure that the closest scrutiny is kept on the disbursement and expenditure of public money. The recipients of public assistance must fully account for all expenditure and it should be within the commission's role to ensure that no public money has been misappropriated and that all funds that have been disbursed have been expended properly, according to the guidelines of the Act. A further and most crucial aspect of public funding is that ceilings should be established on both the maximum amount of media time that can be used by a particular party and on the total amount expended by any one party during a campaign. Public funding must not only guarantee equity in terms of the resources available to political parties but also ensure that massive financial or organisational resources cannot buy political power in the democratic Australian context, so that equity in terms of influence is also maintained. Another important area of electoral reform is the disclosure of all campaign funds and donations. At present we have the disturbing situation in which we do not know how much is spent on campaigning by the political parties. Nor do we know from where those funds come. No society that prides itself on the right of its people to make a genuine choice can tolerate such a situation. No proper choice can be made without such basic information. We can judge a lot about a party if we know where the money comes from. At present, without full public accounting, we do not know the source of the money being donated to the parties. When we consider that in the last election expenditure was approximately $12m-$ 10m of which was spent, I might say, by our conservative opponents-we are talking about the possibility of a lot of influence being bought. I am a great believer in altruism, but I also believe that quite a few people who make big donations do so in the hope that they have bought influence for the future. Public disclosure of campaign donations has met with vehement opposition from the conservative parties on the spurious ground that it is an invasion of civil liberties. I believe that the people of Australia have a right to know where the campaign funds emanate. As we are all well aware, in the past the Liberal and National parties have been the recipients of some very large undisclosed donations. We can only speculate on what, or whom, those donations bought. It would be interesting to see whether any correlation exists between where that money came from and the policy directions taken by the former Government. I suggest that by their reluctance to disclose these sources they give at least the impression that they have something to hide. I now turn to other areas of electoral reform which directly affect all honourable senators. The evidence for much needed overhaul of electoral laws is overwhelming. One merely has to look at the informal Senate vote in my home State of New South Wales for the past decade. Since 1974, when 73 candidates stood and the informal vote was 12.3 per cent, in four elections the best result was 9.4 per cent in 1980, and the informal vote was back to 11 per cent in 1983. A total of 341,787 New South Wales electors cast an informal vote in the last election. They were, by no fault of their own, disenfranchised. We had the case in the 1974 election in the electorate of Sydney where the Senate informal vote was a staggering 20.2 per cent. One in five voters was effectively denied his right to vote. In the last election, in the electorate of Port Adelaide, the Senate informal vote was 14.1 per cent and in the electorate of Lalor it was an astounding 16.3 per cent. In the last election for the Senate, 872,626 people, almost a million Australians, cast an informal vote. This situation strikes at the very heart of democracy and must be remedied as a matter of urgency. The first remedy to be looked at-or should be looked at-is optional preferential voting. This system allows for an elector to vote for a proportion of the number of candidates seeking election and still have the vote declared formal. This system would mean a voter could, in a half Senate election, vote for as few as three candidates, instead of having to vote for 60 or 70 candidates-a daunting task for a college professor, but an impossibility for a very large section of our community. It will free the great multitude of voters, up to 95 per cent of electors, who vote for the major parties-I include the Australian Democrats, of course, as a major party-of the burden and pressure of voting for 60 or 70 candidates. The ethnic and Aboriginal communities, the aged, the sick and the less educated, for the first time can be given a real chance to participate in our democracy. Those who doubt that this system enables many more voters to cast a formal vote need merely to examine the election figures for the New South Wales Legislative Council since optional preferential voting was introduced. In 1981, when 45 candidates stood for election for the Legislative Council, the informal vote was just over 4 per cent-in stark contrast to the Senate figures which I previously outlined. In past years the Senate ticket, particularly in New South Wales, has been flooded by peripheral or fringe candidates. In some instances many used their candidature for cheap publicity reasons, as was evidenced by a rock star and a disk jockey running in some of those elections. It is obvious that many candidates or groups are merely joke candidates without any broad community support or serious intent in regard to winning votes. But, by cluttering up the ticket, they cause thousands of ordinary Australians, with a genuine concern for the future of their country, to vote informally. The whole question of Senate candidature needs to be overhauled. We must examine a system whereby candidates seeking election to the Senate need to be nominated for that position by a certain number of qualified electors in a majority of the Federal seats within that State. This effectively means that candidates must be able to show that they have some electoral support throughout the State they hope to represent. Secondly, we should raise the deposit from the paltry $200 to a level which would impose a more appropriate financial penalty if the deposit was forfeited. These two measures should guarantee that candidates for the Senate are genuine candidates who would be taking the election seriously and would have some community support. Any system of voting which disenfranchises one in 10 electors is in need of drastic overhaul. I trust that these suggestions are given serious consideration by the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform, on which I have the privilege to serve. It is reassuring that my sentiments on and my eagerness for, electoral reform are not just shared by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister for Administrative Services and thus responsible for electoral matters in this House on 6 June 1979 stated: I emphasise that it is part of the general view of the Government that not only Aboriginals but also other disadvantaged people in the community, disadvantaged in the sense that they are less able than others to take advantage of the electoral laws which exist to safeguard their rights to vote should be assisted in regard to this matter. It is part of our general thrust to assist all of those disadvantaged groups . . . It is important that they have some say in who should govern the country, or indeed their State. However, while Senator Chaney and the Government in which he served did nothing whatsoever to give effect to those noble sentiments, this Government will ensure that much needed reforms do take place. While I do not wish to make a habit of quoting Senator Chaney, I will also quote from his maiden speech delivered on 25 September 1974, which gave me some inspiration. He said: We have still to learn to use the right rhetoric for the '70s-- He was referring to the Liberal Party-- the words that will inspire people. Perhaps we will not ever learn to use that rhetoric. I hope that the people of Australia are becoming suspicious of rhetoric and clever debating, and that in the next election there will be a more realistic assessment of what is being offered to the Australian people. I can assure Senator Chaney that, in the last election, that more realistic assessment was made. I hope, in the interests of parliamentary democracy, that his party, having failed to come to grips with the rhetoric of the 1970s, will have better luck with the rhetoric of the 1980s. So far there is no sign of this occurring. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before calling Senator Boswell, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that this is Senator Boswell's first speech in the Senate. I ask all honourable senators to accord him the normal courtesies. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.36) —It is with pride that I stand before this chamber tonight to make my first contribution as the only member of the Opposition who gained a new place in this Parliament. I am aware of my responsibilities to the people of Queensland and Australia and I give notice now that I will be one of the strongest advocates to protect the rights of my State, given under the Constitution. My party believes in a federal system of government and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure that Queensland's rights are not subjugated to a centralist Australian Labor Party Government trying to base all power in Canberra. No person achieves the honour of gaining representation to this House without a party structure behind him. I acknowledge my debt to my party and the trust placed in me to represent Queensland and Queenslanders. The National Party of Australia can trace its origins back to 1893 when the circumstances of the day demonstrated the need for a party to look after the political needs of the small businessman, the struggling settler and the people who wanted jobs. That need is as relevant today as it was 90 years ago. The results of the recent Victorian by-election prove that this party is in the ascendancy. I will state now that after the next Federal election we will have at least one more senator from Victoria and another one from Queensland occupying the National Party benches of this chamber. The National Party supports the private enterprise philosophy in that it encourages people to run their own businesses. The National Party, however, will not and does not support the argument that the market must find its own level, the big must get bigger and the small must wither and die. My party wishes to see private enterprise flourish and grow with all Australians enjoying the benefits which this creates. It believes that the growth of private enterprise creates real and lasting jobs, not the artificial jobs which this Government is promoting and which will disappear as soon as the public funding runs out. The National Party is a party of achievement-achievement for Australia. Its history is highlighted by great individuals-people such as McEwen, Fadden and Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I take my place with pride, yet with humility. I pay tribute to the lady who sits on my left, Senator Florence Bjelke-Petersen. When she was elected to this chamber three years ago she was greeted with caution, to say the least. She has proved in Queensland that she is the most popular member of Federal Parliament because of her tireless work in the electorate. I wish to place on record my thanks to the retail industry of Queensland for its support during the election campaign. I also thank the fishing industry and all other groups of small business people who had faith in me and believe that I can represent their interests in Federal Parliament. I gave them my assurance that I will be fighting for their cause and meant it. Two weeks ago this chamber heard a speech by Senator Crowley who used as her theme the international socialists' song Bread and Roses. As I listened it was my view that, in truth, both sides of the chamber wanted the same thing for the people of Australia. The difference was in the way this could be achieved. The National Party in Queensland in a tangible way has provided policies to enable people to have 'bread'. The bible on which I took an oath of allegiance only the other day states that man cannot live by bread alone. The National Party deliberately aims at policies which give the opportunity for people to have bread and for roses to bloom. The National Party is the party that has been able to offer the people of Queensland the lowest taxes of any State in Australia. State taxes are some 50 per cent higher in New South Wales and some 70 per cent higher in Victoria. My party believes that the Federal system of taxation is antiquated and needs a complete review. A more equitable system needs to be introduced based on providing initiatives and not penalising effort. Surely people who create jobs do not deserve to be penalised. The Queensland Government was the first in Australia to take the courageous step to abolish death taxes, thus forcing every other government to follow suit. This was a National Party initiative and one that probably has done more for the rural industry than any other policy. In the past we saw the family farm being sold off or large parts of it being hived off to meet probate duties. It was a vindictive tax because it took away a man's life work from his family after he had paid tax all his life. It absolutely astounds me to hear that some sections of the Cain Government want it reintroduced. I told the people about this when I campaigned in Warrnambool. It probably had something to do with the low that the Labor Party received-it came in last. The National Party certainly deserved to win Warrnambool. The National's State taxation policies have ensured that slowly , but surely, the exemption level of payroll tax is being raised, thus helping small business to create more jobs and employ more people. These are the basic bread policies initiated by the Bjelke-Petersen-led Government and what a proud record he has to stand on when he faces the people in the next State election. I guarantee that he will increase his majority. It should be noted too that 1,000 people are coming to Queensland every week. Queensland's interstate gain is almost equal to the number of people fleeing from the socialist governments of Victoria and New South Wales. People are marching to Queensland because they know that a National Party-led Government will provide them and their families with jobs. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that 28,000 people gave employment as the reason for moving to Queensland. Indeed, Quensland's job creation record is the one bright spot in Australia's employment statistics. For the period of the wage pause, Queensland, with only 16 per cent of Australia's population, created 28 per cent of Australia's jobs. The State Government is trying hard to create employment. But it is being frustrated by the Federal Government's policy to turn away foreign investment. This Labor Government should be honest with the unemployed and tell them how many jobs the Foreign Investment Review Board has spiked in just the last seven weeks. I shudder every time I hear that the Labor Government has shelved another project. How can it say that it is looking after north Queensland when it has shelved the Townsville domestic terminal project and refuses to honour a commitment of the former Government to fund a feasibility study for the Bradfield scheme, a scheme which could have tremendous implications for north Queensland and for Australia as a whole? That scheme could provide Australia with another Darling Downs and if it was feasible it would provide many more jobs for the unemployed of north Queensland. Furthermore, it has become well known in Cairns, which faces a serious unemployment problem, that the construction schedule for five naval patrol boats is to be slowed down. The people of Queensland are fast becoming disillusioned. They cannot complain because this Government has abolished specific ministerial responsibilities for northern development and there is no Federal Minister with an electorate north of Brisbane and only one in Queensland. How one Minister can look after the total needs of Queensland is beyond me. Even the Australian Labor Party in Queensland, according to media reports, is disillusioned with the Hawke Labor Government. Mr Hawke has left our colleague Senator Reynolds way out on a limb because he has given her no answers for the people of north Queensland. She is going to have to do some fast footwork when I go to north Queensland and explain how this Government is treating the people there. Last year 50,000 people came to Queensland. They came because they believed a private enterprise government could provide them with a better chance of employment and a better chance of owning their own home. Far more importantly, they came because Queensland could provide far more opportunities for a stable future for their children. This is what we must be talking about in both chambers-the creation of a better future for all Australians. When we talk about creating new jobs and better opportunities, we must talk about small business. Small business is becoming a section of the vote that all parties are wooing. I can honestly say that I understand the problems of small business. I established my own business on 18 years of sheer drive and initiative. That business ended up employing 10 people out of one man's initiative. That is the type of small business that creates jobs. As I look toward the Government benches, I see union representatives and academics. There is no one there who really understands small business. The National Party, particularly in Queensland, is helping small business deliberately to create new jobs. That is why I can say the National Party has more in common with the worker and any other party represented in this chamber. It is a party of self- made people who, every time they make something, also provide more opportunities for working men and women. In Queensland some 500,000 people are involved in small business. The Senate will have heard many times the following facts, but they warrant repeating: Small business enterprises employ over 50 per cent of the total work force; collectively, small businesses with up to 10 employees contribute more than half of the profit of the business sector; and small business contributes more in tax revenue than big business, including most of the resource development sector. Small business is an under-represented section in and outside parliament. It was not considered important enough for the National Economic Summit Conference. More needs to be done in future to weld this section of business into a recognised organisation. Small business ultimately must develop as much clout as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and be as effective as the National Farmers' Federation. My party will be working with all the vigor and force that it can muster to achieve this. The small business section needs a tax system that will not bankrupt small operators. The taxation system, as it now stands, takes everything made this year and, through provisional tax, most of what the Australian Taxation Office thinks is going to be made 'next year'. Small business needs the implementation of an education scheme whereby the small operator can learn the principles of business management such as the control of overheads and the relation of sales to profit and profit to overheads. So many times we see excellent tradesmen and people with various skills establish their own businesses and fail because they have not got the faintest idea of business management. Generally, they lose their homes and any other assets they have built up. It needs the funding for three years of a federal small business organisation which can report and represent the needs of small business to the Government. The Queensland State Government has established such an organisation-the Small Business Development Corporation. It knows the contribution that small business makes to Queensland. Since 1893 the National Party, as I said earlier, has helped small business. It is still helping this important group. Last year my party rejected out of hand moves to deregulate trading hours. It knew the devastating effect that this would have on small retailers and on the family unit. Parents would have to work on weekends and thus their children would be unable to enjoy the company of their parents on Sunday-to go to church or just have a family day together. The Premier has promised that in the next parliamentary session a Bill will be introduced to protect tenants from unscrupulous practices in retail shop leases; and, of course, everyone in Queensland knows that what Joh says, he does. My party wants to ensure that small business can continue to be the nation's leading employer and give the bread that is basic to life. It is clear that Labor State governments, and probably the Hawke Government too , do not understand small business. They talk about it and make promises but they do not act; not one Labor State government has legislated on shopping centre leases. They promised to do it. In Queensland, the Government is strong and positive-it acts and carries out its promises. The Labor Party promises tax cuts, lower petrol prices, but fails to deliver. It works to a plan. It is to promise and renege. Premiers Wran, Cain, Bannon and Burke did it. So did Mr Hawke. I repeat: The National Party-led Government promises only what it can deliver. There are no illusions and no deceptions. I now wish to talk about roses. All people have holidays and Queensland is blooming as the best place to holiday. In 1982, 33,000 Americans alone visited Queensland, the majority coming in via Townsville. The Gold Coast attracted 81, 000 overseas visitors. The tourist industry is now worth $1.7m to Queensland's economy. Its growth rate is 7.4 per cent compared with the national average of 1 .6 per cent. This exceptional growth rate in Queensland's tourist industry did not just happen; it was a result of a State government initiative to set up the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation-an efficient, independent body to promote Queensland. It is doing a magnificent job. The tourist industry leads the way for job creation. Many more jobs could be made, however, if penalty rates were abolished. In Queensland alone it is estimated that 10,000 extra jobs could be created. The ALP and the unions acknowledge that tourism is one of the few industries that has any real job growth. There should be a new tourist award to cover the industry and wages should be restructured to enable penalty payments to be abolished. This is National Party policy. The National Party-led Government has given jobs and hope to thousands of Australians, in contrast to this Government that was elected on the promise of creating 500,000 jobs. Until 19 May, I had not seen one initiative or piece of legislation that would create one job, let alone half a million. What the electorate got was cosmetic jobs-jobs which will last for six months. This country needs a private enterprise-led recovery, not public sector pump priming. Where was the help for small business and industry? They were ignored! The primary producers were the ones who had to pick up one third of the recovery tab . This Government's priorities are not recovery and jobs. Let us look at its record: Stopping the Tasmanian dam; vetoing finance for development on the Gold Coast; shelving the Townsville domestic airport development; and slowing down construction of the five patrol boats being built in Cairns. I now want to mention the proposed Sex Discrimination Bill. The subject of this Bill and its interpretation is putting women against women, Christians against alternative religions and family against family. In other words, it is developing into an ugly and unnecessary struggle in the Australian community. It has the capacity to be the most divisive subject debated in this Parliament since the abortion matter. Consultation and consensus supposedly are the Hawke Labor Government's modus operandi. I call upon Senator Susan Ryan and the Hawke Labor Government to drop this Bill as it is dividing the community. There is no consensus. There is only confrontation. Evidence of the opposition to this Bill may be ascertained by the thousands of petitions coming to both chambers and requesting the Government not to proceed with the Bill. In conclusion, as a Queensland senator, I will do all in my power to aid the growth and development of this nation as a whole-Queensland in particular-so that the vision of bread and roses will be obtainable by all Australians. My special interest will be, however, small business. This is the industry which, if allowed, will provide bread and roses for more than half Australia's work force. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before calling Senator Maguire, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that this is Senator Maguire's first speech in the Senate. I ask all honourable senators to accord him the normal courtesies. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.54) —I have great pleasure in supporting the motion. I am aware of the great honour conferred upon me by the electors of South Australia on 5 March. I am aware of my great responsibility to the people of South Australia and intend to serve them in full through the national Parliament. Mr President, I congratulate you on your elevation to the Senate's highest office and look forward to serving here with your guidance. It was the intention of the Founding Fathers at the original constitutional conventions to establish a national upper House of parliament to protect the smaller States. It was also their intention to establish a House of review. Those intentions eventually became reality in the Senate. As the Australian political system evolved, the Senate became more of a party House; less emphasis was given to its role as a forum for the States. The successful 1977 referendum on the filling of Senate casual vacancies endorsed the role of parties in the Constitution. That referendum provided that casual vacancies be filled by persons from the same political party as those formerly occupying seats. Since 1979 it has been the policy of the Australian Labor Party to reform rather than abolish the Senate. Labor's policy to expand and develop the very valuable committee system of the Senate is worthy of support. It is an honour to be elected to the Senate as a member of the Australian Labor Party. I thank the many members of branches and trade unions affiliated with the Labor Party who supported me. I wish also to thank my family for their strong support and I acknowledge their sacrifices over the years. The Australian Labor Party is the longest established political party in Australia. It is the democratic socialist party in Australia which stands for equity and social justice. I am proud to have the opportunity to uphold those principles in this place. I am the thirtieth Labor senator from South Australia since the Senate was first elected 82 years ago. My predecessors have in general been long-serving members of this place and have represented the community well. I am encouraged by the longevity of my predecessors and by their contributions here. The twenty- sixth ALP senator from South Australia was Geoff McLaren. Senator McLaren was elected in 1970 and was a member of this place for almost 12 years. It is worth noting that he defeated the now South Australian Premier, John Bannon, in the ALP pre-selection for the 1970 Senate team. Senator Mclaren always took up a challenge. He was a tireless worker for South Australia and the Labor movement. In particular, he was a hard working representative of the country people of South Australia from his office in Murray Bridge. I believe that the Murray Bridge Post Office is now a much quieter place with his going. I wish Geoff McLaren and his wife Beryl well in their retirement, and I am sure that all other honourable senators join with me. I am delighted to see Senator Crowley here as the first Labor woman in Canberra from South Australia. I regret that Brian Keneally, the other member of our Senate team, was not elected. I welcome and applaud the election of the first Federal Labor Government in over seven years. In South Australia we gained the division of Kingston and the Labor Party now holds seven of the 11 electorates. If all States matched this proportion of seats the ALP majority would be very comfortable indeed. It is worth noting that while Labor was in Opposition my State elected a majority of ALP members. In many areas South Australia has been a pioneering State. In 1840 it innovated in the area of local government when the Adelaide municipality was incorporated- the first in Australia. In 1858 the Real Property Act came into effect. That Act broke from past practice and embodied Torrens's principles of property conveyancing. As a consequence there is great simplicity in land titling in South Australia that is the envy of many other places. In 1876 South Australia was the first State to give legal recognition to trade unions. Before that time the bodies representing industrial workers had an uncertain role. In view of this enlightened attitude to trade unions it is no coincidence that my State for many years has had the lowest rate of industrial disputation in Australia. In 1910 the first majority Labor Government in the world was elected in South Australia under the leadership of John Verran. That was a real milestone which was to be marked later in many other places in the world. In 1975 the Independent Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission was established, taking the drawing of State electoral boundaries out of the hands of governments. Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have won elections on boundaries drawn by the Independent Commission. Now my State has the electoral system which is possibly the most responsive to community choice. It was evident at the recent Constitutional Convention that the debate over the drawing of electoral boundaries still rages elsewhere in Australia. In recent years South Australia has borne the brunt of the economic problems facing Australia. The severity of the State's economic difficulties is linked to its high reliance upon manufacturing. It is that sector of the economy which has experienced the greatest pressures. Problems in South Australia have been more intense because relatively few industries dominate the manufacturing sector there. The industrial structure is heavily dependent upon motor vehicle manufacturing, steel making and white goods. The particular problems of those industries are very evident and have been reflected in massive numbers of retrenchments. If and when the General Motors-Holden's Ltd plant at Woodville closes, people living in the surrounding suburbs will be crippled economically. The area is already hard hit by the recession, with 1,300 people a day having contact with the local social security office. For almost every month in recent years South Australia, unfortunately, has had the highest or second highest unemployment rate of any State. Indeed, for 23 consecutive months in 1980 and 1981 South Australia had the highest jobless rate . Clearly the economic difficulties there have not just been the result of temporary factors. The monthly tallies of unemployment figures cannot express the despair, lack of dignity and social in- justice which are the human stories behind the loss of a job. Even those who still have jobs are facing the worry and uncertainty that by the end of the week they too may join the ranks of the unemployed. In Australia there can be no social justice before there is a return to full employment. In those parts of Australia where jobs have been harder to come by the goal of full employment would be achieved more readily with special assistance from the national Government. That would be one way to begin ridding Australia of inequalities of a spatial nature. A regional policy needs to be developed to supplement the Government's main thrust, to achieve economic recovery. In the past, it seems that economic policy in Australia has been based on conditions in the largest capital cities, conditions which may not be as severe as elsewhere. Sales tax has been increased sharply in recent years, with little attention being given to the distribution among the States of the industries which are taxed. Regional policies and regional programs are needed so that many more jobs can be created in the most disadvantaged parts of Australia. The standard argument against the development of regional policy in this country goes that there is no real difference in economic conditions throughout Australia. That argument must now be seriously questioned. It appears that Australia has become divided into an economic centre and outlying areas, which share less in the benefits. At the periphery are States such as South Australia and Tasmania. Both should be seen as regions for the development of special assistance programs. I am aware that the mover of this Address-in-Reply would argue that that should also be the case for north Queensland. The announcement of new regional policies by the ALP earlier this year is an important beginning. The formulation of regional policy could be served by the development of new government machinery. At present, the highly respected Commonwealth Grants Commission tries to take into account the special needs of each State in the delivery of government services. The Grants Commission uses long-established guidelines in allocating finance. Since the 1930s there has been an attempt here to ensure that adequate resources are available to all State governments. But, half a century later, public policy still is really only about resources available to governments. Each State's distribution of private sector resources is not taken into account in developing economic policy. This is surprising, given that the private sector is the major part of the economic system. Little account is taken if a State is suffering from large scale closures in industries . Until the special needs of industries in certain areas are identified on a comprehensive basis the underlying economic problems of a region will not be addressed. I emphasise this need for comprehensive studies of regional industries. The potential for growth in each region should be studied too. Appropriate policies should include the relocation of some Commonwealth Government employment to areas suffering the most severe job crises. Labor now faces the challenge of reversing the inequalities imposed on the community in recent years. In view of budgetary constraints that, of course, must be a longer term task. Government actions in recent years had a regressive effect on the distribution of income and wealth. The thrust of some measures tended to overlook the needs of the most disadvantaged Australians. For example, funds allocated for Aboriginal programs were almost halved in real terms. Taxpayers on low incomes suffered a decline in disposable income under the effects of tax changes yet, inexplicably, people earning high incomes enjoyed a strong increase in disposable income. One of the greatest inequities was that interest rates rose to record levels with crippling effects on young home buyers . Regressive policies should not be allowed to persist and must be reversed. Priority should be given to making the taxation system more progressive, including the reduction of the relative burden of sales tax and other hidden taxes. The Governor-General's Speech referred to a wide range of proposals and legislation to enhance the quality of government in Australia and to strengthen the foundations of parliamentary democracy. The Governor-General referred to legislation to ensure that the principle of one vote one value is clearly established. It was also indicated that there would be moves for the public funding of elections and measures to reduce informal voting through the development of simpler voting procedures. It is pleasing to note that there is momentum at last in the areas of electoral and constitutional reform by a Commonwealth government. It is long overdue. Australia once was a real innovator in these fields and was a world leader. Sadly, we fell behind because of government inaction and community complacency. Australia now has a very long way to go if it is to match the reforms being implemented elsewhere. There is a pressing need to do so because we have one of the most complex voting systems in the world. A number of major electoral reforms occurred in Australia in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. In 1856 Victoria and South Australia introduced secret electoral ballots, a world first and a radical departure from previous voting methods. They became known as the Australian ballot, and secret ballots still are described in this way in some countries. In 1894, South Australia legislated for voting rights for women. It was not a world first, but South Australia was among the world leaders. When the Federal electoral boundaries were first drawn they basically reflected the principle of one vote one value. At the time few electoral systems in the world did so. There were even moves early in this century to allow the use of voting machines in Australia. In 1908 the South Australian electoral Act was amended to provide that such machines could be used. It is a matter of interest that that section still exists in the Act. The Commonwealth electoral system has tended to become more complicated and, probably, less equitable in its effect since World War I. Following the formulation of the Country Party, preferential voting was introduced to avoid splitting the conservative vote. In 1934 full preferentail voting was applied for Senate elections, the basic cause of today's high level of informal votes. Later, the first legislation was passed requiring that rural Federal electorates should have a lower enrolment that others. Not all electors are able to cast a valid vote because they are frustrated and defeated by our electoral system. The system should be there to help them express their choice effectively. In my State this year the total number of Senate informal votes almost attained one quota. A Senate quota was exceeded by informals in New South Wales and Victoria. That is a real indictment of the system. One could validly ask who are the missing members of this place, as the composition of the Senate may have been different if the informal votes had been lower. Unfortunately, at Senate elections informal votes have become the third largest bloc of votes, after the Australian Labor Party and the conservative coalition. In the electoral division of Lalor, the Senate informal vote was 16.3 per cent; in Reid it was 14.7 per cent; in Blaxland it was 14.2 per cent; and in Port Adelaide it was 14.1 per cent. Within that latter division there was a 27 per cent Senate informal vote at two polling booths. Informals exceeded one in five at other South Australian booths. These shocking findings should not be tolerated in a democracy. Few informal votes are deliberate, as some commentators would suggest. A close investigation of informal voting in the Adelaide metropolitan area has revealed that it is linked with certain population characteristics. In suburbs where there are many senior citizens, recent migrants from certain countries, or citizens with relatively little schooling, high levels of informal votes can unfortunately be expected with the present voting system. It is appalling that these groups, which are among the most heavily reliant upon the Commonwealth Government for their well-being, through the social security system, are those least able to express their choice because the voting system defeats them. The very people who most need a strong voice at the ballot box are effectively denied a vote by the unnecessarily complex voting system. Possibly, this is one reason why our social security system has fallen behind. The estimated number of two million Australians living in poverty would have been lower with the implementation of more compassionate policies. The thrust of policies might have been different if fewer of the poor were prevented from having a say in who is elected to parliament. The public finance theory assumes the ability to choose between public goods, yet we have a voting system which effectively denies choice to so many. Another inequality in Australian public life has been the growing disparity between the expenditures of individual parties and groups at elections. It is possible that, per head of population, Australia's elections are now the most expensive in the world. The conservative parties have been relatively well financed and have tended to have a hold on the political system. Electoral success should not be allowed to depend on the amount of money available to fund campaigns. The importance of the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform cannot be overemphasised. To give early effect to the principle of one vote one value, I hope that the Committee will recommend the scrapping of the requirement that large electorates have a smaller enrolment. If we are to improve the general standing of parliament in the community, a priority must be the reform of the flow of money into politics, and its expenditure. I congratulate the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) on his announcement foreshadowing legislation in this area. I hope we can have a package of reforms, including not only public funding of elections but also limits on expenditures, the disclosure of the sources of donations and limits to their size. To a varying degree, all such measures are the law in other democracies, particularly in countries such as the United States of America and Canada. Public funding of parties' research activities occurs in a range of countries too. Australia can only benefit if each political party researches policy in more depth. The massive amounts for funding political campaigns are used in the main to buy television and radio time or to finance the production of broadcast material. New policies should be focused on access to television and radio by political groups. Television and radio political commercials as we now know them should be replaced by allocations of time according to a strict and equitable formula. That is the system in some other countries, including Canada. Broadcast time could be allocated in, say, five minute segments, making it harder to sustain fear campaigns. In essence, the allocation of broadcast time on commercial stations in future would be an extension of the present Australian Broadcasting Commission practice. The funding of broadcast time should be the responsibility of the Commonwealth or the joint responsibility of the Government and the stations. Surely, a basic objective of our electoral system should be to maximise the number of valid votes. The ability to allocate preferences should be a later consideration; that is, after the maximum number of electors have been able to cast a valid vote. The scale of informal voting in Senate elections can be reduced. After all, the majority of informals are cast by electors who cast valid votes in House of Representatives elections. A move to optional preferential voting in the Senate, by simplifying the voting system would reduce the number of informals. To maximise the number of valid votes electors should have only to express a few preferences. The system which has the greatest potential to maximise the number of valid votes is the European list system of voting which operated in South Australia up to 1979 for upper House elections. Under that system, an elector simply had to place the number '1' against a party list to cast a valid vote. In 1979, that reduced informal votes to 4.4 per cent- a smaller percentage than in the lower House elections. That was a remarkable electoral achievement in this country. Arguments against the list system of voting are weakened by the fact that few electors depart from suggested rankings of candidates on how-to-vote cards under the present system. Research has shown that only 2 per cent or 3 per cent of all voters in mainland States-including Labor, Liberal and Democrats-depart from the order of how-to-vote cards. So while 2 per cent to 3 per cent pick and choose candidates, informal votes by others are forced possibly 5 per cent to 6 per cent higher. Voter education schemes will help reduce informal voting too. The Australian Labor Party has shown what can be done. In my State, after voter education activities, Senate informals fell by 11,000 in 1980. But it should be the Government's responsibility to carry out voter education rather than that of individual political parties. Voting should be simplified by the identification of parties against candidates' names on ballot papers. This would reduce voter confusion resulting from the growing length of ballot papers. How-to-vote cards should be placed in voting cubicles as in South Australian State elections. I hope that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform will be able to examine computerised voting in depth. Modern equipment, including optical scanners, could handle preferential voting with ease. Such equipment now is in widespread use in parts of the United States. The adoption of computerised voting would result in a major simplification of the Australian voting system. In establishing the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, Parliament is taking a major step to foster the further development of our democracy. It is to be hoped that the Committee's recommendations can be supported and given effect at an early date. Democracy needs constant nurturing if it is to survive. A complete overhaul of our electoral system is indeed timely. It offers real hope for increasing participation in our political process. The PRESIDENT —Before calling on Senator Zakharov I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the fact that this will be the first speech made in the Senate by Senator Zakharov. I ask all honourable senators to accord her the normal courtesies. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(6.18) —Mr President, I would like, firstly, to congratulate you on your election to the presidency and hope that you will have security of tenure in that office. I have been elected to the Senate at a time when the irrationalities of capitalism have inflicted increasing suffering and humiliation on very large numbers of our fellow Australians and most particularly on the weakest-workers unprotected by trade unions, the aged, the disabled, children and adolescents and all those dependent on social security payments. The level of distress has reached the point where an institution unknown since the Great Depression of the 1930s-the soup kitchen-was re- established in Melbourne and Sydney. The election of the Australian Labor Government has brought the promise of relief for those in greatest need and hope for a better future for all Australians. I want to thank the people of Victoria who elected five Australian Labor Party candidates to the Senate, particularly my supporters from inside and outside the party, my friends and, above all, my children who helped me in so many ways not just during the campaign but over the years before when they understood that my commitment was not just to them but to others in need, at the personal level in my job as a student counsellor and at a mass level in campaigns in many of which , such as the moratoria, they have joined with me. I am very proud that my three children, now adult, are all committed socialists. People have asked me why I left my run for parliament so late in life. After the record breaking run recently of my fellow Victorian Cliff Young I would say that late runs can be very successful. But seriously, the question points to a lack of understanding about a woman, or any sole parent, who has children to support. When one is working to support three children and then going home not only to do the domestic jobs-even though the children might share in those jobs- but also to attend to home maintenance and family transport, it leaves little time, and even less money, to become a candidate. My commitment to social justice, focused now in my commitment to the Australian Labor Party, goes back as far as I can remember. My childhood was spent during the Depression of the 1930s and my father, who was a teacher, spent most of those years out of work, his only income being for piece-rate journalism at tuppence a published line. Some of my most vivid early memories are of men coming to the door to ask for money or food and men in the streets picking up butts, providing second hand tobacco for a cigarette. These memories and talk at home about the rise of facism in Italy and Germany and the Spanish Civil War helped shape my commitment to peace and social justice which has finally brought me to this chamber. During the early 1950s I worked at a variety of occupations which strengthened my understanding of what it is to be exploited-doubly so if one is female. I returned to study part time as a mother of three young children. Honourable senators may remember that it was a Labor Government which abolished university fees in the 1970s. In the early 1960s I worked at weekends to pay for my studies and care for my family at the same time. When I returned to the work force in 1966 I studied after work to complete my qualifications as a teacher and a psychologist. These experiences have contributed to my support for my party's policies which will help to alleviate educational inequalities in this society. I am pleased that one of our earliest actions was to abolish the iniquitous student loan scheme and increase Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances . As a teacher and a student counsellor I have spent the last 16 years in close contact with adolescents and their parents and have seen, over the last seven years, the disastrous effect of the previous Government's policies on the lives of young people. The Opposition and the right wing groups which support it propagandise about support for the family. I have seen, at first hand, the effect on the family of the stresses caused by unemployment and poverty. The economic policies announced by the Governor-General will help the family as well as the individual wage earner or social service beneficiary. It was with great regret that I left my work as a school counsellor at Montmorency High School. I thank the members of that school community, past and present, for the contribution they have made in experience and support to my professional and political development. Working with my teaching colleagues, with parents and with students in the classroom and in a counselling relationship, has developed my insight and understanding of other people's needs and aspirations and developed skills in facilitating communication and decision making which I am sure will be valuable in my parliamentary work. To paraphrase the words of the new Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, there are two specific things I maintain my rage about: One is the events of 11 November 1975; the other is the day that Malcolm Fraser first used the term 'dole bludger'. It is years ago now but the stigma, and even the label, still sticks. Young people in their last year at school say they are not going to apply for benefits because they do not want to be called a 'dole bludger'. Of course that clever piece of immoral rhetoric has had its effects in maintaining the myth amazingly held by many people in spite of all the contrary evidence that the unemployed are to blame if they have not got a job. This is reflected in the self-image of many unemployed, particularly the young whose parents believe they cannot be trying if they cannot find work, but also the older worker who is retrenched. I know one family where the father kept up a facade of freelance work at home for some months until his savings ran out. The social cost of unemployment is high as well as the economic cost. We need too to take a much closer look at the hidden unemployed who, according to some estimates, equal in number the known unemployed. I refer to those who have given up the search in despair, the students staying unwillingly at school, the spouses of people in employment and those who do not know they are eligible for benefits. The steps the Government is taking in job creation and other areas of the economy will have a multiplier effect socially as well as economically. One person's unhappiness affects family and friends as well. I believe the measures outlined in the Goverment's economic statement last week will help to redistribute the burden of the recession and restore a measure of hope to Australians who are living in poverty. We bear a heavy responsibility to ensure that, in spite of the enormous deficit bequeathed by the previous Government, we take every possible step to reverse the downward economic trend in a responsible and equitable way. A prices and incomes policy can work. If a country like Austria can use a prices and incomes policy to keep both inflation and unemployment below 5 per cent, while maintaining real wages, surely a country as rich in resources as Australia can do as well. I have been an active unionist in the various jobs I have held in the past and proudly retain my membership of the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association. A look at the published occupations of those on the benches opposite reveals very few who would have that background, which perhaps excuses them in part for their lack of understanding of what unions are about. Of course, it is not the only area in which impoverished experience is shown by many of the Opposition. When one has been a process worker, a waitress, or a mail sorter as I have, one understands very well, for example, that, when prices of necessities continue to rise, a wage freeze is a wage cut and that, when one is poor, being asked to take a cut in real wages means something very different from a doctor or a lawyer forgoing a rise in fees or a company director an increase in remuneration . From my own experience and that of my former clients, I know what it is like to be poor and powerless. I am well aware that many in our community have been brought to the depths of poverty by the callous policies of the previous Government. I am resolved to keep close contact with the disadvantaged in my own State. I have chosen to set up my electoral office in a regional shopping centre well served by public transport. I hope to act as both a resource and an advocate for those in need, particularly for a very large group in the community which remains relatively disadvantaged in spite of major gains in recent years. I refer to women. During the election campaign, I was impressed by the number of women who, even in that very short period, contacted me to find out my position on issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment or to voice concerns which they felt unable to raise with a male. Of course, women, whose unpaid domestic labour underwrites the whole economy, are also being especially hard hit in the Australian labour market. The second addendum to the information paper on the economy, prepared for the recent National Economic Summit Conference, shows that in every age group a larger percentage of the female labour force is unemployed than is the case for the male labour force. Teenage girls suffer an unemployment rate that is currently higher than for every other age and sex group for which the Bureau of Statistics collects information. Long standing and deeply embedded discriminatory practices at all levels of Australian society are responsible for the weak employment position of Australian women and for their lack of political and economic power. Yet there are groups in the community who apparently wish to perpetuate such powerlessness with its accompanying daily indignities and frustrations. These groups are petitioning the Government not to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Contrary to claims made in this place a short time ago, the majority of those who have actually read the Convention would, I am sure, support it. I intend to deal more fully with this matter in the near future. It seems to me to be beyond the powers of understanding of such forces of reaction in this country that there might be a connection between teenage unemployment and the epidemic of teenage prostiution in the capital cities, for example. Sexual harassment continues to be one of the worst practices restricting womens ability to find and keep jobs they want. The Working Women's Centre in Victoria and the various State equal opportunity commissions continue to report a constant stream of complaints from women workers concerning sexual harassment. The South Australian equal opportunity commissioner has detailed how the frequency of this form of women's oppression increases as unemployment increases, and women fear to lose their jobs if they complain. I am pleased that the Government's sex discrimination Bill, foreshadowed in our election policy, is to be introduced during this session. I commend Senator Ryan, on whose private member's Bill it is based, for her perseverance in working for equal rights for the sexes. I emphasise that this Bill will redress discrimination against men as well as women. It will be welcomed by those who suffer discrimination. I hope that this Bill will be followed by further legislation implementing affirmative action and the prohibition of discrimination on any grounds at all, such as religious belief or lack of belief, or sexual preference . Likewise, I look forward to the early implementation of the Women's Emergency Services Program by the Federal Government which will include heavily increased funding for women's refuges and crisis centres. The great English socialist, R. H. Tawney, said: Freedom, to be complete, must carry with it not merely the absence of repression, but also the opportunity of self-organisation. The programs I have referred to and which the Australian Labor Party is committed to implementing will help my fellow Australians to achieve that goal of self-organisation which must be the basis of a democratic society. Democracy means a great deal more than the right to vote. It means the right to participate in decision making, the right to information, the right to have control over one's own life. Our political opponents always imply that government action is at best a necessary evil. Government action can increase people's freedom by ensuring that all Australians can share in the democratic process in its wider sense. All of the policies announced by the Governor-General are, of course, irrelevant if we do not succeed in preventing nuclear war. I am proud that my own State of Victoria will shortly be declared a nuclear free State. I remind the Liberal senators that their party supported that Bill in the Victorian Upper House. I hope they will do likewise when the Government carries out its policy of calling for a nuclear free Pacific. It was a great day two months ago when we marched through Melbourne led by the Premier of Victoria, the Lord Mayor and the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne at the head of the biggest and most broadly- based march since the moratoria during the Vietnam war. In my adolescence I devoured Shakespeare's tragedies, something which my colleague Senator Colston would probably find significant. I took to myself a quotation from Hamlet which epitomises my personal philosophy: This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. I add: 'Woman'. In conclusion, I state unequivocally that I am a socialist, a unionist and a feminist and that I intend to spend my term in office in the service of the people of Victoria, working towards a society where every individual can live with dignity and security. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition (6.32) —I might just briefly detain the Senate. I know it was the intention to suspend the sitting now. As we are observing all of the courtesies, I congratulate those who made their maiden speeches in this place. But I rise merely because Senator Zakharov, in the course of her maiden speech, made an accusation about the previous Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, using the expression 'dole bludger'. It is not the practice in this place to respond to maiden speeches or to make points, but that statement is offensive to the Opposition. I have certainly never heard the former Prime Minister use that expression or, indeed, any other Minister in the previous Goverment use it. I also say that I have never seen any evidence that the previous Prime Minister used that expression. I invite Senator Zakharov, if she has some proof of what I deny, to put it before us. The fact of unemployment is a matter of distress to all honourable senators in this place, not merely to honourable senators from the Government. I do not believe that the debate in this place is advanced- Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I take a point of order. Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to speak on this subject? The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has not yet spoken in this debate. Senator CHANEY —I am quite happy to go on speaking, too, if that is the wish of the Senate. The short point I wish to make is that there was an imputation against the former Prime Minister which, since he is absent from this place, I reject on his behalf. I am sorry that it was part of a maiden speech. I believe it was quite inappropriate. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(6.34) —I have not spoken either in this debate but I would like to add my contribution by saying that many things were said by maiden speakers on the other side of the chamber but I would not be so base as to criticise them. I consider that my contribution. Sitting suspended from 6.34 to 8 p.m. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Rae's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Missen, A. J. Jones, G. H. Archer, B. R. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That the Address-in-Reply be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General by the President and such senators as may desire to accompany him. The PRESIDENT —I will inform honourable senators when I have ascertained the date on which His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive the Address-in-Reply to his opening Speech and I will extend an invitation to all honourable senators to accompany me on the occasion of its presentation. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Peter Baume had moved by way of amendment: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until- (a) the legal action against the Australian Broadcasting Commission instituted by the Premier of New South Wales is concluded; and (b) an assurance is given by the Government: (i) that no action will be taken to alter the existing membership of the Commission until the Bill is again before the Parliament at the conclusion of those legal proceedings, and (ii) that there will be no Government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy'. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(8.8) —Yesterday I was cut off in my prime when the debate was interrupted so that the adjournment motion could be put. Senator Walters —You are kidding yourself. Senator COOK —I had better start again; I am reduced to incompetence by Senator Walters' interjection. Senator MacGibbon —You may have been in your prime, but it still was not much good. Senator COOK —I will endeavour to improve on my speech now by referring further to my notes. I was making the point, when I concluded yesterday, about the technical problems that the Australian Broadcasting Commission experienced during the period of the previous Government. I want to make some points about organisational problems that afflict the ABC, particularly the problem of the ratio between people in administrative and clerical positions and those in the creative and talented area of production, programming and monitoring. It seems to me that the ABC is top heavy in administration; it has too many administrative and clerical positions. There is not enough emphasis on the creative side. A week or so ago, speaking to a matter of public importance, I dealt at great length with the financial problems with which the ABC was afflicted under the previous Government. This coincided with the period when the ABC was under Sir Henry Bland. At constant prices the allocation to the ABC for operating capital fell from $110m in 1974-75 to $98m in 1976-77. In the following years it fell further to $95m, to $93m, to $91m. In 1980-81 it was $95m. This indicates a deliberate program of starving the ABC of funds, thus stifling it with resultant staff ceilings and all sorts of other ongoing administrative problems and rendering it a somewhat exhausted auntie. The morale of the ABC staff has dropped. This has coincided with the drop in ratings and the quality of programs presented by the Commission. The Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, when it analysed the history of the ABC, made a valuable contribution to community debate. In fact it put its finger on a number of major problems. What the Government wants to achieve with these Bills is a bipartisan understanding of the role of the ABC-a bipartisan settlement of issues as to how we as a Parliament, not divided by parties but as a Parliament of all parties, see the direction and future development of the ABC. It is to that end that the Bills have been brought forward and remain largely unamended in the sense that they reflect earlier legislation brought on by the previous Government. We have amended these Bills only to improve them in certain areas that are consistent with our policy. The Bills take the ABC out of the Broadcasting and Television Act and at long last give it its own Act, its own identity. The Bills give the Commission a charter to inform, to entertain and to reflect the cultural diversity of Australia. We believe that it provides a balance between the need to provide broad appeal in broadcasting and the need to cater for specialist interests. It is sensitive to the needs of the ABC as an international broadcaster, an educator and an organisation that reflects the cultural diversity of Australia by holding up a mirror to the Australian community. The legislation establishes State and Territory advisory councils to assist the ABC in fulfilling its role. It enables the ABC to maintain its identity as an independent source of news in the community. Yesterday I made some remarks about the importance of a truly independent news source in an information system dominated by privately owned news media-and conservative news media at that. Senator Peter Baume —Shouldn't we be eclectic? Senator COOK —We should be eclectic. But of course the ABC provides the extra dimension of independence so that we are not swamped and stifled in public and community debate by a dominant media of conservative taste and attitude. The legislation provides a mechanism for complaints to be dealt with by the creation of community affairs officers. I believe that that is an important area of change. Certainly it is an improvement on what the previous Government envisaged . The legislation also provides for the ABC to be taken out of the control of the Public Service Board and put in charge of its own industrial affairs. In fact, many of the problems besetting the Commission at present are typical of an organisation that really needs a rebirth. That is what this legislation tries to do. It is the view of the Government that the ABC must be a truly comprehensive organisation. It must serve specialised interests at a high standard, and compete for audiences in mass entertainment of the highest quality. It should present quality programming with good production value in a contemporary way. That is the objective of the Government and that is the purpose of the Bills. I commend them to the Senate. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(8.15) —The Australian Democrats welcome the introduction of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1983 and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 which are designed to rejuvenate and restructure the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In doing so we commend this Government for the speed with which it has brought in this legislation. However, it would not be fair if, in debating these Bills, we did not also give a warm commendation to the previous Government for the massive amount of work it did in the process of restructuring the ABC, starting with former Minister Staley, Minister Sinclair and finally Minister Neil Brown. These Ministers did an enormous amount of work in getting this legislation essentially in the form in which it now is, with certain important alterations with which the Democrats concur. We have strongly and consistently promoted the need for real independence for the ABC. That sounds like someone saying: 'We hate sin and we love motherhood', or even vice versa if that is one's persuasion. What do the words 'independence of the ABC' mean? How important is such independence? Why is it important? I will briefly restate the reasons I gave a week or two ago during the debate on a matter of public importance in this chamber. At present Australia has disturbingly few owners of the media, both electronic and print. By naming Packer, Murdoch, the Melbourne Herald, the Melbourne Age and Fairfax I believe that I have named five groups that essentially control the private media in Australia. I repeat that I believe that in general terms those five groups have served Australia well. Although they have been partisan at times in their editorial comments-I believe that it is the inalienable right of a private organisation to be bipartisan in its editorial column-in my view, in general terms they have been meticulously fair in publishing, printing and broadcasting news items. While that situation exists one could say that democracy or free speech in this country is safe. But what a fine line between the ownership of the media by five groups and ownership contracting to four groups, three groups, two groups and eventually one group. If one group had ownership of the private media in Australia I believe that democracy would be in peril. Senator Peter Baume —It would be the same with public ownership if it were just one group; just one group would be the problem. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge Senator Peter Baume's interjection. He is correct. Public ownership of the media could also produce bias and unfairness in editorial policy. Therefore, the Democrats strongly support the competition between the public media-namely, the ABC-and the private media. The prospect of the terrible day when Australia has undue concentration of ownership of the private media throws into relief the vital necessity of having an independent ABC. How do we get an independent ABC? I believe that we could go through the motions of hoping that the director, the producer and even the cameraman in a television crew will be independent and fair in the production of a program. Essentially, all those people will have, and I believe should have, some form of internal bias themselves. They would be neuter people and, therefore, unsuitable for bringing provocative and informative news to Australians unless they had a point of view. I believe that the independence and objectivity of the ABC must lie essentially in the Commissioners, as the legislation is now constituted, or with the new Board of Directors, whose responsibility it will be to ensure objectivity, fairness, accuracy and independence. The Democrats' view, which we put forward to this Government and the previous Government-it was rejected by both-was that appointments to the Board should ultimately be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. We believe that once a little clique or elite, similar to a Cabinet, has the final right to say who will be Commissioners, the way is open for political patronage, political bias and a lack of political objectivity. Objectivity will be achieved only when the appointees are approved by the democratically elected members of parliament. We have not succeeded this time, but we serve notice that we will continue to press for that position in the future. However, I strongly commend this Labor Government and, in particular, the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, for the way in which they have been receptive to Democrat initiatives in this regard. In particular, I commend those two gentlemen and the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, for agreeing to our request that all parties should establish a committee comprising six members to recommend and forward to the Government the names of those people who are to be appointed to the Board. Those six people comprise three members of the Government, including the Minister for Communications as chairman; two from the Liberal-National Party coalition; and one Australian Democrat. A variety of names will be put forward by that sort of panel. I hope that the people on that panel will not put forward names simply to represent their points of view. It would be a tragedy if the Australian Labor Party put forward the names of two rampant left wing socialists . Equally, it would be a tragedy if the Liberal-National Party coalition put forward two right wing troglodytes, and the Democrats put forward someone to try to compensate for the other four. Senator Button —A Franklin rafter who breaks his arms. Senator CHIPP —I would have thought such a person would be an ideal choice. However, we thank the Government and applaud it for its far-sightedness in trying to achieve true objectivity and independence in the Board, where fairness must finally be enshrined. We would also like to see the idea of the committee enshrined in legislation. For some quaint reason, the Government has not done so . I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough, when he responds to all speakers who contribute to the second reading debate, to put on the record why the Government has not put a provision in the legislation to cover the appointment of this comittee, which will forward names for the board of Directors. If this provision is not contained in the Act, there will be no obligation on any future government-particularly a future government of a different political persuasion from this Government-not to return to the bad old days of appointing its boys to the jobs. The all party committee that the Government will establish should ensure the appointment of the best non-executive directors. We note that the Bill does not contain formal provision for a staff elected director, although I understand from Senator Button that there will be a staff elected director. Again, I commend the Government for that concept. We remember that that concept was introduced by the Whitlam Government, removed by the Fraser Government and now it is reintroduced by the Hawke Government. But why has that provision not been put in the Bill? I would have thought that it provided an obvious protection which the Government should have sought. I ask the Minister in his response to place on the record why that provision has not been inserted in this Bill. This legislation for the first time gives the Corporation a charter. We believe that the inclusion of a recognition of the multicultural character of Australian society is essential and, again, to be commended. However, we serve notice that we would not support any moves which might affect the Special Broadcasting Service and its Channel O/28, merely because the ABC is finally moving towards multicultural activities. The establishment in clause 11 of this Bill of an advisory council and similar organisations in the States, Territories or regions, should provide some worthwhile community based advice to the Commission on programming. Again, this is a very constructive move which the Democrats applaud. In amendments which I now foreshadow the Democrats will move for the advisory council to recommend to the managing director those who should be appointed as community affairs officers-virtually, complaints officers. We believe that the present provision in the Bill, whereby the managing director has total responsibility for appointing those community affairs officers, would lead to too much power being centralised in the hands of the managing Director and the Corporation; therefore , we believe that that power should be reduced by names being provided by advisory councils. Independence is essential for a complaints procedure to be effective. I am happy to say that, following discussions with the Minister, the Government will accept the Democrats' amendment to this provision. Although the amendment varies from our proposed amendments in 1982, we believe that it is a suitable compromise, given the competing requirements for independence and the urgency of this Bill. At this stage I state that the Democrats would have liked to seek the approval of the Senate for a number of other amendments. However, we realised that that would have meant sending this Bill back to the House of Representatives and would have put in jeopardy the chances of having the Bill passed this week when the House of Representatives rises. For the reasons I illustrated last week in my question to the Minister, I believe the early establishment of the Corporation and the appointment of the Directors are vital. I understand that that view is also accepted by the Opposition in this place. It is good to participate in such a history making exercise in which there is a feeling of goodwill and co-operation between the parties represented in this chamber. However, two provisions of the Government's Bill in relation to the complaints procedure concern us greatly. There is no provision for complaints based on fairness. A complaint can be lodged only if the matter is allegedly untrue, inaccurate or an invasion of privacy. That is fair enough. We concede the enormous difficulty of defining unfairness and bias. I suppose that a program such as Four Corners, This Day Tonight or Insight would not be worth listening to or viewing unless they had some sort of bias or bite. I can imagine the impossible procedures that would be generated if we allowed for bias. But I wonder whether the question of unfairness should not be looked at in the future. I am happy to say that the Government has given me a guarantee that the question of inserting an unfairness provision will be looked at during the inquiry into a fairness code by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I will set up a hypothetical sitution. Let us assume that we have, by accident or design, an extremely right wing or left wing-it does not matter-- Senator Crichton-Browne —It does. Senator CHIPP —I know where the preferences of the honourable senator from Western Australia would lie. But I seek his agreement that one would be as bad as the other. Let us assume that that ultra right or left wing board of directors had its prejudices filtered down to executive appointments-right down to the lowest level. Let us assume that finally all the people on, say, the Four Corners crew-the producer, director and cameramen; the whole group-were of that twisted right or left wing persuasion. Let us assume that we had a series of broadcasts on the Four Corners program and that every two or three weeks comments were clearly and insidiously inserted that were anti-Semitic, anti- Jewish, anti-Catholic, anti-freemason, anti-women, anti-homosexual or whatever. A very gentle inculcation of prejudice and unfairness could be manifest. Under the present legislation there is no provision to complain about that. We will not press that point because we realise the enormous difficulties involved. The second reason we have reservations is that a person must have 'a sufficient interest' in a program before the complaint he lodges needs to be investigated. A young man who works with me is passionate about preserving our rainforests. Let us assume that the ABC puts on a program that is wrong in fact about rainforests. Under this legislation, as I understand it, the community affairs officer need not investigate a complaint lodged by this young man because that community affairs officer might well deem that the young man does not have 'a sufficient interest' in the matter. I think lawyers call this situation locus standi. Again I realise that if we open this area too wide the complaints procedure of the ABC would be overwhelmed. I am amused and not surprised to hear from officers of the ABC the number of complaints received by the ABC after every current affairs program is broadcast. The complaints number tens of thousands over a year and many of them are frivolous or vexatious. We would thoroughly agree that the work of the complaints officers should not be bogged down unnecessarily. This is a vexed question and, again, to ensure the speedy passage of the Bill we have accepted the Government's concrete assurance that when the report by community affairs officers is made to parliament this provision will be reviewed, and that will be in August 1984. This Bill closes a major deficiency in the 1982 legislation prohibiting beyond any doubt the possibility of advertising or other gratuities which would undermine the independence of the Commission. We applaud the Government for that . The Minister stated in his second reading speech that the Government was committed to maintaining the ABC's independent news service. To the Democrats this is the most important function of the ABC. However, because the Democrats believe there is some doubt in the character of the ABC and in clause 27 of the Bill that the independence of the ABC news service will be maintained, we propose to move an amendment as a preamble. As honourable senators know, the Bill allows the ABC to harvest news by agencies such as Australian Associated Press. With this we approve, but there is a danger that the services of agencies could be increased while the services of locally employed ABC personnel could be diminished. Again, I am grateful that the Government has agreed to accept that amendment to ensure that the Corporation shall develop and maintain an independent service for the broadcasting and televising of news and information by the Corporation. I commend the Government for its open-mindedness in receiving such an amendment. The current Bill deletes the no work as directed, no pay provision of the previous Government's Bill. We support this deletion and regret that we cannot support the Opposition's amendment which would reinstate the relevant clauses. Our view is that it is a provocative industrial relations measure that should not be part of ABC legislation. Statements that such a clause is needed for management authority are, in our view, spurious as there are more than adequate measures available to governments in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as well as various Public Service Acts. Indeed, in the Bill there is provision for the dismissal of people who will not obey orders. One of the most disturbing features of the Bill which was in the previous Government's legislation also is that clause 78 gives the Minister a binding power. I invite listeners to take note of this clause because I am sure that if we took a poll of honourable senators in this place we would find that most of them would not even know that this offending clause is in the Bill. If, in the Minister's opinion, some material is not in the public interest this Bill gives the Minister the power to direct the Corporation not to broadcast that material. Senator Button —What clause is that? Senator CHIPP —Clause 78. I believe that is a monstrous provision. That is nothing more than an opportunity for blatant censorship by a Minister. I understand that such a provision has been used only twice before in the country. I think it was used in 1944 to prevent the broadcast of starting price betting results and in the 1950s by I think-I hope I am not doing him an injustice-the Honourable Alan Hulme when he banned a program which illustrated in some graphic detail the slaughter of blacks by South Africans. I think they are the only two occasions in the last 30 or 40 years when this power has been used. I am very worried about residual power and about the argument which says: 'It has never been used'. Senator Peter Baume —Don't they have to report to parliament if they do it? Senator CHIPP —Yes. Senator Peter Baume —That is a protection. Senator CHIPP —I do not think they would need to report to parliament. Senator Peter Baume —Nevertheless they do, don't they? Senator CHIPP —If a Minister banned a broadcast-- Senator Peter Baume —The Minister would report afterwards. Senator CHIPP —Yes, after the event. If a Minister banned a broadcast I think that would be page one news throughout the country two minutes after that was known. We would not have to wait for a formal report to parliament. But that is not the point. I think the principle is worth looking at. Again, in discussions with the Government we were met with total reasonablness by the Minister. He said he was concerned about the matter, but he pointed out-a bit to my embarrassment-that there was an identical section in the Broadcasting and Television Act which had also gone unnoticed for many years. The Minister has given an undertaking that the Government would be receptive to receiving amendments to delete that clause from both the Broadcasting and Television Act and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act in August. With those remarks I commend the previous Government for its foresight in initiating these reforms and this rejuvenation. I warmly commend the present Government for implementing these provisions through this Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(8.38) —My comments will be of a general nature and, with the indulgence of the Senate, of a slightly parochial nature. Senator Button —There would be nothing new about that, would there, Senator? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I thank the honourable senator. I am flattered that he notices what I say from time to time. I will be as brief as I can. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill and the accompanying Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill are, in many respects, the same as the legislation introduced by the previous Government. This legislation arises out of the previous Government's initiative in appointing the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Government's subsequent response which passed through the House of Representatives last year and was introduced into the Senate on, I think, the last day of the last session of last year. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill establishes the national broadcasting network as a corporation operating under its own charter and separate from the legislation which regulates commercial and public broadcasting in Australia. It provides for the establishment of a board of directors which will include a managing director who will have full voting rights and who will be appointed by the board for renewable periods of five years. The Bill also provides for advisory councils to be set up in each State, Territory or region of Australia to advise the board either by way of its own initiative or by way of request of the board. The underlying principle behind the original legislation, which has been carried into the present Bill, was clearly to make the new Australian Broadcasting Corporation more responsive to the community and to the changes occuring within it. The previous Government responded to the comment in the Dix report that the ABC in its present form: . . . has not only slipped from the forefront of change, but threatens to be eclipsed by it. The ABC has become slow-moving, overgrown, complacent and uncertain of the direction in which it is heading, despite the efforts of many dedicated and talented people who work for it. The changes outlined in this legislation will at least provide the necessary framework whereby the new Corporation can address itself to these criticisms and can perhaps wrest back from the commercial networks some of the initiatives which have been lost to it in recent years. Under its charter, the new Corporation is charged: To provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting and television services of a high standard . . . Further, in clause 6 of the legislation the ABC is set up to: . . . contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; Amongst others, these were high ideals which the previous Government set for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and which have been carried over into the present legislation. I note that the new Government has added an additional matter in the charter of the Corporation, namely, that the Corporation shall also take account of 'the multicultural character of the Australian community'. That matter is currently charged to the Special Broadcasting Service and the 0/28 television network. The implication of the addition of this new clause is that the Labor Government may in the long term be planning to incorporate ethnic broadcasting services within the framework of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Notwithstanding that it would represent yet another broken promise by the Government which made a firm commitment to the ethnic communities, it would also divert the new Corporation from its fundamental objective, namely, to respond in a positive way to the challenges outlined in the Dix report. I trust that is not the Government 's objective in adding that clause. Nevertheless, in most respects this legislation has my support, subject to some significant exceptions to which I will refer a little later. It sets up the framework through which the high ideals of the Corporation's charter can be achieved. There are several areas to which the new board of directors of the Corporation might profitably turn its attention-indeed, to which its attention might well be drawn by the new advisory body foreshadowed in the Bill. I am referring here specifically to country areas where frequently people do not have a choice between the ABC and commercial services, especially in terms of television. The new Corporation has an obligation to do its utmost to service these people. It will have the power to attend to one of the matters which was originally raised by the previous Government in its initial response to the Dix report, namely, the rationalisation of the regional break-up of the ABC's transmission areas. At the moment in the northern part of Western Australia, that is to say, the Pilbara and Kimberley regions, the ABC runs one service. I accept that these areas are relatively sparsely populated and that the ABC operates under some financial strictures. Nevertheless, there is a strong case to be argued that, as the main electronic media service covering both radio and television, the ABC should recognise the fact that the Pilbara and the Kimberleys are separate regions largely based on different industries, and, therefore, interested quite often in different issues. At present the regional news service emanates from Port Hedland which even by air is 800 kilometres from Wyndham. The ABC's news service in the region is compiled by Pilbara-based journalists who-and this is not intended in any way to be a reflection upon their professional competence- naturally gravitate towards issues which are of primary interest to the people of the Pilbara. Iron ore mines, in many senses the lifeblood of the Pilbara, do not exist further north in the mainly pastoral Kimberleys region. Agricultural issues generated by the ongoing success of the Ord River region have little relevance in the Pilbara. As I said, there is a strong case for establishing a regional office in Wyndham or elsewhere in the Kimberleys if technical considerations so dictate, not only to tap this source of history but also to give the people of that region a service which caters more directly for their needs than has previously been possible. Another matter of interest to country people about which the Dix report made some constructive comments is sports broadcasting. This is a very difficult area for the ABC which, by covering sport to the extent it does, can leave itself open to criticism that it carries either too much or too little sport. I accept that there is a dilemma. It is really no more than a reflection of the diverse audience that the ABC serves, especially where no other network is available. In the first instance, it is important that the ABC is able to strike a balance in its sporting programs and, to do that, it will require, of course, extensive audience research. Arising out of that, the Board will have to ensure that the Corporation covers sporting events which have the widest possible community appeal. In Western Australia-I imagine it is the case in other States as well- the ABC carries a direct broadcast of the league football match of the day throughout the country network, and last year the ABC also-- Senator Peter Baume —Is there rugby in Western Australia? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Rugby in Western Australia hardly rates as one of the more significant sports, though it is not without some material consequence. Last year the ABC telecast the World Cup soccer finals in Spain which, despite the fact that they were broadcast very early in the morning, were very popular. It is imperative, in my view, that the ABC ensures that it retains a role in such major sporting events. I acknowledge that there are, of course, difficulties in this regard. As the Dix Committee pointed out, because of the growing tendency towards corporate sponsorship of major sporting events and the sale of exclusive rights at prices which are very often beyond the capacity of the ABC to bid, the ABC may often find itself increasingly excluded from these areas. I find that most regrettable; yet I accept that, because of the large financial inputs which commercial networks and their sponsors make to sport, it would not be desirable to prevent such organisations obtaining exclusive broadcasting rights, certainly in the major metropolitan areas. Further, I do not believe it is proper that the ABC should concentrate only on minor sports because they are the only ones it is able to attract and pick up at an economic level. Nevertheless, I believe there is a solution which should prove acceptable to the commercial networks and which at the same time will serve to underline the great emphasis which, I trust, the new Board of the ABC will place on fulfilling community requirements and needs. Therefore, as part of the increased responsiveness to community requirements which the new Board will instil into the ABC, I urge the ABC not to look to the so-called less popular sports but to look to filling in the gaps in coverage which inevitably arise when commercial networks broadcast a major event. I suspect that that should not be too difficult to achieve since, by catering for areas not covered by the commercial networks, the ABC is not competing with a commercial network which has acquired sole rights. If, within the bounds of reasonable commercial terms, some financial consideration is involved to recompense the commercial network for its initial outlay, that should be considered in the interests of people in more isolated parts of the country. In other words, if the ABC is to look at what I might term community requirements, it should act accordingly. I have addressed myself so far in this debate mainly to the question of the ABC in country areas, not because I believe the ABC has necessarily been inadequate in the past but because I believe the opportunity will present itself for it to improve further its services in these areas as time goes on. The Dix report made a range of recommendations with a view to improving the responsiveness of the ABC to audience needs. I believe the ABC will meet these challenges. As I said, I believe the Bill provides a framework to ensure that it does exactly that. However, there are in this Bill, where the new Government has changed elements of the previous Government's legislation, areas of concern with which regrettably I can find no satisfaction. I have already referred briefly to ethnic broadcasting, and I do not propose to canvass that again. However, when it is taken into consideration that the thrust of the Dix report and the thrust of the previous Government's Bill was to give the maximum possible independence to the ABC, it is important to note that in some ways that principle is already being eroded. One important aspect of independence is the ability of the Board and the managing director to allocate resources in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Under the previous Government's legislation, the ABC would have been afforded that right by being allowed for the first time to use independent news agencies. That right has now been largely undermined. According to clause 27 of the Bill, the ABC may still: . . . procure news and information relating to current events from such news agencies and other sources . . . as the Board thinks fit. But that is now to be only under the limitation that an 'adequate number of persons, both within and without Australia' are employed by the ABC in news gathering. That does not give the Board, in my view, complete freedom in the commitment of resources, both financial and in terms of personnel. It will place more strictures on the Board in the news and current affairs area and will deny it the complete flexibility that it may have been assured under the previous Government's interpretation. By attempting to stipulate the levels of staffs to be maintained in this area-even as imprecisely as has been done in the wording of the Bill-the Government has taken away some of the flexibility in the new organisation. It may well have also provided incitement for future industrial unrest in the ABC over the unclear definition, as I have said, of an 'adequate number'. It is an unnecessary intrusion on the Government's part and it could well be interpreted in the light of recent events as an indication that the Government is not so committed to the independence of the national broadcaster as its statements in opposition might indicate. In that respect, the discussion since this Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives about the appointment of the Board leads me, frankly, to a similar conclusion. I point out that the actual wording of the relevant clause of the Bill has not been altered from that which the previous Government introduced last year. How that clause is to be put into practice is important. In opposition, the Labor Party expressed fears that the Government could make appointments to the Board of persons sympathetic to it. It therefore opposed appointments to the Board by the Governor-General purely on the advice of the government of the day. Yet in government the Labor Party does not appear to have the same qualms about government-appointed Board members. As I understand it, the Government has now conceded that and is prepared to consult with the Opposition and the Australian Democrats on the appointments it makes. I commend the Government for that move under the circumstances. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is now suggesting that a committee be set up to make the appointments. Notwithstanding that, I remain opposed to the concept of a parliamentary committee to appoint the Board because I believe that the bargaining and trading that will inevitably go on will result in a board that is less likely to be non- political than it was ever conceived to be. A situation could develop where in the horse trading of that committee one party conceded one position on the basis that one of its candidates would also subsequently be appointed. I believe it is better that the Government chooses its own servants, while accepting the advice or suggestions from the Opposition and other parties in the Parliament. In the final analysis it is the Government which is responsible for the actions of its servants. If it is seen to have chosen its servants badly, it will be brought to account by the people through the ballot box. One other very disappointing aspect of the revised legislation is the deletion of Division 3 of the original Bill-the no work as directed, no pay provisions. Those provisions underlie what should be, in my view, a fundamental right of an employer in either private practice or the public sector-that where employees are not prepared to carry out the full responsibilities and duties of their position, they ought not at the same time receive the pay which that position carries with it. The provisions as they were included in the previous Government 's legislation were clear and non-discriminatory. Where an employee refused to carry out an instruction given by a person in authority to give such a direction , and where the direction would normally form part of the employee's duties, the provisions were, of course, to apply. In the public sector where the duties attached to any position are detailed in written form, the guarantee against any form of discriminatory action is clear, and it gives the employee the assurance of knowing what his or her duties are. The employer has the right, in my view, to expect that once those duties are known and once they are acknowledged by the employee, they will be carried out for a remuneration that is also clearly defined. The relationship between the two is such that logically the withdrawal of the service or part of the service which would normally be rendered by the employee should not occur without a corresponding loss of pay. The Government has weakened the new Corporation's position as an employer and it has discarded one of the most effective deterrents against unnecessary industrial action that is available to it. I very much regret that the ALP for whatever reasons, has chosen that course of action. However, the worst feature of the revised legislation is undoubtedly the complaints procedure. One of the most serious and recurring complaints which have come to my attention and presumably to that of most honourable senators is that when one makes a complaint to the ABC invariably one is appealing from Caesar unto Caesar-no action is taken and no redress is available. That is perfectly human and perfectly normal. One has learnt to live with it with the ABC. Furthermore, there is no independent authority to deal with the complaint or to which a complainant can appeal. In amendments which the previous Government was contemplating to its own Bill last year, and copies of which I understand have been circulated in the last few minutes, an independent complaints commission would have been established along the lines of a similar commission in Britain. It would have provided for a community affairs officer, who was an employee of the Corporation, and who would have acted as the first tier in the complaints structure. That officer would deal with complaints in the first instance. However, above the community affairs officer, it was planned to have a three to five-man commission independent of the ABC to which a complainant could appeal if he felt that his case had not been satisfactorily dealt with. As with the British complaints commission on which the ABC complaints commission was modelled, would it report separately to the Parliament as a completely separate government instrumentality. It was a requirement that any person appointed not be a member of the ABC Board or an employee of the Corporation. On the other hand, the Labor Government, in its legislation has decided that community affairs officers directly employed by the ABC, reporting to the managing director of the ABC, will serve the same function. It has given these officers almost the same discretionary powers not to entertain a complaint -to make judgments about whether a complainant is vexatious, frivolous, not acting in good faith, or simply not sufficiently interested in the subject of the complaint-as did the independent commission which the previous Government proposed. It is one thing for an independent commission to make such judgments, but it is quite another for an employee of the Commission to be placed in such a position. The complaints against the ABC are serious matters reflecting on the integrity, the impartiality and perhaps the competence or the incompetence of Australia's national broadcaster. The ABC, in order to preserve its reputation, at least deserves exoneration by an independent authority so there can be no doubt as to whether the complaint is justified. In order that a complainant is given a fair hearing, in my view, it is essential that he is given an independent hearing. The principle of appealing from Caesar unto Caesar, which the Government is applying in this case has no place in twentieth century Australia. Senator Button —That is a very useful proposition. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I know that it is a very enlightened observation from a conservative Liberal. I thought it might appeal to the Australian Labor Party's better sense of judgment. In every respect we now have an opportunity to create a new national broadcaster to meet the challenges of the future modelled, where appropriate, on the best examples that the world has to offer. The British Complaints Commission is such a model. It is very unfortunate that this Government has failed to recognise that fact. For the most part, however, it does not alter the structure that would have been established by the previous Government's legislation, and the Government is to be commended for that and for recognising the valuable work and the reasoned conclusions to which the Dix Committee was able to come. I only trust that, having had the common sense to recognise the value and the virtue of the Dix Committee, the good sense which the previous Government had in seeking to implement those recommendations in the legislation, the Government will also accommodate appropriate, sensible and intelligent amendments which fulfil the ambitions of the great majority of the people and reflect more precisely and more accurately the recommendations and the wishes of the Dix Committee. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.1) —It was some 50 years ago last year that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was established under statute. That organisation has grown from a very small organisation to the massive organisation that it is today. I do not, of course, recall the establishment of the ABC; I was not born then. But I do recall living in the country and benefiting from the fact that the ABC was the only broadcasting station that we could hear with some degree of clarity and, more importantly, that it used to broadcast the England v. Australia test cricket matches-albeit there was some contrived situations in the studio to create atmosphere through some interesting sound effects. Much has been said in this debate about the genesis of this legislation which proposes to change the Commission to a corporation and give it a revised structure and a revised charter. I do not intend in this debate to canvass those points that have been adequately made in the debate, but rather I shall focus on some of the inadequacies in the legislation. In saying 'inadequacies in the legislation', I am not so sure that the Senate has before it the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill that is proposed by the Government. We heard from the Australian Democrats that amendments to this Bill are to be submitted by the Government. Unless my eyesight is very gravely impaired, those amendments are not in front of me. Mr Acting Deputy President, I refer to the problem in this legislation which was similar to the problem in the previous legislation; that is, the fact that this legislation, as was the case with its predecessor, does not facilitate the examination by an independent, authoritative body of complaints made by members of the public about program standards. That is a grave inadequacy. I believe that is a matter about which the listening public will be most concerned. Senator Chipp referred to that matter; he virtually agreed that that was an inadequacy, but he indicated that he would not go along with any amendments to the Bill because the Bill would have to go back to the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives will rise this week. Well, so what? The House of Representatives will finish tomorrow night, as I understand it. The members might not get out of Canberra tomorrow night but will finish tomorrow night, and we are likely to conclude the third reading of this Bill tonight. There is plenty of time for the House of Representatives to consider any amendments that we may put forward. My basic criticism of this legislation concerns something that most directly affects the ordinary person. Clause 82 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Principal Community Affairs Officer and other complaints officers in each State and Territory. The first thing to be said about that clause is that those people are servants of the proposed Corporation. In other words, there will be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. But in any event, these officers will be required to examine written complaints about errors of fact or invasions of privacy. Clause 82 (2) (b) states that they can decide: . . . the complainant does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint. They can ignore the complaint on that ground. Is that fair? Is that reasonable? We all know what sufficient interest is. I am very surprised that the Labor Government has imposed that sufficient interest hurdle before the complaint by an ordinary person can be heard by the complaints officer. The legal interpretation of 'sufficient interest' by and large depends on the hip pocket test; that is, whether it has affected someone in the hip pocket. To me that is not an adequate response to the very real need which is expressed quite frequently to all members of parliament by the ordinary citizen that he or she has the right to complain about broadcasting and television programs. Clause 82 places one further unnecessary hurdle in front of the viewer; that is , that the complaint must be limited to errors of fact and invasions of privacy. My concern-I believe this concern is widespread in the community-based on a study of similar provisions in the United Kingdom legislation, is that these provisions will be interpreted to mean that the complaints officers are not obliged to consider complaints about program standards. I would like to know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) agrees with me that that would be the interpretation. Certainly an examination of the United Kingdom report and a study of the United Kingdom legislation has led me to believe that, on the criteria in this Bill, complaints officers cannot receive complaints about program standards. I will give honourable senators an example of something that actually occurred on ABC television in Tasmania last year. This is only one example. There are numerous similar examples. In the middle of the 7 p.m. television news, a scene was shown depicting vivid and graphic bloodshed in an overseas war. There was no warning. The item was shown whether or not one liked it, whether or not one's children were sitting in front of the television set. Let us apply the tests that are supposed to be applied under this legislation. Was that an error of fact? Well, who knows? Was it an invasion of privacy? Well, of course it was in the general sense, but not in the terms of the interpretation which I am sure will be given to this legislation. Senator Button —That's right. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Button says: 'That's right'. That is why the legislation needs to be rectified. Did the viewer who might complain about the absence of a warning have, in terms of the legislation, a sufficient interest in the subject matter? Under the terms of the legislation, again although that viewer may be the mother of the children sitting in front of that television set -let Government honourable senators and the Australian Democrats understand this -she would not have sufficient interest to sustain the complaint. Under this legislation it would be the requirement of the complaints officer to reject the complaint out of hand. The Government quite rightly, along with a lot of other people over recent years, has demanded and has obtained easier access by members of the public to information. The freedom of information legislation attests to that fact. It has been claimed that the barriers preventing the public from making inquiries, not just about files relating to themselves personally but also about policy formulation and Executive decisions have been dismantled. In my veiw, and I believe it is a view that is widespread throughout the whole community, it is time that the barriers were broken down to ensure that complaints by viewers and listeners are effectively handled. All sorts of reasons have been advanced as to why this should not be done or cannot be done. Nobody says it should not be done . The Democrats said it should be done, but that we will wait till 1984, and late in 1984 at that, in the forlorn hope that when the report of the complaints commissioners come in the Government will introduce such provisions. We have no guarantee that the Government will introduce the provisions. If the Democrats are serious about wanting the public to have freedom of access and freedom of complaint and to have complaints properly dealt with, let them support my amendment, which is very simple. At the Committee stage, I will be proposing an amendment to the Oppositions amendment but if the Opposition's amendment is defeated, I propose to move amendments to the Government's legislation in the Committee of the Whole. They will be quite simple amendments. They propose that a complaint can be mounted under clause 82 of the Bill for the reasons set out in the Bill. I will be supporting the establishment of positions of community affairs officers. Under my proposed amendment, clause 82 (1) will state: Where a written complaint is made to the Corporation alleging- (a) that an error of fact has occurred in a program, announcement or other matter broadcast or televised by the Corporation; or (b) that an invasion of privacy has occurred in, or in connection with the preparation of, a program, announcement or other matter broadcast or televised by the Corporation, (c) that a program was inaccurate, unfair or biased; (d) that a program was otherwise offensive. the complaint shall be referred as soon as practicable to a Community Affairs Officer appointed in accordance with this section. I cannot see, nor have I heard, any reasons against that. What are the new aspects of it-that a program was inaccurate? That is already in the clause. An error of fact is covered in paragraph (a). But in relation to whether a program was unfair or biased, the Government has said in another place that it is not possible to define 'unfair' or 'biased'. That is an excuse for the occasion because in the legislation itself the requirement of the Board is established in clause 8 (c). It states: To ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial . . . What is the definition of the word 'impartial'-the opposite to unfair and biased ? If the Government is saying that the words 'unfair' or 'biased' cannot be defined, honourable senators should look at the power that it gives to the community affairs officer to reject complaints if the community affairs officer says that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. What is the definition of the words 'frivolous' and 'vexatious'? Senator Button —You told us the legal definition before; you can perhaps do it again. Senator HARRADINE —I am putting forward the straw man that the Government has put up in the House of Representatives in opposition to the very real need to have complaints relate to, including other matters, unfairness and bias. The final paragraph relates to a program being otherwise offensive. What is wrong with that? If honourable senators ask me for a definition of the word 'offensive ' I can reply that there are a great number of legal precedents, as the Minister would know, as to the test of the word 'offensive'-the reasonable man test. I believe that what I am proposing would, on reflection, be supported by the vast number of ordinary viewers and listeners. It may be said that what we are trying to do to the ABC is not available in respect of other television stations . The Senate has heard me speak on this matter before. I am concerned about the fact that the Broadcast Information Office, as an example, was not restructured so as to provide it with some muscle. Senator Button —It was abolished. It was not a question of being restructured. It was abolished by the previous Government. Senator HARRADINE —Indeed. It was starved of funds, I think. But at the end of the road licences for commercial television and broadcasting stations must be renewed. However, here we have a piece of legislation where the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will not be subject to renewals of licences. So, other safeguards must be placed in the legislation here and now. I believe that those people who agree with the proposition that if a program is biased, unfair or otherwise offensive now is the time to act and not some time in 1984, putting it on the long finger. Finally, I reiterate that the ABC has, over many years, substantially contributed to the information and, indeed, the entertainment of Australians. In my opening statement I recalled that it is now over 50 years since the establishment of the Commission. It is now being re-established with a new name and a new charter. I sincerely hope that the Government appointees to the Corporation will ensure that this charter is carried through and that they will do so with independence and integrity. That is an issue, of course, which is very important for a national broadcaster such as the ABC. I believe that the most recent events, where the independence of the national broadcaster has been called into question, is a matter of some concern and some question as to whether in the appointments this independence will be maintained. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.24) —I would like to thank the honourable senators who have contributed to the debate for their general support of the legislation and, indeed, for some of the constructive comments which have been made. I do not want to reply at any great length, but there are a few matters with which I would like to deal. First, I comment on the speech made by Senator Chipp, who commended the general approach of the legislation and expressed some concern about a number of matters. I correct Senator Chipp on one matter. I do not want to be in dispute with him about this. I am glad to hear in the course of the debate that it was the idea of the Australian Democrats that nominations for the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should be submitted to a committee. There was no proprietary right in that. It has been a policy of the Australian Labor Party for some time. As honourable senators know, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to party leaders in accordance with that proposal a few days ago. Of course there has been debate about the mechanisms for securing the greatest degree of impartiality in the appointments to the board of the Corporation. I believe that the Democrats were earlier concerned to have appointments by the parliamentary process, which seemed to me to have some defects. What the Government is trying to encourage here is a more civilised view than has existed in this country in the past about the political impartiality of the ABC and the need for this Parliament to behave in an impartial, non-partisan manner towards the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We are trying to establish in this country some of the civilised approach which exists in relation to appointments of the Governors of the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation, for example, which are always matters of discussion between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Britain. We think that that tradition could well be encouraged here. I remind the Senate that criteria are laid down in the Bill for the sorts of people who should be appointed to the board of the Corporation, general criteria which stem, I think, from the report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator Chipp says that there are deficiencies in the Bill. I agree with that. The Government will be quite prepared to examine some of those deficiencies and take steps at a later stage, if necessary, to rectify some of them. Senator Chipp raised the question of the staff elected board member. It is the intention of the Government that there be a staff elected board member. Senator Chipp was concerned, I think, that that proposal should be enshrined in the legislation. It may be a matter that could be looked at in a review of the legislation but in the current parliamentary program it was not possible to amend the legislation to devise what would be very complex procedures for the choosing of a staff elected board member, but it is the Government's intention that it should be done. Senator Chipp made a concession in relation to the question of the difficulty of defining unfairness and bias when talking about the complaints procedure. I remind them again that the Government is committed to an inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with a view to establishing a fairness code in relation to broadcasting which will apply not only to the ABC but also to the commercial stations. In that context we hope that when that inquiry reports we may be able to take some legislative action on a bipartisan basis in relation to those proposals. Senator Chipp also drew attention to the provisions of clause 78 which require the Corporation not to broadcast certain matters, on the direction of the Minister, in the public interest. The government will be examining that proposal with a view to changing it, as it will in connection with the similar provision which exists in the Broadcasting and Television Act. I do not think it is any comfort, as Senator Peter Baume said by way of interjection, that at some stage if the Minister acts in that way he is required to report to this Parliament. I do not think that is a sufficient safeguard. Senator Peter Baume —It has been an effective sanction over the years. Senator BUTTON —I do not think it is an effective sanction at all. I do not think that Senator Peter Baume will find in any of the legislation establishing great national broadcasting institutions around the world, a similar provision. Of course it is a war time provision which has lingered on in the Australian Broadcasting Commission legislation and, now, into this new legislation. I regard it as a defect. Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you certain that there is not going to be another war? Senator BUTTON —No, but I am certain of one thing: If there is another war I hope that this Parliament would have the wit, if necessary, to insert a provision of that kind into the legislation. Senator Chipp —The powers are already in the Constitution, in the event of a national emergency, for the Minister to take over broadcasting. Senator BUTTON —Yes. I do not want to comment in detail on Senator Chipp's speech. I just thank him for his constructive suggestions regarding the legislation. Senator Crichton-Browne also applauded the general concept of the Bill and took up a number of issues which perhaps more appropriately could be dealt with at the Committee stage. He was concerned about the deletion of the no work no pay provision. He was concerned about the complaints procedure. He introduced into the debate the expression 'appealing from Caesar unto Caesar' which has become the golden thread of speeches in the course of discussions in the Senate tonight . He is to be congratulated on introducing that expression into the debate. It portrays his literary lineage, if I can put it that way. I want to comment generally about the complaints procedure because it is a matter to which Senator Harradine has devoted a lot of time. As Senator Harradine reminded us in the course of his speech, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has existed for 50 years and there have been no complaints procedures at all in that period. The fact that a complaints procedure is being inserted now against the wishes of some people is, in my view, a considerable improvement . The real question is whether there might be a better complaints procedure than the procedure which has been suggested or whether there might be some variations of it. The complaints procedure which is in the Bill is, in a sense, modelled on the suggestions that were initially made in the Dix Committee of Inquiry report on some reference to the law Reform Comission's proposals for the reform of defamation law in Australia. In some ways, of course, it has regard to the procedure which pertains in relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation. In referring to the complaints procedure, I remind those honourable senators who have commented on it about the structure of this Bill. The complaints procedure is not an exclusive procedural mechanism for making complaints. The complaints procedure is designed for an aggrieved individual who has a complaint that his or her privacy was invaded or that the ABC has published material about him or her which is untrue. The legislation is designed to provide a mechanism of speedy rectification of that sort of complaint. For example, if I say something on an ABC program about Senator Peter Baume and he complains to the ABC that what I said was untrue-a situation which I would find unbelievable coming from Senator Peter Baume-he has his remedy very quickly because the complaints officer can order the ABC to retract or correct the untruth which has been uttered about Senator Peter Baume. Therefore, the legislation provides a mechanism of speedy rectification. Senator Chipp —Does Senator Baume's best friend have sufficient interest to complain? Senator BUTTON —I am coming to that point. With respect, the argument that Senator Chipp has advanced about interest in the complaints procedure is really far wider than Senator Peter Baume's best friend in the context of what he put. The burden of Senator Harradine's complaint-I use that expression advisedly-is that the complaints procedure should be widened greatly to include complaints about program standards. I remind the Senate of the general charter of the Corporation as it will be. I refer first of all to clause 6 (1) of the Bill which states: The functions of the Corporation are- (a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting and television services of a high standard . . . . . . . (b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs and television programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will- (i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs . . . Sub-clause (2) of the Bill states: In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting and television services within Australia- (a) the Corporation shall take account of- . . . . (ii) the standards from time to time approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of broadcasting and television services; Senator Harradine —That does not mean to say it will do that. Senator BUTTON —No but I will come to that point in a minute. I refer next to sub-paragraph (iii). It reads: (iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting and television service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs and television programs of wide appeal and specialised broadcasting programs and television programs; Clause 8 (1) states: It is the duty of the Board- . . . . (c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism . . . That is the charter of the Corporation; that is its function. That is what it is enjoined to do. Those are its duties. The complaints procedure is by no means exclusive of the capacity of citizens to complain to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation just as, in the past, when there has been no complaints procedure at all, any complaints of any kind have gone to the Commission. Senator Harradine gave an example of the way the complaints procedure jurisdiction should be widened to include program standards. He quoted the example of a vivid and graphic bloodshed scene in an overseas war shown on ABC television news six or nine months ago. I make the point that of course this scene was shown on all commercial television stations too. I am not disagreeing with the honourable senator about whether that is desirable material in the community context to be screened. That is a matter of debate in respect of which we all have subjective views. We all have different views about the degrees of violence which are portrayed on television of one kind or another. Of course all television stations, whether they be national broadcasting stations or commercial television stations can be described by some of us as being guilty of showing programs which we might regard as too violent. Senator Harradine took the example of a hypothetical mother of six who was offended by such a program. Firstly, I ask Senator Harradine whether the mother or any citizen could complain that the portrayal of such a program could be described as being biased or unfair. Of course it could not be described as being biased or unfair. Those are the criteria which the Opposition seeks to add to the complaints procedure. Senator Harradine —I am going further. Senator BUTTON —I know that the honourable senator is going further. The honourable senator refers to biased, unfair or offensive-- Senator Harradine —Otherwise offensive. Senator BUTTON —Or otherwise offensive. The honourable senator is absolutely right. The honourable senator says that there are legal definitions of the word 'offensive'. Of course in Australia there are 14 million definitions of the word 'offensive'. Each citizen has a subjective view about what is offensive to him or her. We cannot make an objective judgment about whether a particular program is offensive. Whether a program is offensive or not is a matter which is peculiarly subject to a subjective judgment. Senator Harradine —The reasonable man test. Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect, I am sure that it would be a better world if we could apply the reasonable man test to determine what is offensive. A survey in the United States of America recently showed that the greatest purchasers of obscene video tapes were-- Senator Chipp —Reasonable men. Senator BUTTON —Were reasonable men and adherents of the major protestant churches in the United States. By far the greatest group of purchasers of obscene videotapes were reasonable men who went to protestant churches every Sunday. Senator Sir John Carrick —How could that survey be accurate? Why would such people admit it? Senator BUTTON —Of course they would not. There is no doubt that that survey may not be accurate; that is precisely the point. Senator Harradine —You know the definition of 'reasonable man' and 'otherwise offensive'. What you are saying is nonsense. Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect to the honourable senator, he is talking old law, as they say-about 1900, I would think. The point I seek to make is that there is no objective test of what is offensive in relation to television programs. No other country would attempt to define it in this way, with the possible exception of one republic whose name I decline to mention. Senator Harradine also dealt with questions of law, as he put it, in dealing with who had a sufficient interest to make a complaint. Of course, if honourable senators look at the jurisdiction of the complaints tribunal described in the Bill they will see that the jurisdiction is confined, firstly, to complaints about untruth concerning a particular person and, secondly, to the invasion of privacy. In a sense that is very relevant to the question of who has standing to make a complaint. One has to look at the two provisions together. Senator Harradine said that sufficient interest is always defined. The legal interpretation of it is what he called hip pocket interest. With the greatest respect, that is not the legal interpretation of sufficient interest and has not been for a very long time. Since the law has developed in respect of class actions and matters of that kind, particularly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, that sort of definition of sufficient interest has not really held sway at all. In connection with the complaints procedure we would argue that one has to look at the structure of the Bill, the function of the Corporation and the functions and duties of the Board to realise that the complaints procedure in itself is not an exclusive arena for complaints. One can make complaints, if one wants to do so, if one is a vexatious complainant. If one wants to make complaints about program standards, as they have been called in the course of this debate, there is not much point in making them in retrospect to a complaints officer. Senator Sir John Carrick —Why not? Senator BUTTON —Let me answer the question asked by Senator Sir John Carrick because this will really illustrate the point. Let us take Senator Harradine's example. He sees, together with the mother to whom he referred, a violent scene on television to which he objects. He then makes a complaint about it and describes it as offensive. The community affairs officer might well agree with him and say: 'Yes, that program was offensive'. How has Senator Harradine advanced in one way by having made that complaint? In that situation Senator Harradine should make a complaint to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about its program standards, which do not specifically affect him but, he would say, affect community standards. He should make a complaint to the Corporation and say: 'I do not like violence on television, You are not carrying out your charter. I saw these bad examples of violence on television and you should not show that sort of thing again'. That complaint would go to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Senator Walters —It is Caesar unto Caesar. Senator BUTTON —Would you be quiet for a minute? That complaint would go to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as the maker of the program. That is the point. There are differences between the types of complaints. Senator Walters —It is Caesar unto Caesar. Senator BUTTON —It is of no use Senator Walters coming into this chamber and picking up the rhetoric of Senator Crichton-Browne at this stage of the evening. It has been said that a complaints officer is not independent of the ABC in the sense that it is an appeal from Caesar unto Caesar. I think the Australian Democrats have moved a very important amendment in relation to this matter, which the Government will accept-that is, to provide that the complaints officer is not appointed by the Board of the Corporation but is appointed by the General Manager on the recommendation of the Advisory Council. I think that is very important. When we talk about the independence of the complaints officer I think the Opposition really should have a look at its amendment. In the Opposition's amendment by whom is the complaints officer to be appointed? The Government. What an extraordinary provision for an Opposition, which is so concerned about the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, to bring up an amendment in which the complaints officer will be appointed by the government of the day. I cannot think of anything more outrageous in terms of a party which purports to be concerned about the independence of the ABC. Senator Harradine —Who appoints the Advisory Council? The ABC. Senator BUTTON —So what. I want now to deal with other matters which have been raised in the course of debate by Senate Baume and others. Firstly, on behalf of the Government I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Dix Committee of Review of the ABC. As far as the present Government is concerned, the Dix Committee did not necessarily provide the best solutions in all circumstances to the problems of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but it provided a very good analysis of those problems. It is to be much commended for its report which was brought down under the chairmanship of Mr Alex Dix. Secondly, I would like to congratulate the Minister of the time, Mr Tony Staley, who appointed the Dix Committee. It is a great tragedy for this Parliament and for the Liberal Party that people in the Opposition today do not always share the Liberal-minded, independent sort of view of the role of the ABC which Mr Tony Staley had as Minister. It is a great tragedy that many of the appointments that he suggested for the Board of the ABC were not accepted by the Government of the time. I pay tribute both to the Dix Committee and to Mr Staley. The Opposition has moved an amendment in relation to this matter which suggests , firstly, that this Bill should be delayed until legal action against the ABC by Premier Wran is completed. Secondly, the amendment seeks this assurance: That there will be no Government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy. The amendment contains a number of other matters but I just want to deal with those two that I have mentioned. This is the most shabby little amendment that any Opposition could ever bring into this place. The Opposition is using the Australian Broadcasting Commission as I am afraid the worst elements in the Liberal Party have always done, as a political football. It is really saying that the ABC's action with Premier Wran should be disposed of before this Bill is passed by the Senate. I could not see how anybody in this country who has any concern for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and who understands its current plight-I believe that there are plenty of honourable senators on the Opposition side who do-could vote for that amendment. There is nothing more urgent for the ABC than getting this legislation passed. Senator Walters —Why are you talking for so long if the Bill is so urgent? Senator BUTTON —I am surprised that Opposition senators, such as Senator Walters who interjects, do not feel the same concern about it. Last year they described this legislation as urgent legislation. Mr Neil Brown, the then Minister for Communications, campaigned throughout the election on the basis, as he put it, that the then Opposition had delayed the urgent ABC legislation in the Senate. The present Opposition now comes up, in the context of May 1983, with this sordid little amendment which attempts to use the ABC as a political football. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that this amendment could be countenanced as some sort of cheap political ploy. What does this amendment mean, for example, to Senator Durack? Senator Durack has a libel action against the ABC. Should we amend the Opposition's motion to include a provision that the legislation should not be passed until Senator Durack's libel action against the ABC is disposed of? Does Senator Durack approve of that course of action? Does he think that it would be a good idea? I do not think so. That is precisely what he, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and his party have moved in this place by way of this cheap little amendment to the legislation. I find that quite extraordinary. Senator Peter Baume made a number of other quite constructive comments about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I know that in many respects there is a shared point of view about the importance of this legislation. I say exactly the same about Senator Sir John Carrick's speech with the exception, of course, of some of the observations which he made about the complaints procedure. I remind the Senate again that last year the previous Government introduced this legislation, containing a complaints procedure which the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Howard, described as outrageous. He said it would not be tolerated by any national broadcasting corporation throughout the world. He said: 'If I worked in the ABC and the Parliament passed this legislation containing complaints procedure providing for penalties against journalists and inquisitorial methods for finding out how programs were made, I would down tools and walk out'. Senator Walters —Who was that? Senator BUTTON —That was Mr Howard, the Chairman of the BBC, who was visiting Australia last year. That is what he said about the previous Government's complaints procedure. Of course, the Opposition introduced this amendment which purports to be modelled on the BBC's complaints procedure. It is not a BBC complaints procedure. It is a broadcasting complaints procedure which applies to all of the commercial networks in Great Britain, as well as the BBC. It is not a BBC complaints procedure. The Opposition's amendment argues that the complaints tribunal should be appointed by the government of the day. That seems to us to be an extraordinary interference with the process of a great national broadcasting organisation. The Government is very concerned that this legislation should pass in the best possible form and looks forward to the reinvigoration of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation under a new board and a great future for it consistent with the great past which it has had-a past whose standards have in a sense deteriorated a great deal. I say that in a bipartisan way. It needs a great new stride forward to reinvigorate this important body. The Government commends the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Missen, A. J. Jones, G. N. Archer, B. R. Sibraa, K. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 10-by leave-taken together and agreed to. Clause 11 (Advisory Councils and committees). Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.1) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 7, clause 11, lines 12 to 15, leave out sub-clause (3), substitute the following sub-clause: '(3) The functions of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council are- (a) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Board, to furnish advice to the Board on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs of the Corporation; and (b) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Managing Director, to make recommendations to the Managing Director in accordance with sub-section 82 (3).' (2) Page 7, clause 11, lines 16 to 21, leave out sub-clause (4), substitute the following sub-clause: '(4) The function of an Advisory Council established under sub-section (2) are- (a) in the case of an Advisory Council established in relation to a State, Territory or region-either on its own initiative or at the request of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council, to furnish advice to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council on matters relating to broadcasting programs and television programs of the Corporation in that State, Territory or region, as the case may be; and (b) in the case of an Advisory Council established in relation to a State or Territory-either on its own initiative or at the request of the Managing Director, to make recommendations to the Managing Director with respect to the appointment of Community Affairs Officers in relation to that State or Territory .'. These amendments would allow the advisory councils to make recommendations to the Managing Director on the appointment of the community affairs officers. I would agree very quickly with the interjections of Senator Walters, Senator Baume and Senator Harradine that if one goes back to see who appointed the advisory councils, one has to admit that they are appointed by the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I concede that this is not the most desirable of situations. If the Board appoints the advisory councils and if the advisory councils make the recommendation of the appointment of the community affairs officers, a direct link can be detected between the Board and the community affairs officers. This is not desirable but it does not altogether deserve the criticism of Caesar appealing unto Caesar. However, that sort of interjection can well be levelled in spirit. I remind the Opposition what the way it would have had it would have been worse. The Opposition wanted a compaints commissioner not appointed by the Board but appointed by the Government. Senator Peter Baume —We still do. Senator CHIPP —And the Opposition still does because it wants to retain this precious principle-- Senator Peter Baume —It is an honest difference of views. Senator CHIPP —I am not saying that it is not. I am saying that it is the principle that the Executive should have powers over these matters. The Australian Democrats are old fashioned enough to believe that Parliament should have powers over the Executive. Would the Opposition allow an Executive or a Cabinet to appoint without restriction the members of the Board and the complaints commissioner? I believe you have a neat and naked situation of Caesar appealing unto Caesar. The Democrats wanted the appointment of the community affairs officers to be made by the Parliament. It was pointed out to us that at this stage at least that would be unwieldy. The next move we made was to try to have the community affairs officers and the advisory councils appointed by an all-party committee of the Parliament, just as the Board is being appointed from the names submitted by an all-party committee of the Parliament. At least we thought that that would have taken away the direct link between the advisory councils and the Board. Clause 11 (6) of the Bill specifies that: In making appointments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council, the Board shall have regard to the desirability of including in the membership of that Advisory Council a broad representation of the Australian community. That is fair enough. I would have thought that the Government would have enshrined that principle at least by having an all-party committee recommmending the membership of that Advisory Council. But at this stage the Government has declined to accept that proposition although it did accept the proposition relating to the appointment of the Board. So at this stage we rely on the fact that at least the members of the Board who appoint the Advisory Council and the community affairs officers will come from the names nominated by the all-party committee. At least that is some protection-- Senator Walters —But in the case of the BBC didn't the Government appoint the community affairs officers? Senator CHIPP —I think Senator Walters' interjection is worth while and I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications (Senator Button) to answer it in detail. My understanding is that the two situations, that of the British Broadcasting Corporation and our Corporation, are not comparable, as was stated by the former Chairman of the BBC when he visited Australia. Senator Walters —I think he was commenting on the very early one. Senator CHIPP —I would be interested to hear the Minister reply to Senator Walters' interjection. Whilst the Democrats and I agree that this is not the perfect situation, we believe it is better than the proposition put by the Liberals, that the Government should appoint the complaints commissioner and that that be the end of it. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.8) —The Government will accept the two amendments moved by Senator Chipp. It does so largely for the reasons outlined by Senator Chipp in the sense that we believe the amendments inprove the legislation. We also believe that they do not make the legislation perfect. In terms of obtaining a greater independence for the complaints officer from the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it may well be that that matter could receive further consideration in subsequent legislation. However, we do think that the amendments are a vast improvement. The role of the Board in connection with the Advisory Council is to appoint, in a sense, a community interest group. That community interest group would make a recommendation to the General Manager regarding the appointment of the community affairs officer. I want to say by way of dealing with Senator Walters' interjection that in relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation there have been two models of complaints procedures. The first was set up by the BBC in October 1971 to consider complaints from the public of what was called unfair treatment in radio and television programs. That procedure operated until 1981. That first body was set up by the British Broadcasting Corporation itself. In 1981 that body was abolished and the Government, by legislation, set up a statutory broadcasting complaints commission. Of course, it does not apply only to the BBC. It applies to the independent commercial networks and to independent commercial radio-to the whole spectrum of broadcasting activities in the United Kingdom. Senator Walters —It still applies to the BBC. Senator BUTTON —It is a vastly different situation from what is being contemplated here. Had I heard a lot of enthusiasm from Senator Walters in the past about setting up a complaints procedure with regard to commercial broadcasters, I would have been delighted. But of course I did not. Senator Walters —They lose their licence. Senator BUTTON —Come on! They do not lose their licences; don't be silly! The important point is that, in dealing with this legislation which relates to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, we set up the best procedure available. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.11) —The Opposition is interested to hear that the Government accepts these two amendments. The Opposition likewise would have wanted to support what Senator Chipp is doing. There is a difference between seeking advice from the Parliament and going down the American road of ' advise and consent'. There is a big difference. Part of the difference between us in discussions was that Senator Chipp was looking for 'advise and consent'; in other words, the Parliament having a power of veto. Unless I misunderstand the import of Senator Chipp's amendments-- Senator Chipp —Is that not the Westminster system? Senator PETER BAUME —The honourable senator might care to tell the Committee. I suspect that what he is doing here is establishing a mechanism by which advice can come from the bodies mentioned in his two amendments in relation to certain appointments. Senator Button —It says 'on recommendation'. That is a different thing. Senator PETER BAUME —It says 'to make recommendations'. Paragraph (b) has been added to clause 11. That reads: either on its own initiative or at the request of the Managing Director, to make recommendations to the Managing Director in accordance with sub-section 82 (3). That does not give a power to determine exclusively from whom appointments may be made. It gives a power to make some recommendations. I take it that they are not the only recommendations that can be made. I think it is quite proper that that power should be there. Senator Chipp —Look at my amendment No. 4. That answers your question, although I was not allowed to move it. Senator PETER BAUME —I am making the point in relation to the first two. I make it clear that the proposition that an advisory function should be there is not a proposition with which the Opposition would disagree. I make that quite clear and I note that the Government has accepted the two amendments. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —I must answer the comments made by Senator Button a few minutes ago when he said that the situation with regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation is totally different because it covers both commercial stations and the BBC whereas this situation covers only the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The situation here is that the commercial stations have to defend their licences each year which the ABC does not have to do. As a consequence, there is that difference. Senator Button —Thank you very much, Senator! Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator chose to ignore the situation. I felt that it needed clarifying. Mr Howard of the BBC was very critical of the original Bill brought forward by the previous Government but not of the subsequent Bill which was altered considerably. Because Senator Chipp showed some interest in Senator Button's statement, I ask Senator Button whether the British Government appoints the complaints commissioner for the BBC who, we are all well aware, encompasses the commercial stations. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.14) —I thought I had already dealt with that point. I have made the point that there is no British Broadcasting Corporation complaints commission. It was abolished in 1981. If I have to say it half a dozen more times, I will. But there is no BBC complaints commissioner. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 (Membership of Board). Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader Australian Democrats)(10.15) —I make the very brief point that the Australian Democrats would have preferred to have had written into the legislation the specification that a staff member should be appointed a part time director. We would also have preferred that the all-party committee which recommends part time members of the Board be enshrined in the legislation. I just make in passing that point which I made in my second reading speech and which Senator Button answered in his second reading speech. Clause agreed to. Clauses 13 to 26-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.16) —This is not an area in which we intend to move amendments, but I seek a little clarification from Senator Button on some matters relating to clause 25 which deals with the general powers of the Corporation. I refer the honourable senator to sub-clause (3) which says: Subject to sub-section (5), the Corporation does not have power to accept any payment or other consideration for the broadcasting or televising of any announcement, program or other matter. Will the honourable senator clarify to the Committee the capacities of the new Corporation with regard to co-productions and what it might accept by way of remuneration in this area? I refer him to sub-clause (4) where it is stated that the Corporation does not have power to do certain things 'where it is likely that the independence or integrity of the Corporation would be affected'. What effect would this have on advertising at, say, a sporting fixture which the Australian Broadcasting Commission might wish to televise? How much billboard advertising would be permissible? To what extent would the question of peripheral advertising relate to this clause? A number of people in the community are concerned about the extent to which there is involuntary exposure of advertising matter. Senator Elstob is smiling at me. He anticipates what I might be about to say. A lot of it is to do with the promotion of cigarette smoking. Senator Chipp —And alcohol. Senator PETER BAUME —And alcohol. This seems to be the clause of the Bill in which these matters are raised. I would appreciate Senator Button giving us some clarification on some of these matters. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.18) —Clause 25 (3) of the Bill does not, in the Government's view, have any effect on the capacity of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to enter into co-production activities. The clause is directed to the question of whether the Corporation, in respect of material shown on its television screen, for example, accepts a payment in respect of the showing or broadcasting of that material. The answer to that question is no, sub-clause (3) does not have any effect on the Corporation's capacity to jointly produce programs as distinct from accepting money for programs shown on its screen. That is the point of the clause. Senator Peter Baume —Does it limit the way by which it might be paid for doing a co-production? Senator BUTTON —No. With regard to the second part of the question, I follow Senator Peter Baume's point. I would not think that public concern about, as it were, the vicarious showing of advertisements on television screens is likely in any way to effect the independence or integrity of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The examples which Senator Peter Baume gave are in a sense inadvertent showings and not showings for gain. This whole clause is directed to establishing that the Corporation shall not do these things for gain. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.20) —I thank Senator Button. Some of us are concerned, nevertheless, by a series of promotional practices which have arisen whereby those who sponsor certain sporting events can count upon the fact that they will get, inadvertently, television exposure for their products. This seems to be the proper point at which to mention the matter. The British Broadcasting Corporation has a stricter set of rules in relation to what it will allow by way of peripheral advertising of certain products. I understand that the BBC has a rule that, if certain kinds of advertising occur at a sporting event, that event simply is not televised. I put it to Senator Button that it would be helpful to know the ways in which we differ from the BBC in the practices and standards we adopt in relation to this kind of peripheral advertising and the capacity of promoters to force, as it were, their products upon the people by way of what Senator Button called, I think, inadvertent exposure. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.22) —I wish to make an observation in respect of that matter. I put the proposition earlier that, because of the enormous amount of sponsors' funds involved, it was necessary for commercial reasons that there be exclusive rights for commercial television stations to televise certain sporting activities. I further put the proposition that in those areas where the commercial television stations do not have facilities, such as the north west of Western Australia where one gets on the Australian Broadcasting Commission the Children's Hour three times a day whether one likes it or not, if Channel 9, Channel 0 or Channel 10-- Senator Chipp —What's wrong with the Children's Hour? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —There is nothing wrong with the Children's Hour if one is 21 or under. There are those occasions-- Senator Peter Baume —Or unless you are a senator. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I must say that the level of debate is often much higher. There are those occasions when, say, Channel 9 has bought the rights to televise a major cricket match. The sponsors of that match are shown on the score board. The sponsors' products are clearly identified around the arena. If we were to eliminate the prospect of the ABC having any such sponsorship exposed on its screens in very large doses, people in those isolated areas would just not have access to those sporting occasions. I think we must be very careful, in balance, to ensure that they are not denied that opportunity simply because of this provision. Clauses agreed to. Clause 27 (News services). Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.23) —I move: Page 16, clause 27, before sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: '(1A) The Corporation shall develop and maintain an independent service for the broadcasting and televising of news and information by the Corporation pursuant to this section.'. Sub-clause (1) of clause 27 is the sub-clause of the Bill that gives the Australian Broadcasting Corporation the rights and responsibilities of collecting news. Probably one of the most important and vital functions of the ABC is an independent news service. The Australian Democrats want inserted as a preamble the following words: The Corporation shall develop and maintain an independent service for the broadcasting and televising of news and information by the Corporation pursuant to this section. We have proposed this amendment-I am grateful that the Government is prepared to accept it-because of the wording of existing clause 27, sub-sections (1), (2) and (3). Sub-clause (2) states, in part: The Managing Director shall ensure that the officers and temporary employees of the Corporation include an adequate number of persons . . . for the purpose of collecting the news and information . . . I repeat the words 'an adequate number of persons'. The Bill does not specify what is adequate; of course, it cannot. Sub-clause (3) states: Without affecting the obligations of the Managing Director under sub-section (2 ), the Corporation may also procure news and information relating to current events from such news agencies and other sources, whether . . . as the Board thinks fit. That means, in lay language, that the new Board will have the power to get news from the Australian Associated Press, the American Associated Press, Reuters and anywhere it pleases. We have no objection to that. Good luck to the Corporation if it gets the news from the widest possible sources, but it is remotely possible that the management could well say that an adequate number of persons is 10-I am being ridiculous now-and that the ABC will get all its news from AAP, Reuters or wherever. If our amendment-our preamble-is carried, it will make the right and the responsibility of the Corporation absolutely beyond question. It will ensure that: The Corporation shall . . . maintain an independent service for the broadcasting and televising of news and information . . . We believe that it would be an improvement to the Bill. We understand from discussions with staff members of the ABC that there is some concern in the ABC that this could happen somewhere along the track. We commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.25) —The Government accepts the amendment. We are not sure that it will make anything more than a marginal improvement but we appreciate the point that Senator Chipp has advanced. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.26) —It may well be that this is a cosmetic amendment. Senator Chipp referred to some of the words in sub-clauses ( 2) and (3) of clause 27. I would have thought that the clause as drafted probably provided the kinds of safeguards that the honourable senator was seeking. The words 'an adequate number' in sub-clause (2) and the word 'also' at line 35 in sub-clause (3) ensure that the Corporation is required to have its own news service. I note that the Government has accepted the amendment which has been moved and I imagine that it will therefore have support from all around the chamber. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.27) —I wish to speak briefly to this amendment. It is rather close to my own heart, as I worked as a journalist and foreign correspondent for the Australian Broadcasting Commission news for a considerable time. I only make the point to Senator Peter Baume and possibly to Senator Button that the Bill prior to our amendment describes that situation of the ABC news in the years just after World War II when in fact it was run by a shoestring staff who pasted together bits of newspaper and took stuff from the wire service. The big bite which the honourable senators, as it was so long ago, may not now recall, was to make sure that the ABC news was an independent news service. As a result of that it has developed over the last three decades a representation of overseas officers which gives this country an independent viewpoint on world events, especially in South East Asia and Asia generally, which is unparalleled and which has attracted praise from all over the world. The Australian Democrats felt that it was very important to make this amendment, which is not cosmetic. I think the proposition that we should have sufficient staff merely to collect the news and information reveals a lack of appreciation of the journalistic process and expertise and the fight that has gone on over these decades to provide and maintain an independent news service in the ABC which has been of enormous value to this country. I note that the Government has accepted the amendment, and the Opposition apparently does not oppose it. But I think it is worth reiterating, in view of the comments of Senator Button and Senator Peter Baume, that this is a much more basic matter than they appear to understand and that it has been a matter of representations of some seriousness from both the staff of the ABC news and the Australian Journalists Association. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 28 to 45-by leave-taken together. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.29) —Clause 31 actually concerns advertisements. Perhaps this is the point at which I should have raised the problem to which I drew attention earlier. I have before me a note the subject of which I did not raise and which I wish now to raise with Senator Button. It concerns part of the problem with perimeter advertising. I will not go over the problem again; we discussed it a few moments ago. Am I correct in understanding that a perimeter advertisement clearly is an advertisement but is not regarded as an advertisement in terms of this clause and of the requirements on the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Apparently it is not regarded as an advertisement because the ABC is not paid for it. I would like to ask the honourable senator to clarify for me whether that is the case. Senator Chipp —When is an advertisement not an advertisement? Senator PETER BAUME —And why is it not an advertisement? Common sense tells us that it is an advertisement. A cricket club in South Australia decided to have nothing to do with tobacco promotion. That cricket club was ostracised; it was treated rather harshly by its own cricket association. A number of honourable senators are members of the supporters' club of that district cricket club. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Senator PETER BAUME —That cricket club has had to fight for its existence and has had to fight in public because it elected not to accept tobacco sponsorship. It is quite clear that the tobacco companies are moving towards taking over sport in Australia. That is another question. Why are perimeter advertisements not picked up within the purview of this clause which, on the surface, looks quite clear? If they are not picked up, I ask the Government to take under study now they might be picked up because I think it really baffles logic that they are not included. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.32) —I strongly support what Senator Baume said. He does not want an answer tonight. I do not think there is an answer. I vigorously support what Senator Baume said about undesirable advertisements being flashed on to the television screen inadvertently or accidentally on purpose when filming a cricket match, a hockey match or whatever. I also take up Senator Crichton-Browne's point that a great number of sporting events are sponsored by manufacturers of undesirable products . What will the Australian Broadcasting Commission do if it televises an event featuring the visiting English cricket team in some rural part of Western Australia and there happens to be a cigarette advertisement nearby? Will it black it out? All I think Senator Baume and I, and indeed Senator Crichton- Browne, want tonight is for the Minister to put the matter under study over, say , 12 months and, as Senator Baume suggested, to consider the way in which the British Broadcasting Corporation handles this problem so that we can look at this matter when next revising the Act. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.33) —I have no hostility to the suggestion made by Senator Baume and Senator Chipp. In a sense the technical answer is that the expressions 'broadcast' and 'televise' are not defined in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill. They are defined in the Broadcasting and Television Act, as I recall it. What it means is to disseminate advertisements through the mechanism available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, whether it be a television screen or a radio receiver. I am quite happy to investigate the matter that Senator Baume raised. We share his view in general terms. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.34) —I thank the honourable senator. I shall pick up something which Senator Chipp said. I am not suggesting in any way that the companies which make these products are not acting properly or that they should not sell their products. This question is confined to a very narrow compass; that is, the way in which they should be advertised. I wish to put that matter on the public record. It may have sounded in my earlier remarks as though I was attacking the companies concerned. Clauses agreed to. Proposed new Division 2A. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.35) —I move: (1) Page 28, after clause 45, insert the following Division: 'Division 2A-Failure to work as directed No work as directed-no pay. 45A. (1) Where an officer or temporary employee refuses or fails to comply with a direction given by a person having authority to give the direction, being a lawful direction with respect to work that he is performing or is to perform, the Managing Director may declare that the officer or employee is not to be paid salary. (2) A declaration under sub-section (1) in relation to the refusal or failure of an officer or temporary employee to comply with a direction- (a) shall specify the time (which may be a time before the declaration is made but not earlier than the time when the officer or employee refused or failed, or first refused or first failed, to comply with the direction) from which the declaration is to have effect, or is to be deemed to have had effect; and (b) has effect and shall be deemed to have had effect, according to its tenor, from the time so specified until it is revoked in accordance with this section. (3) An officer or temporary employee is not entitled to be paid salary in respect of any period in respect of which a declaration under sub-section (1) has effect, or is to be deemed to have had effect, in relation to him. (4) The Managing Director- (a) may, at any time, vary or revoke a declaration in force under sub-section ( 1) either wholly or in relation to a specified officer or temporary employee; and (b) shall, upon becoming satisfied that an officer or temporary employee in respect of whom a declaration under sub-section (1) is in force has been complying, or will comply, from a particular time, with all relevant directions with respect to the work that he is performing, or is to perform, given by persons having authority to give those directions, revoke, as from that time, that declaration, or that declaration in its application to that officer or employee, as the case requires. (5) A declaration made under sub-section (1) in respect of a refusal or failure of an officer or temporary employee to comply with a particular direction, or with particular directions, has effect in accordance with sub-section (2) notwithstanding that, at any time while it is in force, the officer or employee- (a) attends for duty and performs work other than work to which that direction, or any of those directions, as the case requires, relates; or (b) attends for duty and, in the performance of his work, complies with that direction, or with some or all of those directions, as the case requires, in part only. (6) A declaration under sub-section (1), and a variation or revocation of such a declaration- (a) shall be made in writing; and (b) shall be signed- (i) by the Managing Director; or (ii) by a person to whom the Managing Director has delegated his powers under this section. (7) Subject to sub-sections (8) and (9), the powers conferred on the Managing Director by this section are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other powers conferred by or under this Act on the Corporation, on the Board, on the Managing Director or on any other person in relation to an officer or temporary employee. (8) While a declaration under sub-section (1) is in force in respect of the refusal or failure of an officer or temporary employee to comply with a direction, or with 2 or more directions, proceedings shall not be taken against the officer or employee under section 64 in respect of any refusal or failure of the officer or employee in respect of which that declaration was made. (9) Where proceedings are taken against an officer or temporary employee under section 64 in respect of any refusal or failure of the officer or employee to comply with a direction, or with directions of the kind referred to in sub- section (1), a declaration shall not be made under sub-section (1) in respect of any refusal or failure of the officer or employee in respect of which those proceedings have been taken unless those proceedings have been finally determined or otherwise terminated. (10) Where a declaration is made under sub-section (1) in respect of an officer or temporary employee, or such a declaration is varied or revoked, the Managing Director shall cause such notice as he deems appropriate to be given of the making of the declaration or of the variation or revocation of the declaration, as the case may be. (11) The period during which a declaration under sub-section (1) has effect in respect of an officer or employee forms part of his period of service or employment under this Act for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 but does not, unless the Managing Director otherwise determines, form part of his period of service or employment under this Act for any purpose of this Act or of any other Act. (12) In this section, unless the contrary intention appears- 'direction' includes an order and an instruction; 'salary' includes wages or other remuneration and any allowances that are declared by the rules to be included in salary for the purposes of this definition. Declarations to prevail over awards 45B. (1) Section 45A has full force and effect, and declarations in force under sub-section 45A (1) have full force and effect according to their tenor, notwithstanding any inconsistency- (a) with any other provision of this Act; (b) with any other law of the Commonwealth enacted before the commencing day; or (c) with any award made before, on or after the commencing day. (2) Section 45A shall be deemed to be a prescribed provision of the Australian Broadcasting Coroporation Act 1982 for the purposes of- (a) sub-section 22 (2) of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920; and (b) sub-section 41A (1) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. (3) Except as provided in sub-section (1), nothing in a declaration in force under sub-section 45A (1) shall be taken as affecting- (a) the application of any law, or of any award, to or in relation to an officer or temporary employee; or (b) the terms and conditions of employment of an officer or temporary employee. '. These clauses have the effect of returning to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill the no work as directed, no pay provision. During the second reading debate I confined myself to the principles behind the Bill. I did not provide arguments for the amendments which we would move at the Committee stage. I understand that we may not get unanimous support for our amendments. Be that as it may; we are moving them because we think there is merit in them. These amendments tend to be misunderstood. We believe that the first principle of good industrial relations is, of course, for management to consult its work force about any matters which affect it. We think this should be done in detail. We think the ideas of everyone involved in a work place should be sought and implemented where practicable. If conflicts arise we believe consultation should be in operation. We know that by adopting a consultative approach most industrial relations problems can either be prevented or, if they occur, speedily brought to a resolution. We are not in any way trying to suggest that one goes down the track of confrontation. We do not believe in confrontation. It does not suit anyone and does not solve anything. Senator Cook —When you were in government you practised it all the time. Senator PETER BAUME —We have an interjection from someone who has a fixed view. I am trying to put the context in which we are moving for these provisions. In the non-government sector-in private businesses-if people will not do the work which they are properly asked to do, they do not get paid. Senator Button —That is not true. Senator PETER BAUME —In many cases it is true. We think that sensitive and enlightened management will be able to produce harmonious industrial relations. But there are occasions in this country when bans or limitations are imposed. We think there are occasions when the contract of service between an employing agency and its officers is breached. In those circumstances-I do not think there is any argument on this point-some kind of sanctions are necessary to assist management. That principle has an application in both the private and public sectors. One such sanction is the no work as directed, no pay provision. We do not think it should be resorted to lightly-it is in much legislation-but we believe it should exist in principle. We think that in principle there is nothing wrong with it. Employees' contracts of service may be negotiated individually or may be determined collectively by a tribunal. But if an employee refuses to work in accordance with his or her contract of service there is no reason in principle why they, he or she, should be paid while refusing to do that work. A contract of service almost invariably requires that a person work as required by a superior. Consequently, a refusal to work in accordance with this requirement, we think, justifies sanctions and loss of pay or even dismissal. We think that, like all sanctions, it is a matter of last resort. It is something that has not been used by the ABC but it has been available. I think that the existence of sanctions is appropriate in industrial legislation. If management did not consult and inform its employees adequately, and then went ahead and capriciously used a sanction of the kind that we think should be in this Bill, it would be counterproductive, would magnify a dispute and would cause a series of ill effects. We do not believe that that is what the provision should be there for. We had an industrial dispute in the Department of Social Security a year or so ago. That in fact was resolved partly because the no work as directed, no pay provisions existed. The Government has deleted the relevant clauses from the previous Government's Bill. We are not seeking to reinstate them so that they will be used in a ready, frequent or capricious fashion, but we believe that as a matter of principle they should be restored. The very existence of the provision may act as a sanction and may obviate the need to use it. If consultation and reason fail there could be a case-in fact, there may be no option at that stage-for management to use the provision as a means of helping to resolve a dispute. We do not see this as aggravating disputes. We believe the provision is not unreasonable and should be returned to the Bill. I have not tried to address the Committee in forceful terms of purple prose. I have put a genuine Opposition view that this is not an unreasonable provision. We think it is wrong that it has been removed. We are seeking the Government's agreement to our amendments to restore this provision to the legislation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.42) —The Government does not agree with this amendment. Senator Peter Baume said that there is a need for sanctions in the legislation. I invite his attention to clause 64, which provides a very comprehensive set of sanctions against employees in a variety of circumstances. This amendment proposes a vexatious doubling-up of sanctions against employees. We do not agree to its insertion for those reasons. I also draw Senator Baume's attention to what the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission said about industrial relations in the Commission. The basic point the Committee made was that industrial relations should not be dealt with in a confrontationist way. I refer the honourable senator to page 179 of volume 5. Under the heading 'The Need for a Rationalisation of Disciplinary Provisions' the Committee refers to the criticisms of the International Labour Organisation in relation to the no work, no pay provisons and goes on to say: Both the CE (EP) Act and the no work as directed-no pay provisions attract the criticism that they transfer responsibility for industrial disputation from unions to the individual union member, making the individual the ham in the sandwich. Again, this can lead to the escalation of minor disputes into major ones. That is a view which the Government accepts. We concede that our view about dealing with industrial relations matters is different from that of the now Opposition. We are not agreeable to the proposed clauses being inserted for the reasons I have indicated. First of all, the proposal represents a doubling-up of disciplinary procedures. Secondly, we oppose it on the basis of the comment I have referred to in the Dix Committee report. Thirdly, in our view Senator Peter Baume is wrong when he says that this is a sort of provision which applies in private enterprise. It is not. Nobody can suspend an employee in common law; he can do it only under this sort of legislation. He can sack an employee if he wants to, but that is a different thing. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.45) —I would have thought that some fairly simple basic principles would be understood between employer and employee. I do not wish to extend this debate to the whole question of industrial relations, but it seems to me that the amendment that has been put forward by Senator Peter Baume is very reasonable, very rational, very responsible and very understandable. All he is suggesting is that at the beginning of an employment contract the employer knows what he can expect in terms of labour and duties from the employee. An employee equally understands what is expected of him and what he may expect from the employer. Senator Button spoke of confrontation. Confrontation seems to be a one-way street. Confrontation seems to be brought about primarily because the employee abrogates his responsibilities as he understood them at the time he was employed, when he satisfied his employer that he was prepared to fulfil them. Senator Button said that responsibility was being moved from unions to individuals. I have always taken the view that unions are a collection of individuals and a reflection of collective individual views. We so often hear about union monoliths, but it seems to me that in many cases it is only a couple of hard heads who are running the operation. There used to be some fundamental rights and responsibilities. I understand that they run both ways. It seems to me that in denying our proposal Senator Button is saying that employees should continue to accept their wages and salaries while abrogating or suspending the individual responsibilities which they undertook at the time of their employment. There seems to be nothing provocative or unreasonable about our proposal. It almost looks as if the Government's stand is a sop to the unions to allow individual members of unions or individual emplyees from time to time at their capricious wish to walk away from moral, social and legal contracts. Question put: That the new Division proposed to be inserted (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Harradine, B. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Missen, A. J. Colston, M. A. Archer, B. R. Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 46 to 77-by leave-taken together. The CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the clauses stand as printed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.54) —Mr Chairman, I thought we were to adjourn at 10.30 p.m. The CHAIRMAN —The adjournment at 10.30 p.m. was negatived by the Committee. Senator HARRADINE —I would have been obliged to be informed beforehand if that was the intention because there were a number of matters I wanted to raise during the Committee stage. The CHAIRMAN —That is not within the control of the Chairman. It is an arrangement you must make with the parties. Senator Georges —Surely he had some rights. The CHAIRMAN —The rights are not within control of the Chair. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.56) —I will just help the Committee for a couple of minutes while the discussions go on. I would like to ask a question about clause 49. I note that sub-clause (1) the world, 'shall' appears. I understand that is a change from the previous legislation, in which the word ' may' appears. I understand that in sub-clause (2) the word, 'may' remains. Sub- clause (3) (a) contains the word, 'shall' as does sub-clause (3) (b). I am interested in the Minister advising why has the word 'shall' been substituted in part of the clause and not in the other parts of the clause? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.57) —Frankly, I do not know. As I understand it, this was in the Bill that was introduced last year. I can say only that it is regarded as mandatory that the Managing Director, who is a new functionary by the way, shall publish the rules relating to administrative procedures and that he may from time to time publish a notice varying them. I think the words speak for themselves. I do not know the reason for the change. I undertake to obtain an explanation and will advise the honourable senator. Certainly, if there is any reason for which he objects to the change, we will take it on board for the future. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.58) —I ask the Minister about clause 56 . Can he identify which of the grounds for appeals are new to this legislation? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.58) —I return to clause 49 which Senator Baume asked me about. It would, of course, be extraordinary if in sub- clause (2) the Managing Director was required as a mandatory matter to vary something. This is an enabling provision which empowers him to vary. One cannot by legislation require him to vary. Insofar as clause 56 is concerned, the new matter against which an employee may appeal is contained in paragraph (b), which states: A refusal to make a redeployment declaration under section 51 in respect of the employee; Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.59) —I raise only a couple of matters on which I am not going to speak at any length. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has seen fit to comment on this piece of legislation and to draw attention to the provisions of clause 64. I would be grateful for Senator Button's response to the matters which have been raised by the Security of Bills Committee. The Committee's objections relate to clause 64 of this Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(10.59) —I am not aware of the matters raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. But certainly , if the honourable senator wants an answer on that matter, I can provide him with one as quickly as possible. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.0) —To save the time of the Committee, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the comments made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on one of the clauses of this Bill. I suggest, in the most friendly way, that the Government might care to have officers go through the reports of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee as they are issued. The Committee is chaired by one of the Government senators. For goodness sake, when the Government comes before the Committee of the Whole with a Bill it at least should be prepared to respond to the matters which have been raised by that Committee and which relate to its own legislation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a couple of paragraphs from the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills which relate to clause 64. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Clause 64-Disciplinary action for misconduct This clause provides procedures concerning the Managing Director's treatment of persons under investigation for misconduct, as defined in clause 64 (10). The Committee notes that the provisions of this clause are not as detailed as the equivalent provisions in the Public Service Act 1922-sections 61 and 62. In addition to providing clearer directions as to the nature of hearings into alleged misconduct, the equivalent sections in the Public Service Act provide for a wider range of disciplinary measures, including counselling, admonishment and a small fine. The Committee notes the marked similarity between the provisions of clause 64 and those of section 107 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959. It may be that all Commonwealth statutory authorities should be regulated by similar provisions, distinct from those affecting persons employed directly under the Public Service Act. However, the Committee draws a number of particular provisions to the attention of Senators. Under clause 64 (3), the Managing Director may suspend from duty an officer who is subject to an inquiry for alleged misconduct; and under clause 64 (4), officers under suspension shall not be paid their salary. However under clause 64 (5), the Managing Director 'may, in his discretion' pay, either in whole or in part, the salary of a suspended officer. The clause contains no criteria under which this discretionary power shall be exercised. Although clause 65 (1) of the Bill contains an appeal provision in relation to decisions by the Managing Director to reduce the salary of an officer guilty of misconduct, the Committee draws the attention of Senators to the lack of an appeal mechanism in respect of decisions affecting suspended officers. Any Senator who wishes to draw matters to the attention of the Committee under its Terms of Reference is invited to do so. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.1) —I add my support to the view that has been expressed that attention should be given to the matters that have been raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I feel that having regard to the time this would be an appropriate time to adjourn this debate on these clauses. Clauses agreed to. Proposed new Part VIIA. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.2) —I move: (2) Page 49, after clause 77, insert the following new Part: 'PART VIIA-COMPLAINTS ABOUT PROGRAMS Division 1-Preliminary Interpretation 77A. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- 'Commission' means the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission; 'Commissioner' means a member of the Commission; 'complaint', in relation to a program means a complaint as to any one or more of the following matters: (a) that the program was unjust or unfair; (b) that an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a person took place in the course of obtaining matter for inclusion in the program; (c) that the program constituted an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of a person; 'person affected', in relation to a complaint, means the person by whom, or on whose behalf, as the case may be, the complaint is made; 'program' means a broadcasting or television program of the Corporation broadcast or televised, as the case may be, after the commencement of this Part. Division 2-Establishment, Functions and Powers of Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission Establishment of Commission 77B. For the purposes of this Act there shall be an Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission. Functions of Commission 77C. The functions of the Commission are to consider and adjudicate upon complaints with respect to programs. Making of complaints 77D. (1) A complaint made to the Commission shall be in writing and shall identify the person affected. (2) Subject to sub-section (3), a complaint shall not be entertained by the Commission unless made by the person affected or by a person authorized by him to make the complaint. (3) Where the person affected is a deceased person or is a natural person who for any reason is both unable to make a complaint himself and unable to authorize another person to do so for him, a complaint may be made by the personal representative of the person affected, or by a member of his family, or by some other person or body closely connected with him. Entertainment of complaints 77E. (1) The Commission is not required to entertain a complaint if, in the opinion of the Commission- (a) the complaint is with respect to the broadcasting or televising of the relevant program on an occasion more than 5 years after the death of the person affected; (b) the subject matter of the complaint is the subject of proceedings in any court; (c) the subject matter of the complaint is a matter in respect of which the person affected has a remedy by way of proceedings in any court, and in the particular circumstances it is not appropriate for the Commission to consider the complaint; (d) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, or was not made in good faith; (e) the person affected does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint; (f) in the case of a complaint made under sub-section 77D (3) by a person other than the person affected or a person authorized by him the complainant's connection with the person affected is not sufficiently close; or (g) the complaint has not been made within a reasonable time. (2) Where the Commission does not, for any of the reasons specified in sub- section (1), entertain a complaint, it shall, as soon as practicable and in such manner as it thinks fit, inform the complainant and the Corporation of the Commission's decision and of the reasons for the decision. (3) Where the Commission does not entertain a matter that is the subject of several complaints, sub-section (2) does not require it to notify each of the complainants if the Commission is of the opinion that, having regard to the number of complainants, it would be unduly burdensome to do so. Consideration of complaints 77F. (1) Subject to section 77E before proceeding to consider a complaint, the Commission shall send a copy of the complaint to the Corporation. (2) A complaint may be considered by the Commission at a hearing or without a hearing, as the Commission thinks fit, and, at a hearing, the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit. (3) A hearing under this section shall be held in private, and each of the following persons shall be given the opportunity to attend and be heard: (a) the complainant; (b) the Managing Director or an officer of the Corporation authorized by him in writing for the purpose; (c) any other person who, in the opinion of the Commission, is responsible for the making or provision of the program concerned. (4) Where the Corporation receives from the Commission a copy of a complaint, the Managing Director shall, if so required by the Commission: (a) make suitable arrangements for enabling the complainant and any Commissioner or member of the staff referred to in sub-section 77K (1) to view or hear the relevant program, or any specified part of it, if and so far as the Corporation has in its possession a visual or sound record of it; (b) provide the Commission and the complainant with a transcript of so much of the relevant program, or of any specified part of it, as consisted of speech, if and so far as the Corporation is able to do so; (c) provide the Commission and the complainant with copies of any documents in the possession of the Corporation, being the originals or copies of any correspondence between the Corporation and the person affected or the complainant in connection with the complaint; and (d) furnish to the Commission and the complainant a written statement in answer to the complaint. (5) Where the Commission proposes to consider a complaint, the Corporation shall, if so required by the Commission, arrange for one or more of the Directors, officers or employees of the Corporation to attend and assist the Commission in its consideration of the complaint. Reports by Commission 77G. (1) Where the Commission has considered and adjudicated upon a complaint, the Commission shall furnish a report on the complaint to- (a) the complainant or, if there is more than one complainant, each of the complainants; and (b) the Corporation. (2) Where the Commission has considered and adjudicated upon a matter that is the subject of several complaints, sub-section (1) does not require it to notify each of the complainants if the Commission is of the opinion that, having regard to the number of complainants, it would be unduly burdensome to do so. (3) Where the Commission furnishes a report to the Corporation under sub- section (1), it may require the Corporation to publish, in a manner specified by the Commission, a summary of, and of its findings on, the subject matter of the complaint and may, if it thinks fit, require the summary to be in a form prepared or approved by the Commission. (4) The Corporation shall comply with any requirements made of it by the Commission under sub-section (3). Duty to publicize Commission and its functions 77H. The Corporation shall make (by means of broadcasting or television or otherwise) regular announcements publicizing the Commission and its functions of considering and adjudicating upon complaints. Delegation by Commission 77J. (1) The Commission may, by resolution, either generally or as otherwise provided by the resolution, delegate to a Commissioner or to a member of the staff referred to in sub-section 77K (1) all or any of its powers under this Part (other than this power of delegation and its powers to consider and adjudicate upon complaints and to furnish reports upon complaints). (2) A power so delegated, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Part, be deemed to have been exercised by the Commission. (3) A delegation of a power under this section- (a) may be revoked by resolution of the Commission (whether or not constituted by the persons constituting the Commission at the time the power was delegated); (b) does not prevent the exercise of the power by the Commission; and (c) continues in force notwithstanding a change in the membership of the Commission. (4) Section 34A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applies in relation to a delegation under this section as if the Commission were a person. (5) A certificate purporting to bear the signature, or a facsimile of the signature, of the Chairman and stating any matter with respect to a delegation of a power under this section is, upon mere production, prima facie evidence of that matter. Staff 77K. (1) The staff required for the purposes of this Part shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1922. (2) The Chairman has all the powers of, or exercisable by, a Permanent Head under the Public Service Act 1922 so far as those powers relate to the branch of the Public Service comprising the staff referred to in sub-section (1) as if that branch were a separate Department of the Public Service. (3) For the purposes of sub-sections 25 (5) and (6) of the Public Service Act 1922, the Chairman shall be deemed to be a Permanent Head. Division 3-Constitution and Meetings of Australian Broadcasting Corporation Complaints Commission Membership of Commission 77L. (1) The Commission shall consist of not less than 3 nor more than 5 Commissioners. (2) A Commissioner shall be appointed by the Governor-General on a part-time basis for such period, not exceeding 5 years, as it specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. (3) The Governor-General shall appoint one commissioner to be the Chairman of the Commission and another to be the Deputy Chairman of the Commission. (4) The performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the Commission is not affected by reason that there is no Chairman or Deputy Chairman or by reason of the number of Commissioners falling below 3 for not longer than 6 months. Remuneration and allowances 77M. (a) A Commissioner shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal but, if no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed by the regulations. (2) A Commissioner shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed by the regulations. (3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. Leave of absence 77N. (1) The Minister may grant leave to the Chairman to be absent from a meeting of the Commission upon such conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Minister thinks fit. (2) The Chairman may grant leave to any other Commissioner to be absent from a meeting of the Commission upon such conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Chairman thinks fit. (3) References in sub-sections (1) and (2) to the Chairman shall, if a Commissioner is acting as Chairman, be construed as references to the Commissioner so acting. Resignation of Commissioners 770. A Commissioner may resign his office by writing signed by him delivered to the Governor-General. Disclosure of interests 77P. (1) Where a Commissioner has or acquires any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that could conflict with the proper performance of his functions in relation to a complaint made to the Commission- (a) he shall disclose the interest to the parties; and (b) except with the consent of the parties, he shall not take part in any deliberation or decision of the Commission with respect to the complaint. (2) Where the Chairman becomes aware that a Commissioner has, in relation to a complaint, such an interest as is mentioned in sub-section (1)- (a) if the Chairman considers that the Commissioner should not take part, or continue to take part, in any deliberation or decision of the Commission with respect to the complaint-he shall give a direction accordingly; or (b) in any other case-he shall cause the interest to be disclosed to the parties. (3) In this section, 'party', in relation to a complaint, means the complainant or the Corporation. (4) References in this section to a Commissioner shall, if a person is acting as a Commissioner, be construed as including references to the person so acting. Termination of appointment of Commissioners 77Q. (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a Commissioner for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.'. I will discuss what we are trying to achieve. In my speech at the second reading stage of the debate I referred only very briefly to a complaints commission. Some of my colleagues have taken up some of the points. I will explain why we are persisting with these amendments which we believe are appropriate. I accept the comments which have been made by Senator Button that what we are copying is a commission which is used in the United Kingdom to apply to something wider than just the British Broadcasting Corporation. That is not a matter of great relevance. We are trying to bring in an appropriate means of dealing with complaints. Senator Chipp has indicated that he would rather go down a different route. If we had been able to agree on his advise and consent provisions we might have had some meeting of the minds. It is a fair criticism of our position that last year we proposed what in retrospect was an unsatisfactory complaints mechanism. That may be so. However, that is really irrelevant to the consideration of what we are putting up now. Our 1982 proposals were drawn up on our instructions by the Department of Communications on the basis that the powers and functions of the complaints commissioner, which we were seeking, should be like those contained in other legislation which protects the public from government action. This protection from government action is an approach which has been enshrined in quite a few pieces of legislation. On that basis and on our instructions last year the Department based the provisions. I think it was done in the Ombudsman Act, a provision which we brought forward last year. Of course, it was widely criticised. We looked at the criticism. We examined and accepted it. It is a controversial area. When we in the Opposition were in government we learned as we went. At the end of the last year we issued new instructions establishing a complaints commission process along the lines of that which is operating in the United Kingdom, and it is that provision which we bring forward today. It is interesting that last year the Australian Democrats, when faced with our original proposition, came up with their amendments. Their amendments were at that stage very similar to those which we are moving now. The Democrat amendments regarding a complaints commissioner- Senator Georges —You opposed them, if I recall. Senator PETER BAUME —I did not get to that stage. Senator Georges —But you would have. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Georges said that we would have opposed them. I think the honourable senator is punting. The fact is that there was no confrontation. The Democrats proposal at that stage was that there should be a statutory body consisting of no fewer than three members and modelled along the British commission. The Democrats proposed that it should be entitled the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. At that stage the Democrats recommended that the appointment of members should be with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. They brought down a number or definitions of complaints and brought out some procedures. They looked at the provision for the entertainment of complaints. The Democrats in the Press release stated that it reflected the British model. There were those in government who looked very carefully at whether we had taken a wrong turn, but the Australian Democrats were impressed by what had come up. We have come up now with something which is based upon the British model. I have not heard criticism of what we have proposed in terms of the way we want to move. Whether it is the British Corporation or whether it is for all broadcasting in Britain does not matter. We have proposed a model for the handling of complaints to which the public can go. As the Democrats wanted last year, it will be a statutory body and independent. Senator Chipp —Appointed by the Government? Senator PETER BAUME —Let us accept that that is a point of difference, but let no one pretend that what we are proposing is either outlandish or unreasonable. It is a very good way of handling complaints. It is one that the British have taken up. It provides something apart from the ABC. I do not care how independent any of the officers appointed under the legislation are. They are still seen as being internal people employed within the organisation. The public has worried about the matter. People have talked. Senator Harradine talked about appealing from Caesar to Caesar. That is how the commission will be seen. There is no way in which the police in my State or in any other State can really investigate their own members and not be criticised in public. It simply does not work. Where there are occasions on which we have to entertain complaints against government action we believe there is a very strong case for this complaints procedure to be separate and independent and to be seen to be independent. We believe there is a need for the public to be able to seek redress against unfair or unjust treatment or against unwarranted infringement with privacy in relation to radio and television programs which are broadcast to the public. The mechanism which we have proposed will perform some of these functions and protect the people. The recent history of this country shows that we have had no hesitation in enacting legislation to protect the public against the Acts of government in a large number of areas. I refer to the Ombudsman Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which are examples of legislation which give the public a right to appeal against different kinds of administrative action. We are not seeking that kind of thing here. We are seeking equally an independent mechanism by which members of the public can appeal and by which a sense of fair play can not only occur but also be seen to occur. Last year the Australian Democrats proposed a move towards the British model. We were impressed by the arguments. We, as the then Government, did some work on it. We considered the matter and we prepared the amendments which we are moving tonight. We think that proposition was appropriate and correct. I ask the Senate to give consideration to the merits in this procedure. There is no effort on our part to try to scapegoat or bad mouth the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That is not our purpose. We have indicated all the way through this legislation our support for it and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. What we are looking at is a matter within a very narrow compass. Senator CHIPP —Nobody said you had. Senator PETER BAUME —The honourable senator has not. The legislation has a very narrow compass. It is about how members of the public will be seen to get fair play. We do not believe that the internal mechanism, no matter how independent honourable senators say the officers are, will be sufficient. Because of that, we think there is still a need for an independent statutory body. I could go back and read the Australian Democrats Press releases from last October and November. They set out why an independent statutory body is what is needed. It is still what is needed and we believe-- Senator Chipp —But not appointed by the Government. Senator PETER BAUME —I understand what the honourable senator is saying. We still believe that our amendment is appropriate. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.11) —I support Senator Peter Baume 's remarks and address myself in particular to the question of the appointment of a chairman by the Government. I notice that recently the Government appointed Mr Justice Hope as chairman of the Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence Agencies. Nobody suggested that that was Caesar investigating Caesar. Nobody suggested that that was a subjective appointment. Senator Button —It would have been highly improper to suggest that, would it not ? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —It would have been improper just as it would have been improper for Senator Button to suggest that the appointment of the former Lord Chief Justice in Britain as the chairman of the Complaints Commission in Britain by the British Government was Caesar sitting in judgment on Caesar. I put it to the Government and I put it fairly and squarely to the Australian Democrats that we are talking about somebody of judicial status. Over goes the dolly once one starts to suggest that a government appointment of a judicial or semi-judicial fashion is in fact an appointment of influence but not of independence. Honourable senators should bear in mind that that was the model of the British Broadcasting Commission. In fact, that is the only argument that has been raised so far against what the Opposition has said. What the Opposition has said is quite clear. We have said that, if a corporation is set up and it is to be given independence and has to prove that it has integrity and is operating under its charter, every citizen ought to have the right-I understand Senator Harradine's argument on the question of interest and of citizens' interests-to complain. If a citizen can make a complaint only through an internal mechanism, that is Caesar sitting in judgment on Caesar. Allowing an advisory body which has been appointed by the ABC to appoint such a person will not suffice. In the end that person is paid and maintained by the management of the ABC and is responsible to that corporation for his or her salary, terms and conditions and permanency. Quite clearly, the inference would be that such a person would bring about subjective judgments. That claim may be very unfair to an individual but nowhere, in a sense of objectivity of justice, would anyone tolerate that internal auditing of public complaints. There has been an admission that something different is needed. Quite clearly, the Australian Democrats had said before that there was no need for an internal mechanism for complaints. The Democrats very validly argued that one could not have that internal mechanism and that one would need to have an external, independent body. That is the principle at which we are really looking now. That is the principle underlying this provision as to whether we have an internal body or an external body sitting in judgment. There are other matters to which I will refer later regarding the rights of people to complain. We have a ridiculous situation in which electors of this country are denied the right to complain about some aspects of a statutory corporation. The crazy situation is that people tend to forget that the ABC exists to serve objectively every Australian citizen. It is the servant of the 15 million Australian people. Each of those people has the absolute right to intervene and to criticise if he or she thinks that there is a valid ground for criticism. I wish only to add that, if honourable senators say that there should be an independent external body, what is wrong with the Government appointing a judge? How can honorable senators condemn the appointment of a judge? How can anyone condemn the British Broadcasting Commission standard? That is the real nub of this issue. Senator Harradine —Mr Chairman, I seek leave to move my amendments (1) to (10) together, which seek to amend the Opposition amendments before the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted? Senator Peter Baume —Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance on a point of procedure. Senator Harradine is proposing to move amendments to the Opposition's amendments . How do you propose to deal with those amendments? The CHAIRMAN —If Senator Harradine moves all 10 amendments together, I will put all 10 amendments. If they are all carried, they will become part of the Opposition's amendment and will then be put to the chamber. Senator Chipp —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. Senator Harradine is seeking to move 10 amendments. The sheet of paper that has been given to me purporting to containing those amendments proposed by Senator Harradine has only nine amendments. Senator Harradine —I have 10 amendments. Senator Peter Baume —I have before me one document which has nine amendments and another which has three amendments. Could the Opposition be given copies of the correct documents before we proceed further as we may be talking about amendment (2) but we may be holding amendments different from the amendments held by other honourable senators. The CHAIRMAN —I will ask the Clerk to consult with Senator Harradine in order to determine the amendments that he proposes to seek leave to move. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.18) —Earlier I yielded to Senator Harradine because he wished to move amendments. I am not seeking to prolong the time in which we are debating this legislation tonight because it is already extremely late. However, I refrained from speaking during the second reading debate because the matter that concerned me related specifically to the complaints procedure. I deferred speaking at all to the legislation until now. I support the amendment moved by Senator Peter Baume. I would have liked to have heard, first, the case that Senator Harradine would have put forward in moving his amendments. I will not speak again but will just make up my mind as we go along. This matter of the complaints commission is something that I consider to be terribly important. A point has been made during the debate about the need for independent appointment or approval by Parliament and that would be unsatisfactory if the complaints procedure was under the control of the Government because of appointments it had made. I find that argument quite unpersuasive, unless those who proposed it are prepared to say that the Government should, for example, appoint an ombudsman. The introduction of the ombudsman into the Westminster system of government, including the Australian parliamentary system and other parliamentary systems such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, was a matter of some controversy at the time, because it was claimed to be foreign to the Westminster system of government. In fact, the system was found to work very well. The appointment of that person by government-that is, by the Executive-has worked very well because the purpose of the appointment and of the office is clear. So long as governments appoint who is of great integrity, the system works well. Briefly, I indicate that, when the Queensland Government moved to appoint the first ombudsman in Queensland, that appointment was a matter of some controversy because the appointee was a former Chairman of the Public Service Board. In fact , the appointee, David Longland, was an excellent ombudsman. Nobody ever criticised his reports or his actions. He established that office in Queensland in a totally respected way. Whilst there was disquiet in advance, it was found that he was a good person for the job. So the fact that a government appoints someone does not necessarily take away from that person's value. The issue of an appointment by parliament would be an entirely new issue. The general issue regarding this Commission is important. I would have thought that many Australian Labor Party senators appreciated it. The fact is that if people feel they have been dealt with unjustly or unfairly-in some cases, in a quite extreme way-by an organisation as powerful as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, they have very few alternatives as to how they can act. If they believe they have been defamed, they may take legal action. Our amendment indicates that the Commission is not required to entertain a complaint if, in the opinion of the Commission, the subject matter of the complaint is a matter in respect of which the person affected has a remedy by way of procedings in any court. Having been through defamation proceedings myself, as have a number of honourable senators, I have some knowledge of the difficulty of the procedure. I have no complaint on that score because my procedure was successful. However, I realise that it is one that would have limited application. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is a division of the public media which is enormously powerful and which can do great damage to people without their necessarily having a legal remedy. I will instance a case of which I am aware. It is not a public issue so I cannot use names. Mr Chairman, I overheard a very loud conversation in which there was some suggestion of a filibuster. Senator Peter Baume —No, there is none. Senator MARTIN —Thank you. I reiterate that I do not want to mention names because I am not trying to raise a specific issue. The case that was drawn to my attention was very important. I have no doubt as to the facts of the matter. Honourable senators will have to take my word for that-that I am not making a wild allegation. It concerns a person featured on a Nationwide program. The person was very badly hurt, in his opinion, by the way he was treated by Nationwide. The substance of his complaint is that he made available quite readily to Nationwide certain documents. They were not used because the usage of those documents would not have supported the general thrust of the image that this Nationwide program was trying to present. It is interesting that a subsequent program of Four Corners did make some reference to some part of those documents. This means there was no doubt at all that the ABC had them. It had chosen not to use them on the Nationwide program because that would have damaged the thesis that Nationwide was trying to present. The ABC had them. Four Corners had not approached this individual for the documents. It could have obtained them only via Nationwide. So the ABC had them. Additional to the documents made available to Nationwide, other public records were available, and known to be available, to Nationwide. They were not used because they would have affected the presentation of the program. I refer to such public documents as Hansard and debates in the Parliament which had been reported in the Press. Since that program, certain facts have been placed before the Australian Broadcasting Commission in detail by the person who has been, I would feel, very severely hurt by the program. The ABC has chosen not to respond. It is a matter of choice of the individual as to whether he should sue the ABC. I will not judge or give legal advice. Having some background knowledge, I can see there are difficulties with defamation actions in regard to programs. Under Queensland law in relation to defamation actions, one of the things that must be proved is actual damage. It is quite possible that in this case that could not be proved. Nevertheless, extremely unfair and inaccurate things were said about this person on the Nationwide program. A substantial complaint has been made to the ABC. It has been totally ignored. There has not even been a letter of acknowledgment of the material forwarded to the ABC. I make one final point on this matter. The individual involved was not the principal target of the program. The principal target of the program was the Queensland Government. So this person did not create any misdemeanour about which it was important that the public knew. He was used as a device to give an impression about the Queensland Government. He was used as a 'for instance' for another target. Because of what could be seen as a glancing blow for the purpose of making a point about something else, this person has been severely embarrassed and utterly unfairly dealt with. This person has the right to a remedy. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is an extremely powerful organisation. That program has been beamed at least Queensland-wide. It has gone into many homes in which no television channel is available. It was quite spectacular in its presentation. Even if it were not, the issue remains the same . In the minds of everybody who saw that program there would be a belief about the individual concerned. The belief would be that he had received favours from the Queensland Government, which were extraordinary, but they were not. It is a matter of public record that that is not true; that he had contributed some money to a political party in Queensland that had resulted in favours. He has not contributed any such money. There was a suggestion that certain people who contributed money might receive this sort of favour. The belief would be that he has been able to manipulate a situation whereby the State Government stood over a statutory corporation, which is untrue. It is defamatory. Senator Button —Why didn't he sue them, Senator? Senator MARTIN —While Senator Button was chatting with other people I explained the position. I will explain it briefly again. Under Queensland defamation law, one must prove actual damage. I can understand that in this case-I do not know; he has not told me why he has not taken such action, but I have some experience with Queensland defamation laws-it is possible that he might find it very difficult to prove. On the facts that have been put to me, if I were in his shoes I might find it difficult to prove. It is not for me to say. I point out that under our amendment, if the Commission belived that the individual in question could sue for defamation, it would not entertain the complaint. That would be the end of it. Senator Button —And under ours, of course, under the Bill as proposed-- Senator MARTIN —I appreciate Senator Button's lively interest in what I am saying. I was trying to be brief. I shall try to conclude my remarks in a few seconds. Senator Button can then answer because he will have ample opportunity to speak. To protect himself when resources are unequal-and they are-an individual facing this sort of highly uncertain situation of whether, under law, he would be successful has to engage in extremely expensive legal procedures. It may be that if the ABC knew that the matter could be more simply resolved it would be less inclined to use someone and his situation as a tool for another purpose, as was the case in this situation. I look forward to Senator Button's response. He may be able to alleviate the worry of this person who wrote to the ABC a month ago and who, I reiterate for Senator Button's benefit, has never had a response. It may be that the Bill does cover this matter. Senator Chipp —Did you receive an acknowledgement? Senator MARTIN —Not an acknowledgement-nothing. It may be that Senator Button is of the opinion that his Bill covers this case, in which case I would appreciate his taking up the case and seeing whether he can resolve it satisfactorily. He could at least indicate to the person involved that the complaint has been received. Motion (by Senator Harradine) put: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report progress. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. RCarrick, Sir John MacGibbon, D. J. Chaney, F. M. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. Mason, C. V. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Messner, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Jones, G. N. Missen, A. J. Colston, M. A. Archer, B. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported. Department of Foreign Affairs Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(11.39) —It seems to me that the norm is that I pick the wrong night of the year to speak in the adjournment debate. I thank honourable senators for their presence. Since I last referred to the matter about which I wish to speak tonight there has been quite a change of personnel in this chamber. Many honourable senators have gone and many new honourable senators have taken their places. Because of that I am reminded of the old adage that politicians come and politicians go but the Public Service and the bureaucrats seem to go on forever. Whilst in many respects there has been an orderly handover of business from one political party to another, as is the Westminster tradition, no doubt there are areas in which we will see more innovations because of the philosophical differences between the two major parties in this country. As I said earlier, public servants and the Public Service stay on; they seem to go on ad infinitum. Because of that, I raise again the question of the Tehran Embassy embezzlement and related matters which are now over 12 months old. It seems to me that, regardless of which form of government rules this country or which political party is at the helm, serious elements of corruption go on-again ad infinitum. While some of these matters are in many respects 10 years old, the change of government seems to have made no difference and the people concerned seem to have been sufficiently bold to proceed full steam ahead with their nefarious activities confident that the contacts they maintain with the bureaucracy will protect them from exposure or at least punishment. I recognise that the vast majority of public servants are honest and loyally support whichever government is in power. But it seems to me that a small number of bad eggs, some of them knights of the realm, whose corrupt activities I exposed as recently as 14 December last year have used the long parliamentary shut down, thanks to Mr Fraser's miscalculations, to continue their corrupt activities-I respect that; to continue their corrupt activities-in preying on the public purse, covering up for their mates and persecuting and harassing those honest officers who have had the courage to stand up to them and who enjoy the protection and support of their unions. I refer, of course, principally to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Last year I and other honourable senators spoke at some length in this place in an effort to expose and remedy a range of corrupt practices which first came to light in the Tehran Embassy affair involving a cover-up by the departmental head , Mr Henderson, of an ingenious range of financial abuses perpetrated by his boyhood friend Ivor Bowden while serving as Ambassador in Tehran from 1974 to 1978. A few examples of that corruption were: The nanny's fare, phantom servants , snow-clearing payment to his sons, false representations in relation to adult children's incomes, false entertainment allowance claims and other false certificates, totalling around $15,000. That was in 1974. That sum would probably be equivalent to $30,000 today. Later I drew the Senate's attention to other irregularities involving Mr Bowden and cases involving other ambassadors ripping off the taxpayer, including phoney medical retirements. Throughout all of this Mr Street and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle proved totally inadequate in controlling their corrupt officials who boldly organised a cover-up involving Foreign Affairs, Department of Finance officials and police officers. Witnesses were intimidated and evidence distorted. One key witness was successfully nobbled and I believe that false information was skilfully fed to one of the then shadow Ministers. I shall not name those involved today. But fortunately enough honest people were around to enable the Senate to monitor and expose this dishonest mess. Inquiries by the Ombudsman are continuing and I hope that in due course these matters will be dealt with by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. No malefactor has yet been punished, although one has been promoted. Mr Henderson and his colleagues may think that they have successfully weathered the storm. I remain determined that all of this disgraceful conduct will be examined fully and the guilty punished. Let sleeping dogs lie, some politicians and journalists suggest-and 'lie', I believe, is the operative word. These men are, in my view, professional liars. They lied to Mr Street. I tender Mr Henderson's original note of 4 March 1982, Mr President, and seek leave for the incorporation of that note in Hansard. It has just become available under the Freedom of Information Act. Leave granted. The document read as follows- FOREIGN AFFAIRS 4 March 1982 FOR THE MINISTERQUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE: SENATOR PRIMMER Last week we discussed Senator Primmer's question regarding a possible embezzlement of $35,000 from the Australian Embassy in Tehran. I indicated at the time that we had no knowledge of any such incident and added that the post's accounting records were being re-examined in case something has been overlooked. I can now say that this re-examination, covering monthly transactions back beyond the past three years, has been completed without a sign of any accounting irregularities. Further, the post conducted a check of its cash advances as recently as 26 February and subsequently reported that all cash on hand has been accounted for. Curiously enough, an amount of about $35,000 was at one time (late 1978) held in cash by the post as an emergency advance to cover any necessary cash expenditure in the event of an emergency evacuation. This amount has been accounted for in our reconciliations of the post's accounting transactions. It is possible that the existence of this advance has prompted someone to speculate as to its propriety or possible 'misuse'. Any such speculation would appear to be unfounded. I attach for your consideration and signature a response to Senator Primmer. (P. G. F. Henderson) Secretary Senator PRIMMER —I thank the Senate. These men, as I have said, lied to Mr Street, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Mr Newman, who believed them or pretended to believe them. The Senate and another place were conveniently and systematically misled in this way. They lied to the media, and honourable senators will recall that Mr Henderson himself lied to Senate Estimates Committee D on 10 September 1982 in an unsuccessful attempt to blacken the names of the several honest officers who had gathered the mass of evidence against Mr Bowden. This disgraceful performance was subsequently covered by Senators Sibraa , McIntosh, Georges and me, but nothing seems to have happened to Mr Henderson on that account. Yes, Mr President, 'lie' is the operative word. But while these men have certainly been lying, they have not been sleeping. On the contrary, they have been very active indeed. Since the last sitting, they have moved to retrieve from the Ombudsman the file containing financial irregularities concerning Mr Bowden's piano and other furniture. The mind boggles at the lies they must have told Mr Street to get him, contrary to his solemn undertaking to the honest officers, to ask the Ombudsman to have the file transferred to the police. Furthermore, they have continued to use security and/ or police action against honest departmental officers, to enable the cover-up to stick. Again, during the time we have been in recess, the retirement swindles involving Henderson and Sir Nicholas Parkinson have moved one step forward with Parkinson's invalidity retirement on 11 March 1983. This murky affair, which involves a six figure sum, or a quarter of a million dollars, demonstrates Henderson ready and willing to 'buy' the top job by giving his colleague a massive series of golden handshakes, at the expense of the taxpayer. Another matter of concern is rumoured ambassadorial appointments for people whose reputations have rightly been damaged by the Tehran exposures. I have placed on the Notice Paper a series of questions designed to get at the truth of all these matters and to illustrate the cover-up that continued during the parliamentary recess. Some of my questions are those that Mr Street found unanswerable last year. Others are based on new information which, as I demonstrated last year, is always becoming available from sources dismayed at and angered by the dishonest performance of these senior public servants. I urge any public servant, any journalist-indeed, any public spirited person at all-who may possess information regarding these matters to pass it on to me. I can assure them that I shall strain every nerve to protect anyone fearful of pressure or retribution as a result. Mr President, I believe that I would have the support of the vast majority of honourable senators in this. But that is not all. I was just recently reliably informed of two instances of corrupt behaviour by very senior officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs which have not yet come to the knowledge of the Parliament. I believe that this information is now available to the Minister who, of course, is fully aware of the sorts of views that I have been expressing on these issues for the past 13 months. Given that the ball is in Mr Hayden's court and that I have great confidence in his judgment and ability, I do not propose to expose the officers concerned, other than to say that I know that each has also been up to his neck in the Tehran cover-up. Should it emerge that Ministers need the overt support of Parliament to deal severely with the men concerned, I am prepared to raise pertinent questions in the chamber or on the Notice Paper, as may be required. I believe, as I have told Mr Hayden, that the majority of honourable senators would support me in this. I will not rest, Mr President, while the people of Australia continue to be ' represented' by a Department of Foreign Affairs run by a small group of people who could not be trusted with the petty cash, and who would sell their grandmothers, let alone the East Timorese, to get a promotion. I believe that the nation and the vast majority of honest and competent Foreign Affairs staff deserve better, and I expect that with the new Labor Government in control success is just around the corner. The small number of senior camp followers of the Fraser Government must be dealt with as the law allows. On one or two of my trips abroad as part of delegations I have been extremely disturbed-I suppose that is the only way to put it-at the attitudes of, thankfully, only one or two junior staff officers at some of our posts. These young men have expressed attitudes towards people in the host country that to me leave much to be desired. Their education and training suggest to me that they are the product of schools and/or homes which lead them to see themselves as superior to everyone else. That brings me to a comment on the series of questions that I have placed on the Notice Paper as shown on page 297. I refer to the appearance that the method of selecting recruits may hang more on the old boy network than on the prescribed rules. If such were the case it would be quite possible for toffee-nosed upstarts to get into and work their way up through the system and, in my view, become the sort of personnel we should not be sending abroad as our representatives. I believe that a Mr Adam Smith has been employed within the Department. I understand that he is a relative of the First Assistant Secretary, Management and Foreign Service Division, in the Department. It is feasible to me that the system may well have been bypassed in Mr Adam Smith's accession to that position . I say that it may well be the case; I am not accusing Mr Adam Smith of being a toffee-nosed upstart but it seems to me that if this is going on within the Department a form of nepotism may well be emerging or have been around for quite some time. I conclude briefly with the following remarks. I suppose that some of us in this chamber saw the Four Corners program entitled 'The Whistle Blowers'. I certainly saw it. That program, from memory, showed four cases of honest public servants who told the truth, were forthright and stuck to their guns. One of them finished up a broken man as a result. Those who saw the program grained an insight into just how the bureacracy can work when it has a vested interest in hiding something brought to light by honest public servants. It showed how an officer-in that case, a particular officer-all too often becomes the accused rather than the accuser in the eyes of department heads and even Ministers. It also showed that the type of stories that are put around about an honest person suggest that such a person is not well and give all sorts of veiled hints about his health, personality and work capability. This is exactly what has happened in the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to this issue. The honest have been made to appear dishonest and the dishonest are shown as paragons of virtue. I do not intend to release this matter until I believe that justice has been seen to be done. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.54) —I rise simply because Senator Primmer, I think on some three or four occasions in the Senate, has raised matters relating to the Department of Foreign Affairs and has now raised such a matter when he is part of a Government. I refer to only one matter raised by him ; that of Sir Nicholas Parkinson. I believe that gross injustice has been done to this man and I am willing to believe, until it is proven otherwise, that a gross injustice is being done to many others, including Mr Peter Henderson, who, until it is proven otherwise to me-I invite all honourable senators to agree with me-is a man of not only immense ability but also high integrity. I say this with no pleasure at all because, as I think Senator Primmer knows, I have a high regard for him. I respect his contribution to this chamber and his general attitude as an honourable senator and I find it hard to reconcile what he is saying now with that view. I do not doubt his sincerity. Let me test this matter . Whereas when Senator Primmer was in opposition he may have had difficulty in pursuing the matter, instead of coming here tonight and making public accusations against people, he could have gone to his Government and got it to make the investigations and pursue them in the way in which all investigations should be pursued. He should have started off with the onus of proof so as to prove other than innocence. Let me test this. It has been suggested several times now-I must say it has caused great grief to the persons concerned-that certain persons have been dishonest in what they have done, notably Sir Nicholas Parkinson. Some honourable senators may know that Sir Nicholas Parkinson was one of our most distinguished senior public servants. All of us who were close to him have known that his personal tragedy has been that in recent years his eyesight has been failing steadily, to a point where it has threatened his very vision and certainly endangered his capacity to do his job. To suggest that there was reason other total genuine medical grounds for his retirement is in defiance of the medical evidence, and medical evidence there is in plenty. But why should the honourable senator have to do that? Just as the rules here say that none of us can accuse other honourable senators of being liars, we should use such words with the greatest of care when we talk about our fellow men. Just because the Standing Orders do not protect others does not mean that we do not have that obligation. I say this with sincerity to Senator Primmer. I repeat that in general, I respect his approach to matters. But we have no right at all here to condemn people without their having been given a fair chance. I make it perfectly clear that I personally know that Sir Nicholas Parkinson had medical difficulties with his vision to such an extent that he was forced, unwillingly, to terminate his service. That can easily be proven. There is medical evidence in abundance. But why should we need to refer to that? Anybody who knew the man, who knew the problems of his sight, who looked at the spectacles that he wore, who observed his approach to reading or to ordinary sight, would have known his limitations. It was as though he were wearing optical crutches. Therefore, to make the suggestions which were made is, I think , grossly offensive. In any case whether we mention Peter Henderson-the man has been of immense service to this country-or any other public servant, I accept that all those people are people of integrity and honesty unless it can be proven otherwise. I rose to commend to Senator Primmer-I am very sad that this matter has been raised-that if he has any other allegations, he should go to his Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and ask his Government to hold a proper investigation into those allegations, incuding the ones he made tonight. His suggestion is that, apparently, a proper investigation was not carried out by the Fraser Government. My understanding is that there was a thorough investigation. In any case it is competent upon the Hawke Government and Mr Hayden to carry out such an investigation. I simply rise to say, first of all, that of my own public knowledge at least one person has had his reputation unfairly damaged. I invite the normal process of justice in this place to be followed. Thursday, 26 May 1983 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12 a.m.) —I do not wish to delay the Senate very long. I adopt the remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick and thank him for making them. I merely wish to add that there were some rather lesser lights in the Department of Foreign Affairs mentioned in Senator Primmer's speech. It struck me that on the fact of what the honourable senator had to say tonight, he was prepared to introduce names on the basis, to use his words, that it might be feasible that there was something untoward. He followed words to that effect with words like: 'I am not accusing a particular person of being a toffee-nosed upstart'. I merely wish to add to what Senator Sir John Carrick said that on the face of what Senator Primmer said tonight there was inadequate basis for some of the comments made about somebody obviously relatively junior in the Department. I believe that people in relatively junior positions might also have the assumption that Senator Sir John Carrick outlined- that is, the assumption of innocence-as appyling to those officers who are personally known to him. I have heard Senator Primmer on a number of occasions from the Opposition benches raise this matter. I agree that he now has a Government which he has supported and helped to bring to power. He might have taken his complaint to it, but I think this has been a very doubtful use of the privileges which are afforded to this place. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.2 a.m.) —As the representative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in this place, I feel it incumbent on behalf of the Government at least to make some response to the very serious allegations that Senator Primmer has once again made here tonight and, in doing so, to indicate that Senator Primmer has in fact to my knowledge raised these matters with Mr Hayden, the Foreign Minister. I will endeavour in what I say in the moment to reflect what I understand to be Mr Hayden's current thinking on the matter. Senator Primmer stated tonight in summary form a series of allegations that he has made in more detail on previous occasions during the Autumn and Budget sittings of the Parliament last year against a number of present and former officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which allegations are furthermore embodied in the substance of a series of questions on notice which lapsed on the proroguing of the Parliament and which now reappear with, it appears, further additions. Among Senator Primmer's allegations are claims that a substantial sum of money had been embezzled from the Australian Embassy in Tehran and that a miscellany of other wrongful actions had been committed by a former Ambassador in Tehran, Mr Bowden; and that an officer of the Department, Mr Witheford, who appears to be the primary source of Senator Primmer's allegations, had been withdrawn from the Embassy in Tehran in connection with the matters I have just mentioned, had been victimised by the Department. There are allegations repeated again tonight that the Secretary to the Department, Mr Henderson, had covered up these and other wrongdoings by officers of the Department and that there have been other wrongful acts committed by officers of the Department, apart from those in Tehran, involving a former Ambassador to Germany, Sir Nicholas Parkinson, who is the subject of- Senator Sir John Carrick —Sir Nicholas Parkinson was Ambassador to the United States- Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry, Senator! I am saying there was a former Ambassador to Germany, Sir Nicholas Parkinson, a former Ambassador to the United States- Senator Sir John Carrick —Don't be too testy. You are allowed to be corrected- Senator GARETH EVANS —For God's sake, Senator! I am endeavouring, if you will listen and curb your approach to these matters, to accommodate the points you are making and many of the sentiments, which I happen to share. Senator Sir John Carrick —You are repeating the allegations. The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the Attorney-General address his remarks through the Chair. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am mentioning no other names in my comments now than those mentioned by Senator Primmer. I am simply summarising for Senator Sir John Carrick's edification-if he is interested in being edified on this or any other occasion-the matters that have been alleged as a prelude to indicating what action has been taken and the response of the present Government to those allegations. Those allegations have concerned, as I said, the gentlemen I have mentioned, Sir Nicholas Parkinson and Mr Henderson, and other officers of the Department, including officers named for the first time tonight and named in circumstances which I would agree are somewhat unhappy, given the fact that their mention was not substantiated by anything more than mere suggestions of possible impropriety. As to the action that has been taken in this matter, I simply state what is in large measure known to be the case. First, the allegations against Mr Bowden in respect of Tehran were examined by officers of the Department of Finance and by the Australian Federal Police, as a result of which a statement was made to the House of Representatives by Mr Street, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs. The investigating officers concluded that they were satisfied on the evidence available that there was no basis for action to be taken against Mr Bowden by the Commonwealth in respect of the financial matters examined. Then there was an investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman into allegations by Mr Witheford that the Australian Federal Police were guilty of misconduct during their investigation into Mr Witheford's original allegations. That investigation by the Ombudsman, which I believe and am advised was a thorough and exhaustive one, has not yet been completed but is being actively pursued at the moment. Subsequent allegations were made by Senator Primmer that have been further investigated by the Australian Federal Police, relating again to allegations based specifically on information from Mr Witheford. The Australian Federal Police investigation, of which I have seen a summary of the report, dated quite recently-in August last year I think; there is another report since then-found no evidence that would substantiate any criminal offence against any person named in Senator Primmer's allegations. Finally, there was the claim by Mr Witheford that he had been unfairly treated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which claim is under examination at present by the Public Service Board. I am advised that that inquiry now being conducted by the Public Service Board is a major inquiry. It is conducting its investigations into all aspects of these matters in the most thorough and exhaustive fashion. It is continuing to be conducted in a thorough and exhaustive fashion. I simply repeat the view of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. He has had an opportunity to engage in discussions with Senator Primmer on this matter. He has given me tonight a note briefing me as to his present reaction to these matters. I say, quite carefully, that Mr Hayden is someone who has no axe to grind in these matters. He is someone who is no one's fool when it comes to evaluating investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies for the obvious reason that he has a history of prior personal involvement in such an agency in the past. It is Mr Hayden's present judgment that the police report, which he has had particular occasion to scrutinise very thoroughly, is an exhaustive analysis of the situation and demonstrates that many, if not all, of the allegations in question simply do not have a substantial evidentiary foundation or, at least, a foundation that is capable of being presented and expounded in a fashion that would remotely sustain a criminal prosecution. That is Mr Hayden's view of the police report which he has had an opportunity to peruse in some detail. So we are confronted with the situation that if there is a conspiracy or a cover-up it has been one of the more successful ones in the history of public administration because so far it has succeeded in fooling the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Finance, the Ombudsman, probably the Public Service Board, the previous Government and maybe one Minister in the present Government. It may be that the bureaucracy is capable of working in a fashion that can sustain a cover-up or a conspiracy of that magnitude but the present Government' s inclination, on the present state of the evidence, is to believe that there simply is not a sufficient evidentiary foundation to sustain most, if not all, of the allegations that have been put with all sincerity and a fierce belief in their rightness into the public arena by Senator Primmer. That is the state of play at the moment as perceived by the present Government. I hope that will succeed in keeping Senator Sir John Carrick quiet for the future before leaping to conclusions about these matters in his usual contemptible and half-baked fashion. I hope, however, I have also said enough to indicate that active investigations are continuing to be pursued by the Ombudsman and the Public Service Board. If there is any skerrick of foundation for the very substantial and very serious allegations that have been made over a long period in regard to this matter, and with complete conviction and sincerity by Senator Primmer, I can assure Senator Primmer and other honourable senators that this matter will be very fiercely and aggressively pursued by this Government. On the present state of play I have to say that it does appear that there simply is not, so far at least on the record, any evidence to support allegations of the gravity that have in fact been made. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.11 a.m., Thursday The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 10 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Has the Australian Government received any information that Ana Margarita Gasteazoro Escolan has been in custody since May 1981; if so, when did the Government first obtain such information. (2) What action has the Government taken to protest at the continued detention of the abovenamed. (3) Has the Government taken any action; if not, why not. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government has no information about the case of Ana Margarita Gasteazoro Escolan. (2) and (3) The Australian Embassy in Mexico City has been asked to make enquiries about Ms Gasteazoro's welfare. When the Government has received the results of these enquiries it will consider what further action can be taken. Question No. 25 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: What action has been taken subsequent to the former government's decision to introduce multicultural television to Adelaide in 1983-84 to: (a) implement this decision; and (b) include local community participation in the implementation of this decision. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) the extension of multicultural television is under review in the budgetary context. The Government's priority remains to extend the transmission of multicultural television nationally in stages to the major population centres. Extension of transmission to Adelaide is planned for an early stage of development; and (b) while the Government is conscious of the desirability of local community participation in multicultural television services, the cost is very high, and the Government's first priority in the development of scarce resources must be to make existing services available to as wide an audience as possible. Question No. 91 Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Does the document, 'Defence Force Aid to Civil Power-Situations other than Counter Terrorist Operations-Policy and Procedures' OPS B/4/78 dated 22 September 1978 and tabled in the Senate on 22 April 1983, incorporate lessons learnt from Cyclone Tracey. (2) Will that document now be amended to incorporate lessons learnt from the flight by Royal Australian Air Force aircraft over South West Tasmania on 7 and 8 April 1983. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The type of assistance provided by the Defence Force to the people of Darwin after Cyclone Tracey is covered by the document Defence Instruction ( General) OPS 05-1-Policy and Procedures for Defence Force Assistance to the Civil Community, dated 29 August 1979. The document which the honourable senator mentioned covers Defence Force aid to the Commonwealth and/or State governments and their civil authorities in their performance of law enforcement tasks. Lessons learnt from Cyclone Tracey are incorporated in Defence Instruction ( General) OPS 05-1-Policy and Procedures for Defence Force Assistance to the Civil Community and in Plan Emperor which is the Defence Force plan for assistance to the civil community in the event of a disaster. (2) The RAAF aircraft flights over South West Tasmania on 7 and 8 April 1983 will be taken into consideration during the current review of both documents. Question No. 114 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 3 May 1983: (1) What was the gross cost of producing programs for the Canberra School of Music Wind Series at the High Court of Australia 1983. (2) How many copies were produced. (3) By whom were the copies printed. (4) What was the revenue from the advertisement for the Canberra International Motor Inn on the programs. (5) Did the School of Music approach the Canberra International Motor Inn or an advertising agency to place the advertisement. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The Canberra International Motor Inn met the total cost ($200) of producing 800 copies of the program. No additional revenue in respect of advertising was received by the School of Music. The programs were printed by the Canberra Publishing and Printing Company, Fyshwick, Australian Capital Territory. (5) The placement of the advertisement was negotiated between the Canberra School of Music and the Canberra International Motor Inn. Question No. 166 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) Is the airstrip at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory breaking up? (2) Did loose stones on the airstrip last week cause damage to an F111; if so, what was the cost of damage to the F111? (3) Will the Government be re-building the airstrip so as to make it operationally safe; if so, what is the estimated cost involved in repairing the airstrip? (4) When will the environmental impact study of Tindal be complete? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) There is no problem with the strength of the airfield pavement at Tindal. Normal aging of the bituminous surface however eventually permits aggregate to be dislodged. (2) An F111 aircraft engine was damaged by ingestion of a foreign body, believed to be a small metal object. The cost to repair the engine has been estimated at $10,000. (3) The Department of Housing and Construction is inspecting the runway and will advise on the extent to which routine maintenance needs to be brought forward. Until the inspection is completed an estimate is unavailable. (4) Planning for the formulation of proposals for Government consideration, regarding the development of Tindal, provides for the circulation of a draft environmental impact statement for public comment in the latter half of 1983.