Friday, 3 June 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9.30 a.m. , and read prayers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I inform the Senate that Senator Walsh will be absent from this chamber today. Any questions which normally would be directed to Senator Walsh in relation to his portfolio or those portfolios he represents should today be directed to me. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Discrimination against Women 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 in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 32 citizens), Boswell (from 39 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 22 citizens) and Robertson (from 402 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned students and staff of the University of Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. that in 1979 the Liberal Government introduced overseas student fees, 2. that those fees have been regularly increased since their introduction, 3. that the financial burden has caused hardship for overseas students studying here, who have limited earning capacity. We call on this government to review the decision taken to introduce tertiary fees for overseas students. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That in 1911, as part of its new responsibility for the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth accepted a binding legislative commitment to construct a railway from Adelaide to Darwin-a promise which has never been fulfilled. The lack of essential transport links has had, and continues to have, serious consequences for the economic and social development of the Northern Territory, and indeed all of Australia. That the future expansion of new industries in the Territory and new trade opportunities for Australia, particularly with South-East Asia and the Western Pacific, depend on the development of the railway to link the port of Darwin with the rest of Australia. The railway is therefore an essential national project related directly to Australia's overall prospects for future economic growth. We therefore protest the Commonwealth's continuing failure to construct the railway. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Prime Minister and members of the Federal Government honour the promise made by the Commonwealth over 70 years ago , the promise made by the previous Commonwealth Government this year, and endorsed by the present Government in opposition to complete the construction of the railway by 1988, Australia's Bicentennial year. We call on the Prime Minister to give his personal assurance that the Commonwealth will honour its past and present promises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Kilgariff (from 796 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a select committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the question of animal welfare in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) interstate and overseas commerce in animals; (b) wildlife protection and harvesting (c) animal experimentation; (d) codes of practice of animal husbandry for all species; and (e) the use of animals in sport. (2) That provisions relating to membership, powers and proceedings of the Committee be contained in a subsequent resolution. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that a comprehensive inquiry should be held into all aspects of the tendering for and the letting of contracts for the Stanwell Power House in Queensland and, in particular, into the following aspects: 1. The jobs lost to Australians by the letting of contracts to overseas firms; 2. whether fraudulent practices were adopted in relation to the tendering and letting of the contracts; and 3. whether funds have been paid to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation by the individual firms which submitted tenders in relation to equipment for the power house and, if so, the amounts paid. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 23 August 1983, at 3.00 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable due to illness or other cause, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the hours of meeting of the Senate on Tuesday, 23 August 1983, be 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. (3) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 10.30 p.m. that day. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business take precedence of Government Business at 4.30 p.m. this day and that General Business orders of the day take precedence of General Business notices of motion. I have moved that motion essentially as a holding motion at this stage to seek a rearrangement of the order of business which would enable us to deal with General Business after 4.30 p.m. I should make it plain to the Senate, as I have in private discussions with the Government and indeed with the Australian Democrats, that it would be the wish of the Opposition to rise at 4.30 p.m. as has been the intention and hope, I think, of the whole Senate during this week. It is not open to me under the Standing Orders to move for the adjournment at 4. 30 p.m. and therefore I am moving this motion as the only course which is open to the Opposition at this stage. At the same time it would be the hope of the Opposition that we can, in an orderly manner, deal with the business which the Government expects to be dealt with by the Senate this week. It is not the wish of the Opposition to obstruct that in any way. Indeed until last night it was the confident expectation of the Opposition that we would, having properly considered all legislation, complete the program which the Government required this week. Late yesterday we were advised that whilst there had been a number of items of legislation which had been on the list as possible items for discussion it had been clearly indicated early in the week where the line would be drawn and it was indicated only late yesterday that a couple of additional Bills would come forward for consideration. I refer to the conciliation and arbitration legislation and the broadcasting legislation. The Senate may be able to deal with that legislation by 4.30 p.m. but it is more doubtful than appeared previously. The position is complicated by the fact that all this has happened within the last few hours of our being together. It is also complicated by the fact that the Opposition proposes to move amendments to both of those Bills. The Opposition has in mind moving amendments to the conciliation and arbitration legislation and to the broadcasting legislation. I understand that the Australian Democrats may also move amendments to both those pieces of legislation, and that may affect the attitude to the program. In saying that, I stress that the amendments being brought forward are quite independent of the program. It was the Opposition's intention to move amendments to both pieces of legislation in any event. I mention that only to prevent any suggestion that the amendments are being brought forward for any other than a legitimate reason. I seek the support of the Senate for this motion. The Opposition would wish to maintain the position as we have understood it up till yesterday, although our preference would be, as I said, to complete business in an orderly manner by 4. 30 p.m. and to adjourn. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.40) —The Government opposes the motion although it accepts that Senator Chaney is indulging in a holding action. But the simple fact of the matter is that the Government has proposed the order of business for this day. We believe it is a reasonable order of business. For the Opposition to take the order of business out of the hands of the Government in this manner so that it can, and will in fact, curtail what is an essential program is quite wrong in principle. It would have been opposed vigorously by members of the Opposition when they were in government. It is open to us, of course, to change or rearrange the order of business later on in the day. We are willing to look at that in consultation with the Opposition. I accept that there has been some difficulty in the last 12 or 14 hours in respect of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 and the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983. As Senator Chaney said, he has notified us that the Opposition will be moving amendments. The Australian Democrats have also notified us that they will be moving amendments. We have only just received one of those amendments. It seems to us that the amendments that the Opposition wishes to move are different from the amendments that were moved in another place. Obviously, we will have to reconsider our position during the day when we have those amendments. However, I believe that the motion for the order of business which was put down by my colleague Senator Button should prevail because the order of business should be in the hands of the Government. We can make adjustments later on, depending on the circumstances. But I think it is quite wrong in principle for the Opposition to come in here under circumstances like this and put down a motion to curtail business at 4.30 p.m. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.43) —The Australian Democrats will support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). We will do so on the basis that the motion is a holding operation until we can sort out the matter. I believe that with good will the Government's program can very well be achieved, as was the case yesterday. Senator Grimes spoke about the notification of our amendments to the Government. Our motion in relation to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983 was sent to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) last week. Therefore, it has been in the Government's hands for over seven days. We gave notification last year of our amendments to the conciliation and arbitration legislation. Our reiteration in respect of those amendments was communicated to the Leader of the Government on Tuesday. Therefore, the Government has had notice of our amendments to both of these pieces of legislation and, as such, Senator Grimes's remarks are not relevant and pertinent to this matter. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Haines, J. Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Harradine, B. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Townley, M. Walsh, P. ARMartin, K. J. eynolds, M. Kilgariff, B. F. Evans, GarethJessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.52) —Last night when debate on the National Health Amendment Bill was interrupted for the adjournment debate, I was debating the new pensioner pharmaceutical benefits declaration and the fact that the present Government promised, during the election campaign to abolish the declaration. That is indeed just one more promise that it has broken because it is not abolishing that declaration. Senator Colston —Oh! Not at this time in the morning! Senator WALTERS —Honorable senators opposite are saying that that is not true. The fact is that provision for a patient declaration is included in this legislation. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) does not resile from that; indeed, he says it is a simplified declaration. But this Government went to the people saying that it would not have a patient declaration, that it would withdraw that declaration that it would abolish it altogether. Those are not the facts as they stand. The Government has put forward a new patient declaration which is required to be completed at the front as opposed to the back of the form. Only one signature from the patient will be required on the declaration. The Government has not reverted, as it promised the pensioners it would, to having just the pensioner number put out at the top of the prescription form to make it much simplier for the pensioners, making it unnecessary for them to have anything to do with the patient declaration. It is a pity that the present Government cannot keep its word on anything as far as pensioners are concerned. Is it any wonder that, at this time, pensioners are very concerned about their superannuation? They are not clear what this new taxation of superannuation will mean to them. They are not sure what will come down in the next Budget. They have no idea to what extent their pensions will be altered in the next Budget. Of course, pensioners over 70 years of age are well aware of what is to happen. They know that their pensions are to be altered by this Government. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, went around the traps at election time and said that pensioners' cheques would not be altered. Senator Grimes assured pensioners-on so many occasions that I could not list them-that their cheques would not be altered and that it was only scaremongering by the former Government to warn the pensioners that they would be attacked. It has now attacked the most vulnerable of the pensioners, those over 70 years of age. In the health field the Government is saying: 'we will make it easy for everyone. We will abolish the declaration altogether.' It has not done so. The prescription form now has a declaration on the front that the pensioner must sign. It is still a declaration as much as the Government would not admit it at the time, it is aware that if some brake is not placed on abuse, the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will be abused and, indeed, we have evidence that it has been. Senator Macklin —This one is acceptable to the Guild. Senator WALTERS —It has been said by Senator Macklin that the scheme is acceptable to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, but the Guild has indulged in a falsehood by its comment that the declaration has been abolished. It has not been abolished. It has been simplified. Senator Macklin —It is acceptable to the Guild. Senator WALTERS —Yes, the Guild is happy with it because it does not have to pay the bill. It does not have to worry about any abuse. Senator Macklin —The other one was not acceptable to the Guild. You did not even talk to it about it. The Minister did not talk to it and he said that. Senator WALTERS —That is not true. If the honourable senator had been there perhaps he would have been able to express an opinion. But he was not there and I was. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Macklin, you are interjecting too much. Senator Walters has the call. Senator WALTERS —I was present during the discussions with the Guild. The Minister and I were present at the dinner held by the Guild at which we discussed this matter very fully. The Guild put forward many suggestions. It wanted the declaration abolished and the Labor Government assured it that it would be abolished. It has not abolished it. The Guild was very happy with a bankcard system. Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I refer to Standing Order 421 and ask that you cut short this tedious repetition at a time when we are under tremendous pressure to get through the business of the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Walters is entitled to debate the matter as she sees fit. Her speech is relevant to the Bill. I call Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —Senator Tate and the Government generally like censoring people . They like stopping debate. Senator Macklin said that we should be talking to the Guild but Senator Tate said that the Opposition has no right to express its opinion. Perhaps Senator Tate- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There are far too many interjections and too much conversation. This may be the last day of the sitting of the Senate- Senator Tate —You promised two minutes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Tate, you must not interrupt when I am speaking. Senator Tate —I will go for half an hour and keep you here until next week. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Tate, do not interrupt when I am speaking. I am warning the Senate that more decorum must be shown. Senator Walters has the floor and she is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. We have just had a nice display from Senator Tate, have we not-a very nice display. I think Senator Tate ought to try a little self-control. As I was saying, it is a shame that the present Government has once again hoodwinked the Australian people, the pensioners in particular, by assuring them that they would not have to worry about signing any declaration. They do have to sign a declaration and we are back to the old Hawkespeak, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) calls anything that is said by Mr Hawke, when in one breath he says that he will do something and then immediately denies it with the next. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does Senator Crowley wish to speak? If not I call Senator Baume. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.59) —I will yield if there is a speaker from the other side. I did not think there was one. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No one stood on the Government side. Senator Tate —We were informed that the Whips had come to an agreement that there would be no further second reading contributions. That was the reason why I was interjecting on the tedious repetition of Senator Walters. If that agreement has been altered, I want to be told what is happening. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The agreements between Whips are not known to the Chair but I understand that Senator Baume will wind up the debate for the Opposition and Senator Grimes will speak on behalf of the Government. Other speakers have been taken off the list. Senator PETER BAUME —It is usual, when Bills are discussed, for someone to give the case on behalf of the Opposition. For various reasons, Senator Walters last night undertook what might be called pinch-hitting, and I think did a rather magnificent job. I thank her for being here close to the adjournment and taking the matter up. I want to mention the view of the Opposition concerning the National Health Amendment Bill 1983, which deals with several different aspects of the national health scheme. It deals with changes in the arrangements for the payment of nursing home benefits and with the requirement for pharmaceutical benefit declarations. Also, it makes changes to the way in which certain domiciliary nursing care benefits may be revoked. The Opposition will not be opposing the general principles spelt out in the Bill. However, we will be proposing several tidying up amendments, which I will foreshadow a little later. I will also make some observations on the Government's position in continuing the pharmaceutical benefits declaration-a matter which has been referred to by Senator Walters- notwithstanding a specific undertaking given prior to the election that the declaration would be abolished and indeed a boast made in the second reading speech that it had been-it has not. I will take those elements of the Bill seriatim. First, the legislative power regulating the establishment of, and standards in, nursing homes lies with the States. As a result, the system that has emerged has been one in which nursing home standards may differ between the States-and in fact do-and even within the States. While the Commonwealth has the responsibility of providing much of the finance used to support nursing homes, the differing State standards have meant that, at the Commonwealth end the administration of nursing home benefits has always been difficult. The difficulty has been compounded by a series of recent court decisions which have held that individual nursing homes have to be treated on an individual basis. The result is that what was administratively difficult has now become administratively impossible. It has become an administrative nightmare for any government. For that reason we will support, and would have introduced had we been in government, legislation spelling out the principles to be applied in determining the payments to be made to nursing homes and requiring that those principles be tabled in the Parliament and, of course, be subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament. I wish to mention briefly the role which private nursing homes play in the care of the geriatric aged. As I stressed earlier, it is not possible to generalise about the whole of Australia because there are differing arrangements State by State but in Victoria, for example, there are approximately 14,000 geriatric beds. About half of these-7,700-are in privately owned nursing homes. Currently there is a waiting list for the admission to geriatric homes of 7,000 to 8,000 approved patients. The capital cost of constructing nursing homes in Victoria is about $20,000 a head, of which $5,000 to $6,000 represents the cost of land. The cost of providing a bed in a public hospital in the same State is between $40, 000 and $41,000. Thus, on current costs, it is about twice as expensive to provide a hospital bed as it is to provide a bed in a nursing home. In the State of Victoria it costs about $60 a day to keep a person in a nursing home and about $120 a day to keep a person in hospital. What emerges is that it is certainly financially desirable, where medically and socially appropriate, to make maximum use of nursing home beds. If we can get a more flexible and more local provision of beds, it is socially desirable. With that background, I turn to the specific amendments which I foreshadow now and will move at the Committee stage. These amendments are all to clause 3 of the Bill. Clause 3 (b), which amends sub-section (7) of section 40AA of the National Health Amendment Act, will empower the Minister to formulate principles which will be applied in determining nursing home fees. We will move an amendment requiring the Minister to consult with the industry prior to formulating those principles; that is all-just that the Minister should consult with the industry. We can see nothing unreasonable about that. It does not mean that he must take on board what the industry says. But in view of the place which this industry has, and in view of the advantages which can flow from co- operation between the industry and the government of the day, we think consultation is appropriate. Proposed new sub-section (7B) in clause 3 of the Bill requires the Minister to have regard to certain matters when formulating the principles. We support that proposed section but we will seek to make amendments which will have the effect of requiring the Minister to consider in addition the need to provide for a reasonable return on the value of investment and the cost of delays which might occur in completing nursing home financial arrangements, particularly delays due to government inaction. I will spell these out in detail at the Committee stage. I understand that the clerks have distributed copies of our Committee stage amendments. Senator Crowley —No. Senator PETER BAUME —They will be coming round in a moment. We believe that these tidying-up amendments can be justified by reference made to comments by a judge of the Federal Court, Mr Justice Northrop, who sat on a number of court challenges to the way in which the Act was administered. In one of the cases His Honour held, in respect of an application of profit guidelines, that: as a result (of the way the guidelines were applied) no person properly advised would consider purchasing an approved nursing home business. In other words, he said that with the way in which the guidelines were applied no one with any commercial sense would want to buy into nursing homes. That is what the judge said. That comment appears on pages 26 and 27 of his judgment in the case of Nagrad Nominees. In that same case, at page 51-- Senator Crowley —And it was all due to bad government. Senator PETER BAUME —I am quoting a judge. I do not know why Senator Crowley finds this so objectionable. In that same case, at page 51, His Honour said: One matter however does call for consideration. There has been unwarranted and inexcusable delay . . . It is for those reasons that we will move that amendment at the Committee stage. The pharmaceutical benefits declaration area of this Bill is an area of some difficulty. The origin of a need for some declaration was, of course, the introduction of a new concessional pharmaceutical benefit rate, the $2 prescription cost for certain people enjoying certain concessional rights. It was felt that a distinction had to be made between those entitled to the issue of medications at no cost, those entitled to the issue of medications at concessional cost and those required to pay the normal cost for their medications. To determine between these three groups of people, some kind of checking system had to be introduced because taxpayers' money was being used. The question was how to do it. Doctors could not be required to do it. I do not think they can be required constitutionally to do so, but perhaps the Minister will advise me on that. It was thought that the beneficiaries should be asked to demonstrate that they had an entitlement to pharmaceuticals either at no cost or at a concessional cost. The fact that the administrative arrangements made for this procedure first up were most unsatisfactory is now a matter of history. Pharmacists made it clear that they considered the arrangements inadequate. They were supported by the then Opposition, now the Government, and they made known their displeasure. My successor as Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, agreed with the pharmacists that the administrative arrangements were clumsy and unnecessarily complex. He designed an interim form which was more simple than the first form. He indicated that he intended to simplify the form even further. He wrote a letter to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia before the election. In that letter, he summarised his commitment. To save the time of the Senate, as I do not want to read the letter written to the pharmacists by Mr Carlton, I seek leave to incorporate two paragraphs of it in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The government believes that anyone claiming a concession at the expense of the taxpayer should demonstrate their entitlement to that benefit in a manner that can be tested at law. It agrees that the mechanics of the patient declaration introduced on 1 January 1983 were unsatisfactory and has introduced a simplified interim declaration form that is currently being distributed. The Department of Health, under the Minister's close supervision, is examining options for reducing the pharmacist's workload. These include alternative systems submitted by the Guild, and the possible introduction of a plastic card 'Bankcard' type system (the most desired alternative) for implementation as soon as possible. The ultimate system will still require the beneficiary to substantiate the claim , something that did not occur under the previous system, but there is no reason why this cannot be accomplished in a simple manner. In addition the government will review all other paperwork in the pharmacy to try to reduce and/or simplify it. Any changes would be discussed in advance with the profession. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal would of course be free to consider claims from pharmacists for additional remuneration based on additional work, in accordance with the existing terms of reference of the Tribunal. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. What did the then Opposition, the Australian Labor Party, say? Mr Hawke in his policy speech said: One piece of wholly unnecessary red tape which we shall abolish immediately- Those were his words: on coming to government is the pharmaceutical declaration form which has been imposed by the Fraser Government on pharmacists, pensioners and the poor. Dr Blewett wrote a letter to the Pharmacy Guild in which he said: The pharmaceutical benefits declaration is an unnecessary bureaucratic imposition which will be scrapped by a Labor government. Any required details for identification purposes will be completed by doctors when they fill out the prescription form. We know now that Mr Hawke and Dr Blewett gave commitments. What has actually happened? I suppose that it depends on one's definition of what is a declaration. It seems quite clear to us that a declaration does remain . In the first paragraph of Dr Blewett's second reading speech, he claims to have met this commitment to abolish the form. He said: This Bill will, among other things, honour an important election commitment to abolish the declaration that pensioners and concessional beneficiaries must sign when they receive pharmaceutical benefits. He went on to say that it would be introduced by way of legislative change at the first opportunity. This is precisely what the Government has not done. It has abolished the old declaration form and replaced it with a new declaration form. Those who might have expected that the commitment was to do away with the declaration will be disappointed. The Minister's speech continued: The new prescription form will simplify the present complex declaration form in four ways. So there will be a declaration remaining in spite of commitments which have been made. I go back to Mr Hawke when he said: One piece of wholly unnecessary red tape which we shall abolish immediately on coming to government is the pharmaceutical declaration form which has been imposed by the Fraser Government. . . . In fact, Dr Blewett has reimposed the declaration. That is the point. We believe that is a breach of a specific undertaking during the election campaign. We have never had any doubt that a declaration form was necessary but we did not promise to abolish it; it was the Labor Party. It is another promise. It has been broken . Senator Elstob —Your system was unworkable. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry. I inform Senator Elstob that the Government promised to abolish the declaration form and it has not done so. We have copies of the present form. I am sure that they are known to honourable senators. There has been some doubt about the legal standing of one signature for the entitlement to and for the receipt of pharmaceuticals. My successor as Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, has stated that he was advised by the Attorney- General's Department that the one signature would not be acceptable. He indicated to the pharmacists that he would receive opinion from counsel whether one signature was acceptable for entitlement and receipt. Mr Carlton wants to know whether that advice was obtained and what was the opinion. I ask that question simply to get the information to guide the Senate. Because we are concerned about the fact that there was a promise to abolish the declaration and it has not been carried out, I move an amendment in the following terms: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'Whilst not opposing the Bill the Senate notes the failure of the Government to fulfil the Prime Minister's policy speech commitment to abolish the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration'. Let me summarise. We believe that sections of this Bill are necessary and desirable and we support them. We wish to move some amendments in Committee to one of the clauses of the Bill. I will deal with those when the time comes. We note that a simpler pharmaceutical benefits declaration form exists but we also note in the process that the Labor Government has not honoured its promise to do away with the need for a pharmaceutical benefits declaration. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.16) —In the interests of time, it is not my intention to make a formal speech in this second reading debate. I make the point, though, that in view of my admirable restraint-I am sure that Senator Tate will agree-I would like a little indulgence from the Chair when we reach the Committee stage so that I can make the points then that I would normally have made now. I say at the moment only that the Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendment that the Opposition has moved to the second reading motion but will not be supporting the amendments that it will move in the Committee stage for reasons that I will make clear at that time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.17) —I thank the Opposition for its relatively rapid support of this legislation. The Government opposes the amendment moved by Senator Peter Baume, which was also moved in another place, because it must be one of the greatest examples of hypocrisy that have ever been put down in this place. Let me give honourable senators a history of just what happened in this saga of the patients' declaration form. The patients' declaration form was introduced on 1 January 1983, as Senator Baume has said, when other concessional benefits were introduced for patients. The form was very complicated. It was so complicated that in a test performed by the Eden Monaro pensioners' association and the local branch of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia the average pensioner took about 15 minutes to fill it out and an average of three mistakes was made every time it was filled out. Pharmacies all over the country ended up with large queues while people were waiting to have their prescriptions filled out and to fill out the form properly. There were endless complaints from pharmacists. People were not picking up their medicines from the pharmacies because the form actually frightened them. In other situations, agents would not pick up the prescriptions for their wives, husbands or other relatives because they were frightened of what would happen if they made a mistake on that form. The Pharmacy Guild complained bitterly. I know that in my State Senator Tate had consultations with the Pharmacy Guild, petitions were put around and an extraordinary number of people signed those petitions. There was general condemnation from the pharmaceutical industry, from the pensioners' association, from the medical profession, from-surprise, surprise-Mr Anthony, who actually looked at the form and realised what was going on, and, eventually from Mr Carlton, the then Minister for Health. All the time there was that general condemnation, people stood up and defended that form day after day, over and again, accusing anyone at all who was against the form of being destructive and of frightening pensioners and beneficiaries generally. Their names were Senators Walters and Baume. They did it in this place over and again. Now they both have the gall to come in here, support an amendment such as the one that is before us and suggest that we as a government have not fulfilled our promise to abolish that pharmaceutical declaration form. Under the old system a patient went to a doctor, the pension number was placed on the form and the patient or the patient's agent signed the form on receipt of the pharmaceutical benefits. Under the system introduced by the previous Government the patient had to fill out a complicated form to determine just what his or her entitlement was and sign that form on the front and the back. The pensioners could not understand it. Now only one signature will be required instead of two. The ridiculous amount of something like $65,000 was spent to send out two rubber stamps for doctors to use, on the back of their prescriptions. We have made the form simple. We have reverted to the previous system which requires only one form, yet Senator Baume and Senator Walters have the cheek to come in here and say that we did not abolish the old declaration form and did not fulfil our election promise. Disraeli was right: Conservative governments and conservative Oppositions are organised hypocrisy. There is not a better example of that maxim than the people sitting opposite us now. The simple fact of the matter is that this new pharmaceutical declaration form has the approval of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, pharmacists generally, and the pensioners' association. It is not disapproved of by anybody, unlike the previous form. It is a satisfactory solution to what was a difficult problem. When we were in Opposition we used to hear Senator Walters, Senator Baume and others tell us that there is an enormous amount of fraud taking place in this area. They said that people were defrauding the system and that they needed to bring in this form to stop all these terrible people doing so. Over and over again we asked the then Minister for Health about the level of fraud. We even asked Senator Walters, thinking she might have some inside information as she was in constant consultation with the former Minister for Health and constantly went to the dinners of the Pharmacy Guild and was told by it, that everything was okay. We asked them over and over what the level of this fraud was. We conceded that if there is a huge amount of fraud taking place, something might need to be done. We could not get an answer. Senator Walters —But you told me in the Estimates Committee hearing. Senator GRIMES —The only time an answer was given was when we came into government and I was willing to give Senator Walters an answer. The previous Government would not tell us. If we look at the record, we will see that there is not one occasion on which the Minister for Health or the Minister representing the Minister for Health in the former government would tell us. I told honourable senators what the figure was. The officials and the Department of Health agreed with me that the figure was perhaps $20m. That was a guesstimate. That was the best figure we could get. Frequently we were told in this place that there was an enormous amount of fraud, but nobody was willing to quantify it. Senator Peter Baume —I do not think that is right. I think we said there was potential for it. Senator GRIMES —Over and over again we asked for a figure to be put on the level of fraud and we never got an answer. The simple fact of the matter is that this legislation will result in the abolition of the stupid, complicated, worrying and difficult patient declaration form introduced by the previous Government. As a result of this measure, patients will have to sign the prescription form once and identify themselves by their number once. Patients, patients' representatives and the pharmacy industry as a whole agree with this proposal. It abolishes that stupid, wasteful declaration form. The previous Government was being pressured so much by people who were being badgered by unnecessary bureaucratic processes that it would have had to do this sort of thing itself. We have fulfilled our election promise. To suggest that we have not is absolute nonsense. It may do the Opposition good to put these words on the end of the motion for the second reading of this legislation. It may warm the cockles of its heart, give it a warm inner glow or whatever, but the pensioners and beneficiaries who need the assistance of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will now have a simple, easy, sensible system to deal with, something they did not have under the previous Government. The previous Government refused to change because it was stubborn and obsessed with the idea that out there hordes of disadvantaged people were trying to bring down the system. There is a considerable contrast between Senator Walters's vigorous defence in this place of a complicated pharmaceutical benefits form, which only achieves a slight cut in the estimated $20m over-expenditure, and her position on the tax recoupment Bills. She quite happily voted against, and spoke vigorously against, tax recoupment Bills which resulted in the taxpayers of this country being taken for $500m. I find it very hard to reconcile the morality of those two positions. Maybe Senator Walters can, but she has a unique mind in this area. As for Senator Baume's comments on the rest of the legislation, he stated that he will move amendments in the Committee stage. Apparently, the amendments have only just occurred to the Opposition because it moved none in the other place. I am aware of the source of the amendments and I will talk about that during the Committee stage. The best thing we can do is to accept the fact that we have at last sorted out the mess in the pharmaceutical benefits area. We should talk about the nursing homes area in the Committee stage. I thank the Senate for its co-operation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Evans, Jack Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Haines, J. Watson, J. O. W. Hamer, D. J. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Townley, M. Walsh, P. A. Martin, K. J. Reynolds, M. Kilgariff, B. F. Evans, GarethJessop, D. S. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.33) —by leave-I move: (1) Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 40AA(7), after ' The Minister may,' insert: 'after consultations with such representatives of proprietors of nursing homes as he considers appropriate,'. (2) Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 40AA (7B), paragraph (a), after 'operated', insert: 'in accordance with contemporary standards'. (3) Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 40AA (7B), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(c) the need to provide for a reasonable return on the value of the investment in a nursing home;'. (4) Page 2, clause 3, paragraph (b), proposed new sub-section 40AA (7B), after paragraph (c), add the following paragraphs: '(d) additional costs incurred by proprietors of nursing homes because of the time taken to complete assessments, appeals and payments made by the Commonwealth; and (e) any other matters which the Minister considers to be relevant and which are specified in principles formulated under sub-section (7).' The first amendment is to page 2, clause 3. I want to add some words which I foreshadowed in the second reading debate. They are the words: after consultations with such representatives of proprietors of nursing homes as he considers appropriate, The amendment just requires the Minister for Health to consult the industry before he formulates the principles which are to apply in relation to the scales of fees required under proposed new sub-section (7A). Without such consultations there could well be continuation of policies which were severely criticised by Mr Justice Northrop in the judgment to which I referred previously; that is, the judgment in Nagrad Nominees Pty Ltd, V.G. No. 145 of 1981. In addition, it could just be a constructive co-operative approach. I believe that it could result in considerable improvements in the health scheme, in improved services to patients and in a diminution in government costs. I can see no reason why that should not be agreed to. It imposes an obligation only that there should be consultation with such representatives of proprietors of nursing homes as the Minister considers appropriate. I cannot see that that does any harm at all. The second amendment suggests that at clause 3, paragraph (b) of the proposed new sub-section 40AA (7B), paragraph (a), after the word 'operated' we should insert the words 'in accordance with contemporary standards'. This amendment merely asks that the requirement that the Minister have regard to efficient and economic operation of homes be qualified slightly. We want to qualify it only by adding the words 'in accordance with contemporary standards'. We have in mind that without this qualification the clause could be interpreted as requiring homes to provide subsistence level services which might be quite out of touch with the justified expectations of the elderly to enjoy dignity. I am not suggesting that it would be interpreted that way but it could be. Adding the words 'in accordance with contemporary standards' would, in fact, simply provide a requirement for some protection for those who will be using the homes. They have expectations to enjoy dignity and a degree of treatment which reasonable people might regard as satisfactory. If there were full consultation and co- operation with the industry, really, such an amendment might be unnecessary. But until that is the situation we think it should be included. We think it might help those who are, in the end, the only people who matter and they are the people who use the homes. The third amendment, which is another simple amendment, proposes that an additional consideration be included which requires the Minister to have regard to the need for the nursing home proprietor to receive a reasonable return on the value of the investment. I will not debate the matter in the Committee. But it is beyond question that the overall return on nursing homes is still fairly low. The inquiry by Price Waterhouse, the accountancy firm, stated that the average rate of return was 3 per cent. Virtually every court case in the litigious field surrounding nursing homes has resulted from the incapacity of individual nursing homes to receive an adequate return on investment and/or a recognition of costs which they say were necessarily incurred. There has been considerable argument between the Department of Health and the nursing home proprietors in this area. The refusal of the Department to recognise a reasonable return as a cost necessarily incurred has been highlighted in many of the judgments the courts have made. The fourth amendment we are proposing asks that the Minister have regard to additional expenses incurred because of delays in completing assessments, appeals or matters of that kind, or delays in payments of Commonwealth subsidy. I mentioned earlier Mr Justice Northrop's comments about delays which have occurred in this area and his words that some of the delays were 'unwarranted and inexcusable'. If these delays occur, making the cash flow of a business more difficult is one way of making the survival of proprietors more difficult. Again , this is the kind of situation in which I think proper consultation with the industry could produce a solution which could be beneficial. I think it could be beneficial to the Department, to individual proprietors, to the patients and to the public interest. If delay is occasioned within government it really is proper that government should, in fact, bear the cost of that delay. This is proper if those delays are, as the judge said, 'unwarranted and inexcusable'. Our fifth amendment asks simply that the other matters which the Minister considers to be relevant should be specified in the same way as the principles which are contained in another part of the Bill and that they should be subject to the Acts Interpretation Act. The amendments we have moved seek to achieve those various points. Before I conclude, I point out that I asked Senator Grimes a question earlier in the second reading debate. I mentioned that Mr Carlton had sought some advice as to whether one signature was appropriate and that he had gone to the Attorney-General's Department. I just want to get the answer which we think should be on the public record because we need the information. Is Senator Grimes able to help us with that? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.40) —The first thing I should say is that the acceptance of these amendments at this stage of the legislation-I point out that no such amendments were moved in another place and in a moment will suggest why they were not-will mean that the continuance of established policies and practices, and after all this legislation is about ensuring that established policies and practices will be continued, will not be possible pending the passage of the legislation after it has been returned to the House of Representatives for consideration in the Budget sittings. In the meantime, considerable increases in nursing home fees, which would have to be met by the sick and the frail aged, would occur. Ultimately that would lead to increased Government expenditure in this area. In the meantime, I point out to honourable senators, patients will have to pay. A lot of what Senator Peter Baume had to say concerned consultation. Not only this Government but also other governments have consulted with the Australian Nursing Homes Association, the national body of nursing homes associations. Consultation with that organisation and with others occurs at meetings of the Nursing Homes Advisory Committee. I do not say this necessarily in a pejorative way but the problem is that there is another nursing homes association, the Private Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria, which broke away from the national body and will not have anything to do with it. Therefore it is very difficult for a national government to consult with that group. Obviously that association has no difficulty in consulting with the Opposition because every one of Senator Baume's amendments happens to come from that organisation. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that but the amendments have been put forward by the Private Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria; they are not necessarily amendments agreed to by the national body. The honourable senator is putting the case of one narrow section of the nursing homes industry. The reason these amendments were not moved in the House of Representatives is that they did not reach the House before the National Health Amendment Bill was passed. We ought to recognise the fact that Senator Baume is pushing the barrow of one small section of the nursing homes industry. There is nothing wrong with that, but that he is doing so should be recognised. As I have said, consultation is already provided for in the form of the Participating Nursing Homes Advisory Committee. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that established policies and practices of previous governments and Ministers can be followed in a way that would otherwise be inhibited by the result of court cases such as those to which Senator Peter Baume has referred. The practices are already established and accepted-except by a small group-and the Government wants to confirm that they should continue. Although there have been informal consultations on the matter, they have been with the national body, which knows what this legislation is all about. Senator Baume's proposed amendments include the use of the phrase 'in accordance with contemporary standards' but, as the honourable senator points out, there are varying standards in various States throughout the whole community. To include such phrases 'in accordance with contemporary standards' would be to insert a fairly ambiguous expression which would, I suggest, produce further problems of interpretation for the courts. But Senator Baume goes even further and asks that provision be made for a reasonable return to be received by the nursing homes. The result of that is that public servants in the Department of Health will be asked to determine what is a reasonable return for a nursing home, something that I do not think the associations would welcome. Already the legislation provides that under the previously established policies and practices profitability can in fact be considered by the Minister when considering an appeal. Clause 4 of this Bill protects this provision so that, as I said, previously existing practices obtain and when someone appeals to the Minister the Minister himself can then consider profitability. I am sure that it is not really wise-I think Senator Baume on reflection would agree that it is not wise-that that should be a reasonable function for public servants to carry out. Profitability is, of course, important to the nursing homes. Senator Baume quoted a section from a judgment which suggested that under the present provisions no one would sensibly purchase a nursing home. My only comment on that is that people have been successfully purchasing nursing homes and making a mint out of them for many years. They were not doing too badly under the previous practices. Although the Victorian body and the national body do not like the existing practices and although they do not necessarily like the way that governments, of necessity, have to regulate in this area, I think the national body has been consulted and will be consulted in the future. In general, the provisions are designed merely to continue established policies and practices pending the major revision of the nursing homes scheme in the Government's consideration of policy for care of the aged. The provisions offer protection to nursing home proprietors not under the previous Government's administration; that is, the principle of fee determination will be tabled in the Parliament and maybe disallowed by the Parliament. I think we have to recognise the fact that this provision arises out of a court decision which will create considerable difficulties but that the whole matter will be and in fact is under review while the Government is developing an aged care program of greater breadth and greater fairness. To bring in amendments such as this at this stage and to hold up this legislation until the Budget session will not assist the Government, will certainly not assist patients in nursing homes and will certainly not be of much assistance in general to many of the nursing home proprietors. The amendments may be of assistance to some of them for whom profitability is of the outmost concern, but it will sow confusion in the industry and in the Government's administration of it if they go through. Senator Peter Baume —What about the costs of delays? The judge referred to costs . Senator GRIMES —I will seek some information on that. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.48) —I was hoping that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) would leave me one small point from Senator Peter Baume's speech to answer. That point relates to costs associated with delays. I understand that the main problem has occurred in Victoria and that the present Government has done what I understand the previous Government intended to do, that is, has put new staff into that State to ameliorate the situation. I presume that if the problem continues past the recess some changes could be made . The problem was predominantly in Victoria. The government has also acted to ameliorate that problem. I thank the Minister-who clearly had been sitting over here during the two divisions that we had this morning-for previewing my notes and ruining my speech! I now have absolutely nothing to add except to say that I support the Government's opposition to these amendments for the reasons that the Minister so lucidly gave. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.50) —It is not a matter of reading notes, Senator; it is this telepathy that we have at the moment. As one gets weary towards the end of a session and one loses one's other faculties, one apparently improves one's extrasensory perception and telepathy. Senator Peter Baume asked about the problems faced by delays and the judge's comments on that. In looking at legislation I can see that consideration has already been given to those costs, particularly in the case where a nursing home proprietor appeals to the Minister or the appeals committee and that is taken into account. I accept the judge's decision that it should be taken into account under those circumstances. It is my understanding that the delays have been a problem in some places. Action has been taken to ameliorate that and, as Senator Haines said, particularly the problems which are allegedly faced in Victoria but which, I suggest, are not only of the making of the Commonwealth Government. The difficulties in Victoria in the conduct of nursing homes have to do with State regulations. I believe that there is adequate provision in this legislation to allow costs caused by delays to be taken into account. In relation to the patient declaration, the Attorney-General's Department has advised that, under the current National Health Act, one signature will not cover the two matters of receipted benefit and entitlement information. That is why the Government has moved in the National Health Amendment Bill to provide for this situation. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.52) —I would like to make a couple of points, hurriedly, because of the rearrangement of today's business. I draw Senator Peter Baume's attention to the way most people spell 'fulfil'. It is nitpicking; I am delighted to nitpick about the spelling errors. Unless Senator Baume can tell me that the Senate spells the word differently from the rest of the country, I could not support a motion that was incorrectly spelt. Senator Peter Baume —That is a great contribution. The clerks write out the amendments, Senator. Senator CROWLEY —Senator Peter Baume should check it. He is the senator. He is answerable; he is responsible. The Opposition's first amendment draws the attention of people to consultations with representatives of proprietors of nursing homes. I find that very interesting. I make a comment in passing that no consideration at all is given to speaking to anybody other than the people who run or own such homes. I assure the Opposition that this Government, in consultation, does not speak to proprietors only. It will make it its business to speak certainly to the unions involved because they, too, have a very valid interest in the operations of all of these businesses like nursing homes and, in particular, the care of patients. So, I have to oppose the first part of the amendment. Apart from all the reasons so nicely spelt out by Senator Grimes, I oppose it, too, because Senator Peter Baume is so selective in whom he wants the Minister to talk to. I make a few comments also about the pharmaceutical form. There is no doubt at all that the Government has taken commendable action in replacing that disastrously confused form that was upsetting people to the extent that was documented and described earlier with a very much simpler form. It will use only one side of the form. It is a simpler form to read. It will require a single signature. Using the proposed form, pharmacists can revert to the previous easy practice of assisting people by filling in a number if the doctors do not put all that is required on the form. The most important point is that the form will achieve what it was set up for. The responsibility for the accuracy of an entitlement claim rests, as it always should, with the beneficiary. Whilst we have had some peculiar statements here about fraud and the amount of it and whether we were pursuing it, the Government appreciates that there is some potential for fraud in the pharmaceutical area. That is why the Government has unashamedly acknowledged that the declaration form should continue. The debate is not about whether that is the issue but about how to design a simple form that coherently gets the information that we want in the simplest way without disadvantaging the old, the handicapped, the non-English reading and so on. The interesting thing is that this form was introduced by the Opposition as a mechanism to crack down on pharmacy fraud. The onus was going to be placed on the pharmacist to see that the declaration on the back of the form was filled in correctly. The form included a statement pointing out that false and misleading information would subject the patient or the agent, in this case possibly the pharmacist, to a $1,000 fine or six months gaol. Interestingly there was no clear indication of who would decide if it was the patient or the agent who would be fined or gaoled. It became clear that many patients thought it meant them and they were often so frightened by the threat that they did not even come back for their medicines. However, Mr Carlton, the then Minister for Health, persisted. Although he knew it would make it very difficult for everybody, including a lot more paperwork for pharmacists, he stated: But we have large sums of money going out on things like pharmaceutical benefits and medical benefits. He said that he would make sure that the money would go out honestly and in the right direction. What the form showed essentially was the insensitivity of the previous Government to people in the community. That is really what it was about . It paid no regard to the hardship, the confusion, the chaos or the fear that it created in thousands of Australian people and, in particular, the people who were timid, old or disadvantaged in the pursuit of an area of potential fraud. Even more remarkable was the fact that the fraud was assessed as being done by pharmacists yet it was the people needing medicines who were grossly upset by the Government's procedures. The then Government's bullets were aimed at the wrong target. However, Mr Carlton persisted unrepentant and in the face of all sorts of evidence he would not change his mind at all on the forms. It is interesting to note, and I will not delay the Senate with all the quotes that I have to justify this stand, that on 6 December Mr Carlton said that he was spending $460m of taxpayers' money on pharmaceuticals but only one month earlier he was spending $300m worth of taxpayers' money on pharmaceuticals. Either there was an enormous increase in expenditure in December or he was not too accurate in his figures. If he could be out $160m in the space of a month it does make a piddling small amount of $ 20m potential fraud. I am not justifying the fraud, please understand that, but I am suggesting that if the former Minister could be $120m wrong from one month to another, I cannot imagine that both figures were right, perhaps he was not reliable in other areas. Eventually he realised-it took him a long time to do so-that the forms were ' hideous' and a 'fiasco'. The Minister who introduced them actually overruled them. At last he sympathised with the outrage generated by their introduction. He said that he 'was astonished at the form's confusing design'. He admitted that 'the implementation of the declaration was badly handled' and he proposed to abolish the form and replace it with a plastic card issued to pensioners and unemployed people. Fortunately we had an election before he was able to do all of those things. We now have a government that has introduced a very simple form that achieves all that is necessary to check possible fraud but does nothing to disadvantage or confuse people. The Opposition has been at pains to insist that we are not honouring our promises. This form change is a clear example of how this Government is doing what it was elected to do-clear up the mess created by the previous Government. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(10.59) —I support the Government in its bringing forward of this proposal which will ensure that the only entitlement information required of somebody seeking a pharmaceutical benefit will be that on the front of the prescription form a single signature should appear which will allow the pharmacist to determine whether the patient should pay the $2 charge for health care card and pharmaceutical benefits concession card holders or receive the medication free as a pensioner health benefits card holder. I think that that is an entirely sensible and modest arrangement. I believe that this legislation reflects a great victory. It is a victory for pensioners and other disadvantaged people throughout the community. It is a victory for the small business section in our society because most chemists and pharmacists are, of course, small business people. It is a victory for those concerned citizens who deluged this chamber with signatures on petitions protesting about the intimidatory and confusing form, the back of which the then Government required should be filled in, double signed and all the rest. Senator Peter Baume is smiling but he will not smile in a moment. As I say, it is a victory for people who are most disadvantaged in our society-the people holding pensioner health benefit cards and entitled to get medication free. By definition, normally we are talking about the frail and the elderly in our community-those perhaps with failing eyesight and those perhaps who do not have the ability in literacy which one would hope a decent education system would produce. One need only to refer to the report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants Committee-the Galbally committee-which showed that there are very high levels of functional illiteracy in the community. To be faced with a warning on the bottom of a form threatening a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment for failure to fill in the form correctly was indeed an intimidatory experience for most elderly and frail people, particularly for those who are perhaps not as literate as they might be and particularly for recent arrivals in this country who do not have an adequate command of English. Of course, when I raised this matter back in November 1982, Senator Baume had this to say: I have looked at the forms. I believe they would be ones that most people could fill in. In respect of my point about those who perhaps do not have the capacity to understand English because they are recent arrivals in this country, he said: If any explanation of the forms needs to be done that can be arranged through interpreter services in appropriate languages. This is what he had to say about somebody who presents himself with a doctor's prescription at a pharmacy to acquire some much needed medication. Senator Peter Baume said: 'Oh, he can go to the interpreter service if he is having difficulty with the forms'. That is how compassionate and understanding he was at that time . The new much simplified form represents a great victory for these people. It also represents a victory for small business in Australia because pharmacists and chemists are the ones whose business was most disrupted by the bureaucratic hassle which the previous Government forced upon them. If honourable senators had any contact with small business people operating city pharmacies, particularly pharmacies which require medicines to be sent by bus into country districts, they would know that this form created absolute chaos and confusion. It also distracted pharmacists from their primary task of safely and efficiently dispensing medicine to those who presented a prescription from their doctor. I was deluged in Tasmania with many requests from pharmacists who pointed out that intolerable strains were being put upon the conduct of their businesses, requiring hours of extra work each week for which, of course, they were not reimbursed and which, as I say, diverted them from their primary task of dispensing medicines-their professional duty within the community. However, the then Government was making them agents of the bureaucracy. Thirdly, of course, the legislation represents a great victory for those people who, particularly in South Australia and, with Senator McIntosh's help, in Western Australia, signed thousands and thousands of petitions in order to indicate their support for action to get rid of the form which the then Government had imposed on the community. The fact is that within a couple of weeks and with the co-operation of 85 per cent of pharmacies in Tasmania I managed to get approximately 9,000 signatures on a petition condemning the Government's form. I know that Senator McIntosh achieved something of the same scale in Western Australia. The scale of that response over a short period of weeks earlier this year shows, I believe, that the Government was entirely out of touch with the people in this respect. It is true that the Government has a right to protect the community against any defrauding of the revenue and that is why this simple form requires the signature of the person getting the benefit. I do not think that one can really say that that is not a sensible proposal. In fact, it was insisted upon by the Commonwealth law officers. In that respect one cannot argue with it. As I say, it is really a victory for ordinary common sense to prevail. It was largely the democratic processes of petitions to this Parliament, an ancient, democratic right which was utilised by people, particularly in Tasmania and Western Australia, which brought to the attention of government-the new Government in particular-the need for some alteration in this regard. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Order! Could I just make the point, because I have allowed some leniency, that this is not the opportunity for second reading speeches. Senator Crowley was also at fault. I dislike having to name honourable senators. The purpose of the Committee stage of the Bill is to raise questions with the Minister and to make points that are relevant to the Bill and to the various clauses. This is not being done at the moment. I ask that the honourable senator make the points that are relevant, ask questions of the Minister and let us complete the legislation as soon as practicable. Senator TATE —Madam Temporary Chairman, I appreciate very much your direction and of course I will abide by it. In abiding by it, I want to indicate that I was diverting a little from the strict understanding of the Committee stage of the debate because we were given to understand, by the Whips' arrangement, that we were not to put our names on the speakers list for the second reading debate which would have entitled us to half an hour to speak; we would be, by the arrangement, entitled to speak for some 10 minutes in Committee in lieu of the half hour on the second reading. Madam Temporary Chairman, I speak through you to the Opposition organisers of business: If they do not like me speaking for 10 minutes in the Committee stage, I will speak for half an hour on the second reading stages of Bills to come. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. Madam Temporary Chairman, I refrained from taking a point of order during the speech of the honourable senator which I thought, with great respect, was very much along the lines you indicated when you drew his attention to the Standing Orders. It is not for the Opposition to make arrangements which bind Government senators; that is a matter for the Government. All I can say is that in future I trust we will direct our attention to the Standing Orders and take points of order where appropriate. I do not regard it as appropriate to be admonished by the honourable senator in the way he has just done. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Senator TATE —Madam Temporary Chairman, I accept your direction and of course I will remain relevant. I ask the Minister: Will he give an undertaking that the Government will remain open to achieve such further modification of the form which has been produced, in the light of experience? It may be, for example-this is an elaboration of my question-that the form needs a little more room for the actual writing of the prescription. This matter was raised with me by members of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. I am seeking an assurance from the Government- the operation of this new form has been the subject of many congratulatory comments from chemists-that it will retain an open mind as to further improvements of a modest kind which might be achieved. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.8) —I will speak briefly because I think I can conclude the Opposition's contribution if I can get back to the amendments which are before the Committee and away from the second reading debates and criticisms of amendments which are not before the Committee which Senator Crowley raised. If Senator Crowley said that we were wrong in our first amendment to try to seek consultations just with proprietors, of course she has missed the point entirely. We merely seek to make it mandatory that consultation occur with such representatives of proprietors as the Minister thinks appropriate. It in no way limits the Minister as to the kind of people with whom he might consult. It merely says that, among those he will consult shall be some people from among this group. In no way does it place any limits upon the kind of consultation. I say to the honourable senator that our view is like hers, that consultation should be wide and broad, and there is no difference between us. We simply want to identify in our amendment that the discussion should include proprietors. I say to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) that I can count the same as he can. We have an indication of the fate of these amendments and the fact that they are not going to succeed. For that reason the Opposition will not seek to divide the Committee, but ask the Minister a question concerning, in particular, amendment (4) which relates to additional costs incurred by proprietors of nursing homes, in particular where this is due to government inefficiency or delay. Senator McIntosh —That is a matter-- Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry, but that is a matter that has been referred to in judgments given in court. I wish to ask the Minister a perfectly reasonable question: Will he undertake to have the Government keep that kind of issue before it? It may well be that an amendment like that may turn out to be appropriate. I think the Minister wants the legislation up and running and believes that acceptance of the Opposition's amendments would delay it. I think that is a perfectly proper observation on his part. The House of Representatives might have had to come back next week to deal with another matter but, because of a vote taken in this place yesterday, that is no longer the case. Will the Minister take on board the spirit, particularly of that proposed amendment and the other amendments dealing with consultation? I think their acceptance could lead to a better outcome in the whole area of nursing home provisions. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.12) —Two questions have arisen from the last two speeches made by honourable senators. I will deal firstly with the question asked by Senator Tate. Of course, the Government will keep an open mind on the effectiveness of the new pharmaceutical benefits form. We will consult the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, pharmacists generally, pensioner associations or anyone else who has a view on the matter, on the effectiveness of this form and any difficulty which may arise, with a view to modification should that be necessary. I thank Senator Peter Baume for recognising that this legislation should go through and for his statement that he will not unnecessarily delay the passage of this legislation by calling for divisions et cetera. I think it is important to remember, I said previously, that the legislation provides that the matter of costs due to delays et cetera can be brought up with the Minister. In the spirit of co-operation, I will take on board the honourable senator's suggestion and guarantee to speak to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) about the possibility of taking costs into account, particularly costs that are due to delays in the bureaucratic process and not the fault of the nursing homes. On the matter of consultation generally, I think it is important to realise that this Government does consult, and the previous Government consulted, the nursing homes through the Nursing Homes Advisory Committee. The problem arises when groups have disagreements and break away. As the honourable senator will know, the problem is deciding what is a reasonable consultation. To some people it means consulting every nursing home proprietor in the country and to do that is just not possible. We have no desire to see continual conflict and war between the Government and the nursing home proprietors in this country. I feel sure that as we develop a new policy in a new regime for caring for the aged we will arrive at a more satisfactory situation. Of necessity, an arrival at such a satisfactory situation will mean that both sides believe that they have been properly consulted and that there has been broad consultation throughout the community with consumers, nursing home proprietors and other organisations that care for the aged. I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in this matter. Amendments negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.15) — The Senate is debating the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. Once again the present Government has broken promises. I do not think that anyone on the Government benches would deny that. It is not so much a case of the Government's breaking the promises it made to the pensioners but of making those promises in the beginning when it knew that eventually it would break them. That is the tragedy of the situation. That, I believe, is the whole crux of what the Opposition has called the dishonest approach of this Government. The promises made at election time were conceived in deceit and dishonesty. The Government is grossly culpable and we on this side of the chamber will continue to criticise it. We are told that the Government will save $167m by this legislation. The Government is prepared to save $167m out of the pockets of those pensioners 70, 80 and 90 years of age. Where will it spend that money? I suppose it will go towards the $427m that we are told Medicare will cost in the first year. Two hundred thousand elderly people will be affected and the Government will take from those people the whole of the $51.45 or at least some of it. The Opposition is concerned mainly about the retrospectivity of this legislation. It has said that the legislation will force those elderly people to take lower standards of accommodation. Some of them are sick, some of them are in nursing homes, others are looking after themselves in units. They have been told that when November comes they will have to move out of their accommodation into a lower standard of accommodation. Senator Tate —What was the threshhold amount? Senator WALTERS —That, we believe, is retrospectivity. Senator Tate —What is the threshhold amount? Senator Robertson —She is not going to answer. Senator WALTERS —Perhaps I should quote a few of the statements that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) made about this matter. I am quite sure that the honourable senators who are interjecting now would not be commenting if they remembered those statements clearly. On 17 March, in a Press release, Senator Grimes said: Pensions are not under threat. No proposals have been made to change the present pension system, nor have there been any such discussions by the Government. He said: 'No proposals have been made to change the present pension system'. On 6 April, in a Press release headed 'Speculation on pension cuts unfounded', he said: Speculation on pension cuts in today's 'Age' is totally without foundation. It is not supported by the text of the Department of Finance Forward Estimates Report, prepared for the Economic Summit on which it is ostensibly based. Such ill-founded speculation on the part of the 'Age' can only cause confusion and anxiety amongst many persioners and beneficiaries. There is no sound from the Government benches now. At the National Economic Summit Conference he said: There is . . . little scope to tighten existing income tests. Indeed, there are grounds for regarding . . . them as already too harsh. Was it just a good idea at the time to say that sort of thing? He believed that already there were grounds for deciding that income tests might be too harsh. ' We have no intention at all of taking any money out of the pockets of pensioners ', he said. A report in the Bulletin of 10 May stated: There can be no question of reducing the current level of pensions provided. ( The new Labor Government has promised to increase the level.) Apart from the fact that any government that tried to reduce the pension would, in the words of . . . Senator Don Grimes, 'be shot at dawn,'- Senator Tate —Are you the main speaker for the Opposition? This is appalling. Senator WALTERS —Senator Tate says that to quote these things is quite appalling , that it is quite appalling to remind Government senators opposite that it was their Minister for Social Security who made these promises to the people of Australia. Senator Tate says that to quote these now is appalling. He does not want us to be honest about it. He says: 'Do not look at what we have said-that is an appalling thing to do.' Senator Tate ought to be ashamed of himself. I hope that from now on he will keep quiet. Senator Tate —Why do you hate true Tasmanians? Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator is in so much trouble back home that he should keep very quiet about Tasmania. When the previous Government froze the pension for those on higher incomes at $51 for a single person and $88 for a married couple we did not do so retrospectively. We did not say: 'Okay, we will abolish that'. We said: 'We will freeze it at what you have, so your standard of living can be maintained. We will not take it away from you'. Let us look at what Senator Grimes said on that occasion. I hope that Senator Tate will not say that to do so is dishonest. As reported at page 1468 of Hansard for 19 October 1978, Senator Grimes, in referring to the freezing of the pension of those aged 70 years and over who receive higher incomes, said: We find this proposal to reimpose any sort of income test sufficient reason to oppose this clause. . . . the burden of this action should not fall on people within that age group . . . As reported at page 1469, he added: . . . I believe that it is wrong to reintroduce an income test of any kind on pensions received by people aged 70 years . . . That is what Senator Grimes said when the previous Government introduced the Social Services Amendment Bill. He went on to suggest that the Government had a psychological desire to kick the less fortunate of the community in the teeth. He asked what the Government was doing to the over 70s and stated that it was kicking the pensioners below the belt and at the very least, causing great confusion to the elderly. But he did not stop there. He made some very good statements at that time-in a purely political fashion, considering the retrospective action his Government is taking today. The action we took then was not retrospective. He went on to say that the previous Government was passing mean legislation, making pensioners bear an excessive share of the Government's economic measures at little gain to the public purse. As I noted earlier, he said: I believe . . . it is wrong to reintroduce an income test of any kind on pensions received by people aged 70 years and over . . . Senator Lewis —Who said this? Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes had a lot to say at that time. Senator Lewis —Who, the Minister? Senator WALTERS —The present Minister. Not satisfied with that, the Leader of the then Opposition, Bill Hayden, had a go. He supported Senator Grimes. I might pick up Senator Tate's earlier interjection. Bill Hayden said: The argument about millionaires receiving pensions is a cruel and emotive device to cover up the Government's real intentions. He said that our Minister for Health was using this argument to justify ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings that they had worked for all their lives. That is what the then Leader of the Labor Party said. Finally, let us look at what Senator Grimes said at the National Economic Summit Conference- that great event that was held to obtain consensus and to bring Australia together. The Government maintains that it wishes to bring Australia together, yet at this moment the Tasmanian Government is across the road at the High Court . What a ridiculous statement this Government made when it talked of bringing Australia together. It went to the people with a slogan of bringing Australia together, yet at the moment our State is before the High Court. At the Summit, Senator Grimes, on the subject of all social security means tests, said: It could well be argued that in many areas we have already gone too far. The interaction of positive taxation and income tests can result in effective marginal tax rates for some 80 per cent, or more, . . . He said that already in some areas the effective rate of tax was 80c in the dollar. I said that I would speak very briefly on this Bill. There is a lot more that I would like to say and to put to the people of Australia on how our Government brought in all the humane areas of the pensioner health scheme and pension benefits. The present Government is now committed to rip up those benefits. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(11.27) —For the benefit of honourable senators opposite, I remind the Senate that the means test for the pension for people over 75 was abolished by the then Labor Government in 1973 and for those over 70 in 1975, leaving one to suppose that, had that Labor Government continued, ultimately there would have been no means test on pensions and that they would indeed have been acknowledged as a right and not a privilege for people at the end of their working lives. In 1978 the income test was unfortunately re- introduced by the then Liberal Government, leaving the no-means-test pension for the over-70s frozen at the 1978 level of $51.45 per week instead of $81.60 for those satisfying the means test. It is in fact this 'frozen pension' that is being affected by the proposed legislation. The argument has been put in all sorts of areas by the present Government that now is the time for sacrifices to be made by everybody and the over-70s are not excluded from these sacrifices. Emotional arguments have been brought up about people like Lang Hancock and Sir William McMahon. People have waved their arms in the air and said how appalling it is that people on the sorts of incomes received by those two people should continue to be entitled to the frozen pension. I suggest that such people represent a very small section of the community. It seems to me that there certainly would not be sufficient of them to manage to rack up the $167m which the Government anticipates saving in the eight months that this will operate. Most people over 70 years of age have already made sacrifices all their working lives and often since retirement. Those people have saved hard. Some of them have acquired superannuation payments. Some of them have sold their family home to move into a smaller unit, and then invested the capital. They tend to be the sorts of people who invest their money in fairly long term deposit schemes which are predominantly used for investment capital in this country. Therefore, it is their money which is being put to work to produce some of the jobs in which the present Government says it would like to see an increase. The really wealthy people will not be affected. They have the cunning, the expertise and the legal and accounting advice to rearrange their affairs so that they remain immune. I would suggest that the Government has inadvertently indicated this in the line in the economic statement which shows what the savings will be over the next three financial years. While savings are to increase in the next financial year, they will drop in the subsequent year. I suggest that the Government is at least tacitly acknowledging either that all of these people are going to die of shock at the new scheme or that some of them are going to rearrange their business so that they avoid being caught by the means test. I acknowledge that the limits which are set in the legislation are fairly generous. However, that is not the point. I go back to the statement that I made at the beginning: Pensions should not be seen as a handout. They are an entitlement. They are an entitlement for which people have paid taxes all their lives. Of course, the more one earns the more tax one pays and, presumably one could then say, the greater one's entitlement is. Most elderly people will end their lives in a nursing home of some sort or another. Nursing homes are not cheap places in which to stay, particularly if one remains there for 10 years or more. Many elderly people need or prefer to buy into a nursing home which is run by an organisation with which they have had an association all their lives. It is my belief that they deserve not only to be able to retain the capital they need to do this but also not to be further distressed, confused and upset over this sort of legislation. It is for that reason that I intend to offer my support to the Opposition's amendment to the second reading motion. I believe the legislation imposes a disadvantage on one of the most vulnerable sections of our community and that it fails to address the vital question of equity for all social security beneficiaries. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Haines, the Opposition has not moved an amendment yet. Senator HAINES —Had it, I would have! Senator Walters —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to do that now, then Senator Haines will have- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, I will call you after Senator Haines has finished. You cannot interrupt Senator Haines's speech. Senator HAINES —I repeat: If the Opposition moves the amendment I will certainly support it. If it does not move the amendment, I support the sentiments which are endorsed in what was proposed. For the reasons that I have stated, I oppose this legislation. It is totally the opposite of something which the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, mentioned the other day, that is, the incorporation, introduction and establishment, if one likes, of a national portable contributory superannuation scheme. The legislation flies totally in the face of the concept that everybody is entitled to plan for his or her old age and to be secure in the final years of his or her life. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.34) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to move the amendment. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —I thank the Government. Senator Robertson —Do thank us because one of your lot knocked us back the other night. Senator WALTERS —It was not me. Senator Robertson —Oh, no, not you! You would not! Senator WALTERS —I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that it disadvantages one of the most vulnerable sections of our community and fails to address the vital question of equity for all social security beneficiaries'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.35) —I just register for the record that I am opposed to this legislation. During the election campaign major pensioner groups circulated, I am sure to all honourable senators, a questionnaire asking them about their attitude to the means test for the over-70s pension. After careful consideration I responded that I was opposed to it. Having given that undertaking during the election campaign, I intend to honour it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.36) —The reaction in the community to this change has been of two types and I think that is exemplified by the two sorts of speeches we have had here today. First of all we had a speech by Senator Walters who, when she was a supporter of the then Government, supported the previous changes to the over-70s pension and vigorously supported in this place the imposition of an income test and, prior to that, a means test on pensions generally. But when a change is proposed to the over-70s pension here today she comes into this place with emotive rather than rational arguments, and with a lot of noise to make, which does not add up to much. The second approach is that of Senator Haines, who is philosophically opposed to means tests on pensions anyhow and who has been utterly consistent in her approach to this legislation. I may disagree with her but at least her approach is consistent. She has said consistently that she opposes the imposition of a means test in these areas. I think that one must remember that on the morning after the economic statement was put out, Mr Bill Ottley representing the Australian Pensioners Federation made a very sane and very rational comment on AM pointing out that he understood the Government's difficulty, that something had to be done and that if it had to be done this was the way it should have been done. A letter from Mrs Fink, the executive director of the New South Wales Council on the Ageing, says in part: I would like to take this opportunity to say that the staff of Council on the Ageing were relieved about your decision on the over 70 income test, . . . but the sensitive manner with which it has been handled is most satisfactory. I think of all the decisions that were announced in the economic statement it is worth while remembering that this one has caused very little of the emotional response that Senator Walters talks about. As Mrs Fink pointed out, the Council was inundated with telephone calls from elderly people, but they were reacting to the situation emotionally rather than rationally. I believe it is up to members of the Opposition in this place and senators generally to act rationally rather than emotionally. The simple fact of the matter is that before the election, prior to the freezing of the over-70s pension at $51.45, we had a firm and hard promise from the then Prime Minister in two places-one in Rockhampton and the other in Launceston-that nothing would be done to the pensions of those aged over 70 years. The first thing that happened in the next Budget was that that pension was frozen. It was frozen not only for single pensioners earning more than $200 a week and married pensioners earning more than $330 a week but also for pensioners in both cases earning considerably less than that. I have not had time to calculate those incomes but they were in the region of $120 and $200 respectively. That change was very much more significant than the change that has been introduced now. What is more, since that time the pension has stayed at that level and has been eroded by inflation until now it is 60 per cent of what it would have been when the change was introduced. There is a very great difference between what was then done and what is now being done. In fact, before the last election, as Senator Macklin said, some pensioner organisations-not all-circulated a questionnaire. A question on that questionnaire was: 'Will you re-introduce the means test pension for those over 70?'. In other words, they asked whether we would abolish the means test which exists on increases now. When I answered that question I said no. I said that the economic conditions even then, quite clearly, would not allow that to be introduced. Of course, we changed. Prior to the 1980 election we believed it was a reasonable thing to reintroduce a non-means tested pension for those over 70 because of the way it had been removed. But we realised before this election that it would not be possible to do so. That is why it was not part of our election promises. When the expenditure review committee looked at the areas in which we could cut down expenditure, it was concerned to make sure that such a cutback did not fall too harshly on those who could least afford it. Therefore, as honourable senators know, we introduced a means test, the lower limit of which is $200 a week for those who are single and $300 a week for those who are married. This group is still treated very much better than pensioners between 65 and 70. They are not unreasonable cutoff levels. I do not think that anyone in the community considers that these levels are unreasonable. They recognise that those over 70 may have the need for a greater pension income than those below 70. But I do not think that anyone is seriously arguing that a single pensioner earning over $200 a week in addition to the pension and a married pensioner earning over $300 extra cannot stand this sort of change in view of the difficult economic circumstances with which we are faced. I point out again to Senator Walters and her colleagues that we are faced with a budgetary situation in which the- Senator Walters —Here we go again. Senator GRIMES —I am not saying any more than this, Senator. The $160m to be saved in this area is important. Yet Senator Walters came into this place yesterday and quite cheerfully wiped off the Budget of this country some $500m to protect people who could patently afford to pay much more than the group about which we are now talking. The Opposition quite happily wiped $500m off the Budget of this country and protected people who had evaded taxes in this community and had forced low income earners and others to pay more taxes in previous years. Yet Senator Walters comes in the next day and cries tears of blood over this measure. I point out that the New South Wales Council of the Ageing, the Combined Pensioners Association and others, although they do not like this decision, have not carried on with the emotive nonsense that Senator Walters carried on with today. Senator Lewis —She gave you a decent serve. Senator GRIMES —I can cop serves from Senator Walters any time because they are irrational. She is a master-or a mistress, perhaps-at quoting out of context. Above all, she is utterly irresponsible in the way in which she attempts to stir up emotions in the community. Quite frankly, in this situation neither she nor the few other people in the community who have tried to stir up emotions have had any effect at all. I ask honourable senators to look at the reactions of those who have a closer contact with the pensioner community than Senator Walters has. Senator Walters —Have a look at Bruce. Senator GRIMES —Heavens, the way Senator Walters is carrying on, we should have had a 15 per cent swing against us in Bruce. I did not notice that that was so. Senator Walters —It was 6 per cent. Senator GRIMES —Even Senator Walters's mathematics are no good. In fact, they are way out. The simple fact of the matter is, as I have said, that two approaches are being taken to this legislation. One is that of Senator Haines who is philosophically opposed to the means test in any case. Therefore, she is arguing utterly consistently when she says that she and those of her party who oppose the measure do so for that reason. The other is that of Senator Walters, who at other times has vigorously argued in favour of a means test. She has talked about hounding single parents to collect maintenance payments and about the unemployed who are allegedly ripping off the community. I remember in one case she talked about the fact that people in her profession who become unemployed should not need unemployment benefits because while they are employed they earn plenty of money and they should save for that eventuality. She has carried on in this rigid and strict way about the treatment of the disadvantaged in the community. Today we are talking, in the case of single people, about people who are earning $200 in extra income or, in the case of married people, over $300 extra income, on top of their pensions; yet she weeps tears of blood and heaps abuse on people on this side of the House. We are used to that inconsistent approach. We are used to that strange morality. We believe that this measure must be taken . We believe, in the total budgetary situation, which will become obvious in August, it will be seen, as it is seen by most people in the community, as a reasonable measure to try to repair the damage that has been done to this country by people such as Senator Walters and those who ran the country during the last seven years. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. I will be brief. I have never said that the unemployed were ripping off people. I have never said that single mothers were ripping off people. I have never made any of those claims. Senator Grimes did not quote me, but he said that I had made such claims in this place. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Walters's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Walsh, P. A. Townley, M. Reynolds, M. Martin, K. J. Evans, Gareth Kilgariff, B. F. Georges, G. Jessop, D. S. Cook, P. T. S. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.53) —I have two fairly important points which I do not think have yet arisen in debate on the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, and two questions that I should like to put to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in the interests of people who are affected by this legislation. First, in support of Senator Haines and Senator Macklin, I should like to say that what they have said is in accord with Australian Democrat policy, which is the policy of any enlightened political party in the world now; that is, that these sorts of pensions should not be means tested. We see a certain need on the part of the Government. We see that it has taken this money because it thinks that it can spend it in a better way. I am not canvassing that issue, but it has implications for my questions to the Minister, and they are these: What are the Government's intentions for the future in this regard? Does it see this legislation as a permanent thing, or is it prepared to reconsider it in the reasonably near future? I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance today to the many thousands of people who are concerned about that point. The second point on which I think the Minister should give a reassurance is this: The limits now placed-I think they are $200 for a single person and $333 for a married couple-seem reasonably generous in terms of today' s economy, although Senator Haines made some points on that. I think that the elderly people of this country are entitled to know one very decisive thing from the Minister, and that is whether these limits will be indexed; in other words, will the Government allow those limits to rise so that they are not eroded over the next few years by continuing inflation? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.54) —Senator Mason's questions are reasonable questions and deserve answers. In the first case, this change was made in the light of the Expenditure Review Committee's decisions looking at not only increasing expenditure to increase employment in areas such as housing and community works, but also areas in which expenditure could reasonably be saved. That is why this was done with those limits, which I consider are fairly reasonable limits. Secondly, we are not satisfied with the retirement incomes policy in this country. In fact, two departmental committees or task forces are working on different aspects of this matter. We also have a policy-in the long term, of course-of introducing a national superannuation scheme. I do not believe, as Senator Haines suggested, that this sort of proposal flies in the face of a national superannuation scheme. Any national superannuation scheme in this country or any other country in which it now exists will have limits on it, particularly if it is a pay-as-you-go scheme, which it obviously would have to be. I do not think the introduction of a test such as this on extra income limits of $200 for a single person and over $300 for a married couple would militate against the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. Certainly , in the light of developing a more rational retirement incomes policy in this legislation and the other pension programs are being reviewed and will be considered in the budgetary context of not only this Budget but also budgets to come. The indexation of these limits is not written into this legislation, as Senator Mason knows. Certainly, the cut-off points must be considered in the light of inflation in the budgetary situation, just as the myriad of levels should be considered. I remind the honourable senator that cut-off points in other pension means tests are not indexed at the moment. It is my general view that if we are to have cut-off points such as this in means tests, in fact, they should be indexed. That is not always possible in the budgetary situation but it certainly will come under consideration in the next Budget. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I draw her attention to an article which appeared on page 7 of the Australian newpaper this morning and which is headed ' Battle of sexes erupts on field'. In part the article states: Women in the Australian Army Reserve who have been training and working beside men on field exercises for years have been told they can no longer serve in combat units. The army has told them to transfer to units where they can find 'womanly' employment as nurses, clerks, drivers or cooks. The move, which will affect several hundred women, brings the reserves into line with the regular army which does not allow women in its armoured, infantry, field artillery or field engineer units. Apparently, this has come about as a result of, as the article states: . . . a Federal Government decision on Thursday to make the armed forces exempt from the new sex discrimination bill . . . I point out to the Senate that that Bill has not been passed yet by this chamber . I ask the Minister: Who authorised this decision? Was the Government consulted in any way in the making of the decision? Will the Minister, either acting in her own right or in offering advice to the Minister for Defence, attempt to reverse the decision? Senator RYAN —I have seen the article to which Senator Haines's question refers and make clear that I share the alarm and concern expressed by her. I sought immediately to contact the Minister for Defence to find out who authorised such a decision, if indeed such a decision had been made. Because the article was brought to my attention only an hour or so ago, I am not in a position to answer the question. First, I do not know whether the story is true, in that there has been a change of policy concerning women serving in the reserve forces. Secondly , if there has been such a change of policy, I cannot say why or on whose authorisation that has happened. I do say that the Government would be very concerned and would take very seriously any attempt within the armed forces or anywhere else to restrict the availability of employment to women. It is the intention of the Government, introducing the sex discrimination legislation, to broaden the opportunities for employment and training for women, including those in the defence forces. I can assure Senator Haines that I will be pursuing this matter. I hope to be able to answer, or have the Minister for Defence answer, the matters raised in the article in the Australian this morning. I should clarify too that the defence forces will not be exempt from the provisions of the sex dis- crimination legislation. However, the Government has decided that certain duties that are classified as combat and combat-related will be so exempt. The list of duties to be exempted has not yet been determined . When it is determined, it will be determined by the government and will be implemented by regulation. It will be available to the Senate for perusal. It is my view and that of the Government that the list should be as small as posible and should be authentic, not one which seeks to exclude women from training and employment that in no realistic way would lead to combat. I share Senator Haines 's concern and I give her my undertaking that I will get further information concerning the article as soon as possible. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister seen page 1 of the 1981-82 report of the Commonwealth Employment Service, which states that since the abolition of the Professional Employment Offices, the CES is providing less than satisfactory service for the professional executive job seeker? I also refer the Minister to the comment that the abolition of the PEOs has had adverse effects on the general operations of the CES because- . . . there has been a reduced flow of non-professional vacancies from employers who formerly used the PEOs and an unavoidable loss of contact at the senior employer level. I ask: What action does the Minister intend to take to rectify this problem? Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, re-establish the Professional Employment Offices within the CES? Senator BUTTON —I know that Senator Foreman has a long-standing interest in this matter. He has previously asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, questions on the same topic. I am advised by the Minister that he recognises the service to which the honourable senator refers has been unsatisfactory in the past, but takes the view that a return to the previous arrangements, under which these unemployed people were assisted almost exclusively by a single Professional Employment Office in each capital city, would not be the most effective way to meet their needs. Because of that consideration, on the recommendation of the National Director of the CES the Minister has decided that the CES should examine the extensive range of issues involved and develop a more up-to-date service for these clients. I am advised that this examination is currently under way and that the recommendations are to be placed before the National Advisory Committee on the CES, which is chaired by Mr George Polites of the Confederation of Australian Industry. I think that perhaps by the Budget session there will be a definitive response to the honourable senator's question. The matter is being examined. We hope for a report by that time. Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney- General to the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act which he introduced into the Senate yesterday and which retain the provisions for conclusive certificates in relation to the documents set out in the existing Act. I ask the Attorney whether he recalls saying in the Senate on 29 May 1981 in the course of the debate on the Freedom of Information Bill: So long as ministerial discretion in any form is retained absolutely and conclusively to deny access to these documents without being subject to second guessing or review by anyone else, it is our view . . . that freedom of information legislation is simply not worth having unless we can ensure that documents of this kind come within its ambit, too. How does the Attorney-General explain the fact that his ministerial colleagues have formed the same view about the need for conclusive certificates as did the members of the Fraser Government? Senator GARETH EVANS —Of course, I recall using the words of which I am reminded by Senator Durack. It is the case that I took the view that it was desirable to remove the degree of ministerial discretion that is presently vested under the Act in Ministers in relation to security sensitive documents, internal working documents and others that can attract this exemption. The Bill introduced yesterday does not entirely remove the conclusive certificates provision but it is not true to say that there is no review process in relation to the exercise by a Minister or his delegate of the conclusive certificate power. In fact, it is proposed that there be a significant form of review through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-not the highly circumlocutory procedure under the Document Review Tribunal of the previous legislation-with a power of recommendation in the AAT to the Minister, which ultimately, it is true, the Minister may reject, with an obligation nonetheless to make an explicit statement to Parliament as to the reasons why he is in fact rejecting that recommendation. This is a significant sanction which, as I recall, is not available under the present legislation. There may be a gap, as I said in answer to a question the other day, between total aspiration and total achievement in this area. Nonetheless I believe very strongly that the freedom of information legislation, as it will exist after the passage of this amending Bill, will be a very much more substantial contribution to open government in this country than anything that was able to be managed under the previous Government. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that the review procedure of the conclusive certificates which the Attorney has said is contained in his Bill is virtually the same procedure as that which the existing Act provides for review by the Document Review Tribunal? Is it not simply a fact that there is a change only in the body that will do it, namely, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal instead of the Document Review Tribunal? Senator GARETH EVANS —Even were the question in order, which, as Senator Tate reminds me, it is not to the extent that it is seeking to canvass the contents of a Bill before this chamber, the answer would be that, although there are substantial similiarities between the proposed new machinery and the existing proposal, there are significant improvements. Senator JONES —I ask the Minister for Social Security whether he intends to make any changes in the appeals system for people who have appeared before Social Security Appeals Tribunals and now believe they are not getting fair treatment from the Department of Social Security? Does he intend to retain the right of his Department to change recommendations from the Social Security Appeals Tribunals? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Jones has implied, the whole area of appeals in respect of the Department of Social Security concerns me. It was clear to us in Opposition that there were some difficulties in the appeals system in that over half the people who appealed had their appeals upheld because the original decisions of the Department were admitted to be wrong. At the time a blitz was conducted on invalid pensions and the number of appeals rose to an even higher level. The first priority is to have a look at the early stages of decision- making to make sure that those decisions are, first of all, made correctly and, secondly, reviewed where necessary so that we do not have this situation of so many people appealing and appealing successfully. There are other aspects to the whole appeals system as it affects social security systems that need looking at. The first is the relatively informal nature of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and how effectively those tribnals are operating and the more legalistic nature of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the results that some of the decisions of that Tribunal are having on the social security system in general. In relation to the discretion of the Director-General, I think it should be noted that that discretion sometimes works in favour of the claimant against an unfavourable determination; it is not always one way. But these and other aspects of the operation of the appeals system in general will be closely looked at by the Government and by me so that we can end up with a system, I think, which is not only fair but is seen to be fair both by the claimants and by those people in the community who are paying for the system. If we can get a fairer system and a system that is more satisfactory to everyone, I think we will get a more efficient system. Senator BOSWELL —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the plight of the Queensland sugar industry which has experienced a period of downturn in world prices, drought and storm and wind damage? Is the Minister also aware of the assistance that this Queensland Government has given to the Queensland sugar industry in the form of rural reconstruction, loans from the Agricultural Bank as well as a $10m low interest loan to the co-operative mills and, two days ago, a further $10m aid to the industry? When will this Government respond to the repeated requests made by the industry and the Queensland Government for Federal Government assistance? When will this Government pull its Federal weight and honour its commitment made by its leader, Mr Hawke, on 20 February that he would give sympathetic consideration to the sugar industry for an industry loan or an underwriting scheme to include the 1982 crop? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that the sugar industry in Queensland is in difficulty. I read the papers. I am afraid that I am not aware of the details of assistance given by Federal and State governments to the sugar industry, although I am aware that has been considerable over the years and the subject of much controversy. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industry is in Queensland today. I understand that this will be one of the subjects that he will be discussing. I will refer the details of the question to the Minister so I can get an answer as promptly as possible for the honourable senator. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Is it the policy of the Government to provide cheaper fares for air travel? If so, how does this policy square with the Government's decision to deny East-West Airlines Ltd access to Melbourne and Sydney? Senator GIETZELT —Of course the Government is committed to a policy of cheaper air fares, but it is committed in the light of the capacity of the industry to provide those fares. To that extent, the Government is tied to longstanding practices and policies by the Parliament over many, many years. I refer specifically to the two-airline agreement policies which had their origins in the policies pursued by the previous Government. In respect of the controversy raging at the moment about the decision of the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley , whom I represent in this place, to deny certain facilities to East-West Airlines, it has to be understood that the Commonwealth is obliged to uphold the law in this respect and that East-West, in fact, is breaching the legislation. Therefore, that does not put the Government in a position where it can easily ignore what East-West is doing. The Independent Air Fares Committee was established by the Fraser Government. It has been delegated authority by the Parliament to establish air fares. Therefore I think the obligation rests with East-West to provide the basic information sought by that Committee's requests so that a proper decision can be reached in respect of the East-West decision to offer cheaper air fares from Sydney to Melbourne, even if the flights go via Albury. This Government, as distinct from the previous Government, is committed to a review of the two- airline policy which we have inherited as a result of the policies which were pursued by the Liberal-National parties. I find it somewhat difficult to appreciate the concern of Opposition senators, and particularly that of the spokesman for the Liberal Party, Mr Spender, who is in some sort of ideological mish mash at the moment. He does not know his way out of the problem that faces his Party which, after all, believes in a policy of rationalisation. Members of the Liberal Party have to make up their minds whether that is their approach to airline questions in this country or whether they will rely entirely on a free market situation. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister was asked a comparatively simple and straightforward question in short terms about the policies of his Government with respect to a particular decision which is pertinent now. The answer is clearly debating the question. The PRESIDENT —The Minister, of course, is entitled to answer the question in a way in which he sees fit. However, I draw his attention to Standing Order 100 which states that a Minister, in answering a question, should not debate the issue. Senator GIETZELT —The Government is concerned about the price of air fares. It is attempting to rationalise its policy. That is why it has called for a review of the two airlines agreement. In light of that situation we cannot stand by and see an independent airline taking action which is in breach of existing legislation. One would expect that the Liberal and National parties would have some appreciation of the difficulties in which the Government is placed in this respect and not find itself being assailed by the spokesman on a matter which is an interpretation of the policies pursued by the previous Government. Our attitude is to review the two airlines agreement. In those circumstances East- West might find that it has a case and that the Government is sympathetic towards the airline. But until that point has been reached the Government has no alternative but to deny the facilities, as has been stated by the Minister for Aviation, Mr Beazley. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General both in his own capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is there a committee called the 'Committee in Support of East Timor within the Australian Labor Party'? Did the Committee write to all branches in Victoria, in the latter half of last year following the ALP conference in July and call on the Labor Party federally to implement its policy on East Timor? Who are the members of the Committee, if it does exist? Who are the signatories to the letter? What is the policy to be implemented? Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe that that question is entirely out of order. It bears upon internal party organisational matters and has no relevance whatsoever to the conduct of the ministerial portfolio of the Minister whom I represent. Senator COATES —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Finance seen a recent advertisement in the Australian Financial Review headed 'Tax Avoidance is alive and well in Aus!!!'? The advertisement states: A complete four-cassette recording (6 hours) is now available of what was said at my recent Tax Survival Congress . . . hard-core, practical methods . . . how to delay your tax claim for at least five years . . . how to salvage your assets in the meanwhile . . . twelve new, proven, Hawke-proof ways to earn a tax-free income. How to kill a tax investigation. Cheques ($250) to Dr Peter Clyne . . . The advertisement gives an address. I ask the Minister: Even if the Government has to live with the decision of this House last night to allow $570m of revenue to be lost, will the Government do something to kill the effectiveness of those who continue to rip off the vast majority of Australian taxpayers and who make a living out of encouraging others to do the same? Alternatively, if tax avoidance is no longer alive and well, can the Government take action against Dr Clyne for false advertising? Senator GRIMES —I have seen advertisements similar to the one referred to by Senator Coates. I do not know that I have seen that one. I understand that the heading 'Tax avoidance is alive and well' has been used in a lot of advertisements since the former discredited Treasurer of this country-- Senator Ryan —Well done. Senator GRIMES —I practised all night. The former Treasurer failed to take proper action against tax avoiders in this country. I dare say that after yesterday's performance in this place a new set of cassettes will come out containing excerpts of speeches by Opposition members in this place demonstrating to those who would indulge in tax evasion and tax avoidance that they still have friends within the Parliament. I think it is a pity that such advertisements should be produced in this country. I think it is appalling that this should be done for gain and in a public way. The Government has certainly been inhibited in its efforts to get at the tax evasion and tax avoidance industry. Those people opposite who frequently write to me urging that I should attack those on the unemployment benefit, those on the single parent's benefit and those on social security benefits in general, and make sure that they do not get too much, were willing to vote in here yesterday to allow a large number of people who can well afford it to get away with $500m. However, I will refer the detail of the question to the Minister for Finance to see whether something cannot be done to stop parasites like this preying on the rest of the community in the way that they have done. Senator LEWIS —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that a Mr John Bowen has accompanied the Prime Minister as a senior adviser on his visit to Indonesia? Is this the same Mr John Bowen who, as an officer of the Office of National Assessments, in 1980 was censured and disciplined by the head of ONA for leaking 'ideas' for information being assembled by Mr Jim Dunn of the Parliamentary Library staff? Is it not common knowledge that Mr John Bowen and Mr Jim Dunn are close personal friends? Is not Mr Dunn well known for his strong criticism of the Government of Indonesia over East Timor? Can the Minister tell the Senate whether the Government believes that the Indonesians will discuss anything in confidence with the Prime Minister while he has Mr Bowen with him? Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether Mr John Bowen is accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to Indonesia. I will undertake to find out. But on the assumption that he is, I am able to answer certain other parts of the question. Firstly, I am able to say that it is common knowledge in this Parliament, I believe, that Mr Jim Dunn was opposed to the manner of incorporation within Indonesia of East Timor. If I might say so and offer an opinion, I think that Mr Dunn has been consistent and courageous in his position in relation to that matter. I would answer the other part of the question by saying that I do not believe that the Indonesian Government is so sensitive and so puerile that it would engage in a process of guilt by association of the kind which has been suggested in Senator Lewis's question. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the possibility of serious harm being caused to Australian industry by dumping of goods from overseas countries in Australia, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that dumping complaints are dealt with more speedily? Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator's question is highly topical, I suppose, as it turns out. There is widespread concern amongst many Australian industries about the impact of alleged dumping of exports from overseas countries in Australia. It has been a matter of quite continuous discussion I suppose for the last 18 months or so. That discussion has been very much engendered by the world recession, not only because of the effects of allegedly dumped goods in Australia but also because of the capacity of other countries, where they have industries working well below capacity because of the recession, to provide goods in Australia at considerably reduced prices. Since this Government came to office it has undertaken and pursued a vigorous examination of anti-dumping provisions. Yesterday or the day before the Department of Industry and Commerce distributed a discussion paper to industry on the current dumping provisions and proposals for change of those provisions. The discussion paper has been widely circulated and officers of the Department this month will be discussing it with industry throughout Australia in the form of seminars and so on. I draw Senator Elstob's attention to the fact that there are very different views about the dumping issue-one view I suppose being represented on one side by the National Farmers Federation and, on the other side, by particular industries which claim to be very much affected by dumping. We hope that review will be finalised within a month or so and the Government will then announce the position in relation to existing anti-dumping provisions. It is a matter of great concern and it is being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Senator REID —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It arises from what is becoming a common practice in the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales to insert in contracts for the sale of land, and in contracts for commercial conveyances, an option clause whereby if the Government introduces a capital gains tax in the August Budget, the vendors will have an option either to proceed with the completion of the sale or to rescind the contract. In the light of this, will the Minister confirm the Government's election promise that it will not introduce a new capital gains tax either directly or indirectly upon profits arising from sale of property? Is the Government giving any consideration whatsoever to a capital gains tax? Senator BUTTON —The Government is not giving any consideration to the introduction of a capital gains tax. The whole question of the imposition of taxes will have to be considered in the Budget context by the Government. The question of the introduction of a capital gains tax has not been considered by the Government since it was elected to office. The question of the taxation package which the Government will have to look to in the Budget context may well have to be re-assessed as a result of a decision which was made in the Senate last night in relation to the tax recoupment legislation. As Senator Reid well knows, there was a very substantial loss of revenue as a result of the defeat of that legislation. That means that the Government will have to make a very vigorous assessment of how that-- Senator Chaney —At least you might do it honestly this time. Senator BUTTON —I do not know what that means. The Government will, in the Budget context, have to consider how that revenue is to be gained. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs: Is it a fact that there has been a recent substantial increase in the number of claims-claims related to new disabilities as well as service pension claims- lodged with the Department of Veterans' Affairs? What are the reasons for such an increase in claims? How is the Department coping with this increased work load? Senator GIETZELT —There has been a very substantial increase in the number of claims being received by my Department. I think that would flow from two basic reasons: Firstly, the decline in the economy-people being out of work and people being concerned about retrenchments-and, secondly, the age of veterans generally . With the sort of economic decline which has characteristed this country's behaviour over the last four or five years and the responsibilities which therefore rested on the previous Government, I think it is understandable that lots of people would be applying for some sort of government assistance. Veterans from any of the wars would obviously see an opportunity to place their claims before the Department of Veterans' Affairs for consideration. As I understand it, the number of veterans claiming disability pensions for the first time has increased by some 29 per cent. Other veterans with repatriation entitlements are claiming additional disabilities. Those claims have increased by something in excess of 31 per cent over the last year. In recent times I have been asked several questions about service pension entitlements. That, of course, is related to what is happening in the employment area generally. Over the last year there has been an increase of some 27 per cent in the number of claims for service pensions. During a period of unemployment and economic downturn I think we would expect to see an increase. That increase has taken place in the 12-month period to about April. Clearly, that increase would have an economic influence. To that extent, of course, the previous Government is indicted for the failure of its policies over the last seven years. In addition, a considerable amount of pressure is being exerted on the Department to extend the range of benefits to many veterans from overseas who have come to live in our country. That also indicates a growth in application numbers. All in all it can be said that it is envisaged that the substantial increase in the number of claims by veterans that we have had this year will continue next year. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, who would be aware of the personal suffering of some former members of the failed Tasmanian Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund. Is the former Chairman of the Druids Medical and Hospital Benefits Fund the same gentleman who is now before the courts in relation to his handling of moneys relating to a Tasmanian shipping company? Were there any irregularities in the Fund's records? Were officers negligent in the discharge of their duties? What action did the Federal Department of Health take to identify and rectify the Fund's financial and liquidity problems over several years? Can the various government reports which have been prepared in relation to this Fund be released for public examination? Further, is it true that the funeral and death benefits fund under the Tasmanian Druids' umbrella is now in financial difficulties? Were moneys paid irregularly from one fund to another to give rise to this latest financial predicament? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the difficulties that were created by the collapse of the Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund and of Senator Watson's close interest in this matter. At that time many patients who were owed funds after being treated in hospitals and by local doctors, many hospitals that were owed funds and many doctors who were owed funds ended up in considerable difficulty. Some people had to sell assets to pay the bills that resulted. At that time Senator Watson, I and others in this place made inquiries of the Department of Health during both Question Time and Estimates committee hearings to try to find out what had happened. I accept that we never received a satisfactory response to most of our requests. Therefore, it is disturbing for me to find that, as Senator Watson has said, the former Chairman of the Fund is now in difficulties in another capacity because of his alleged mishandling of funds. The Federal Department of Health had difficulties with Druids and other hospital benefits associations at the time, I believe as much because of their inability or lack of willingness to follow the existing regulations and legislation, as the necessity to demand from those hospital benefit funds the regular return of records which they should have provided. As a result of the difficulties of Druids, it is my understanding that there was a State and Federal inquiry. I think it was a combined State and Federal inquiry but there may have been two separate ones. I have tried, and it is my understanding that Senator Watson has tried since that time, to get the result of these inquiries and to get the reports which were issued at the time. We have been unsuccessful. In light of the new happenings, I will certainly approach the Minister for Health and ask him to see whether we cannot get one or both of those reports released. If it is true that the funeral and death benefits fund run by Druids is in difficulty, if the rumours that that fund was used to prop up the hospital and medical fund for a time are true, I believe it is primarily a matter for the State Government, as the funeral and death benefits fund comes under the State Government. But I hope that with State and Federal co-operation on this occasion we will be able to get to the bottom of what I believe has been a very murky pool. Senator GEORGES —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. During yesterday's debate on the first reading of a money Bill, I referred briefly to the Hope Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security Agencies and to pages 12 and 13 of the transcript of evidence. In view of the Commissioner's comments and the manner in which they were made, I ask the Attorney-General: Does he agree with those comments and the manner in which they were made? Do these comments and the manner in which they were made reflect upon the impartiality of the Commission? If so, what chance has Mr Combe and, for that matter, any other person who may be investigated by the Commission? I further ask: Are we about to witness a Petrov-type inquiry, this time under a Labor government, in which the main accuser stands remote and all evidence is not available to the person accused? Senator GARETH EVANS —The precise words of the Commissioner, to which Senator Georges referred yesterday and to which he refers more elliptically again today, were as follows: A person can be a security risk without having committed any offence . . . I do not even know that you have to offend against a principle. But that is all a matter of submission later on. I am asked in effect by Senator Georges to do two things: First, to expound on what the Commissioner meant by those words and, secondly, to sit in judgment on what he said. I propose to do neither. As has almost universally been accepted in public comment made since his appointment, there is no one better qualified in Australia than Mr Justice Hope to conduct the present inquiry and to conduct it thoroughly, fairly, and in the interests of all parties before it, including, of course, Mr Combe. Senator GEORGES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney- General did not refer to the manner in which the comments were made. They were made in interruption of the defence counsel. That interruption put a different aspect on the matter. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have nothing to add to my answer. Senator CHIPP —I ask Senator Button, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question which I should like to have asked Senator Walsh, but he is not here. It concerns uranium mining. Is it not an act of hyprocrisy to object to the French Government testing nuclear devices in the Pacific but at the same time continue to export and sell our uranium overseas? In other words, we will continue to sell our uranium for use in nuclear weapons but it must be tested in someone else's backyard, not ours. Does it not in effect mean that? Why has the Government given authority for two companies, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd, to negotiate new contracts to, in the words of the Minister for Trade, '. . . maintain a presence in that market'? Why would it be necessary for this Australian Labor Party Government to allow new contracts to be negotiated to maintain a presence in the uranium market if ALP policy is to desist from the signing of new contracts and the continued export of uranium? Senator BUTTON —The Government has made quite clear on many occasions, and will continue to do so, its opposition to French nuclear tests in the Pacific. I think it is fair to say that the Government agrees with the implication in Senator Chipp's question that if the French Government wishes to test nuclear weapons, it should at least do so in its own back pool rather than in ours. The question of whether there is a nexus between the continuance of supply to a French electricity authority-under existing contractual arrangements between various French companies and the French Government-and the question of putting pressure on the French Government to abandon nuclear tests in the Pacific is a matter of judgment. A number of aspects need to be weighed. By implication Senator Chipp makes a judgment which is perhaps different from that of the Government. The Government is examining all aspects of uranium policy. In regard to the supplying of electricity power utilities in the United States, to which the honourable senator refers, it is not correct to say that the Government has authorised either of the two companies mentioned to enter into contracts in that regard. I understand that the companies have been allowed to resume negotiations with the American electricity power utilities but, of course , the question of any contractual arrangements is a matter for subsequent examination in the light of the general review of existing arrangements regarding the export of uranium. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. To quote Senator Walsh, what is the point of allowing these two companies to resume negotiations with certain electric power utilities in the United States if the Government-after those negotiations have been resumed-vetoes the conclusion of any contract? What is the point in allowing negotiations if, at the bottom line the Government is going to say: 'No more contracts'? Senator BUTTON —I am unable to comment on the history of the negotiations. I very much suspect that the continuance of those negotiations might be affected by what has taken place in the past. As I am unable to give a precise answer to that question I will direct it to the Minister for Trade and obtain an answer for Senator Chipp. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the impact on Australian automotive components manufacturers of continued expansion of the export facilitation scheme, including recent cancellations of $22m worth of car parts contracts? In view of the serious state of the car industry in South Australia, what does the Minister plan to do to limit any ill effects caused by the scheme? Will he indicate whether he will go to Adelaide to see the problems of the car industry there at first hand? Senator BUTTON —I am very well aware of the concern amongst sections of the automotive components parts manufacturing industry about the impact of the export facilitation scheme. I am aware also of their concern about the effect that that scheme is having and could continue to have on their operations. In fairness, I have to say that while that scheme is affecting some component parts manufacturers adversely, benefits do flow to other component parts manufacturers by virtue of its operation. I will refer to a situation of which Senator Maguire as a South Australian senator will be aware. The benefits of the scheme to the Mitsubishi company and certain component part manufacturers have been positive. There is no question of terminating the export facilitation scheme. I make that clear. There has never been any suggestion by the Australian Labor Party, in opposition or in government, that the scheme should be terminated. There is a very real need for the motor car industry to improve its competitiveness, both in its interest and in the interests of consumers. Whatever one does with the operation of the scheme, there will be different views within the industry about the benefits which it gives and, in some cases, the detriment which it causes. The honourable senator will not need reminding that, prior to the election, the Government indicated that it would re-examine the decision of the previous Government to extend the export facilitation scheme to 15 per cent from the present limit of 7 1/2 per cent. There is a great diversity of opinion on that issue within the industry. It is a matter upon which the Government hopes to reach a decision, probably later this month, after discussions with various interests representing various parts of the industry at the Automotive Industry Advisory Council. I have been asked by the honourable senator whether I will visit Adelaide to discuss the motor car industry with representatives of the industry in South Australia. I will be going to Adelaide next week and having discusions with the South Australian Government and with interests representing various parts of the motor vehicle industry regarding that matter. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is prompted by the information he gave earlier in response to Senator Giles. I now ask: Is the Minister in a position to clarify the position of repatriation pensioners following the introduction of the new Medicare program? Will they be affected by the levy? Is he able to clarify their position? Senator GIETZELT —I think I spoke last week, in reply to a question from Senator Reid, on the question of the levy as it applies to veterans. No levy will apply to average beneficiaries under the Repatriation Act. Specifically, discussions are taking place between the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to work out precisely the cut- off point for those in receipt of substantial incomes. For example, if members of parliament received a disability pension, I do not think it could be argued that they should be exempt from the levy. Those sorts of matters are still under discussion. They will be resolved in time-certainly before the Budget. I assure the Senate and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that 99 per cent of average beneficiaries of repatriation pensions will not have to pay the levy. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr President, I wish to ask a brief supplementary question. Will those entitled to free medical care at present be affected by the levy? Senator GIETZELT —Nobody will be disadvantaged as result of the Government's approach to these matters. I assure the Senate that the Government is determined that those who suffered as a result of their war service will not be affected in any way. Senator SIBRAA —I ask the Attorney-General: Is it the case, as reported on the front page of today's Sydney Morning Herald, that the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, is to raise with the Queen next week a plan to take away the rights of State governments to deal directly with her? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Hawke is not going to do anything of the kind because there is no plan to take away the right of the State governments in Australia to deal directly with Buckingham Palace. The reason that there is no plan is not least because there is no such right at the moment for the States to deal directly with the Palace. At the moment their access, the channel of advice, is through the United Kingdom Government-the Minister responsible for the Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office-and it is that link through the British Government which survives from the eighteenth century that Mr Hawke described as anachronistic. If I quote from the full passage of Mr Hawke's exchange with Laurie Oakes on Channel 10 which was so spectacularly misreported by the Sydney Morning Herald in its front page article this morning, the matter should be put back into its proper context. The question was: I guess what I'm really asking though, is, why do you need to see the Queen. What's her relevance? To which Mr Hawke replied: Well, interestingly enough, Laurie, there is one quite specific issue that the interest of this country and the States demand that we talk about and that's arisen because of proposals about how we will deal with the residual links with the Crown which exist now between the States. The way the situation operates now is that in matters concerning the appointment of Governors and Imperial Honours, the States' access to the Queen is in this anachronistic method that has to go through British Ministers. Now, the questions that are being discussed as to how in fact we'll have one source of communication with the Crown via the Australian Prime Minister. There are certain issues involved in that which are important to the States and to us and I will be talking about this with the Queen. I make it clear further that what is at issue here is the implementation of the 1982 Premiers Conference resolution for the severance of anachronistic residual constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom involving in particular the removal of Privy Council appeal rights and also some other matters involving the relationships between the States and the Palace. One matter to which Mr Hawke referred was left unresolved. That was the question of the appointment of State Governors, the granting of Imperial Honours and matters of that kind. Issues remain to be resolved in discussion with the States. There is a number of options for the solution to this problem, apart from retaining the present anachronistic situation. Those options are being actively discussed with the States at the moment. There is no question whatever of any severance of the relationship that the States now have, to the extent that they want it retained, through the British Ministers of the Crown, taking place without the consent of all the States concerned. Senator TEAGUE —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to an answer which she gave in the Senate last week which appears on page 874 of Hansard of Thursday, 26 May. In regard to the funding of non-government schools on the basis of need, she said: My view is the view of the Government. I ask whether she supports the policy of the Australian Capital Territory division of her party which states: The present division of schooling into Government and subsidised Private schools is inefficient, maintains inequality, Generates conflict and division and its perpetuation is not in the best interests of the children of Australia. Senator RYAN —The honourable senator asked a question which is concerned with the policy of a branch of the Australian Labor Party rather than Government policy. The policy which determines the activities of Labor in government is formulated at a federal level. There is some scope for the Australian Capital Territory branch, like any State branch, to have a policy which differs in some way from the Federal policy. However, from the extract of the Australian Capital Territory policy which Senator Teague read out I would think there is no discrepancy between that policy and our federal policy which is, as I repeat, a policy to fund non-government schools according to need. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it the Government's policy to make decisions to overcome the division of schooling between government and private schools? The PRESIDENT —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs may answer the question if she regards it as a supplementary question. Senator RYAN —I simply repeat: Our policy is the funding of non-government schools on the basis of need and the funding of government schools to ensure that all children have access to a higher standard of education. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the situation in the shire of Barrabool in Victoria where the residents suffered substantial damage from bushfires on 16 February 1983? Did the shire request assistance for a child care service to cater for child care needs of parents who are trying to rebuild their residences and resettle themselves? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the situation in the shire of Barrabool. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator GRIMES —I am surprised at the mirth of those opposite. In the shire of Barrabool in the recent bushfires no fewer than 700 homes were destroyed and people were killed and people lost their properties. As a result the shire council requested assistance from the Federal Government to set up a child care centre with the aim of assisting those who were in the process of re- establishing themselves. The Department and the Government were able to respond very quickly soon after we got into government and we allocated a grant of $17, 000 for this temporary occasional care service. As it happened, the shire found that there was no need for such a service. I was informed a couple of days ago that the shire did not wish to go ahead with the grant because although many problems affected families who had to face desolation after the bushfires the local people preferred not to be separated from their children while reclamation and reconstruction was in progress. The efforts of the Federal Government were directed to assisting the people, but the people, as is often the case, assisted themselves even more and the money has been returned. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to an application by Mr Jack Waterford of the Canberra Times who, on 5 May 1983 under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, sought disclosure of documents by the Treasury relating to the processing of an earlier application by Mr Waterford for documents, which application had become the subject of litigation before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and which included claims for advisings and records and related to the briefing of counsel in those proceedings and the record of expenses incurred in relation to the proceedings. I ask: First, is it correct that the Treasury has refused disclosure of practically all such information and has acted on a conclusive certificate signed by John Owen Stone claiming reliance on the exemptions of 'internal working documents' and 'legal professional privilege'? Secondly, why was such a decision left to John Owen Stone, a notorious opponent at all times of the creation and operation of the Freedom of Information Act? Thirdly, does the accompanying statement of John Owen Stone under section 26 of the Freedom of Information Act also refuse to disclose the record of expenses incurred by Treasury in resisting this application on the extraordinary ground that it would infringe the privileges of the parliament to disclose any payments made by the Department of the Treasury prematurely before they were recorded in the expenditure votes of the Department? Does the Minister agree with this arrogant claim which infringes the privilege of senators to require financial accountability from public servants? Senator BUTTON —I understand that Treasury has refused to disclose the information in terms which relate to the first part of Senator Missen's question . In dealing with the subsequent parts of his question I shall leave out the pejorative expressions, if I might. I suspect that anybody who expresses views about Mr Stone in those terms is likely to get the benefit of his considerable literary talents. I assume that Mr Stone gave the conclusive certificate. He is the principal officer of the Treasury and is responsible for giving such conclusive certificates under the Act. He is, I suppose, as the principal officer of the Treasury, the person best placed-and he is clearly well placed-to determine whether the documents in question were internal working documents as required by the Act and he is also the person best fitted to determine whether access to documents having legal professional privilege implications, which are referred to in a different section of the Act, should or should not be refused. In answer to the third part of the question, I understand that the claim made by Senator Missen in his question is correct. Of course, how one describes the allegation which Senator Missen made is a matter of opinion. But deference to privilege of Parliament in my view may not appropriately obtain the opprobrium which is suggested by Senator Missen. I am aware of the activities of Mr Waterford, who has been most diligent in making inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act. I am instructed that the answers to the three parts of the question, insofar as I have been able to obtain a view, are as I have given them . Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m. Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party in the Senate)(2.15) —I indicate that the Opposition certainly does not oppose the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. It grants the Australian Wheat Board the right to borrow overseas up to 50 per cent, and perhaps more of its requirements if it sees and indicates the need. We believe that capacity is certainly essential to the effective operation of the Wheat Board in its extremely important task of marketing Australia's wheat crop, as it is required to market 70 per cent or more of the wheat produced in this country in a highly competitive world market. The industry is restrained in some measure by extraordinary cost circumstances relating to the cost of protection over a wide area and relating to such matters as spiralling wages and the cost of chemicals, such as superphosphate. Of course , the recent increase of 2c a litre in the price of avgas can be added to those costs. The importance of aerial agriculture to the whole agricultural and pastoral scene in Australia should be remembered, and one hopes that the imposition which was announced in the recent mini-Budget will be the last, because the farming community and primary industry in general have just climbed out of the most severe and extensive drought that this country has ever known. One can only hope that the Budget which will be presented in August will acknowledge that sufficient pressure has been placed on that section of the Australian economy-a section that produces something like 50 per cent of our export earning capacity-and that no further imposts will be made. In view of the time constraints, I will make only one or two further references which are of some concern. We hope that the Government, as was indicated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), will look sympathetically at any need that may arise for the Australian Wheat Board, in its vast task, to borrow money at Reserve Bank Rural Credit Department rates if, indeed, those rates are below the rates available inside or outside Australia in other fields. It is essential that the lowest rate be available to the Wheat Board, as it competes in a very competitive international market which is very often distorted by the dumping onto that market of subsidised surpluses. I hope, and believe, that the Government will take a sympathetic view of the borrowing needs of the Australian Wheat Board in the exercise of its duty. With those few words, I reiterate that the Opposition supports this measure. We believe it is important that borrowing should be able to be carried out in overseas markets at the best possible rates. It is a policy that is a continuation of the determination of the previous Minister for Primary Industry. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(2.20) -The Australian Democrats support the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. The decision to allow the Wheat Marketing Board to borrow overseas has been sought for some time by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and by the National Farmers Federation. At a time that is important in relation to overseas interest rates, the Federation has made it very clear- and it is certainly so-that significant savings could result from growers. The Australian Democrats congratulate the Government on moving so quickly on this aspect in the rural area. We believe that it will be extremely well received by people in that area. My only other comment is to register a question mark as to why the previous Government, having spoken about this for so long, did nothing about it. It is excellent that this measure has been brought forward now. It deserves the support of every honourable senator. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.21) —I thank the Opposition for its co-operation in this legislation. I have nothing to add to the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 31 May. Consideration of the House of Representatives amendments. House of Representatives amendments- No. 1-Page 29, Schedule 1, before ''Honey Levy Collection Act 1962. Sub-section 8 (1)-Omit 'ten per centum', substitute '20%'.'', insert 'Honey Industry Act 1962. Paragraph 18 (1) (c)-Omit 'on the security of the honey', substitute 'on such security as the Board considers adequate'. No. 2-Page 55, Schedule 1, add at the end of that Schedule 'World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983'. Paragraph 17 (9) (a)-After 'State', insert ' or in the Northern Territory'. Paragraph 17 (9) (b)-After 'State', insert 'or the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, as the case may be'.''. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the amendments made by the House of Representatives be agreed to. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(2.23) —The first of the amendments made by the House of Representatives is pursuant to the arrangements which were made in this chamber when the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) was last before us; that is, that the rather wide-ranging proposed amendments to the Honey Industry Act 1962 should not proceed but, rather, that there be made an appropriate amendment designed to do no more than cover the problem of the mode by which security will be obtained by the Honey Board for advances made by that Board to honey producers, and to overcome the concerns expressed by the Department of Finance in relation to the nature of the security which had in the past been able to be obtained. It appears to me that for this purpose the amendment now before us achieves that result. The Government is not proceeding with the original proposals and has gone about the matter in a different way, in a way which simply provides that the Board can determine what the form of security ought to be, what is an adequate form of security. Will the Minister now indicate for the benefit of all producers and those concerned about the operation of this scheme what form of security might be considered appropriate by the Australian Honey Board in the light of my request during the last debate, that consideration be given to a lien or bill of sale over existing honey stocks? Will that be part of what the Board will regard as a reasonable means of obtaining security? If it pursues the activity it has been pursuing, which is the mortgaging of honey producers' properties, some honey producers, because of the downturn that has taken place in the industry, will not be in a position to continue to provide that sort of security. But when they have produced honey and have it in stock surely some appropriate lien or bill of sale over the stock ought to be regarded as sufficient security. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.26) —I understand what Senator Rae is concerned about. He considers that the proposed amendment, even in this legislation, is too broad. I think he is saying that he would prefer that the amendment specify what form of security can be taken, for instance, a charge on the owner of a guarantee given by a bank or a lien of some kind. Senator Peter Rae —That is one possibility. Senator GRIMES —That is one possibility. In other words, the same sorts of criteria could be used which, I understand, have been adopted in the dairy industry regulations. Is that the gist of what the honourable senator is saying? Senator Peter Rae —That is one possibility. What I would like to know is what is being contemplated. Senator GRIMES —I am informed that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government, in fact, reject the honourable senator's approach as being too narrow rather than too broad. For instance, the formula in the dairy produce regulations does not take into account the rapidly changing money market with its new forms of investment and security. This could, in fact, lead to a further amendment in a few years to allow for loans on even different sorts of security. Honey producers, in legitimately arranging their business affairs, may not have any assets on which the charge could be made or upon which a bank could give a guarantee. The proposed formulation put to me-I put it to Senator Rae-will not run into difficulties of this kind whereas the more narrow approach of the honourable senator may run into difficulties. If that is not clear the honourable senator can ask me more questions. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(2.28) —I thank Senator Grimes for endeavouring to assist in this matter. I think there has been a misunderstanding. I was not suggesting that the grounds should be narrowed. I was seeking to suggest some possibilities which did not appear to be being entertained under the provisions of the former legislation. I am now seeking an indication of whether the Australian Honey Board and the Department of Primary Industry will contemplate whether the honey itself will be able to be used as security for advances, which was the original concept. I am assured that that would assist honey producers in Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(2.29) —I am informed by my advisers that, in fact, the Australian Honey Board will be able to use honey as a form of security in cases in which that is appropriate but that in other cases it will use other forms of security. I am not quite clear on how that is not satisfactory. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(2.29) —Having got the assurance that that will be one of the areas which will be considered by the Australian Honey Board for the purposes of providing security, I hope that we can now finalise the consideration of honey Bills in this chamber. I am satisfied. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government Business of the Day No. 8, Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983 and Order of the Day No. 9, Broadcasting and Television Amendment ( Election Blackout) Bill 1983. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-For the information of honourable senators I indicate that following consideration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill the Government will seek, after consulting the Opposition, to amend the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is entirely within the prerogative of the Leader of the Government to move at any time that the order of business be changed. Senator Chipp —I could not hear the Leader of the Government. What is to happen after the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill has been considered? Senator BUTTON —As Senator Chipp will be aware, the Government has had discussions with both the Opposition and the Australian Democrats and, as I understand it, it may well suit the convenience of the Opposition if the Senate proceeds to deal with another Bill after the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill has been considered. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I seek your indulgence to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the honourable senator claims to have been misrepresented, he may proceed. Senator WATSON —At Question Time this morning I directed a question to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), representing the Minister for Health, seeking certain Government reports on the failed Druids Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund. Further, I raised a question about an allegation that its funeral fund, which is a separate fund, was now in financial difficulties. I raised questions about the transferring of moneys from that fund causing the current dilemma. I wish to mention that the Druids fund to which I referred is a Tasmanian fund and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has no association with any other fund in Australia. At the same time, I find it surprising that it is possible to register the same name for separate entities, with separate responsibilities, which nevertheless exercise similar functions. I wish to draw that distinction to save embarrassment to contributors to funds that may be registered under a similar name outside Tasmania. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(2.34) —The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill has two major purposes-firstly, to abolish the Industrial Relations Bureau and, secondly, to facilitate union amalgamations. Both subjects are well enough known to the Senate and to the people of Australia that I need not explain further the purpose of the Bill. In any event, its purpose has been set out clearly enough in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). The Opposition supports the Bill as a whole. It supports both the abolition of the Industrial Relations Bureau and the principle of facilitating union amalgamations. The Industrial Relations Bureau was, of course, set up by the Fraser Government . I believe it had a very important purpose indeed; namely, to ensure an even- handed enforcement of the conciliation and arbitration laws. During the years the Fraser Government was in office it passed a number of very important laws to protect individual members of unions against the overweening powers of unions which had been acquired both legally and outside the law. Unfortunately the union movement has claimed to be outside the law. As far as I can see, the policy of the Labor Government is to facilitate the freeing of the union movement from any restrictions of the law. This Bill does not deal with any of those major issues, which no doubt will be the subject of very considerable debate in the Parliament so long as the Labor Government is in office because I have no doubt that it will propose various amendments to the Act in the future which will weaken the provisions which protect the public from the overweening powers of militant and rampant unionism. Those are matters which we will address in the future. Fortunately we do not have to address them this afternoon. The Industrial Relations Bureau was an instrument created by the Fraser Government for the purpose of seeking an even-handed enforcement of the conciliation and arbitration laws not only against employers who breach or may be suspected of breaching awards but also against unions which seek to breach the rights of individuals guaranteed by a number of amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which were largely the product of the Fraser Government. It appears from the evidence made available to us that the Industrial Relations Bureau has not been effective in the way intended. On that basis the Opposition will not oppose now the abolition of that Bureau. However, one very important matter remains; that is, there should be an adequate body to protect the rights created by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, of individuals who inevitably find themselves from time to time in conflict with the unions and, as I said, the overweening exercise of union power. The legislation provides that the power to enforce the law against breaches of awards by employers and the investigation of those breaches of awards should be restored to the Arbitration Inspectorate. That will be under the auspices of the Minister, as it was before the Industrial Relations Bureau was set up. That is all very well and I hope it will work effectively. As I understand it, the other powers of the Industrial Relations Bureau will be largely conferred on the Industrial Registrar. I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button)-when he stops talking to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who is distracting his attention from this debate at the moment-to assure us in his reply that adequate resources will be given to the Industrial Registrar and that the Industrial Registrar has adequate powers remaining under the Act adequately to enforce the law against unions, as well as the power to move against employers which is provided in this Bill. The other aspect of this Bill which I mention briefly is the facilitation of union amalgamations. The present situation is that unions can amalgamate only if 50 per cent of the enrolled union membership vote for an amalgamation. A simple majority of members is required. That provision has created a number of problems for unions that want to amalgamate. It is very difficult to get 50 per cent of the actual membership to vote on the question. Although that may be an interesting commentary on the way in which unions operate and the extent to which unions operate and the extent to which unions are really subject to democratic control by their members, nevertheless, we accept the fact that major practical difficulties have occurred. Therefore, this legislation proposes that that provision should be modified to enable the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at its discretion to make a declaration that certain unions have sufficient community of interest to justify their amalgamation. If the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is so satisfied and makes a declaration accordingly, a minimum 25 per cent of the total membership is required to vote-fortunately to that extent, the democratic control is retained-on the question. But it also provides that there should be only a simple majority. That would mean, therefore, that an amalgamation could be agreed to by a union even though only 12 1/2 per cent of the members of the union agreed to it. The Opposition is very concerned by that provision. Indeed, I hope the Senate will be concerned by it also. As the Senate will be aware, a very important Senate select commitee reported to the Senate in October 1982. That Committee was presided over by Senator Harradine who is, as we all know, an expert on matters relating to unions as, indeed, he is on many other subjects. But his particular experience has been in the union movement. He was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation. That Committee also comprised three Australian Labor Party senators including Senator Button who is the Minister in charge of this Bill today and who is proposing in this Bill a matter which is rather different, as I will explain, from the recommendations of that Committee and to which, as a member of that Committee, he agreed without dissent. Senator Bolkus who is not sufficiently interested in this subject to be in the chamber this afternoon was a member of that Committee. Senator Siddons, of the Australian Democrats, who unfortunately is not present because of the will of the electors at the recent elections, was also a member. He represented the Democrats on this Committee. So I assume there is no suggestion that the Democrats will not support the recommendations of that Committee. Three other very distinguished senators were also members of the Committee-Senator Reg Withers, Senator Walters and Senator Hamer. Senator McIntosh —Where is Senator Withers? Senator DURACK —He will be here at the right moment, Senator; do not worry about that. He will be here when the test is made. I want to read what the Senate Select Committee said about union amalgamations. The report states: Evidence was given to the Committee which persuades it to acknowledge the present difficulties posed by the Act in cases where members of separate unions have reasonably expressed a desire to effect an amalgamation of their union. The Opposition accepts that. The report continues: The Committee, however, does not favour legislation which would allow for uninhibited amalgamations, and considers that amalgamations should only take place after a 'community of interest' test has been satisfied. The Bill provides for that, and we support it. The Committee stated: The Committee is also of the view that the membership of unions proposing to amalgamate must be consulted and given an opportunity to express a view thereon. We agree with that and the Bill provides for it. The Committee also went on to say: The Committee suggests that in elections where the membership is consulted on mergers, at least 25 per cent of the membership of each union should be required to record a vote, and of those voting, at least two thirds should be required to vote in favour of the proposition. Senator Crichton-Browne —Has Senator Button read that? Senator DURACK —Yes, he was a member of the Committee. This is a unanimous view and recommendation of the Committee. We should not forget the Australian Democrat member of the Committee, Senator Siddons, who also agreed with the recommendation that at least two-thirds of the membership of each union should be required to vote in favour of the proposition. An alternative proposal that the Committee stated was: An alternative could be for at least 25 per cent of the total membership of each union to vote in favour of amalgamation, provided that those voting in favour constitute a majority of the votes cast. The Opposition believes that there certainly should be an amendment to the existing law relating to union amalgamations. The existing law has been too rigorous and has prevented useful and justifiable amalgamations. Therefore we support the principle of the Bill, but in the Committee stage we will seek to amend it. An amendment has been circulated on behalf of the Opposition which will give effect to the Committeee's first recommendation, namely, that in order to approve an amalgamation there must be a certificate from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and a voting majority of 25 per cent of the members of the unions involved. At least a two-thirds majority is required. I do not want to detain the Senate at any length on this subject. It is important that where amalgamations are under consideration a reasonable number of union members should take sufficient interest in it to vote. It is very common in any organisation, whether it be companies, unions or ordinary societies, that on major issues matters are not decided by simple majorities but by something like a two-thirds or even in some cases a three-quarters majority of those voting to support the proposition. It is a very common provision. I think the Senate Committee showed its recognition of this. Senator Button, who is seeking to interject in a somewhat inconsequential manner, recognised that fact as well. The Opposition will move an amendment accordingly. At this stage we support the principle of the Bill and its second reading and we hope it will be agreed to by the Senate without undue delay. Senator HILL(South Australia)(2.44) —I wish to contribute to the debate this afternoon although I appreciate that in the circumstances-it is the final day of sitting-I should be brief. If economic recovery is to come to Australia one element must be better, industrial relations. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1982 over 2.1 million working days were lost through industrial disputes. The figure in the previous year was nearly 4.2 million days lost. The fact that it is considerably lower than the 6.2 million days lost at the high point of the previous Labor regime in 1974, when the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and President of the Australian Labor Party, is little consolation. The figure remains beyond that which Australia can afford and it affects all Australians. In this highly competitive world the efficient and the productive will prosper. Industrial turmoil is just one further hindrance to efficiency. Therefore to limit areas of conflict is a desirable objective and that is the way that I have approached the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983. As Senator Durack said, it is a Bill to contribute to the objective, firstly, abolishing the Industrial Relations Bureau and returning to the Industrial Inspectorate and , secondly, by facilitating union amalgamation where a community of interest between unions exists. I am told that the IRB is seen as perpetuating the ideological conflict between employer and employee. Whilst I am somewhat sceptical of the logical merit of that argument, as it appears that the new Industrial Inspectorate will have principally the same responsibilities, nevertheless, in a situation where both the employers and employees want change, as evidenced by the recommendations of the National Labour Consultative Council, I would anticipate government to respond unless cogent reasons exist to the contrary. The Government's principal responsibility is to the public at large. However, to lessen strains between parties in industrial relations, less ideological conflict between employers and employees will be of public benefit. Whilst I must confess that I do not see this as in any way a major reform, I accept the change in the spirit of the advice I have-that it will be a small positive step to breaking down confrontationist attitudes. I must say also that I view the proposals to ease the restrictions upon amalgamation of unions where a community of interest exists in much the same way. If the proposals can have the effect of easing inter and intra union conflict, the price of which is suffered by the whole community, or can improve the efficiency of our industrial relations processes, the provisions deserve support. There are seven claimed difficulties arising within industry as a result of the existence of the current structure of trade unionism, which of course consists of over 300 unions, principally and historically craft or trade based. Those seven reasons were referred to the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation last year by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. A further two reasons were put by employer groups. As the reasons are conveniently listed in the Senate committee's report, I will not go through them in detail. However, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the reasons as stated in the report. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REASONS (1) demarcation disputes between unions with overlapping eligibility for membership rules; (2) inefficient use of the finite resources available to Australian trade unions from what are presently often small and fragmented memberships; (3) problems in negotiations between employers and trade unions as to terms and conditions of employment arising from the multiplicity of trade unions not only within an industry but often a particular enterprise; (4) lack of identification by trade unions which have a membership in several industries with the interests of a given industry; (5) rigidity in the structure of an industry's workforce arising from the understandable reluctance of unions to accept workers moving from their area of coverage to that of other unions within the industry; (6) the possibility of flow on of wage levels appropriate to one industry to another industry without proper consideration of their appropriateness in the context of the second industry; and (7) the possibility of wage leap frogging within an industry resulting from the multiplicity of trade unions. EMPLOYER GROUPS REASONS (1) Competition between trade unions to secure better wages and working conditions for their members in the same industry or enterprise, leading to instability in industrial relations; and (2) The inability of trade unions and employers in particular industries and enterprises to develop a common understanding of the realities facing that industry or enterprise. (See CAI Evidence, pp. 1091-92) Senator HILL —The major claim is that amalgamation will reduce demarcation disputes about which membership will perform certain work and jurisdictional conflicts over coverage of workers in a firm or industry. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not keep figures on days lost through demarcation disputes but rather provides the general causal head of trade unionism. In the last full year for which figures are available, 1981, 87,400 working days were lost under that head. In the previous year 103,400 working days were lost. The Senate select committee took evidence from the Federated Clerks Union of Australia which argued that days lost attributable to demarcation disputes in the seven- year-period 1973-79 were no more than 3 per cent of working days lost in any one year. One commentator, however, J. Niland, estimates that about 8 per cent of all strikes in Australia result from demarcation problems and a further 5 per cent are intra-union in nature. Conditionally Professor Brian Brooks, of the University of New South Wales Law School, in a paper 'Trade Union Amalgamation', said: With rapid technological change the incidence of demarcation disputes arising from eligibility clauses is certain to increase. It seems not unreasonable to assume that amalgamation will reduce certain inter- union strike activity. It might be assuming too much, however, to expect that tensions between different groups of workers now covered by separate unions would disappear with amalgamation. Intra-union problems may increase. However, this Bill deals with amalgamations where a community of interest already exists. Therefore, from the point of view of demarcation and jurisdictional disputes there appears to be potential for amalgamation for a reduction in disputes which , whilst not a major cause of time lost, is, nevertheless, a significant cause. The second of the major problems claimed to be overcome by amalgamation is a reduction in difficulties from multi-unionism. The assertion is that negotiations are made more difficult by the need to involve larger groups and more people than would be the case with a single union entity within a designated bargaining or negotiating orbit. We should however, be warned on this subject by David Gill in his article 'Industry Unions-Policy or Pipedream?' appearing in the Journal of Industrial Relations. It states: General amalgamations might reduce fragmentation in the aggregate terms but their end product might simply be fewer, large factions still organized on the present haphazard basis thereby perpetuating, even entrenching, the weaknesses that amalgamations are supposed to overcome. This brings us again back to the community of interest prerequisite in the Bill for the less stringent amalgamation proposals. The Bill may lead to a few extra amalgamations. If so, it would lead to a slight reduction in multi-unionism and as the unions being amalgamated already have a community of interest, it may reduce marginally the complexity of negotiation. It is difficult to place the merit, however, on a stronger basis. It seems reasonable to assume that some further rationalisation of multi-unionism could result in better use of resources and an improvement in operating efficiency. Even that does not necessarily follow. It must be remembered that unions are not bodies created by law but rather bodies which have grown out of a need. Howard Gill and Vivien Griffin in another article 'The Fetish of Order: Reform in Australian Union Structure' stated: Unions must be the source not the object of reform. A superior being cannot restructure the union movement according to some grand plan. But there are difficulties in the system for which the public suffer which appear capable of being lessened by certain amalgamations where a community of interest exists. The Bill in no way directs amalgamation, it simply facilitates such amalgamations and only in a small way by easing the minimum voting requirements. The union movement has, and will, remain largely cautious of amalgamation presumably because of loss of vested interests; conservatism, with workers feeling greater affinity for bodies specifically representing their particular occupation or skill category; or for other reasons. There has been little spontaneous movement towards sensible amalgamations. There is a responsibility upon those in the industrial relations arena, particularly the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to encourage such amalgamations as can improve the system and reduce community loss. Similarly, there is a responsibility on the Parliament to ensure laws that enable such amalgamations to proceed as are beneficial without undue obstacles whilst, on the other hand, providing reasonable security to the interests of particular unionists. That security lies in the minimum voting requirements. Beneficial amalgamations have not taken place under the existing provisions which were introduced in 1972. The numbers required appear too difficult to achieve. Some relaxation, therefore, seems desirable. Where the line is drawn is a matter for judgment. The rationale of the intended Opposition amendments, which are to accept relaxation to the extent recommended by the Senate Select Committee last year, is to proceed cautiously. When one is talking of the structure of industrial relations, that is an approach with merit. The reforms in the Bill will not, by their mere existence, improve industrial relations. As the Senate Select Committee said last year: 'there is considerable doubt among the industrial community that union structures predominately determine industrial relations outcomes'. The reforms can, however, facilitate improvement when there are goodwill and a common recognition that Australia, if it is to prosper in this competitive world, cannot afford the industrial relations failures of the past. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.0) —The Australian Democrats are 100 per cent in favour of the retention and the strengthening of unions because unions are basic to this country's conciliation and arbitration system. Historically, employers have preferred to deal with representative organisations rather than negotiate with individuals. So it stands to reason that there is a need and support throughout the community for the unions to be better organised to be able more fully and appropriately to represent the people on whose behalf they speak. Practically, of course, large employer organisations with hundreds or thousands of employees need representative bodies. Therefore, it is important for us to make for easier amalgamations of unions in any way that that can be achieved. We suffer in this country from the proliferation of unions, some of them minute. Nevertheless, despite their inconsequence in terms of numbers they may wield great power and do great damage to this community. Therefore we would have been very keen to see go through the amendment that I had proposed to move, as this would haved eased the way for the amalgamation of those unions whose interested, concerned and involved members are willing to support such amalgamations. We believe that the original constraints that were placed on those unions, particularly in terms of voting numbers, were too hard for bodies which frequently are widely dispersed and need to be given the opportunity to bring about these amalgamations without having to canvass several thousand members spread widely across Australia. The Australian Democrats support the principle of reduced voting proportions which will come about as a result of the passage of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1983. It will allow for easier amalgamations. I also mention just briefly that we are quite happy with the replacement of the Industrial Relations Bureau. Its establishment was a politically motivated move at the time. An organisation was set up which-irrespective of whether it was originally conceived to do so-was perceived by many people in the community, particularly the trade unions, as being a union-bashing organisation. We can do without that from either side of the industrial field. I think it is important for us to recognise also that the rights of unions to act to improve the conditions of their members are essential in this community. But I am aware also of other important rights that have to be preserved in a democracy. I hope that the spirit of consensus and compromise that emerged from the National Economic Summit Conference continues to thrive. It is in this spirit-the need for employees and employers to co-operate so as to increase the living standards of all Australians-that I support this Bill. Nevertheless, compulsory union membership is to some people a fundamental attack on their liberties. We cannot be free to do everything we want to do; society imposes necessary constraints on its members. We are, therefore, not free to drive on which ever side of the road that takes our fancy. There are other areas where individual freedoms can be extended. I would like to extend the liberty of individuals in Australia without denying unions their legitimate right to contribute to industrial relations in Australia. I believe that a democratic society should be able to provide for both the rights of the individual and the rights of the unions. At the moment, we provide for the rights of unions-I concur with this-but do not allow people who object to joining unions the liberty to make a choice without there being a great deal of emotion and conflict between those individuals and the union concerned. When they make the wrong choice from the union's point of view industrial disputes occur. The union demands compulsory membership and, in many cases, acts to close down any firm that employs non-union members. This, of course, causes industrial dislocation and may even result in the collapse of the firm. Senator Walters —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I believe that Senator Jack Evans is reading his speech. That is against Standing Orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This matter has been discussed in the Senate many times. I cannot determine whether Senator Jack Evans is using copious notes or is reading . I do not choose to make that distinction. Senator Walters —It would be a good idea if he looked up occasionally. Senator JACK EVANS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I also thank Senator Walters for her advice. Compulsory union membership does not encourage harmonious industrial relations. We need to do away with such causes of industrial disputation by allowing employees who do not wish to join a union the right to pay the union a fee without becoming a member. This would take into account both the right of the individuals to choose and the fact that those people who benefit and have benefited from the actions of unions in terms of negotiated salaries and working conditions should pay a fee for the service that unions have provided. Unions have every right to argue that even non-members benefit from their activities. I agree; but compulsory membership is only one solution to this problem. A fee for service is the more democratic solution. With this in mind, and with the thought and support of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation which considered these matters, I had prepared an amendment which I believed would help to get us down the road of non-compulsory unionism but with a union fee for service provision. Regrettably, I have learned today that the proposal which I intended to put as an amendment is not practicable without making a number of amendments to other pieces of legislation. I am therefore willing to allow this matter to rest for the next couple of months-I believe I speak on behalf of all members of the Australian Democrats in saying that-on the condition that, in the next couple of months, the Government will sit down and quite firmly press and pursue the objective of having a fee for service provision included in legislation in the Budget session . Given that the Government will move down this path with us-I await an indication from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) that the Government is willing to do this-I am willing not to proceed with my amendment at the moment. I am quite convinced, nevertheless, that the amendment proposals are essential to the good industrial relations of this country and, if the provision is not made by the Government in the Budget session, believe me Mr Deputy President, I will move amendments which provide for this provision to be introduced by this Parliament. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.8) —If I understand the situation correctly, Senator Jack Evans proposes not to go ahead at the moment with the amendment that the Australian Democrats circulated in this place this morning. That seems to me to be an incredible situation. I am quite sure that the people of Australia will understand exactly, as it is now ten minutes past three, why he is not going ahead with it. We were prepared to support that amendment but now the Democrats have withdrawn it. I am very keen to challenge the Democrats to move its amendment and we will support it. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill does not deal just with the amalgamation situation. It also abolishes the Industrial Relations Bureau. I have no problems with that at all. I am very happy that it has been abolished. It never had the teeth to undertake the work that was asked of it. Its main problem was that it was unable to cope with the rights of the individual. I quote from pages 19 to 21 of the Bureau's annual report, which lists the rights of individuals under the present legislation. It states: S.5 prohibits employers from dismissing or disadvantaging employees because of particular activities associated with their organisation membership, their award rights or their refusal to participate in industrial action. S.132A prohibits discriminatory action by an organisation against an independent contractor who does not belong to the organisation. That is the area that I want to address in the next few minutes. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) may not be aware-even though I am sure people have approached him on this-of the tremendous problems of owner- drivers in Australia-those who own their own trucks-who are under contract. They are not employees. The Transport Workers Union of Australia at the moment-I can speak only for my State-intimidates those owner-drivers and forces them to join that union. Two years ago the unions were told by the court to delete from their award all guidelines concerning the recruitment of such owner-drivers. They were forced to do that but have since ignored altogether the court's order. The situation in my State now is that the union seeks actively to recruit owner- drivers. When owner-drivers say to the union officials: 'You cannot do anything for me. Your awards say that there is no reason for me to become a member; indeed you cannot represent me', the answer given is: 'If you do not, your truck will not move. We will black ban you from the wharves. We will not load your trucks. We will make sure that the members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia neither load nor unload your trucks.' This sort of intimidation has been occurring certainly throughout my State and in other areas of Australia also. I appeal to the Minister at least to alter this section of the Bill to give the new Industrial Arbitration Inspectorate the right to enforce the law in this regard and allow these owner-drivers to enjoy their rights under law. Clause 12 of the Bill relates to the definition of 'amalgamation'. The Government has said that the amalgamation of unions has been too difficult, that unions have found that they cannot make out a good enough case to encourage the majority of their members to participate in a ballot. It is suggested that the present 50 per cent requirement be reduced in certain instances-such as where a community of interest has been shown-so that only 25 per cent of members need vote and half of that number plus one, voting in favour, may decide the issue. Thus, if only 12.5 per cent of union members vote in favour of amalgamation it can then take place. Where else in a democracy can 12.5 per cent of the members of any organisation decide that the organisation will be abolished? It just is not done. The unions' only response to this is to make sure to spend as much money as the hierarchy will allow in order to encourage members to vote against amalgamation, if that is what they want to do. I am not against amalgamation, particularly if there be a community of interest. Senator Durack referred to the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation, of which Senator Harradine was chairman and Senator Bolkus, Senator Button, Senator Mulvihill, Senator Siddons, Senator Withers and myself were members. That Committee came down with a unanimous report in one area. At the time Senator Button agreed, as did the representative of the Australian Democrats, that the most equitable way to go about this was to agree with the union representatives that only 25 per cent of members of a union need vote but that two-thirds of that 25 per cent must vote in favour of amalgamation before it was passed. That is not much to ask. Indeed, it was agreed with the National Labour Consultative Council. The report from our Committee was unanimous in that respect. But instead of the Government adopting that recommendation, with which its leader in this place agreed, of the Committee of which its leader in this place was a member, it has gone for a 12 1/2 per cent vote of a union. I believe that is most undemocratic. I turn to the amendments that the Democrats have withdrawn. I was pleased to see the Democrats bring in the amendments because, while quite honestly I do not think they go far enough, they are better than nothing. There were three pages of amendments. They extended the rights of people to conscientious objection. Many people appeared before our Committee. Many people have said to me that although they belong to a union that is affiliated with a political party with which they do not agree, they do not see why they should have to pay full membership. The Committee, and Senator Button at that time, thought that this was a reasonable request. Senator Button —That was not the view of people who came before the Committee. Senator WALTERS —How would the people who think that have got there? They were not invited as individuals. We saw only the union representatives. Does Senator Button really think that the union representatives would put that to us? The Committee came down with a recommendation which I will read to the chamber: The Committee acknowledges the need to retain the status of conscientious objection to union membership which is presently provided for in section 144A. I would like the Democrats to take note of this because it was the particular hobby-horse of Senator Siddons. The recommendation continues: However it believes that a less fundamental objection to union membership also be recognised, namely that a person holds principles or beliefs which prevent membership of unions. The Committee considers that such persons should be entitled to be exempted from membership provided that they contribute a fee for the services provided by the appropriate union . . . It was acknowledged on our Committee that unions do an industrial relations job for all the members working in a particular area. The recommendation continues: This fee would be settled in each case by the Industrial Registrar. It would be based on the standard membership fee which would be reduced by a maximum of ten per cent to take account of contributions made by the union to political parties and other expenditures which were unrelated to the direct provision of industrial or welfare services to members. The fee for service could only be applied by the union for the provision of industrial or welfare services. The Committee recommends that section 144A should be amended to recognise this alternative ground of objection to union membership. That came across very clearly on our Committee because we found, for instance, that members of the Waterside Workers Federation boycotted ships travelling to a country to which they had some objection. The union members who did not agree with that political decision taken by the union still had to pay their full union dues. Members who felt that they did not agree with those political views of the union were entitled to a conscientious objection. Former Senator Siddons, who is out there in the community now, must be very upset that the Australian Democrats are not prepared to support an amendment on which he is particularly keen because they want to go home. Senator Macklin —Senator, don't start that again for goodness sake! Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator may not like it. Senator Macklin —You know it is wrong and yet you repeat it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator WALTERS —Why does the honourable senator not move the amendments? If the honourable senator moves the amendments we will support them. Then he can see whether it is wrong. Senator Macklin —You know it is wrong and you repeat it. You were told why, and you refuse to acknowledge it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Macklin! Senator WALTERS —I have not been told why. Senator Macklin —Why don't you talk to your leader? He knows. Talk to your leader. There is no communication. Senator WALTERS —I have not been told why. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, please address your remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —I asked Senator Jack Evans and he told me that he had withdrawn them. That is all I know. If Senator Jack Evans wants to move the amendments now , we, as a party, will support them. That is about all I have time for at the moment. I will speak later at the Committee stage when I will pose some questions to the Minister. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.21) —I rise to speak to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. Like Senator Walters, I am very concerned that the Australian Democrats apparently have decided not to move amendments, the details of which we were given this morning. I think I should explain to the Senate that it is not always easy to be able to consider three pages of amendments and their ramifications, to make decisions on them, to put them to various members of one' s party, finally to have approval given by the party to support the amendments and then find, on coming into the chamber, that in fact the Democrats clearly have done some deal with the Australian Labor Party as a result of which they have withdrawn their amendments. That is clearly the situation. A deal of some sort has been done between those two parties. I do not know whether it has anything to do with what Senator Walters thinks, that is, it is because they want to go home this evening; they want to catch the aircraft at 5 o'clock and are not prepared to come back here and debate these matters next week. Whatever the reason is, whether it is something else-- Senator Jack Evans —I raise a point of order. I am becoming very concerned at the reflection on my integrity and the suggestion that I am willing to forgo the purpose for which I was elected to this Senate simply to get away from this House tonight. I take the point of order because the motion for an early cessation of today's proceedings was moved by the Liberal Party. I am not prepared to carry that load any longer. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. If the honourable senator claims to have been misrepresented, he will have the opportunity at the conclusion of the speech to make a statement. Before calling Senator Lewis, I ask all participants in this debate to address their comments through the Chair. That may save us some time and some blood pressure problems. Senator LEWIS —Madam Acting Deputy President, you will have noticed that I have been doing precisely that. I am very interested in the Democrats' amendments because they talk about principles and beliefs. One wonders what has happened in regard to principles and beliefs when there was this peculiar explanation that the Democrats are not going on with the amendments because the proposal is not practicable; there would be other amendments which would have to be put somewhere or other in other Bills. That seems to me to be an utter nonsense. If there are other amendments which the Government has to make to other Bills as a result of some amendment which is carried in the Senate those amendments would hve to be taken in due course. I do not see that it is any reason for the Senate not to carry amendments to any legislation to claim that something else might have to be done in some other Act of Parliament somewhere else. It seems to me that the principles that the Democrats were putting had some merit. I do not know that I approved of their amendments totally but I certainly approved of them to the stage that I was prepared to go along with them and support them in this Parliament. They have withdrawn their amendments. I believe that the deal has nothing to do with going home this evening. I believe that it has something to do with the proposed amendments which the Opposition has put before the chamber and which clearly the Labor Party is concerned not to support . I shall confine my remarks in relation to this Bill to the question of amalgamation. I recognise that some people have concern about union officials. My concern is about the community; about this nation and its people. I am as concerned as anyone about the trade unions. I am concerned about the rank and file members of the trade unions, not the officials who put themselves in a position of power and exercise that power so frequently to the detriment of this nation, more often than not for their own peculiar purposes. I am also opposed-I have said this repeatedly in the Senate-to what I call giantism. I am opposed to giantism in public companies. Let me make that perfectly clear. I do not approve of the size of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or any of these other massive companies which, quite frankly, end up having a monopolistic or oligopolistic control of our society. I am totally opposed to that and if any opportunities arise to break those giant organisations I will take them. The same applies to the trade union movement. Let us look at what has happened to this country since , as result of what I believe was a mistake by a Liberal Minister back in the late 1960s or 1970s, we allowed an amalgamation to form the union known as the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union. At present over 120,000 employees are members of that union. We do not know what the union's current net income is but it must be in excess of $10m. Senator Hill —It would be a lot more than that. Senator LEWIS —Senator Hill confirms to me that it would be much more than that now. I think the figure I have given was mentioned by Minister Street in 1977 so we can imagine that the number is probably double and may even be treble that by now. At that stage I think Minister Street told us that 288 full time officials were working for the AMWSU. My recollection is that of those 288 officials about 180 were card carrying members of the Communist Party-a party which has as a basic principle the breakup of our constitutional democratic parliamentary system. The breakup of our nation and the way of life that we have and enjoy is what members of the Communist Party are all about. At that stage 180 full time card carrying members were employed by the AMWSU in advisory capacities. We can see what the principle of that union must be. What hope would a member of that union who wanted to get to the top as a union official have of winning the necessary votes to get there? For him to write to every one of the members, for example, would cost him over $30,000 in postage, apart from the preparation of the letters. That is what it would cost to send one letter to every union official saying 'I am standing for the position of President'. Senator Crichton-Browne —They wouldn't give you the names and addresses probably . Senator LEWIS —As Senator Crichton-Browne said, he would have great difficulty getting the names and addresses for a start. Senator Messner —The rules of the organisation would be against him. Senator LEWIS —Senator Messner reminds me that the rules of the organisation would be against him at absolutely every level. An entrenched bureaucracy controls that organisation, and that bureacracy is controlled by members of the Communist Party. Let there not be any talk about the Communist Party. We have discovered where the Communists are in relation to the ALP. They are not under the bed; they are in the bed. These matters have to be brought forward at this stage so that people can understand this Bill. I turn now to the issue of amalgamation and the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation. I do not go along with the concept of select committees; I do not think they are always a great idea. However, at least on this occasion it was a bipartisan committee. It was chaired by Senator Harradine who, as everyone knows, is an independent. Senators Bolkus and Button from the Australian Labor Party and ex-senator Tony Mulvihill were members of the Committee. In addition, Senators Hamer, Walters and Withers represented the Liberal Party and Senator Siddons represented the Australian Democrats. You could not get a more bipartisan group of senators to sit down and consider a matter of great concern to the Senate. The members of the Committee came up with a recommendation that in their view there was a need for a change in the amalgamation rules. In their summary of recommendations, they said: The Committee . . . does not favour legislation which would allow for uninhibited amalgamations, and considers that amalgamations should only take place after a 'community of interest' test has been satisfied. This Bill does not talk about a community of interest. But the Committee went on to say, in this significant recommendation: . . . in elections where the membership is consulted on mergers, at least 25 per cent of the membership of each union should be required to record a vote, and of those voting, at least two thirds should be required to record a vote in favour of the proposition. Senator Jack Evans —Now read the next line; do not be selective. Senator LEWIS —Senator Jack Evans has asked me to read the next line as if there were some hidden meaning to it. I have no problem with reading the next line. It states: An alternative could be for at least 25 per cent of the total membership of each union to vote in favour of the amalgamation, provided that those voting in favour constitute a majority of the votes cast. Senator Haines —What is wrong with that? Senator LEWIS —There is nothing wrong with that. Senator Jack Evans —Exactly. That is the alternative the Committee put forward. Senator LEWIS —We would be quite happy to accept an amendment which would include that too. That merely says that if more than 25 per cent of people vote and 25 per cent of those people are in favour of amalgamation, it is now possible to have that amalgamation. That is better than two-thirds of 25 per cent, which is about 16 or 17 per cent. Senator Evans should apply his mind to these subjects before he interjects. This proposal was supported, believe it or not, by the representatives of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association. That is a fascinating fact, is it not? The Senate has not yet heard that, although I have no doubt that Senator Harradine might enlighten it on other evidence that was given. Mr George Campbell, the assistant national secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, and Mr Jack Cambourn, the general secretary of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association gave evidence to the Committee. They made a submission to the Committee and then gave evidence. On page 159 of the Hansard report, the Chairman said: Your fourth recommendation on page 6 says: . . . the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be amended to enable unions by agreement and resolution of a two-thirds majority of their rule-making bodies to exchange sections of their eligibility provisions, . . . In other words, the exchange of sections, so that one part of one union could go across and amalgamate with another union, should be done on a two-thirds majority basis. That was the recommendation made by Mr Campbell and Mr Cambourn. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Harradine, took up this point and said: There you are suggesting that there ought to be a two-thirds vote-not a 50 per cent vote . . . Mr Campbell responded: The reason I have done that is that that is the provision in all unions for dissolution of the organisation. He said that for dissolution of the organisation there had to be a two-thirds vote. He continued: In some respects you could have a decision before a rule-making body to transfer sections of the Constitution and that would have the effect of dissolving the organisation. I think the organisation of the members is entitled at least to that protection by ensuring that a two-thirds majority is required where you physically transfer sections of your constitution, because it could have the effect of dissolving the organisation. Of course, he recognised that an amalgamation, in effect, dissolves the original organisations. He said, in effect, that in a dissolution the members are entitled to a two-thirds majority. The Chairman put that point to him and he said: 'Yes'. He then qualified that and said he thought there were some differences in an amalgamation; he was not sure whether it really was a dissolution of a union. The evidence given by Mr Campbell was, of course, the basis on which the Senate Select Committee came up with its recommendation. Let us look at some of the evidence given by these people. I refer only to extracts of the evidence given by Mr Campbell and Mr Cambourn. Senator Button said: One of the attractive features-I am not saying I agree with it all-of the AMWSU proposition is that it does attempt to suggest areas of industry. It defines the metal industry as including heavy engineering, shipbuilding, ship repair, vehicle manufacturing, white goods and steel rolling stock. Mr Campbell responded: In the submission we were not being exhaustive by those definitions. We simply tried to give an indication. Senator Button said: 'Sure'. In other words, he accepted their response. He then made some comment to them about the Waterside Workers Federation. He said: What I am putting to you is that you straddle both those industries. You are involved in the transport industry. You are also involved in the metal industry . . . Mr Campbell said: So is the AMWSU. Senator Button said: Yes, I understand that. Mr Cambourn then said: What we say as a concept about that is that if we were allowed to merge with the AMWSU and other unions were allowed to merge then there could be trade-offs and offsets. The significance of that statement is that they are looking for trade-offs and off-sets. They are not trying to do anything which might bring some peace to the industry; they are looking for trade-offs and off-sets to see which union can become the most powerful union in the nation, straddling all the industries. There was no talk about particular areas of industry, but the straddling of as many industries as possible in order to become as powerful as possible. The proposal in this Bill does precisely that. I say to the Senate that it is not in the best interests of this nation that this proposal be carried. It is not in the best interests of the ordinary rank and file unionists that it be carried in this form. In my view, the situation should remain as it is. I am prepared to go along with the decision of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee. I agree that when unions have not been able to get a 50 per cent vote in order to carry the motion , where there is a community of interests, the vote should be reduced to only 25 per cent, but two-thirds of that vote must be in favour of the proposal, for the very reason given by Mr Campbell and Mr Cambourn in the submission of the then AMWSU, that when an amalgamation takes place it is really a question of wiping out the two original unions, or at least one of the unions. What is it all for? It is clearly for the benefit of, and will give power to, union officials. I know some people will say that some union officials will not win the necessary votes. We need look only at the organisations which have this type of bureaucracy. It is as bad as the Public Service. A bureaucracy controls the allocation of positions. An assistant secretary, not the general secretary, runs the organisation. All of these matters are organised to their benefit, not to the benefit of the rank and file. The union officials do deals, swaps and make arrangements which are to the detriment in many cases of the rank and file and, most of all, to the detriment of the people of this nation. How much are strikes costing this nation? How much is our waterside workers organisation costing the nation? How much is the control of shipping and other problems costing the nation? Do the people of Australia know that on each ship there is a double crew, that each person who works on a ship works for only six months of the year? He has 17 days on and 17 days off, and so on, or whatever is the turn-about of the ship. He is working for only six months in the year. In this stupid nation we have to put up with people working for only six months in the year and taking an enormous annual salary. The salary may not appear to be high when one looks at it in the initial stages, but then one adds all the perks . One adds the fact that such people work a span of longer than nine hours, or they work some other arrangement, or they work overtime here or there, or because they are on for 17 days straight they are entitled to some extra perk because they did not get a holiday during that 17 days straight. There is no talk about the next 17 days that they have off. Because of all those perks, they are earning fantastic sums of money-$30,000 or $40,000 a year. It is far more than back bench members of parliament are getting paid. In this nation we have to put up with that. It is destroying the nation. This sort of legislation will only assist in bringing about the destruction of the nation. It will not help in any way to bring about peace in industry. It will create bigger and bigger organisations which will do more and more harm to the nation. I should like to see the unions get back to a situation in which people who have a trade are entitled to be paid for the skill that they have. But look what happens nowadays with some companies. Consider a fellow who has been a turner and fitter for 20 or 30 years with a company. His son, aged 18, comes along and gets a job with the company, and when they take home their wages they find that dad is getting about $5 a week more than his son who is a labourer on the floor. That is because unions have organised to lower the wages of tradesmen and to bring up the wages of the unskilled, again to the detriment of our nation . The skilled people of this nation ought to be being paid for their skills, but they cannot be paid for their skills while we have organisations such as these growing, getting larger. That will be the result of this sort of legislation. I pass on to make just minor mention of some of the intrigue, some of the ballot techniques that are adopted, and some of the problems that occur with balloting. I can recall reading Dr Evatt's proposal on this matter. There was some merit in it. I recommend it to the Labor Party for consideration. Dr Evatt proposed that if he had become Prime Minister-thank the Lord he never did-every year on a fixed date there would have been an election for union officials and the ballot would have been conducted by officers of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Labor Party ought to consider the merits of that proposal, which is worthy of considerable thought, rather than this sort of nonsense which achieves nothing except to enable unions which wish to amalgamate to do so more quickly and to get larger and larger to the detriment of this nation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.43) —I shall speak very briefly in this debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill because I believe that the outcome of this legislation is a foregone conclusion, as is the outcome of the amendment and/or amendments before us. I speak briefly also because I do not believe that this is a major piece of legislation on industrial relations. It may prove, one way or the other, some of the quite emotional furphies that have been put around over a period of years about the need for amalgamations to cut down on industrial disputes. It will be quite enlightening to see just what effect this legislation has on industrial disputes. Evidence was received by the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation which indicated quite clearly that the multiplicity of unions was a minuscule contribution to the overall incidence of industrial disputes. I point out to the Senate that what has been said in relation to the question of amalgamations was covered very clearly and adequately by the Senate Select Committee's recommendations. I address myself only to that aspect for the time being because the Senate has heard me speak before on the Industrial Relations Bureau and I do not wish to delay the Senate by repeating what I have said. In relation to amalgamation, the Bill proposes to reduce from 50 per cent to 25 per cent the membership vote necessary for an amalgamation ballot to be valid. The Committee received evidence that the current 50 per cent threshold requirement for members in a union to be able to vote in an amalgamation ballot was very difficult to achieve. In particular, we received evidence to that effect from the Australian Textile Workers Union and the Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation. From memory-I speak only from memory-in the amalgamation proposal advanced by those two unions the voting threshold achieved was something like 46 per cent but something like 90 per cent of those who voted voted in favour of amalgamation. The points made by both unions on that occasion included not only the problem of threshold but also the problem of the electoral roll. The 12 months provision under the current legislation means, of course, that in the case of the textile industry and the boot trades industry, where there is a fairly substantial turnover of labour, many persons have been entitled to vote in amalgamation ballots who were not even in the industry at the time the ballot took place. Of course, that matter concerned the Committee. I am pleased to say that the new legislation reflects the recommendations made by the Committee in respect of that matter. I remind honourable senators that we suggested that the roll be updated before the ballot takes place. I commend the Government for including such a provision in this legislation. I am somewhat perturbed that under the provisions of this legislation the threshold is to drop quite dramatically from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. I believe the principle governing our consideration of this legislation should be democratic control. The objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act endorse the principle of democratic control of organisations registered under the Act. I ask the Senate whether this Bill falls within that principle of democratic control. I suggest that it does not because under the legislation now before us an amalgamation could be endorsed by only 12 1/2 per cent, plus one, of the entire membership of a union. That does not fit well with the concept of democratic control of an organisation. The proposal put forward by the Senate Select Committee recognised the practical difficulties experienced by, for example, the Australian Boot Trades Employees Federation and the Textile Workers Union in maintaining the principle of democratic control. Apart from the updating of the roll, one of the Committee 's recommendations was: The Committee is also of the view that the membership of unions proposing to amalgamate must be consulted and given an opportunity to express a view thereon. The Committee suggests that in elections where the membership is conducted on mergers, at least 25 per cent of the membership of each union should be required to record a vote, and of those voting, at least two-thirds should be required to vote in favour of the proposition. An alternative proposal put forward by the Committee was that a vote of 25 per cent of the total membership in favour of the proposed amalgamation be required. At least those two propositions placed this vital and fundamental question facing unions in a much higher category than any other proposition that may go to the rank and file for endorsement-for example, some sort of referendum. Even with referenda conducted under the Commonwealth Constitution there are safeguards. A mere majority of voters throughout the Commonwealth cannot change the basic constitution under which this Parliament operates and under which Australia as a whole operates. Certain provisions must be fulfilled; namely, because of the rights of the States within the Commonwealth a majority of votes must be recorded in a majority of States. Quite frequently referenda proposals have been lost despite the fact that a majority of voters in Australia has favoured the proposition. The same situation ought to apply in respect of unions . One of the problems is the different structure of unions. Not all unions are structured on the basis of State branches. So the majority principle should be applied in such a way that it is appropriate to all forms of union structure. That is one of the reasons the Committee made the suggestion that it did. For example, the whole membership of a State branch of a union could be very vigourously opposed to amalgamation. Yet, because of the greater numbers in, say , Victoria and New South Wales, those States might carry the day. That is somewhat recognised by the fact that a number of union rules state that it is not possible for the constitutional rule to be amended unless two-thirds of the rule-making body-admittedly it is the rule-making body and not the rank and file -endorses such a proposal. In those circumstances if it is good enough for such a rule to apply in respect of part of the eligibility rule, why is that principle not good enough when it comes to the question of the union going out of existence altogether and being amalgamated into another body? Those were the factors which exercised the minds of the members of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation. If the recommendations of the Committee were adopted, the amalgamation of the Australian Boot Trades Employees Federation and the Textile Workers Union would fall within and easily meet that requirement because, as I mentioned, 46 per cent or thereabouts of the membership voted-even on the old membership roll which was 12 months behind-and about 90 per cent of that number voted in favour of it. Although the amalgamation was not able to be effected under current legislation, it would be under the proposals set out in the Senate Select Committee report. I point that out in very brief terms just for the record in the hope that, although I understand that this legislation is required now for a particular purpose, the Government may still keep in the back of its mind the recommendations made by the Senate Select Committee. I come very briefly to the points that were made by Senator Walters in respect of preference and conscientious objection. I emphasise that the Committee examined this very thoroughly. But I believe that somewhat of a misunderstanding was exhibited in the honourable senator's speech when she seemed to consider that a proposed amendment would have fallen within the boundaries of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee. In my view, it would not, because the Committee said: Some individuals are quick to recognize their perceived rights but are not also as quick to recognize their duty to associate with others for the common good. In addition there is a distinction between personal choice based on conscientious belief on the one hand and the dictates of self-centred individualism on the other . . . The Committee went on to say, in words which were mulled over considerably: The Committee acknowledges the need to retain the status of conscientious objection to union membership which is presently provided for in section 144A. Because the Committee comprised a number of people from both sides and various opinions, the amalgam of their views was stated as such: However it believes that a less fundamental objection to union membership should also be recognised, namely that a person holds principles or beliefs which prevent membership of unions. The Committee considers that such persons should be entitled to be exempted from membership provided that they contribute a fee for the services provided by the appropriate union, to that union. This fee would be settled in each case by the Industrial Registrar. There were provisions along those lines. I think there has been some misconception by some honourable senators of what the Committee actually meant in its recommendations. For the record I place that comment before the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.0) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. Some views have been very strongly expressed. Having served on the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation, I have had the benefit of hearing some of the strong views before. I make acknowledgements that relate to two key issues in this legislation. I acknowledge that there are, of course, differences of opinion about these matters. There have been these differences and there will probably always be these differences. Senator Harradine, in relation to the amalgamation provisions, invited the Government to look again at the report of the Committee which he chaired. We will do that. I give him that undertaking in the context that the Committee which he chaired was looking at a piece of legislation on this issue in the context of industry union amalgamations. As I am instructed, the Committee report has not been considered by the National Labour Consultative Council in the more general light of the changes that are now in this Bill in relation to the previous definition of 'industry unions' or 'enterprise unions' as they were called. So, we will look at that issue again. I appreciate the differences of view which have been expressed. In relation to the matter raised by Senator Jack Evans, there were a number of very serious technical objections to the amendment proposed by him. Those technical objections would require amendments to numerous other sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have given the undertaking to Senator Jack Evans and the Australian Democrats that the technical matters in relation to that will be examined and that the issue of the right to opt out, as it were, on the basis of a payment of a fee, on which Senator Harradine commented, will be examined in conjunction with those parties who are concerned about how that provision might be better improved in a technical way and other ways in the future. I do not wish to comment about a number of the substantive issues in the legislation. Perhaps the two issues which have been of most concern and which have caused the greatest degree of dissension have been amalgamations and the so -called extensions of the conscientious objection provision. They are matters about which we have some dispute. They are matters in respect of which I gave certain undertakings. Having said that, I thank the Senate for its general support of the Bill and particularly those parties from the Opposition with whom we in the Opposition had a difference of opinion for some years about the work of the Industrial Relations Bureau. The view which we had for a long time, about the role of that Bureau, of course, is shared by both employers and unions. It seems now to be shared, as I understand it, by the Opposition. We thank honourable senators for their constructive comments on the Bill and hope that it has a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.5) —I have circulated an amendment to clause 22. The purpose of that amendment is to give effect to the proposal that I dealt with in my speech in the second reading debate and which has been referred to by a number of honourable senators in the course of the second reading debate. To explain it once again, briefly, the proposal in this Bill is that to facilitate amalgamations there should be an ability for unions wishing to amalgamate to approach the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to seek a certificate from that Commission that there is a sufficient community of interest between the unions which would justify amalgamation. If that certificate were given there are provisions in the Bill which would, as I say, facilitate amalgamation in this respect: Amalgamation would require a minimum of only 25 per cent of union members to vote. This Bill provides that only a simple majority of that 25 per cent need vote in favour of the amalgamation. That is a considerable change in the existing law which requires 50 per cent-one half-of the members to vote in support of the amalgamation and, of course, a simple majority of those voting is under existing law sufficient. However, to enable amalgamation to be approved under existing law a 25 per cent vote in favour of it would be required. This provision reduces that number to 12 1/2 per cent. The Senate Committee, which looked at a number of other matters last year, made a recommendation in regard to facilitating amalgamations. It has made a recommendation specifically in relation to this provision of the Bill. The Senate Committee recommended that although in the circumstances I have mentioned it was justified to require only 25 per cent of the members to vote, nevertheless a two-thirds majority-of course there may be more-have to vote in favour of the proposal. That proposal has commended itself to the Opposition. I believe that sufficient explanation of and debate about the amendment has been given. I hope that the Committee will support it. I move: Page 10, clause 22, proposed new section 158N, paragraph (1) (b), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: '(b) of the members who record formal votes on those ballot papers- (i) more than two thirds vote in favour of the amalgamation, in a case to which sub-paragraph (1) (a) (i) applies; or (ii) more than one half vote in favour of the amalgamation, in a case to which sub-paragraph (1) (a) (ii) applies.'. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(4.8) —I speak in support of the amendment. It is the minimal safeguard that the Australian community could have. It is a very modest requirement that a certain threshold be met. One of the things that has not been touched on in this debate is the level of technical inadequacy of union ballots. I speak as a former unionist. I am surprised at some of the practices that are still current in the trade union movement. Within the last three years there was a ballot in Queensland for one of the big unions which had 14,000 members. Essentially what happened was the team which won the election stole it. Some 14,000 ballot papers were distributed with a request that they be returned to a General Post Office number at the main post office in Brisbane. The winning team got in and recovered all of the unused ballot papers that had been returned , took them to Bribie Island, filled in the crosses against the candidates whom they were supporting and two of the union organisers then drove back to Brisbane . They had a choice of two roads from Bribie Island to Brisbane: One is down the Bruce Highway and the other is through Redcliffe. They posted the ballot envelopes in different public posting boxes all the way and stole the election in that manner. One of the union organisers claimed that it was just like winning the lottery. Their fall-back position, which has been clearly established, was to duplicate ballot papers. If they had not recovered the returned ballot papers they had a rubber stamp made up with the returning officer's signature on it. This matter is terribly important yet we do nothing to control it. I am surprised with the Australian Labor Party. We have taken up so much time in this session talking about referenda, fixed term parliaments and all of the bleeding heart business about giving the Australian public a fair go on parliamentary matters when the Labor Party has an incestuous relationship with the unions. The way they derive so much electoral support and all the rest of it is based on quite corrupt balloting procedures. I have much pleasure in supporting Senator Durack and others on this side of the chamber who seek to impose on this Bill the very minimal level of protection for the Australian community. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.10) —It is terribly important that we have a democratically structured union movement in Australia. This is of vital importance. This union movement, at its best, is an essential part of the Australian work force. It is only when the democratic side of the union movement is completely done away with that we have a problem. I do not believe that Senator Button, in his heart, could say that a vote by 12 1/2 per cent of the members could possibly be construed in any way as democratic. I believe that if he were to look at the matter again he would see the logic in securing a vote by 25 per cent of union membership. That is a big enough concession. I remind him that as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation he favoured a vote by two-thirds of union membership. With all the best will in the world, the Opposition would not go along with such a proposal. We do not support the proposal to allow a vote by only 12 1/2 per cent of union membership. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.11) —Senator Walters was not in the chamber when I spoke about this matter. I said in relation to a question from Senator Harradine that this was not necessarily the final solution to all of the problems about amalgamations. Senator Walters —Yes, I did hear that. Senator BUTTON —Yes. I just want to put to Senator Walters that there are very different views about this matter. The first point I make is that in the proposal we put forward in relation to amalgamations every trade unionist has a right to vote. That is secure. I said that there are different views about this matter. What we have put forward in this legislation is precisely what was promised by the Fraser Government in the context of the 1980 election campaign. I am not making an allegation about a broken promise. I am saying that it was the view of the Fraser Government in September 1979 and in the 1980 election campaign that this method was the best. There are differences of view. I know that Senator Walters holds her views very strongly. But we take the view that the whole question of union amalgamations has been held up in this country and that is disastrous for Australian industry. Senator Lewis commented on this question without offering his view as to whether it was desirable to have 26 unions in the car industry or the steel industry. We believe very strongly, as I think do many people, that all those questions have been an impediment to the advancement of industry generally. I take on board Senator Walters's point. I say that the Government has not, for the future, a closed mind about it. The National Labour Consultative Council has not examined in the context of this Bill the Senate Select committee's report. I believe it will do so. At the present stage, of course, the legislation that we have brought forward does not apply only to unions. It also applies to registered organisations on both sides and both sides are anxious for this provision to be included. That is the basis of the Government's view. I seek the support of the Committee for it. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.14) —I did not intend to add to the debate but I must as a result of what Senator Button has just said. I have no objection to there being 26 unions in the car manufacturing game. It is my belief that if those unions represent skilled people, there is a chance that people with skills will be able to be paid for the services that they provide and that would be to their advantage and to the advantage of the Australian car industry. I think that all the talk about demarcation disputes creating a great problem is just eyewash. I acknowledge that occasionally demarcation disputes create major problems. However, this is not the most important thing in regard to the trade union movement. Senator Button talked about giving consideration to points raised by the Opposition. The point is, however, that once this legislation is passed amalgamations will be achieved and then it will be too late for the Government to come back and say: 'Look, we made a mistake'. That is exactly what happened with our Government. We made the mistake of allowing the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union to be created. We have allowed to come into existence a giant organisation which is totally uncontrollable by this Parliament, by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, by the people of Australia or by the rank and file members of that union-totally uncontrollable. As a result of the legislation which the Government will put through today, with the support of the Australian Democrats-that is what I cannot understand; that it is with the support of the Democrats-similar amalgamations will go through and we will be confronted with other massive organisations. Someone said to me: 'Look, Senator, what are you worried about? It is two right wing unions that want to amalgamate'. I do not care whether they are right wing unions, left wing unions or whether they are employer organisations. Giantism is not for the benefit of this nation. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Senator Durack's amendment) be omitted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. PAIRSWalsh, P. A. Kilgariff, B. F. Reynolds, M. Townley, M. Jones, G. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Tate, M. C. Guilfoyle, Dame MargaretRichardson, G. F. Martin, K. J. Bolkus, N. Giles, P. J. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Haines, J. Chipp, D. L. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered, the order of business for the remainder of the day's sitting be as follows- (1) Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout Bill 1983 (2) Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 (3) Community Employment Bill 1983 (4) Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1983 (5) Economic Statement-Ministerial Statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.21) —This motion, of course, would set aside the motion carried this morning by the Senate, which required us to move to General Business at 4.30 p.m. I advise the Senate that the Opposition will not oppose the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). However, just for future reference and to set the record straight, I would like briefly to put the Opposition's position on the program. The expectation of, I am sure, the Government and certainly the Opposition was, until yesterday, that by 4.30 this afternoon we would complete the program of legislation which the Government really required and which it said we must complete this session. That program included most of the measures which were the subject of the motion moved by the Leader of the Government a moment ago. However, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983, along with the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill which has just passed through the Senate, were two late additions to the list of essential legislation. Their addition to that list was announced late yesterday. Senator Chipp —Early this morning as far as we were concerned. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, perhaps I should acknowledge the interjection of the Leader of the Australian Democrats that it was early this morning as far as he was concerned, to ensure that it is recorded in Hansard. I make that point-- Senator Chipp —You rang me when I was in the shower. Senator CHANEY —Since we are getting into personal secrets, may I say that Senator Chipp refused to speak to me while he was in the shower. I had to wait for some time. Now that the Senate is not rising at 4.30, everyone feels much more relaxed and we have time for all these jokes, which is a sign of the different attitude which has overcome us. I make the point that the Opposition took the view that it did not wish to sit this week. We believe that five weeks in a row is bad for the Senate and bad for honourable senators. We were overruled in that belief by the Government and by the Australian Democrats, who took the judgment that it was better to complete the session. I think the high degree of scratchiness, irritability and so on which all of us have shown over the last two days is evidence of the unwisdom of this pattern of sittings. As I said this morning, I am glad that the Government does not propose to do the same in the Budget sittings. The Opposition finds itself in this position. The Senate has sat for five weeks , over our objection. We either proceed now to deal with Government Business or, presumably, come back for a very brief sitting next week, which would seem to be exhausting and would not, I think, in light of the legislation which remains, be in the public or national interest. I do not think it would advance anything very far. For that reason, we propose to go along with the Government's present proposition, deal with Government Business and no doubt complete it either before dinner or just after dinner. That long explanation is simply to say that the Opposition feels put upon in these circumstances, first, that it was required to sit for five weeks; second, that it agreed to a fourth day of sitting this week and a pattern of debate and a degree of restraint on the part of Opposition speakers, on the assumption of a certain number of Bills being available. We have found two quite significant additions to the list and that has led to a more disorderly and less satisfactory end of session than we would have wished. I say that without suggesting in any sense that honourable senators opposite are responsible for that. It appears that the decision about essentiality came from on high. It is an unsatisfactory end to the session and, with a very real degree of regret, I agree to the motion which has been moved by Senator Button. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(4.27) —in reply -I acknowledge the gesture made by Senator Chaney in relation to matters of negotiation today and his general level of sagacity. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.28) —by leave-I move: That the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or the Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. That the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. That is a fairly standard form of motion which has been moved in the past as an amendment to the Government's motion for the next period of sittings. That motion was moved early in the day today as against the usual late motion and hence I did not move it at that time. I thank the Government for giving me leave to move it now. I simply say that this is a form which, I think, was initiated by Senator Murphy. It has been moved by every Opposition Leader since and I commend it to the Senate as a sensible provision. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(4.29) —I present the second report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.30) —I acknowledge Senator Peter Baume's allowing me to speak first at this time. The Opposition spokesperson in the House of Representatives, Mr Lloyd, said, when speaking to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983: It will be of considerable interest to the House, and certainly to the Opposition, to see what the Australian Democrats do in the Senate . . . If they are to maintain their position and their credibility on this issue, obviously they will have to support our amendment in the Senate. That refers to the amendment which Senator Peter Baume has now circulated. It removes the pre-election ban on not only comment but also advertising. Mr Lloyd continued: It will be very interesting to see whether the Australian Democrats maintain their stated position. I believe it is necessary to give a little of the history of this matter to show why the Australian Democrats intend doing what they propose to do in regard to this Bill. I introduced a private member's Bill on this issue on 26 November 1981. At that time the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the then National Country Party of Australia were all opposed to getting rid of the blackout. The Australian Democrats now find themselves in the happy position where all the rest have fallen into step, a position which we hope to achieve on other issues we have taken up. We are also happy that the coalition partners have had a conversion on this, even though it has been a rather 'road to Damascus' type of conversion. It is a pity indeed that the Liberal-National parties did not allow my original proposal to go forward at that time because there would then have been a majority in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to carry it through. We no longer have that majority in the House of Representatives to carry that full-flown position. Therefore it is necessary to see what reform is available to us now. To his credit the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr Peacock, has a long history of opposition to the blackout. I negotiated with him on my original private member's Bill and he intended to move it in the House of Representatives if we got it through the Senate. However, he said to me at that time that it would be necessary to amend my Bill. The amendment he suggested to me was in fact the same as is embodied in the Bill that this Labour Government has now presented. Mr Peacock said that my amended Bill would represent the position that was most acceptable to the Liberals. It is interesting to see that there has been a turnround on even that position. Although the Australian Democrats would like to support the amendment put forward by the Opposition, we are unable to do so for two main reasons: First, it would mean that we would have no reform in this area. We believe that reform is desirable even if it is only part reform. The Government has been adamant on that point. Secondly, we would be much more amenable to the Opposition's amendment if it were able to support the Australian Democrats proposal for a statutory code of ethics for political advertising, one based on the Trade Practices Act. Since we believe that the voluntary code of restraint on political advertising has certainly not produced any of the worth while goods in this area, we are unable to accede to the Opposition's proposal. I have circulated an amendment, which I will move at the Committee stage, to pick up a problem that the Government has overlooked. Last year I circulated amendments-which were shown to Senator Button, as then Opposition spokesman for communications-which pointed out an anomaly in my original Bill, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1982. Unfortunately, that anomaly still exists in this Bill. It is the problem of the closing of the polls in the eastern States not corresponding, in time, with the closing of the polls in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The position in Western Australia is the most extreme of all. On most occasions when elections are likely to be held there will be a three-hour difference between the closing of polls in the eastern States and their closing in Western Australia. We would then have the possibility that results from the east could be broadcast on television and radio in Western Australia before the polls had closed in that State. A situation occurs similar to that which occurs in the United States of America and which has been documented as a bandwagon effect whereby something that starts to happen in the eastern States of the United States is picked up and carried through to the west. The people in the west find out the results before they have to vote. I do not think we want that in Australia. Unfortunately, the Government's Bill allows that to occur, as do the Opposition' s proposed amendments. Consequently, I have circulated on behalf of the Australian Democrats an amendment which fits in with the terms of the Bill that the Government brought in and which would enable the Tribunal to prevent the broadcasting of any results until the polls have closed in that State. I believe that that will take us back to the current position. I believe that is the position most people desire to continue, although we do wish to get rid of the absolutely absurd ban on comment. I leave my remarks at that point because the issue has been well canvassed. I have done so twice on introducing my private member's Bill. I welcome the support of the Government and the Opposition in that we at least have a unity of minds in wanting to get rid of some of the absurdities of this ban. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.36) —The Opposition welcomes the principle of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment (Election Blackout) Bill 1983. I think I need to explain why we now welcome the principle of the Bill, not having done so previously. The answer is really very simple. Senator Chipp —Malcolm's gone. Senator PETER BAUME —I take Senator Chipp's interjection without comment. This has been a matter of continuing discussion within the Liberal and National parties for some time. How could it not be? Not only has there been a private member's Bill on the subject but it has been a lively and burning issue within the community. It may be self-evident but it is still worth saying that no party is monolithic on issues such as this and no party or parties could be monolithic or have a single view on an issue such as this. It is no secret that within the Liberal and National parties there was no unanimous view, though at the end of the day we had to derive one view towards the Bill. People's views were often opposed. There was lively argument within the parties on this, as there is on other issues. Any view which came out was a balance within the party, the then ministry and the then Cabinet. It may be worth reminding honourable senators that on 27 January 1982 the now Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Peacock, made a statement supporting what we might call the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters compromise on this matter. At that stage he said: The continuation of the blackout is an insult to the intelligence of Australian voters. That was his view at that time. It was not a view which at that time prevailed in our parties. On 3 September 1982 the then Minister for Communications, my former colleague Mr Neil Brown, referred to the election blackout, as 'a very severe restriction of freedom of expression'. He said that the supporters of the blackout 'will need to establish an overwhelming case to retain it.' Very simply , within our parties there has been lively and continuing debate, a strengthening of support for the view that the blackout has outlived its purpose and its usefulness and a swinging round to the view that it is no longer sustainable. We have no difficulty with the principle that the blackout should be removed. I note that in 1977 the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its report entitled ' Self-Regulation for Broadcasters' noted that there were only two witnesses at its inquiry who then advocated continuation of the blackout. One was a Mr D. Combe who was the then Queensland branch administrator of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Button —South Australian. Senator PETER BAUME —I apologise; I should have said South Australian. The other witness-I am sure Senator Button will be pleased to know the juxtaposition-was from the Bowen Family Protection Committee from Queensland. At that stage the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal recommended the deletion of the provision except for the actual day of the elections. So, bodies such as the Tribunal were moving public debate along. I do not need to speak for very long. We do support the abolition of the blackout. For that reason, we support the Bill. We do have a remaining concern. Senator Macklin, in indicating that the amendments which we will move at the Committee stage will not be supported by the Australian Democrats, did pick up some of the issues but failed to address one thing that has worried us. If we go back in history, we can illustrate why we are worried. The two examples which everyone quotes and which we may be able to quote again are the Reichstag fire incident and the Zinoviev letter. Both are examples which we can take from history. They are events which actually happened. I remind the Senate very briefly that in October 1924, four days before the British general elections, the newspapers of that country published a letter purporting to have been written to the British Communist Party by Grigory Zinoviev, the Chairman of Comintern. That letter urged British communists to prepare for the revolution but in the meantime to support the return of the incumbent Labor Government. The scandal caused by its publication was widely believed at the time to have been instrumental in the landslide that occurred against the Labor Party in that election. We have an example of material being introduced close to election day to which, in fact, the victims had very little effective means of response. Whether or not the letter actually produced that effect is still a matter of debate. The letter may well have been a forgery prepared by Russian exiles in Berlin. Nevertheless, the fact that that incident occurred does show an area of possible detriment to people if material which cannot be answered can be introduced close to an election. Senator Chipp —I take your point, but why do you say that the response was limited? Why couldn't those affected respond? Senator PETER BAUME —They had no access to media outlets. The British Labour Party found the working media closed against it on this issue at that time. That is the reason why we propose that the ban on advertising should be removed also. If there were a Zinoviev incident-I will not go through the details of the Reichstag fire-the same kind of principle would apply. A false rumour was spread to influence public opinion at a critical moment. If we can establish, as we have done, that from historical example a capacity does exist for people to be misled close to an election there is a reason for considering whether the advertising ban should go as well. Of course, the same could happen through the print media. We do have a capacity in the print media to get either a response editorially-- Senator Chipp —Not on Saturday morning, you don't. Senator PETER BAUME —Not on Saturday morning but, up to Saturday morning, we do have a capacity to take advertising space to try to correct what may be a slander or a misstatement close to the election. It is for that reason that we say that the original Democrat proposal should be supported, that the section should be abolished in totality. I accept, as Senator Macklin said, that there are some remaining problems. He is worried about the quality of some of the advertisements. I do not run away from that. The question is the way in which we approach it. I am very concerned that we have no example in this country which equates in any way with the Zinoviev letter or the Reichstag fire incident. I want no example to occur which could-- Senator Peter Rae —I can give you one that has occurred. Senator PETER BAUME —My colleague, by way of interjection, says that he can give an example. I ask which one. Senator Peter Rae —I know of one that has occurred in a State election. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the honourable senator. Senator Gareth Evans —Get on with it and we can get home. Senator PETER BAUME —I indicate to Senator Gareth Evans that I have been speaking for seven minutes. When he can make a speech at the second reading stage of a Bill in seven minutes, there will be hallelujahs going up on all sides. The Bill which was introduced originally by the Australian Democrats is the approach which we favour now. I accept that the Democrats subsequently indicated that they wished to modify their stand. Senator Chipp —There has been a High Court judgment since about electoral advertising. Senator PETER BAUME —I am not attributing motive; I am saying that that is the position which we have reached now. Senator Macklin explained the High Court judgment. There seems to us to be no advantage in trying to continue the blackout. We support the abolition of the blackout. There seems to us to be a potential hazard to political parties, especially small groups, from some kind of ambush close to election day. It is for that reason that we think there should be a capacity for paid advertising to go on even up to the election day if the blackout is removed, and we shall move in Committee appropriate amendments to put that suggestion into effect. Apart from that, the Opposition welcomes the Bill and gives it its support. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(4.46) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. I must acknowledge Senator Macklin's pioneering endeavours in relation to the abolishment of the broadcasting blackout. Even today he indicated his intention to move a further amendment in respect of which I, as Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications, have given him an undertaking-- Senator Chipp —In writing? Senator BUTTON —In writing-that we will consider it in connection with the eastern States-western States problem of the time differential on election day. The legislation as it is, is supported by the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and, of course, most people who operate in the media. I would argue very briefly that although the Zinoviev case to which Senator Baume has referred-I understand that he was using it by way of example-happened in Britain that country has not had an election blackout in the electronic media for a very long period, and although the Reichstag fire happened in Germany that country has not felt the need to have an election blackout as we have in Australia. Senator Peter Baume —You are maintaining a blackout on paid advertising, aren't you? Senator BUTTON —That is precisely the point I want to come to. I think that if there were to be an incident such as the one involving the Zinoviev letter it would be much more likely to occur in a paid advertisement than in a current affairs program or a news program on the electronic media. It seems to me that one of the great democratic advances that are being made in this legislation is that if an advertisement, whether in the print media or on the electronic media, raises an incident such as that at least there will be an opportunity to reply in a current affairs program or a news program. That is the argument I use against Senator Baume's position on that question. I give the Senate one example which happens to have afflicted my party. I am not saying that it has not happened to others. On the eve of, I believe, the 1975 election, a Sydney newspaper published an advertisement about the then Prime Minister-not the caretaker Prime Minister but Mr Whitlam-alleging that he had been involved in extensive land speculation involving millions of dollars in the western suburbs of Sydney. He had no opportunity to repudiate that allegation. He instigated a libel action which cost the newspaper a very substantial sum after the election. It was an immensely damaging allegation to which he had no opportunity to respond. A person in that situation will be able to respond to such an allegation when this legislation is passed. I thank the Senate for its consideration of the Bill and I urge its support in all stages. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.49) —I move: Pages 1 to 3, clause 3, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Broadcasting or televising of political matter or controversial matter '3. Section 116 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting sub-sections (4) and (4A); and (b) by omitting sub-section (6) and substituting the following sub-section: ''(6) In this section- ''election'' means an election of members, or of a member, of- (a) the Senate or the House of Representatives; or (b) a House of the Parliament of a State; ''election matter'', in relation to an election, means matter of any of the following kinds: (a) matter commenting on, or soliciting votes for, a candidate at the election; (b) matter commenting on, or advocating support of, a political party to which a candidate at the election belongs; (c) matter commenting on, stating or indicating any of the matters being submitted to the electors at the election or any part of the policy of a candidate at the election or of the political party to which a candidate at the election belongs; or (d) matter referring to a meeting held or to be held in connection with the election; ''election period'', in relation to an election, means the period that commences on the day on which the writ for the election is issued and ends at the close of the poll on the polling day for the election; ''licensee'' means the holder of a licence within the meaning of Part IIIB.''.' . This amendment will have the effect of bringing about the removal of the ban on election advertising, as we indicated during the second reading debate. It will have that effect, and none other. It will bring the Bill more into line with the original Bill introduced by the Australian Democrats. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.51) —I compliment Senator Baume for the way in which he has handled this debate for the Opposition and the reasoned argument he has put for its present stance on it. We will vote against this amendment for the reasons put forward by Senator Macklin, but I hope that in the next few months we can get close to the Opposition to see if we can come to a consensus about a code of ethics and honesty in political advertising. Politics is a robust activity and we cannot simply impact on political parties the trade practices' code of honesty and accuracy. Surely we can introduce some sort of code to prevent the sort of arch villainy to which Senator Button quite properly referred-arch villainy by a person or political party on an election eve by means of a paid advertisement. As Senator Button pointed out, election comment has at least to go through the filter of an editor whether of a newspaper or a current affairs program. However, paid advertising does not necessarily have to go through that filter. Again, I pay a compliment to Senator Baume for his contribution and to the Government for the way in which it has been receptive to the propositions put by the Australian Democrats. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.53) — The Senate is debating the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983. The establishment of this Council is part of Australian Labor Party policy and the proposal was discussed and approved by the National Economic Summit Conference which was held in Canberra in April. The Bill proposes to create an economic advisory body. I emphasise the word ' advisory'. The Council is to be a new statutory authority which will have the function of bringing together the views of various sections of the community. It is quite consistent, I believe, with this new Government's approach to government that it should wish to establish this type of body. It is consistent with its approach to the Summit and its belief that substantially the forces of big government, big unions and big business should be brought together. It may or may not work. However, the Government is certainly entitled to try. Believing that the Government has a mandate to introduce this legislation, we will not oppose it. I wish to make it clear, however, that although we do not oppose the legislation, we would not wish to give any guarantee that after the next election, when we are back in government, we will not wish to change it. Senator Button —Or that it will succeed. Senator PETER RAE —Or that it will succeed, as Senator Button said. We are saying that, with a considerable degree of interest and no ill-will, we will support the legislation, with the reservation which I have outlined. I am a little concerned that, because the body has an advisory power only, it does not have the power to conduct an inquiry; it will be at risk of being snowed and not being able to make its own inquiries. I fear that the basic dilemma faced by the body is that if it is at all successful the bureaucracy proper will try to knock it off; if it is not successful, it is a waste of time. I fear that its future will be difficult. Whether it is likely to succeed will probably depend upon the calibre of the people who are appointed to it and their will to make it work. I have looked at some other countries that have endeavoured to create similar bodies. I have looked at the Economic Council of Canada, which was established in 1963, the overall responsibilities which it has and the way in which its membership is made up. I feel that the best way to ensure that those who are looking at this matter will have regard to the Canadian model is to seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which explains the Economic Council of Canada. I do not wish to bore people by referring to it in detail. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA Chairman: Dr David Slater Council Secretary: Dr William Haviland Address: P.O. Box 527, Station B Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5V6 (993-1253) The Economic Council of Canada was established on 2 August 1963 by an Act of Parliament to advise and recommend the best means by which Canada can achieve the highest possible levels of employment and efficient production in order that the country may enjoy a high and consistent rate of economic growth. In particular, the duties of the Council, as set forth in the Act, are as follows: (1) to regularly assess, on a systematic and comprehensive basis, the medium- term and long-term prospects of the economy, and to compare such prospects with the potentialities of growth of the economy; (2) to recommend what government policies, in the opinion of the Council, will best help to realise the potentialities of growth of the economy; (3) to consider means of strengthening and improving Canada's international financial and trade position; (4) to study means of increasing Canadian participation in the ownership, control and management of industries in Canada. (5) to study how economic growth, technological change and automation, and international economic changes may affect employment and income in Canada as a whole, in particular areas of Canada and in particular sectors of the economy; (6) to study and discuss with representatives of the industries concerned and with representatives of labour, farmers and other primary producers, and other occupational groups and organisations, what specific plans for production and investment in major industries in Canada will best contribute to a high and consistent rate of economic growth; (7) to study how national economic policies can best foster the balanced economic development of all areas of Canada; (8) to explore and evaluate particular projects of major significance for the expansion of industrial and other economic activities in Canada, whether or not such projects may involve direct governmental participation, and to make recommendations concerning those projects that, in the opinion of the Council, will contribute to the growth of the Canadian economy; (9) to encourage maximum consultation and cooperation between labour and management in the fulfilment of the objectives of the Economic Council of Canada Act; (10) to seek full and regular consultation with appropriate agencies of the governments of the several provinces; and (11) to conduct, if directed to do so by the Minister, reviews of medium-term or long-term programs of the Government of Canada that are designed to aid or assist industry, labour or agriculture. On its own initiative, of if directed to do so, the Council is empowered to conduct any study or undertaking related to its duties and to report its findings and/or make recommendations to the government. The Council is required to publish an annual review of the medium- and long-term prospects and problems facing the Canadian economy and is authorised to publish such other reports as it sees fit. The Council consists of a full-time Chairman and two Dirctors who may serve for a period of seven years, following which time they may be re-appointed for another term. Also serving on the Council on a part-time basis are not more than twenty-five Members representative of a broad range of the Canadian economy across the country. The Economic Council of Canada reports to Parliament through the Prime Minister . Senator PETER RAE —The Norwegian experience is the other one to which I wish to refer because it is of some interest and relevance. It is one which raises the question which may not have been addressed as adequately as it should in relation to the present Government's proposal; that is, the relationship between the function fulfilled by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in Australia-in Norway it is fulfilled by the equivalent of an economic council committee-and this body, the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Centralised wage fixing and economic policy inevitably go together. If we are moving towards centralised wage fixing and the Government does not sort out the relationship between the centralised wage fixing authority and the Economic Planning Advisory Council, it will find that both of them are more limited than they ought to be. Again, I do not wish to delay the Senate by referring in detail to this matter. I draw attention to the fact that it is a matter of some relevance. The body will be a quasi-autonomous national government organisation. I hope it will not be just another qango. It will be able to employ its own staff. It will be able to endeavour to offset the very powerful influence of the Treasury by being able to employ consultants who are independent of the Treasury. Whether that is good or bad has yet to be determined in practice. This body will seek to bring together consultation between the various community groups of importance and relevance with regard to economic policy. I find it very strange that the Government, purporting to take some interest in the single most significant area of employment in Australia-the area of small business-has omitted reference to small business in the Bill and in the constitution of the membership of the body. During the National Economic Summit Conference, Mr Gibbons represented the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. One of the great pleasures that I have had in life was being in on the formation of COSBOA. I drafted the first constitution of that organisation to represent the small business organisations of Australia, a voice which had not been heard adequately. It needs to be heard adequately. Bearing that in mind , I shall be moving with enthusiasm the amendment which has been circulated in the name of the Opposition, for the specific representation of small business on EPAC. When speaking at the Summit, Mr Gibbons said: Our Council, through its member associations, directly or indirectly works and acts for some 150,000 individual small businesses, primarily at present in the tertiary sector where the great bulk of small businesses operate. But we are no less concerned for the wellbeing of every one of the estimated 400,000 small businesses throughout Australia which provide for the employment and self- employment of millions of Australians. He went on to refer to other aspects of the importance of the role of small business. I save time by simply drawing honourable senators' attention to his speech, which is recorded from page 15 of the record of proceedings of the Summit, which is Volume 2 of the Summit documents and proceedings. I commend to those concerned with this piece of legislation the matters put by Mr Gibbons. Shortly, in the Committee stage, I shall be moving an amendment which would enable small business to be assured of representation. I also wish in Committee to get some response from the Government on another matter which has concerned some people-that is, that three States will be represented on EPAC on a rotational basis, with each State being involved for two years at a time. 'State' includes the Northern Territory, so in effect there will be seven States under the definition in the Bill. The three persons on the Council who will represent the States will be nominated by the governments of those States, but there is no provision in the Bill as to how the first three representatives will be determined. There is also no provision as to whether those who have been selected by the government of the day of a State can have their appointment terminated in the event of a change of government within a State. Also, I can find no provision which says what will happen in the event of a change of government at the Federal level. It is to be hoped that this Council will work well and successfully, as regards the positions. Appointments are to include the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and , as I understand it, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations or a similar Federal Minister. If there is a change of government, presumably there will be a change of at least those three people on the Council. But what will happen to the other appointments in the event of a change of Federal government? This does not seem to have been made clear yet. It is important. I am not suggesting that it is a matter of criticism, but an explanation is required. Perhaps the Minister, in responding, will give us some indication on those questions. First, what will happen with regard to the States? How will they draw up a roster of representation? Secondly, what happens in the event of a change of State government? Thirdly, what happens in the event of a change of Federal government? I refer briefly to one or two aspects of the speech of my colleague in the other place, Mr Shipton, which is reported at pages 891 and 892 of Hansard for 24 May 1983. He set out a number of matters. I do not intend to repeat them at this stage of the proceedings. I am sure that remark will be received with some gratitude but I do not wish it to be taken as meaning that I do not support the points made by my colleague in referring to a number of aspects of small business, the mini-Budget and his concern to ensure that the interests of small business are well protected in any steps taken by this Parliament. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make those all too brief points about a Bill which I think is of extreme importance. It may be of very great assistance to Australia or it may be a failure. The Opposition will support it with a view to seeing how it succeeds or otherwise. We wish it well. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.6) —in reply-I thank Senator Rae for the comments he made about the Bill. As he rightly pointed out, it is, in a sense, an experiment based on the Government's view of the need for consultation about a wide variety of matters concerning the economy. I see his point about possible confusion of function on some matters betweeen the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as a wage fixing authority and the Economic Planning Advisory Council as an economic planning body. I think many of those matters will have to be worked out in the entirely new context of having an economic planning body of this kind. We hope that it will give opportunities similar to those which exist in those countries-I think Senator Rae referred to some of them-which we think have been most successful in economic planning and in restraining inordinate sorts of wage movements such as we have had in Australia from time to time. As a result those countries, such as Norway and Sweden, have had very successful economies. Senator Rae raised questions about the States. In a sense I cannot answer the question about seven States and the rotation mechanism that is provided. I understand that the basis of the rotation has been agreed between the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I suppose Senator Rae is really asking whether perhaps there should be a formula in the legislation itself to provide-- Senator Peter Rae —Or at least stated at some time so that it is quite clear. Otherwise it seems that we could have rows. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps the honourable senator will grant me a concession. At the moment I am not in a position to be instructed about that matter. I will certainly investigate it and let the honourable senator know. As to the provisions regarding the terms of appointment of the members of EPAC, first, of course, Ministers change with a change of Federal Government. The only provision in the Bill relating to other members of EPAC which I can see is that they remain in office until their appointments are terminated. I take it that that would happen if a change of government occurred. I thank the Senate for its consideration of this legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.9) —I move: Page 5, clause 9, paragraph (1) (f), lines 32 to 34, leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraphs: '(f) 2 members selected after consultation between the Minister or his representative and such organisations (other than the organisations referred to in paragraph (fa)) that are representative of business as the Minister considers appropriate; (fa) 1 member selected after consultation between the Minister or his representative and such organisations that are representative of small business as the Minister considers appropriate;'. The amendment, which is in two parts, seeks to ensure the representation of small business on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It changes the situation of there being, amongst the members of the Council, three representatives of business. If this amendment were passed there would be two representatives of business at large and it would ensure that there was one representative of small business. I have already referred in the second reading debate to the reasons for moving the amendment. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.10) — The Australian Democrats oppose this amendment although we applaud the concern shown by the official Opposition for the interests of small business. Senator Peter Rae —You did say that you were going to support it. It is in Hansard of a couple of days ago. Senator HAINES —I do not recall mentioning anything of the sort. We certainly applaud what the official Opposition is doing and support its intentions. However, it would be rather odd, at this stage to accept an amendment that would hold up the entire formation of the Economic Planning Advisory Council when there are other ways of achieving such admirable goals. It has come as some surprise not only to me but also I am sure to the small business sector that the Liberals have finally come out in support of it so vigorously over the last few weeks, considering that they have overlooked that sector in the past seven years . I repeat, however, that I believe this is not the best way of ensuring that the best interests of the small business sector are looked after. I point out to Senator Peter Rae that the small business sector is still getting its act together. A number of organisations support small business. I suggest that to start selecting from those organisations could lead only to rather damaging segmentation and set a precedent for the selection of the other business representatives. I support the recommendation of Senator Jack Evans, made earlier, that it would be better to ensure, when it comes to the selection of the three members mentioned in paragraph (f) of sub-clause 9 (1), that consideration is given to there being representatives from the manufacturing sector, from the commerce and finance sector and from service industries, each of which embrace the small business sector and each of which can argue ably with the four, no doubt hard-headed, Australian Council of Trade Union representatives with regard to wage restraint and other matters of mutual interest. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.13) —I am surprised and disappointed that the Australian Democrats, having indicated through Senator Jack Evans that they would support the amendment-that is on record-now propose not to do so. They intend to oppose an amendment which would absolutely ensure the representation of small business on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. I do not wish to hold up the Senate for long but I can only record that I am sure small business will be disappointed that it has not been given that support. I hope that the Government will indicate this afternoon that it will ensure that the spirit of what I have moved and of what the Democrats have indicated they will support in spirit will transpire; that is, that it will assure us that one of the three business representatives selected will be a representative of the legitimate small business area of Australia. I put that suggestion as a compromise. Senator Chipp —Could you suggest what area-what associations, for example? Senator PETER RAE —The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia is one. There are several but I do not wish to create limitations by naming them. Senator Chipp —That is our problem. Senator PETER RAE —We specifically did not in our amendment suggest any names. We wanted selection to be left open and appropriately flexible so that the Government could accept the spirit of the amendment without being tied to a particular organisation, which might have created some problems. I recognise that there are several small business organisations. I wish to say further, as I tried to say by way of interjection, that so far as I am concerned this is not a new-found interest. COSBOA has been in existence for some five or six years. I attended its inaugural meeting and assisted by drafting the constitution. I even suggested the name. I would not wish it to be taken that this is a new-found interest on my part and I do not think it is as far as the Liberal Party is concerned. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will be able to accommodate us by giving some sort of undertaking which will overcome the problems. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.15) —I do not wish to enter the contest of how each of us might excel the others in our enthusiasm for the interests of small business. I take it that we all have a concern about small business. I think the Government's policies, which will be announced in August, will very much reflect that concern. With regard to the Economic Planning Advisory Council, I tell the Committee that it is the intention of the Government to fully consult with small business organisations about appointments to EPAC. I guarantee that intention. If it has not already been carried out-it may have been-it will be very shortly. I do not want to digress into comment about the variety of small business organisations; there is also a variety of big business organisations whose structures are very much in flux at the moment. But I point out that the intention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) was fully spelt out in the second reading speech when he said that it was emphasised that individuals were to be appointed on the basis of their contributions to overall policy rather than because they represented the interests of a particular organisation. That is the Government's policy on the question of appointments to EPAC. Although we fully appreciate the spirit of Senator Peter Rae's amendment, we cannot accept it for that reason. Amendment negatived. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.17) — It had been my intention to move another amendment to this particular clause, similar to that moved by Senator Peter Rae but relating to another somewhat larger group in the community whose absence from the composition of the Economic Planning and Advisory Council is also somewhat noteworthy. That amendment has been circulated for the edification of honourable senators present, and I suggest that were we to call a quorum right now we would not get one. The amendment refers to women as a group, rather than to any sector of the business or union community. It is of considerable concern to me that the only reference to women in this piece of legislation is in clause 9 (7) which says: Appointments of members shall, as far as practicable, be such that the Council contains both men and women. That is practically meaningless, of course, since 'as far as practicable' can be just left there and in effect nothing will be done. It had been my intention to amend clause 9 (1) (h) so that after the word 'members' in that paragraph would be inserted the words 'at least one of whom shall be a woman, and at least one of whom shall be a man', and to similarly amend sub-clause 9 (7) by leaving out the sub-clause entirely and inserting the following new sub-clause: Appointments of members shall be such that at least three of the members are women and at least three of the members are men. It is all too easy at the moment without this sort of thing written into legislation or without the Minister concerned offering some sort of commitment for the sort of thing to occur as appears to have occurred with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board. At the moment I can only refer to an article in a paper this morning which indicated that only one of nine members on the short list is female. That may or may not be the case, but what has happened as a result of that report is that women have been ringing me today and saying: 'So much for the commitment to affirmative action.' If it is not true, if this is just flag flying or kite flying on the part of the paper concerned, all to the good. If it is correct, that is all the more reason for the sort of amendment that I had intended to move being written into the legislation. A whole host of women of whom I can think would be suitable not only to go on EPAC but also to go on the proposed Australian Broadcasting Corporation Board. There are women like Mary Beasley from South Australia who is presently the Commissioner of the Public Service Board and ex-Commissioner for Equal Opportunity, Susan Armstrong, presently Assistant Deputy Ombudsman in New South Wales and previously director of the Legal Services Commission in South Australia, and Elizabeth Proust, a lawyer and a very capable woman who is well aware of business interests and able to represent them capably on a Council such as this. Indeed, I suggest that any 'Businesswoman of the Year' and most of the runners-up in that award would be at least as competent as most of the men who would be appointed to this Board to deal with the sorts of pressures relating to the economic planning of Australia in the future. It is not my intention, however, having made that impassioned plea, to move those amendments. I say that for the same reasons why we are not supporting Senator Peter Rae's amendment. The point has had to be made in both instances. Having made it, I think it is time to retire gracefully in the hope that the Government will see that affirmative action, both in the area of women's representation and in the area of small business, is a necessity if we want genuine consensus on this Council and accept that the spirit, if not the fact, of the amendment is in the legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.22) —I address my remarks to clause 9 which relates to the membership of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. In so doing , I make a preliminary observation so I do not have to get up during the debate on the third reading. I feel that the Government will use the Economic Planning Advisory Council to bring down all sorts of legislation and then say that because this body had approved of such measures it gives them some sort of infallibility. I, for one, believe that that ought not to occur. I believe that the Government ought to stand on its own feet and ensure that legislation that comes before this Parliament is properly supported by logical argument in the best interests of the economy and of the community. That brings me to what has been said by Senator Haines about the absence of representation for women on this council. Admittedly clause 7 (7) states: Appointments of members shall, as far as practicable, be such that the Council contains both men and women. There are a large number of women who, with due respect, were not represented at the National Economic Summit Conference. They were the large number of home makers in this country who are really the silent majority and who are very often forgotten in the consideration of economic planning. It appears that they are not specifically catered for in this clause. I believe it is a tragedy that accommodation of the work of home makers is not even included in the gross domestic product figures in Australia. I think that is quite astounding. One only needs to lose a home maker to realise the enormous effects, both emotionally and financially, that that has on a family. My reason for entering into the debate at this time is not to delay the legislation because it is a fait accompli-the Bill will go through-but merely to ask the Government, through the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), to bear in mind the fact that the people to whom I have referred ought to be considered when appointments are made to this Council. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.25) —I wish to refer to two matters. The first is the matter to which Senator Haines and Senator Harradine have just referred. It is something which the Opposition has not had the Opportunity to consider as a specific amendment. In any event it is not being moved as a specific amendment so it is not a matter to which I have either the opportunity or the obligation to respond. However, the points that have been made by Senator Harradine are valid; the points which have been made by Senator Haines have their validity. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will reply to the clause of the Bill which refers to ensuring that the best people irrespective of sex-that is really what this Bill boils down to-will be appointed to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and that there will not be discrimination in any way. I previously referred to the amendment which the Opposition moved in relation to small business and to the commitment that apparently has been given previously. For the sake of the record I will refer to the actual words that were used on 1 June 1983 at page 1087 of the Senate Hansard. Senator David Hamer stated: Senator Jack Evans mentioned the importance of stimulating small business activity. The Government is to set up, in the same style as the Summit, an Economic Planning Advisory Council, EPAC, but again it will represent big business, big government and big unions. Small business does not get a look in. I find detestable this system whereby these big groups can decide the economic outlook for all of us. I hope, in view of what Senator Jack Evans has said, that he will support the Liberal Party amendment seeking small business representation on EPAC. When we move it I hope that we will have the Australian Democrats support for it. Senator Jack Evans-You will. I do not read that for the purpose of prolonging the debate but simply to specify what I was referring to earlier. I thank the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.28) —I briefly thank those honourable senators who have made a contribution on this matter. Senator Haines failed to move an amendment about which she spoke. As I indicated earlier, the view of the Government is that an economic planning advisory council should seek to have the best available advice. In a sense what I am saying cuts across what has been said about small business, what has been said about women and what might be said about men. The best available advice will be sought in arriving at the membership of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. Clause 9. (7) of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill 1983 refers specifically to the desirability of appointing women to a body of this kind. In any representative body the difficulty is, of course, finding-to use the colloquialism-the best horses for courses in view of the function of the body concerned. Of course the position of women must be taken into account and will be taken into account in the course of appointments to this body. Senator Harradine raised a very serious point. Looking at the composition of EPAC he said that it was very important that governments did not try to introduce legislation into the place on the basis that EPAC was infallible and therefore the Government's view, in accepting EPAC, was necessarily right. I take the point he is making; of course he is right about that. Governments have advice from all sorts of sources such as the Bureau of Industry Economics and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. We will now have advice, as will the community, from EPAC. However, that does not mean that it is infallible and has to be translated into legislation. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the report be adopted. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.30) — Very briefly, I would just like to object to the way in which the Bill has been dealt with. I understand from the Government that it would not be possible to get the proposal under way within a reasonable time if the amendments proposed and supported by the Australian Democrats were accepted because the House of Representatives has risen and does not propose to come back again before the Budget session. This means that the legislative function of this House cannot be fulfilled because of the detrimental effects that could be caused by any delay. I note that Senator Harradine and Senator Mason agree with me. Senator Grimes —What's new about that, though? Senator PETER RAE —I simply wish to record the fact that one of the defects of the Australian parliamentary system is evident when we cannot have proper consideration of legislation and the most effective form of legislation developed. The system is such that instead of having legislation by consideration we have legislation by exhaustion. I simply wanted to record that the Opposition regrets that this has happened in respect to legislation concerning the Economic Planning Advisory Council which is so important to the future of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.33) —The Opposition agrees with the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.33) —I am indebted to the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.35) -Now that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has been enabled to leave the chamber, and leave Canberra apparently, we now come to a most important piece of legislation. The Community Employment Bill 1983 seeks to appropriate $300m for employment schemes. The Bill certainly is in line with the policies of this Government. It is pleasing that the Government has carried out some of its promises. Very few promises have been implemented. I congratulate the Government on the fact that, on this occasion, it is carrying out something it said it would do, which is a very rare event in the life of this Government. It is a very important financial measure. A very large amount of money has been set aside for the next financial year to take effect from 1 July. It therefore is very urgent legislation. I find it rather strange that the Government has decided to put it at the bottom of its list of priorities today, even to the extent of dropping it behind the Economic Planning Advisory Council Bill that we have just dealt with for the convenience of the Attorney-General. This legislation deserves a great deal of consideration. It is a Bill that should have been brought on by the Government at a time when consideration could have been properly given to it and adequately debated in this chamber. As a result of the mismanagement of the business of this House, particularly today, this legislation is now brought on at the very end of the dying few minutes, virtually, of this session when most of the Government senators have left the chamber. Senator Robertson —We have accommodated you people. Senator DURACK —Ha, ha! Because of the way in which the legislative program has been handled large numbers of senators on the Opposition side have also been obliged to leave the chamber. The responsibility for this ragged end of the session is on the head of the Government because of its mismanagement of the business of the Senate. The Opposition supports the Bill. It contains provision for a job creation program in the true sense of the word. It is a program that has had progenitors from time to time in periods of unemployment. The Opposition does not believe this is the best way of tackling unemployment. Nevertheless, it provides an amelioration of the problem for a number of people for a limited time. It should be made clear that this job creation scheme which will provide 70,000 jobs for up to six months is a palliative only. I hope that it will be understood as such and that people will not believe that by measures of this kind the unemployment problem can be solved or that it can be solved in any long term sense. If there are any rises in wages the significance of this proposed scheme will be greatly reduced. The effectiveness of this scheme will be maximised if there is proper economic management and a stimulus for economic recovery in this country. The Opposition wants to emphasise its concern about this Bill being an effective solution to our economic problems. Therefore I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that the Government should acknowledge that permanent jobs will only be created when economic recovery occurs and should do its utmost to implement policies consistent with the following extract from the National Economic Summit communique: (i) there is a recognition that to achieve recovery will require restraint in expectations and claims from all sections of the community except the impoverished (paragraph 2), (ii) it is a legitimate expectation that income of the employed shall be increased in real terms through time in line with productivity (paragraph 8), and (iii) the preservation of the private sector as a profitable operating sector is essential to Australia's well-being and to encourage job creating investment both from within Australia and abroad (paragraph 9); and (b) resolves that the Government should seek to extend the wages pause and subsequent wage restraint until economic recovery, increased investment and consequent job creation have commenced strongly'. I emphasise in particular the last part of that amendment, namely the absolute necessity for the Government to: . . . seek to extend the wages pause and subsequent wage restraint until economic recovery . . . have commenced strongly. As I said earlier, any scheme of this kind, any attempt to create a large number of jobs, albeit of a temporary character, will not be effective unless there is a continuation of restraint on wages and restraint generally in the community. The policy that the Fraser Government initiated at the end of last year should continue, at least until the end of this year. I am afraid that, although the Government has committed itself to these principles in the Economic Summit communique, there is every sign that it will buckle under union pressures and the wages pause will not remain in place very much longer. If that is the case-I am afraid it is-this sort of scheme, like any similar scheme or indeed almost anything else the Government may dream up, is doomed to failure. The only way in which we will get any long term solution to the problems of unemployment, to Australia's economic recovery, is through the growth of the private sector and the creation of real jobs; not just jobs of a temporary kind, which are all that this measure will be able to provide. As I said, the Opposition supports this measure. We hope that it will not prove to be just a palliative. We hope also that it will not be an illusion and that large numbers of people who are presently unemployed will derive some benefit from it. We firmly believe-we hope that the Government will accept this as well- that it is no long term solution to the problem of unemployment. Very different and much more positive economic policies are required from this Government if that object is to be achieved. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.43) —The Community Employment Bill 1983 is a very important Bill. As Senator Durack has said, it is one of a series of important Bills which has literally streaked through this place today. I take this opportunity of supporting the comments made by Senator Peter Rae; it is improper for this place to deal with legislation of this importance at the speed at which we are being required to do so today. I suppose that the Government has been having its honeymoon. Okay, but I give notice that, speaking for myself, I will not be so tolerant of this sort of situation in the future. I hope that in future the Government will try to introduce legislation in a reasonable way, dispersed throughout a session. It is perfectly possible for the Government to do that. I see that, on the other side of the House, Senator Button is smiling. I remember how often he raised this point when he was Leader of the Opposition. I remind him of that now. I remind him of the numerous Hansard references where he will find a record of his doing so. To return to the Bill, in the view of the Australian Democrats this is an important Bill, not only because of what is in it but also because of what is not in it. Senator Durack's points, I think, were good. We see in the Bill useful areas of work, I suppose, because at least they provide employment for desperate people who want it, but they are unimaginative, palliative measures which to me have a rather unpleasant tang of the relief work connotations of the 1930s. People will build and maintain local roads. They will engage in project activity involving water supply improvement programs in country towns, whatever that might mean. That is referred to in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). To the extent that they can provide useful training for people and a career, employment programs will be of value. But I question those particular projects. They will, I suppose, train people to construct and maintain local roads and to engage in project activity involving water supply improvements. This may not be what many young Australians want to do. Further on in the Minister's second reading speech is an indication of what I think is a remarkable cop-out on the part of the Government. It has said that the community will have an input on projects which will conform to certain guidelines. I would have thought that the Government would have preferred to come forward with something that had some imagination and some future for this country. I draw attention to comments that have been made by leading citizens in Australia. I refer to a comment by Sir Mark Oliphant that we need to think big, that it is time the Government got itself together and told the young people of this country that they could serve it best by getting into something large, something which is of value to the community and which has a permanent wealth- producing future and a job-producing potential as well. One such project which was suggested by Sir Mark Oliphant, which was particularly relevant in light of the difficulties over negotiating the sale of North West Shelf gas, was a gas pipeline across the country which would bring that enormous source of energy to the eastern States. I was recently in New Zealand. I went there to see the project which has been carried out at Taranaki to convert natural gas to methanol and petrol. New Zealand-a much smaller country that ours-can carry out that sort of major project. I discussed it with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of that country. The project is being carried out by consensus. It is time that the Government got itself together and, now that its honeymoon is over , brought to this country something of real significance to employment in this country, which will produce jobs and wealth for this country into the future. Speaking briefly to the Opposition's amendment, as I indicated earlier, I think to the Opposition, the Australian Democrats do not support it. We support the first part of the amendment, paragraph (a), because it expresses good sentiments reflecting those of the National Economic Summit Conference. But we do not support paragraph (b) of the amendment, which states: (b) resolves that the Government should seek to extend the wages pause and subsequent wage restraint until economic recovery, increased investment and consequent job creation have commenced strongly. We believe that the job of persuading the community to accept restraint cannot be carried out in such a cavalier fashion and that the community will not wait until all of these things have com- menced strongly and everybody in business is making a fortune before wages can be increased. I suggest to the Opposition that this is a curiously naive and unrealistic amendment and I suggest it deserves our rejection. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.49) —I will take only a minute of the Senate's time. I am concerned at the tragic lack of understanding by the Government of how the commercial world operates, and in particular the lack of appreciation of the importance of profitability in companies and how one must control wages and get productivity out of people. The section of the Community Employment Bill which deals simply with a 'make work' program is terribly shortsighted. Certainly it is important to give people employment as a stop gap measure. But surely there are some people who can advise the Labor Government how to make long term jobs available for people instead of publicly taking the line that we are committed to millions of unemployed people in this country. Senator Button, in debating a matter of public importance earlier this session, just accepted that we will have an extraordinarily high level of unemployment. I do not accept that at all. In the midst of economic depressions we always find that there is no hope around but we will recover from this one if we have the right positive policies from the Government. Instead of running with short term 'make work' programs one of the things the Government should do is look to the creation of national assets, things that this generation and future generations will use. The point raised by Senator Mason on the conversion of natural gas to liquid petroleum in New Zealand refers to the sort of program that we could be looking at. It makes it all the more galling that the Government took $20m out of the Brisbane Airport program because that is a national asset, something that is needed today. It is something that will be of benefit to future generations. I implore this Government to lift its eyes above its navel, look a bit further down the track and try to get for people jobs which will benefit the country. As Senator Button is in the chamber for once I mention that he attacked me the other day for being a defender of small business. On one of the few occasions during this session on which I have had the opportunity of asking a question concerning small business, Senator Button replied by getting into me for defending small business. He might like to know what people in the market place are saying. The question now is: How do you buy a small business when there is an Australian Labor Party Government in power? The answer is: You buy a big one and wait six months. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.51) —Senator MacGibbon cannot point to any Hansard which shows me criticising him for supporting small business. What he has just said is not correct. If he is so concerned about spending money on pipelines, on the Brisbane Airport and things of that kind, he might have thought before he voted yesterday on the tax recoupment legislation, because there was $500m there which could have been spent on those projects and on putting people back to work. If Senator MacGibbon is concerned about infrastructure programs in Australia and about creating employment by these means he should contemplate the one industry which flourished in Australia in the seven years of his Government-tax avoidance. That industry flourished and the Opposition is still promoting it. It does not employ many people. I find some of his views quite extraordinary. I did not say in the Senate that employment would continue to decline. What I said, and I repeat it-everybody who knows anything about this would agree with me-is that employment in traditional manufacturing industry in Australia will decline. That is the challenge which governments have to face. By way of advice, I would not be too concerned about that particular issue. Of course everybody has pet projects that he wants people to work on and governments to spend money on. Senator Mason mentioned a few. I find it extraordinary that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this place devoted a third of his speech to the employment situation in the Senate-pointing to the number of honourable senators who had gone home, and such things as the management of business in the Senate. One-third of his speech contained little lectures about the extent of unemployment. He is an expert on that; he ought to know. In the short time it has been in office this Government has created programs designed to tackle the worst unemployment situation that this country has ever faced since the Great Depression. Those conditions were created in the last seven years. I am interested in Senator Durack's conversion, on the road to Damascus, in regard to unemployment. He suddenly recognises that there is some value in job creation schemes of this kind-something which was opposed by the Fraser Government year after year. The Government has no illusions at all-in introducing this program-that it is not tackling the question of long term unemployment in this country. It is saying that there is a situation of social tragedy in this country, one that particularly affects young people and the long term unemployed, one that has to be tackled as a matter of priority. It is saying that it is important, even by their working under such a scheme as this, to give people a stake in the country in terms of employment. We do not believe for a moment that schemes of this kind will create long term permanent employment, a solution to the sudden and tragic crisis with which this country is confronted. Senator MacGibbon —You are spending a lot of money and missing opportunities, acting in a simplistic knee-jerk way. Senator BUTTON —I know it costs a lot of money. I will tell Senator MacGibbon something: Every one per cent increase in unemployment in Australia costs this Government $1 billion. Under the Fraser Government unemployment increased by 4 1 /2 per cent every year. That added to the annual deficit $4.5 billion that could not be spent on creating new jobs, creating changes in Australian industry and creating the infrastructure that the Opposition is talking about. That is the sort of burden with which we are confronted. In that context it is just trivial to talk about this sum of money being spent on an important solution to a tragic social problem which is possessing this country. I want to make one other comment about Senator Durack's speech. It just shows that, after years in the Parliament and five or six years as a Minister in the last Government, he has learnt nothing. He moved an amendment on behalf of the Opposition. There were some very good points in the amendment. I agreed with all the points mentioned in paragraph (a). The Government has to take account of those things. But the sad thing is that, when Senator Durack talks about extending the wages pause, he should think for a moment about the practicality of that. His Government was never able to agree with the State governments about how long the wages pause would last. Who would he extend the wages pause for? Would he extend it for people under Federal awards or for Commonwealth employees , or would he extend it for the substantial mass of employees under State government awards and determinations? There was never agreement on that question . Senator Durack —The amendment says you should seek to. Senator BUTTON —We should seek to extend the wages pause? There is nothing wrong with seeking to extend it but we have a different view about the substantial issue. Senator Durack says that we as a Government will buckle to union pressure and that, as he has been saying for years, the result of buckling to union pressure will be a wage explosion. The biggest wage explosion that this country has seen for ages occurred in 1981 and 1982 under his Government. Did it buckle to union pressure? Was that why the wage explosion occurred or did it occur because of the sheer stupidity of that Government in failing to have a wages policy? I think probably the second thing happened. If Senator Durack, in the Budget session and next year, goes on with this puerile level of debate, suggesting that the problems of employment, manufacturing industry and so on are related simply to one issue, we will not get very far as a national parliament. I thank the Senate for its consideration of and warm support for this Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Australian Film Industry-Electoral Reform: Speeches by Senator Chaney Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.0) —I will not delay the Senate. Last night, during the consideration of the taxation legislation concerning films, Senator Martin requested that I get some information and provide it tonight. Senator MacGibbon —She is not here. Senator GRIMES —She knows about it. She asked about the 29 Australian films which are in profit. I have carried out that request by the honourable senator. In any case, as the recess is about to begin, I thought it would assist any honourable senator who has time to go to the movies during the recess to know that some of these films that they can see are in profit. The films are: The Naked Bunyip Adventures of Barry McKenzie Alvin Purple Libido Alvin Rides Again Bazza Holds His Own Peterson Stone Sunday Too Far Away Australia After Dark Picnic at Hanging Rock Man From Hong Kong The Devil's Playground Caddie Don's Party Fantasm Storm Boy Blue Fire Lady Felicity Mad Max Money Movers The ABC of Love & Sex Australian Style Breaker Morant My Brilliant Career Gallipoli Winter of Our Dreams Mad Max 2 Puberty Blues The Man from Snowy River. I suggest that, if those honourable senators who have the time want to see some Australian films, they will get just about anything they want out of that selection. They will get nightmares out of some; they will enjoy some; some will turn them on; and some will turn them off. I wish all honourable senators a happy recess. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.2) —I understand that we can sit until a quarter to seven. I have a 45-minute burst on the adjournment! Senator Richardson, in one of his speeches this session, made two flattering quotations from earlier speeches of mine. I want to correct two small points of fact. When he made the first quotation, he said it was from a speech made by me when I was the Minister for Administrative Services. He referred to the need for certain electoral reforms and change. I point out that I was the Minister for Administrative Services only for about three months. The speech to which he referred was made when I was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. With respect to the chiding that he gave me about nothing having been done to ensure that Aboriginals could vote, I merely wish to put on the record that, at the time when the speech was made, we had, I think in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory, in conjunction with the Australian Electoral Office, put education teams into the field working with Aboriginal communities to try to ensure that they were able to vote. I wish those small matters of correction to be part of the Senate's record. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.3 p.m. until Tuesday, 23 August 1983, at 3 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed in accordance with the resolutions of the Senate agreed to this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 2 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) How many: (a) pilots; and (b) executives of Qantas Airways Ltd received a lump sum retirement or superannuation payment in each of the last five years. (2) How many flight personnel and executives of Qantas are eligible for a lump sum payment on retirement. (3) What is (a) the age of retirement for a Qantas 747 pilot, and (b) the lump sum payable to such a pilot after (i) ten, (ii) fifteen, and (iii) twenty years service. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Qantas has advised that the following numbers of Qantas pilots and executives received lump sum retirement payments from the Qantas Airways Limited staff superannuation plan over the last five years: Year ending 31 March Pilots Executives 1979 38 3 1980 10 3 1981 7 - 1982 18 1 1983 11 3 (2) Qantas has advised that, on 1 April 1983, there were 10,084 Qantas staff, including 2,760 flight personnel and 42 executives, who were members of the company's superannuation plan, and therefore entitled to lump sum payments on retirement. (3) The normal retirement age for a Qantas 747 pilot (including captains, first officers and second officers) is 55 years. The normal retirement lump sum benefit payable to a Qantas pilot is dependent upon several factors, including the pilot's age on joining, length of service, and final average salary as defined by the plan. Qantas has advised that the multiples applied to a pilot's average final salary to determine lump sum payments vary according to years service as captain, first officer, or second officer. Typical multiples applied are: (i) after 10 years service: approximately 2.29; (ii) after 15 years service: approximately 3.43; (iii) after 20 years service: approximately 4.57. Question No. 34 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: What was the 'Private Residence' specified in the 'Remuneration Tribunal Review ' under the heading-Office Facilities-Telephone Service in Private Residence 8.1 for each of the following former Ministers from 1976 to 4 March 1983: (a) Prime Minister; (b) Minister for Trade and Resources; (c) Treasurer; (d) Minister for Defence; (e) Minister for National Development and Energy; (f) Minister for Industry and Commerce; (g) Vice-President of the Executive Council; (h) Minister for Foreign Affairs; (i) Minister for Primary Industry; (j) Minister for Finance; (k) Attorney-General; (l) Minister for Social Security; (m) Minister for Aviation; (n) Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; (o) Minister for Education; (p) Minister for Transport and Construction; (q) Minister for Defence Support; (r) Minister for Science and Technology; (s) Minister for Administrative Services; (t) Minister for Communications; (u) Minister for Capital Territory; (v) Minister for Veterans' Affairs; (w) Minister for Home Affairs and Environment; (x) Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; (y) Minister for Health; (z) Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Ministers are provided by their departments with such telephone services in their residences as they require to meet official needs. They do not, therefore, have occasion to draw upon the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination in respect of telephone services in the residences of private senators and members. Question No. 51 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Includes expenditure on word processing 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 (a) 1,035,958 2,178,645 1,926,318 1,945,841 2,994,551 2,928,723 8,475,775 3,050,017 2,365,000 325,000 375,000 (b) 450 1,140 15,511 31,894 38,440 82,183 103,486 608,365 1,442,365 1,768,365 2,103, 365 (3) Equipment in use within the Department and instrumentalities is comparatively new and no equipment will be declared for redeployment within the next five years. Question No. 60 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) The moneys expended and planned to be expended since January 1976 on computer hardware and software-total $21,274,000. (b) Repairs and servicing of computers-total $7,536,000. (2) The expenditures (actual and planned) on computer hardware, software and repairs are tabled below: Software and Repairs and Year Hardware Servicing 1975-76 309,000 176,000 1976-77 310,000 243,000 1977-78 1,272,000 355,000 1978-79 530,000 432,000 1979-80 1,890,000 451,000 1980-81 1,252,000 426,000 1981-82 1,262,000 786,000 1982-83 (est.) 1,407,000 883,000 1983-84 (est.) 4, 223,000 946,000 1984-85 (est.) 4,850,000 1,276,000 1985-86 (est.) 3,969,000 1, 535,000 Total 21,274,000 7,509,000 The figures for expenditure for the six month period from 1 January 1976 cannot be readily extracted. The figures provided, therefore, reflect the expenditure for the full financial year. (3) Of the purchased equipment and software included above, the following major items have been written off or will be obsolete within five years. IBM System 7 minicomputer IBM, Harris and Raytheon terminal equipment ICL 2903 minicomputers ITEL disk equipment IBM 3420 tape unit equipment WANG Word Processor Components WORDPLEX Word Processors Question No. 61 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Governmen, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What moneys have been expended since 1 January 1976 in the Minister's areas of responsibility and what moneys are being planned to be expended in the following areas: (a) computer hardware and software; and (b) repairs and servicing of computers. (2) When was expenditure incurred in each of the above categories. (3) Which items purchased above are now obsolete or will be so in the next five years. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) $13,070,425; (b) $6,488,651. (2)- TERRITORIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ($'000) 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Computer Hardware and Software 76,434 54,256 174,779 82,422 70,155 2,335,821 862,963 44,849 615,073 296,678 187,483 Repairs and Servicing of Computers 182 30,021 51,510 63,020 411,330 608,193 585,459 722,093 787,953 819,736 945,745 Parliament House Construction Authority Computer Hardware and Software . . . . . . . . . . . . 154,000 15,000 50,000 n. a. n.a. Repairs and Servicing of Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,300 20,700 20,000 20,000 20,000 Gaming and Liquor Authority Computer Hardware and Software 169,890 309,283 117,012 237,230 74,646 59,340 354,348 213,000 295,000 250,000 625,000 Repairs and Servicing of Computers 11, 639 12,266 15,261 15,828 17,536 9,913 4,302 18,164 10,000 12,000 14,000 National Capital Development Commission Computer Hardware and Software 21,000 128,000 26,000 29,000 14,000 94,000 320, 000 336,000 266,000 278,000 155,000 Repairs and Servicing of Computers 15,000 25 ,000 20,000 12,000 9,000 13,000 13,000 75,000 87,000 88,000 86,000 Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority Computer Hardware and Software nil nil 261,000 366,000 261,000 261,000 835,000 526,000 652,000 150,000 80,000 Repairs and Servicing of Computers nil nil 43, 000 61,000 64,000 78,000 90,000 90,000 98,000 107,000 120,000 Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade Computer Hardware 88,166 36,336 20,761 24,500 5,000 6,000 5,000 1,000 50,000 n. a. n.a. Software approximately $50,000 for the period Repairs and Servicing of Computers Warranty Warranty Warranty 2,000 3,000 3, 000 4,000 4,000 8,500 9,500 10,500 (The majority of servicing and repairs on the equipment is carried out by two technicians attached to the Brigade). (3) Territories and Local Government-Systems expected to become obsolete in the next five years are: Burroughs B6700 and peripherals Burroughs B7700 and peripherals NCR 8200 data entry system Replacement will be subject to Government approval and funds will be sought at the appropriate time. Parliament House Construction Authority-Nil. Gaming and Liquor Authority-Major acquisitions which will become obsolete by 1985-86: 5 x 7/32 Perkin Elmer Mini-computers 9 x Ampex Disc Drives 70 x VTE5 Visual Display Units 100 x Beehive Visual Display Units 39 x EXTEL Printers (30 C.P.S.) 100 x A.T.O.M. Selling Terminal printers National Capital Development Commission-Nil. Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority 2 x TU45 tape drives; purchased 1977, obsolete 1983. 1 x Electrical system control mini computer; purchased prior 1976, obsolete 1984. Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade-The fire brigade has a centralised computer which is responsible for the monitoring of fire alarms connected to various buildings in the Australian Capital Territory. Connected to this computer are two VDU's and two teletype machines (duplication in case of breakdown). The computer has an independent emergency power supply. Feeding into this computer are four concentrator units located at Forrest, Ainslie, Phillip and Belconnen fire stations. These units collect and monitor fire alarms in each station district and then feed the information into the computer. Each station unit has its own emergency power supply. The majority of servicing and repairs on the equipment is carried out by two technicians attached to the brigade. It is extremely difficult to provide information on this question. At the time of purchasing it was anticipated that the equipment had a life expectancy of twenty years. However an equipment policy change or a rapid increase in the workload could render it obsolete in a much shorter period. Question No. 98 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Are travel agents in far north Queensland required to contact the Qantas office in Townsville or Brisbane for assistance in difficult fare construction, up-dating of fare knowledge and provision of Qantas material for day to day operation of their travel office because these services are not available from Qantas' general sales agent in north Queensland. (2) Are Qantas reservations made in North Queensland effected through Brisbane via an inwatts service or through Qantas' general sales agent. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Qantas has advised that travel agents in far north Queensland should not be required to contact Qantas in Townsville or Brisbane for assistance with difficult fare quotes, as Air Queensland in Cairns, Qantas' general sales agent in north Queensland, would have the expertise to answer all queries. Qantas provides regular training in Cairns for agents and Air Queensland to enable updating of their general knowledge of current fares. Further, Air Queensland, as the Qantas general sales agent in the region, provides a distribution service for Qantas tariff notices and any Qantas material used for day to day operations by north Queensland travel agents. (2) Qantas has advised that, since 26 April 1982, Qantas reservations from north Queensland have been channelled through Brisbane to the company's central reservations unit in Sydney, at Qantas expense, via the inwatts facility. Qantas has advised that this service is available to all Queensland travel agents 24 hours a day. an agent based in Cairns would need to pay only a local telephone call charge, whether to the Qantas inwatts number or to Air Queensland, to utilise the service while an agent located outside Cairns would only need to pay the cost of an STD call. Qantas has also advised that an agent could, if he preferred, make his reservations with Air Queensland in Cairns, since Air Queensland is fully equipped with the QANTAM worldwide computer system owned by Qantas. As well, since 3 May 1983 Air Queensland has been switched to the Travel Industry Automated Service (TIAS) which enables bookings to be made with any connected airline to destinations throughout the world. Question No. 113 Senator Withers asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: What was the 'Private Residence' specified in the Remuneration Tribunal Review' under the heading-Office Facilities-Telephone Service in Private Residence 8.1 for each of the following former office bearers from 1976 to 4 March 1983: (a) the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; (b) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives; (c) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (d) the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Opposition office-holders are provided by the Department which services them, currently the Department of the Special Minister of State, which such telephone services in their residences as they require to meet official needs. They do not , therefore, have occasion to draw upon the Remuneration Tribunal's Determination in respect of telephone services in the residences of private senators and members. Question No. 129 Senator Townley asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: (1) How many people are employed by the Independent Air Fares Committee. (2) What is the salary level for each of these employees. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) There are 12 people employed in the Independent Air Fares Committee Secretariat. The following are details of the positions and their salary levels. One position of Clerk Class 11 is not staffed pending recruitment action, however, a surplus Clerk Class 10 officer (Salary Level $31,280-32,470) is temporarily attached to the Secretariat. Designation and Classification Salary $ Secretary, Level 1 40,500 Steno-secretary, Grade 1 14,070-14,790 Clerk, Class 11 (2 positions) 33,720-35,130 Clerk, Class 9 29,040-30,090 Clerk, Class 8 (2 positions) 26,800-27,850 Clerk, Class 6 22,080-23,480 Clerk, Class 4 17, 630-19,220 Clerical Assistant, Grade 3 13,050-13,920 Word Processing Typist, Grade 1 14,040-14,430 Typist, Grade 2 12,880-13,500 Question No. 137 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 11 May 1983: (1) How many applications have been received for the mobility allowance. (2) How many applications have been: (a) approved; (b) rejected; and (c) awaiting processing, for the mobility allowance. (3) What is the estimated number of eligible persons for the mobility allowance . (4) What percentage of eligible persons have applied for the mobility allowance . (5) What measures were undertaken to alert eligible people of their entitlement for the mobility allowance and what was the cost. (6) What measures will be undertaken to ensure that all eligible persons are aware of their entitlement to the mobility allowance. (7) Has any special staff training and/or seminars been conducted for the introduction of the mobility allowance; if so, what was the cost for each State and Territory. (8) How far may the mobility allowance be backdated. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The number of applications for mobility allowance as at 19 May 1983 is 4380 . (2) The current status of all applications as at 19 May 1983 is: (a) approved- 1712; (b) rejected-165; and (c) awaiting processing 2503. (3) The number of persons who could be eligible for mobility allowance in the first full year of payment of the allowance was estimated at approximately 35, 000. This could only be a tentative 'best guess' estimate in the absence of firm data. (4) Presuming that most of the applicants whose claims are being processed will be granted the allowance, and as 4380 persons had applied for the allowance between 1 April and 19 May 1983 based on the answers to questions (1) and (2), the percentage of eligible persons is estimated at around 12 per cent. (5) A national press campaign encompassing mobility allowance, rehabilitation allowance, work transition arrangements for invalid pensioners, and new activity therapy and training benefits was conducted in April 1983 to ensure that eligible people were aware of the introduction of a new package of benefits for disabled persons. This campaign was backed up by information packages, posters, handbills and leaflets. The cost of the campaign was $317,000. (6) Information on mobility allowance will be incorporated into my department's on-going information programs. (7) The operational aspects of the payment of mobility allowance is centralised in a small specialist unit situated in the State Headquarters in each State and Territory. Consequently, training requirements were minimal and were accomplished by a brief seminar in Canberra covering policy aspects and the operation of the ADP based payment system. Representatives from all States and Territories attended and the travel costs associated with the seminar were as follows: $ New South Wales 921.40 Victoria 976.00 Queensland 1,585.00 South Australia 1,635.00 Western Australia 1,412.40 Tasmania 1,105.20 Australian Capital Territory Nil Northern Territory 1,019.00 Total 8,654.00 (8) Under section 133RE (4) of the Social Security Act payment may only be made from the first allowance payday following lodgement of the claim with an office of my department. Hence backdating of a claim to a date prior to the date of lodgement is not permitted under the legislation. Question No. 147 Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Are ex-servicemen restricted to one loan under a loans scheme administered by the Defence Service Homes Corporation. (2) Are ex-servicemen, who, because of illness are forced to sell their War Service Homes to move closer to Repatriation Hospitals, ineligible for a second loan; if so, can exceptions be made for ex-servicemen who are required to move through necessity rather than choice. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The primary purpose of the Defence Service Homes Scheme is to provide housing assistance to serving and former members of the Defence Force on a single occasion only. However, as there may be compelling circumstances in which the granting of a sound loan is warranted, the Defence Service Homes Act enables the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to approve a loan for a second property. (2) When a request for second assistance is based on medical grounds it will be given favourable consideration if the applicant's doctor indicates a move is medically essential and a medical officer of the Department of Veterans' Affairs is also satisfied about the need to move from the home. These arrangements apply to a request for a second loan made by a veteran seeking to move closer to a Repatriation Hospital. Question No. 153 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) What stage has been reached in relation to the former Government's pilot program to subsidise fees in commercial child care centres for low income families. (2) What were the proposed income limits for assistance. (3) How much money was to be made available to subsidise fees in existing child care facilities. (4) Has any money been paid or promised; if so, will compensation be afforded for non-use of the facilities. (5) How many Department of Social Security staff were involved in the pilot study. (6) How much money was expended for the pilot study on: (a) staff costs, and (b ) other costs. (7) How much money is to be directed to non-profit child care community based centres as a consequence of the termination of the pilot study. (8) What are the names and addresses of the child care centres to be aided by extra funds. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I announced on 18 March 1983 that the Government had decided to withdraw from this pilot study. At that time guidelines for the study in New South Wales had been approved by the former Minister for Social Security and agreed with the Association of Child Care Centres of New South Wales. It was also intended to undertake a parallel study in South Australia had a broad agreement as to its basis had been reached between the former Minister for Social Security and the South Australian Minister of Community Welfare. (2) The limits of the income test were to have been the same as those applying in non-profit child care services receiving Commonwealth assistance. These limits are based on an assessed family income which is gross family income less actual housing costs up to $100 per week, less $30 for each dependent child. A fee rebate was to have been available where assessed family income was less than $250 per week, with the maximum rebate available to families with an assessed family income of less than $65 per week. (3) The previous Government allocated a total of $300,000 to the pilot study for expenditure in 1982-83 and 1983-84. All of this, except for a small amount to fund an independent evaluation, was to have been available to subsidise fees in existing child care centres. (4) No money was paid or promised. (5) Approximately 20 staff of the Department were involved, most to a minor extent and non full time. (6) Approximate estimates only are possible. These are: (a) $7,000. (b) $1,700. (7) Nil. The 1982-83 appropriations for the Children's Services Program were reduced by $200,000 as part of the Additional Estimates process, subsequent to the Government's decision to withdraw from the pilot study. (8) Not applicable. Question No. 168 Senator Boswell asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) What dates have been determined for the start and finish of the Government' s publicity campaign following the National Economic Summit Conference. (2) Which advertising agency has been contracted to place advertising business associated with the campaign. (3) What is the total budget for the advertising campaign and in what proportions is it to be distributed on a state basis. (4) Is this advertising business to be allocated to all forms of media, that is , print, broadcast or television, or is it to be weighted towards a single medium. (5) Is this advertising business to be awarded on a weighted basis to any individual media ownership group. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In the first two phases of the campaign, advertisements appeared between 11 and 16 May 1983 and between 15 and 18 May 1983. Although further phases are envisaged, no dates for them have yet been set, nor has any precise finishing date been specified. (2) The campaign is using the normal media placement systems operated by the Australian Government Advertising Service. Under these arrangements the placement of the advertising has been arranged primarily by Doyle Dane Bernbach Pty Ltd, Sydney. Placement of some regional or provincial press advertising has been arranged through Country Press Ltd, Sydney, Country Press Co-operative Co. Limited, Melbourne, and S.A. Country Newspapers Limited, Adelaide. Creative work for the campaign has been undertaken by Monahan Dayman Adams (Vic .) Pty Ltd. (3) $1.2m has been allocated to my department to cover the cost of the full campaign. Distribution of expenditure on the campaign between States has not been predetermined, but is expected to reflect the different charges in each State for the same number of appearances in the same range of media. (4) Only print advertising has been used so far and at this stage we do not intend to use other media. (5) No. Question No. 176 Senator Scott asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs give an assurance that the consultants referred to in his statement on the Royal Commission into the Use of Chemical Agents in Vietnam, who are to be appointed to assist the Royal Commission in relation to the scientific, medical and other issues before it, will be totally unbiased on the issues before the Royal Commission and that their various qualifications are of the highest order. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Mr Justice Evatt of the Federal Court has been appointed as Royal Commissioner to conduct the inquiry into the use of chemical agents in Vietnam. The Government's role is to ensure that the Commission has the resources to carry out its task. The Royal Commissioner will determine his own method of inquiry and appoint consultants as needed. I have every confidence that the Royal Commissioner will appoint suitably qualified advisers. Question No. 191 Senator Messner asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Is the Department of Social Security participating in the inquiry by the Attorney-General's Department to set up a national maintenance collection agency . (2) Will the above report be made public; if so, when. (3) Will the proposed agency replace States' maintenance collection agencies. (4) What is the estimated amount that will be saved in 1983-84 if the Government introduces the national maintenance collection agency. (5) What is the estimated cost of running the agency. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: (1) The officers of my Department undertaking the inquiry are consulting closely with officers of the Department of Social Security. (2) Yes, I intend that the report will be available to the public. (3) This is a matter to be decided when the report has been received and considered by the Government. (4) and (5) These figures cannot be estimated until a decision is made on the establishment of a national maintenance collection agency and the form it will take. Senator Ryan —On 24 May (Hansard, page 682) Senator Colston asked me a question concerning the cleaning dispute at the University of Queensland. Further to the response I gave at that time, I would like to provide the following information: At the time I responded to Senator Colston I was unaware that a letter had been received in my office on May 20 from the Queensland Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, requesting assistance in the resolution of this matter. That letter has been referred to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission who are preparing a reply. Senator Ryan —On 26 May 1983 (Hansard, page 869-70) Senator Jack Evans asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism the following question without notice: Is the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware that at present there are some four separate competing offices in London, each promoting individual Australian States and Territories as tourist destinations? Is the Minister aware of the expressed wish of the Australian tourist industry that the Commonwealth Government co-ordinate marketing of Australian tourism overseas out of one office per country, with the individual States and Territories each having representation in each office as they desire? What steps has the Government taken to persuade the States, and Territories to forgo their individual tourist promotions overseas and join the Commonwealth in one major advertising push to sell Australia as a holiday destination rather than a collection of competing States, as was undertaken by the Minister in his address to the National Economic Summit Conference? Will the Minister be raising this issue at the annual meeting of Federal and State tourism Ministers tomorrow ? I have been supplied with the following information: The Minister is aware of various State governments actively promoting their States as tourist destinations overseas. The Minister is also aware that a task force of the Australian Travel Industry Association reporting in September 1982 on Tourism in the 80s found strong support of the established role of the Australian Tourist Commission in promoting Australia overseas and for its research and other industry supporting initiatives. The Australian Tourist Commission, as the Government's tourism promotional arm, has developed initiatives for consultation and co-ordination with the States and Qantas. Liaison Committees have been established in Australia and each of Australia's main tourist markets. This had led to close harmonisation of overseas activities and general adoption of the Commission's marketing platforms by States and industry. For example, recently in London, the States industry and the Commission co- operated in producing 'Corroboree', a presentation on Australia to the British Travel Trade. In addition, the Commonwealth Government is actively encouraging the Commission in seconding State/ Territory officers to its overseas offices. At present there are seconded officers in Auckland and Singapore. Secondments to the Tokyo Office are currently under consideration. The Commonwealth Government is also encouraging the Commission to investigate the possible establishment of 'Australia Centres' in various overseas markets. The aim of these Centres will be to provide a cohesive and comprehensive source of product information which will facilitate the marketing of Australia. These matters were discussed at the recent Tourist Ministers' Council meeting in Sydney. There will be continuing discussions on the cohesive promotion of Australia overseas. It is the policy of this Government that it should assume the sole responsibility of promoting Australia overseas, after consultation with the States. Senator Walsh —On 1 June 1983 (Hansard, page 1066), Senator Macklin asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, a question concerning authorisations issued to Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd to conduct uranium sales negotiations. In responding to the honourable senator's question, I said I thought, subject to check, that the Minister for Trade may have issued a Press statement on the matter but that in any event, I would refer the matter to the Minister for Trade. The Minister for Trade has now provided the following information: I have in fact not issued a Press statement regarding authorisations to Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd to conduct uranium sales negotiations. I confirm however, that the situation was correctly described by Senator Walsh. Pending completion of the Government's examination of all aspects of uranium policy, the Government has authorised the two existing uranium producers, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd, to resume negotiations with certain electric power utilities in the United States. This restricted authorisation enables the existing producers to maintain a presence in that market. The authorisations do not imply approval of any uranium sales contracts that might eventuate. Any such contracts would be considered by the Government in terms of the national interest and in light of the outcome of the examinations currently in progress. Senator Walsh —On 1 June 1983 (Hansard, page 1069), Senator Hill asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, a question concerning, inter alia, the pricing provisions of authorisations issued in respect of uranium sales negotiations. The Minister for Trade has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The authorisations issued to Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd to conduct uranium sales negotiations in the United States include pricing provisions which are identical to those contained in the uranium sales negotiations authorisations which lapsed following the change of Government. In respect of the other matters raised by Senator Hill, I refer him to information provided in answer to Senator Macklin's question above. Senator Walsh —On 1 June 1983 ( Hansard, page 1073), Senator Kilgariff asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade, a question concerning the conditions imposed on Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and Queensland Mines Ltd in regard to their negotiations for new contracts. In amplification of my remarks at that time, I refer the honourable senator to the further information provided by the Minister for Trade in answer to Senator Macklin's question above.