Wednesday, 24 August 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 11.30 a.m ., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submit that: Although many occurrences of sexual harassment in the workforce have been reported to various State government authorities, such as the Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity, the real incidence of sexual intimidation in employment will not be known, or countered, until a national policy towards sexual harassment is determined and implemented. We therefore submit that: (1) The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation be commissioned to conduct a nation-wide study of discrimination based on sex, both in the private sector and the Public Service, with a view to advising the Government on the development of national policy. (2) The major priority of such a study should be to determine a legally- enforceable definition of sexual harassment. (3) The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should bring forward in Parliament legislation, arising from such a study, to outlaw discrimination and intimidation in employment based on sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 229 citizens). To the Honourable The President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 147 citizens), Childs (from 24 citizens), Sibraa ( from 14 citizens) and Watson (from 82 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, Believing that men and women are equal but different, Convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, Concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist dominated international commitee the power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly petition that your Honourable House will NOT support the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and we will always thus petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 7,061 citizens), Teague (from 522 citizens) and Walters (from 77 citizens). To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all members of the Women's Services 1939-45 War qualify as 'Australian Soldier' under the Defence Service Homes Act for loans because on voluntarily joining the Australian Forces they took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies making themselves available for combat duty in War Zones, and according to Acts and Regulations of the period the Military women had enlisted for service anywhere, some Naval women to sail in any waters, with all servicewomen available for service in Papua New Guinea. As those members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force of 1939-45 War who were not sent to War Zones are granted loans, refusal to grant eligibility to all Ex-servicewomen of 1939- 45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you amend the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from six citizens), Chaney (from 22 citizens) and Jack Evans (from four citizens). To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as 'Australian Soldiers' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crowley (from five citizens) and Haines (from 11 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. by Senators Crowley (from 48 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that to date no postage stamps have been issued to commemorate the services of Australian Forces in Korea and Vietnam. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should seek and support the issue of such commemorative stamps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 12 citizens) and Crichton-Browne (from 244 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the requirement that pensioners and health care cardholders fill in a complex declaration when presenting prescriptions is causing distress to beneficiaries and inefficiencies in the distribution of medicines by pharmacists . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will immediately abolish the requirement that a declaration be completed by the pensioner and health care cardholder. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 47 citizens). 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's announced proposal to tax lump sum superannuation payments by up to 60% is an unwarranted and unfair attack on the savings of Australians of average means and Whereas the development of our nation requires the application of large sums of capital which can only be generated locally by the savings of Australians and Whereas Government policies preventing the development of local capital only serve to increase Australia's dependence on foreign capital and Whereas the encouragement of thrift and self-help should be paramount in our society, We humbly pray that the Government will not proceed to impose a tax on lump sum superannuation payments above that presently existing. 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 Senator Peter Baume (from 114 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are deeply concerned for the well-being of Mr Mart Niklus, a leading Estonian and Baltic human rights activist who is in ill health and imprisoned in solitary confinement in Perm Labour Camp No. 389/36 in Siberia. (2) That Mr Mart Niklus has been imprisoned as a 'prisoner of conscience' for the non-violent exercise of his beliefs and is denied visiting and communication rights. (3) That the Australian Government give its support to any initiatives in this case by Amnesty International which has adopted Mr Mart Niklus. Amnesty International believes he has committed no real crime and has never used or advocated the use of violence. (4) That we urge the Australian Government to make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union to promptly release Mr Mart Niklus and grant him a passport and exit visa. (5) That in its representations to the Government of the Soviet Union advise that the Australian Government has approved the sponsored entry of Mr Mart Niklus into Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 664 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We the undersigned herein voice our disapproval of the 30% tax on our lump sum Superannuation Payment and demand that the Federal Government does not impose this tax. If this imposition is instituted it will be a gross breach of contract . Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should request the Hon. P. Keating as Commonwealth Treasurer to assure the petitioners that this plan will be withdrawn. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gietzelt (from 314 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. That one of the fundamental strengths of the Australian Federation has been the division of powers between the Federal Parliament and the various State Parliaments; and 2. The decision of the High Court in Commonwealth of Australia v State of Tasmania and associated cases seriously erodes the rights of the citizens of the various States to determine their own futures and removes from the authority of the State Parliaments the right to legislate in areas which have traditionally been their responsibility. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) legislate to give effect to the proposal of the Queensland Division of the Liberal Party to ensure that no international treaty or convention will be ratified by Australia without the express approval of the State Parliaments; and (b) reaffirm its commitment to the Federal system of government and continuing division of powers between the Commonwealth and State Parliaments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, concerned with the cut in funding to the Brisbane Airport, concerned that this cut means loss of jobs, concerned that this cut could seriously affect the economy of Queensland: Humbly petition the Senate to request the Australian Government to: (1) Reverse its decision to cut funding to the Brisbane Airport. (2) Abide by the guarantee given by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Airport would receive priority funding. (3) Assure the citizens of Queensland that the Brisbane Airport as the domestic and economic gateway to this State will be fully completed by 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 2,221 citizens). Petitions received. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this Government, as with its predecessors, having failed to set a new direction for Australia's economy under the constraints of single year Budgets should now form an all-party committee to establish: (1) Long term indicative planning procedures for Government and its departments ; (2) rolling budget systems with regular adjustments and audits; and (3) a comprehensive long term plan to rationalise Australia's tax laws. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate is of the opinion that: legislation should be introduced to enable handicapped people to undertake university or other tertiary studies, without imposing the same pace of work as for able-bodied students. This legislation should require the pace at which handicapped students are to work to be approved by a panel of medical and educational specialists and that this pace be in direct relationship with their level of disability or capacity. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. The Provision of Services for the Aged: A Report on Relations Among Governments in Australia-Report prepared by Advisory Council for Inter- government Relations-pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter- government Relations Act 1976 2. National Economic Summit Conference 11-14 April 1983-Documents and Proceedings-Volume 1 Government Documents and Volume 3 Documents Submitted: Participants and Observers 3. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Report 1982-pursuant to Section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973 4. Australian Canned Fruits Corporation Annual Report 1982-pursuant to Section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 5. Australian Canned Fruit Sales Promotion Committee Final Report 1982-pursuant to Section 69 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979 6. Australian Agricultural Council-Resolutions of the 116th Meeting-Sydney, New South Wales-7 February 1983 7. Fishing Agreement between the Australian Government and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild 1983 8. Human Rights and the Deportation of Convicted Aliens and Immigrants-Report No. 4-pursuant to paragraphs 9 (1) (a) and (c) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 Report Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I should like to address a few remarks to this paper, which is a very important document as it adds considerably to our understanding of the problems of the aged in the community. It is an attempt by a very authoritative group to draw together the considerations relating to the various spheres of government and the way in which they interrelate in providing services for the aged. The report contains very significant initiatives and suggestions about the way in which local government can inter-react with State and Federal governments to provide most local services for the aged. This particular point is of very great interest to honourable senators on this side of the House. I believe that it is necessary to develop the concept that the most effective services can best be brought to the individuals concerned-that is, the aged and the disabled in the community-by drawing together government at the most local level. This report contains certain suggestions about how that can be done. It also draws to our attention the important point that not all local government bodies in Australia are suitably established or contain within their structures sufficient expertise to undertake that kind of role. It is very chastening to note the limited role of local government in that area, but it is also encouraging to note that, particularly in Melbourne and in Sydney, some suburban councils have made very significant attempts to develop the kinds of services that are envisaged in the delivery of care to the aged. I refer to some of these developments. I believe the local council in Camberwell, Victoria, has developed very effectively at a local level the kinds of services for the aged which could be used as a model for development throughout the whole of Australia. Certainly in my State the town of Thebarton has developed a very significant interest in this area and is building its expertise towards providing a wider range of services for the aged at that most local level. One has to acknowledge, as this report does, that the key to the provision of services at that local government level relies very heavily upon the provision of funding. Obviously this report is aimed at drawing attention to that fact and at seeking ways and means by which funding can be rationalised for the other two levels of government, that is, State and Federal. In that respect I believe this report adds very significantly to our understanding of the problems. It certainly encourages us to think more deeply about those matters. There can be no doubt that on the question of developing the most effective services for the aged the answer lies in rationalising services, rationalising resources, at the most local level. If this report can encourage the Government to consider those matters more deeply and to develop policies which encourage the devolution to the most local level of the responsibility for providing services it is a most worthwhile contribution. The Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations is certainly proving its worth in demonstrating to all of us in the Senate and in Australia as a whole the worthwhile sections of government that sometimes are overlooked in terms of the development of services to all kinds of people in this community. We on this side of the Senate believe that further thought on the part of the Government in this area is warranted. We look forward to further action and the Government's response. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Documents and Proceedings Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.41) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. These papers are further in a series which relate to the National Economic Summit Conference which was held by the Government early in its life. The papers previously tabled have been subject to considerable debate and I do not wish to enter into a lengthy debate on the papers at this stage. I acknowledge again that the publication of the information which is contained in these documents is a useful service to Australia. It provides tools which enable us to have a better debate on our economic prospects and the policies which should be followed by the Government. It is a matter of regret to me that the Government, having set out such clear indications for the community as to what was required, so stoically refuses to follow those broad indications and seems determined to follow courses which will not achieve the positive results which, I would have thought, were the objective of the Government and certainly would be the wish of the Australian people. But the fact of the papers being available is in itself a plus. Again, I wish to acknowledge that. Since there will be opportunities to debate economic issues and other matters raised in the papers at a later time today and soon in this sitting, at this stage I simply seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report 1982 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.42) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982 Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.44) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Resolutions of 116th Meeting Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.45) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I speak briefly to the resolutions of the 116th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council which was held on 7 February 1983. I note that it is now 6 1/2 months since that important meeting was held. Agriculture in Australia has been suffering from a number of problems, not the least of which has been the extremely severe and continuing drought as well as world market problems. That being so, I would have expected that with the opportunity there has been for the production of the report of the resolutions we would have had them before the Senate when we were sitting in May and the beginning of June. Having taken some interest, in successive governments, in the time taken in the presentation of reports, I wish to draw attention to the fact that this does not appear to be a good start for the Government. I would hope that it would not be as lethargic in the presentation of some reports as governments over the years have been. I believe that constant attention needs to be drawn to this problem to ensure that people can obtain the benefit of the information which such reports contain and an opportunity can be taken to debate it if necessary and appropriate. In relation to the Australian Agricultural Council's report, I imagine-I have not yet seen the document-that the report contains a large number of matters which the Senate would wish to debate. I imagine that the resolutions would relate to a large number of aspects of primary industry in Australia, including the marketing of wheat and the problems that one imagines arise in the various forms of marketing, such as the disaster which has befallen the Queensland Grain Growers Association. Some of us over the years have expressed our concern about the way in which some statutory authorities and others have been able to obtain power to conduct marketing schemes without necessarily being subject to a requirement of full and immediate accountability. The delay in the presentation of reports is one of the aspects of the potential delay in accountability. The President of the Queensland Grain Growers Association, Mr Don Eather, was vigorous in his defence of the absolute propriety of that organisation and attacked the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in relation to its comments on the Australian Wheat Board and wheat marketing in Australia. I find that there is some justification for some further explanation, some further identification, of the real reasons for this extraordinary loss. Was it just a matter of bad advice in relation to hedging transactions in regard to overseas trade and the borrowing of funds? Was it that the Association took advice from a company called Agropon, which has already been criticised for the advice that it has given other sections of primary industry? Has it terminated that company's involvement? Is it correct to say that the company was involved in questions raised in Hong Kong and other places? Were questions raised in relation to its appropriateness as an adviser to the Australian Wheat Board? All of these matters are appropriate for discussion in this chamber and an appropriate vehicle therefor is the report of the Australian Agricultural Council. I have not the time to go into detail about some of the other questions involved but hope that the Senate will be given an early opportunity to continue the discussion of this report. I have an indication from Senator Macklin that he wishes to make a statement also and therefore will terminate my remarks at this point. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.48) —During the recess I was able to read the resolutions of the 116th meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, which had been released at that time. However, as is the case probably with most honourable senators who do not live around Canberra, the report ended up in my electorate office. As the matter was listed for debate today I sought an additional copy. However, it is rather extraordinary that although the report has been tabled today no copies of it are available in Parliament House. I have had to borrow one from another senator. I have raised this matter on previous occasions. I would hope that in future some copies of reports will be always available and held close to the chamber so that when we are discussing these matters we can get one fairly rapidly. I want to refer to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign, which was the subject of fairly extensive discussion by the Australian Agricultural Council. However, I will not do so at the moment because the Government made some announcements in this regard in the Budget last night. The Government's proposals go a long way towards meeting the objections of rural industry in this regard. I wish to make some comments on that at a later stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.50) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to make one or two comments on this agreement which has existed for a number of years on a 12-monthly basis. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) recently agreed that the licences be renewed with various conditions attached. The Minister for Primary Industry, in his letter to Mr Kailis, said: In agreeing to access on this basis for a twelve month period I wish to draw to the attention of KKFC Pty Ltd-- that is the Australian company- and the Guild that it is the policy of the Commonwealth, the State and the Northern Territory Governments to favour, where possible and practicable, joint fishing ventures between Australian enterprises and foreign interests to develop fisheries resources currently not exploited by Australians. There are a lot of fish in our Australian waters, as Senator Withers would know, that we do not exploit to the advantage of the Australian people. We think it is a fair thing that that resource should be made available to people in Asian countries who regard these fish as a delicacy. The agreement is quite clear in indicating that from time to time the Commonwealth Government, through the Minister, has the right to impose certain conditions. The Guild pays the Commonwealth a fee of $1,271,753 a year. The area of operations in our waters is described-the latitudes and the longitudes-as are the types of fish that are able to be caught. I have some knowledge of the members of the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild, its Chairman, Mr Kung Fu Chen, and his colleagues on the executive. I know they are very ethical as far as the operations of their ships are concerned . Incidents have occurred involving Taiwanese fishing vessels. They have transgressed the international waters regulations. However, I think it is fair to tell people now that those vessels operated independently of the Guild. The Guild specifies very carefully to its masters the regulations governing operations in international fishing waters. In fact, it has a training college. Apart from the technology of the fishing profession, the maintenance of vessels and the repair of nets, a significant part of the course deals with international law. The people from Taiwan who have transgressed in the past are not involved with the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild. The Minister said in his letter: . . . on application by KKFC in respect of any individual licensed fishing vessel of Taiwan, to authorise that vessel to enter the ports of Darwin, Broome and Fremantle and any other port which may be agreed by the Commonwealth and State Governments, at times specified in the endorsement in accordance with the powers vested in me by the Fisheries Act . . . The endorsement . . . does not release the Guild, its members, its representatives or agents, or the operators of the vessels from compliance with any State or other Commonwealth law concerning entry to or use of Australian ports by foreign vessels. The letter also specifies: The aggregate quantity of fish to be made available for sale in Australia shall not exceed 15 per cent of the total allocation of catch to licensed fishing vessels of Taiwan unless appropriate commercial agreements are made to land a higher proportion of the catch. Such arrangements will be subject to approval of the Commonwealth Government. There are quite a lot of advantages in establishing joint Australian-foreign ventures to ensure that our fishery is exploited although not just to our advantage because I believe Australian fishermen can learn something of the techniques that have been developed by Taiwan over many years. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(11.56) —I want to comment a little further on what the Fishing Agreement between the Australian Government and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild can represent. An important question to be faced in regard to Australia's future in relation to fishing is how we are going to go about associating with other countries in relation to the development of the Southern Ocean, Antarctic and sub-Antarctic waters for the fishing of squid, tuna and krill and of bases in Australia. One of the questions in relation to the negotiations with the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild, the Kailis company and the Australian Government, has been the question of bases in Australia for that operation. Of course the Kailis company has been associated with the Taiwan guild in providing an Australian content to the total operation. Moving from that, we should be looking to the development of attitudes with regard to Taiwan and other countries and the development of the Southern Ocean fisheries and bases for them. In relation to that, I wish to make the brief point that Tasmania is an ideal place for those bases to be located. That would provide an extra industry and extra employment for Tasmania to offset the problems that will arise as a result of other events which have taken place involving Tasmania. Therefore, what I want briefly to say is that, using this example, I hope that the Senate will have an early opportunity to debate more fully the development of the southern fisheries and the bases appropriate for that development, particularly if Australia is not going to develop its own domestic fishing industry at the rate which some people believe is necessary for us to take advantage of deep sea fishing as well as coastal fishing around Australia. I raise the point as being one worthy of further consideration. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(11.58) —I want to speak very briefly on this matter, being a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce which recently looked into the Australian fishing industry. I want also to use this opportunity to draw the attention of honourable senators again to the fact that at the time of the tabling of this paper on the Fishing Agreement between the Australian Government and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild we did not have a copy of the agreement. We are now at the stage where, instead of being provided with a list of papers that are to be presented to the Senate each day, the papers now carry marks which indicate that some are to be released during the adjournment and that some will not be available prior to their tabling. Senator Missen —Well why don't you do something about it? Senator COLEMAN —I am doing it now. I am bringing to the attention of the President the fact that it is not satisfactory to have papers presented which we have not even sighted. We are supposed to debate reports in this place when we have not even sighted them until we have sat at our desks. If we do not have a particular interest in an area we may not even see that a report has come across our desks in our offices. Mr President, I suggest to you that this could be done in a very rational way. It is very simple. Those papers and reports which have been distributed to members could be the subject of debate on a particular day. Until a report is available let us not stand up here and make fools of ourselves by trying to debate something about which we know nothing because we do not know what is in a written paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(12.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Because of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Missen —No. I wish to speak to this as well. The PRESIDENT —Senator Missen, it is now 12 o'clock. Question Time is being brought on. I think Senator Sibraa sought leave to continue his remarks so that the debate would not lapse. If Senator Missen wants to speak to the motion I suggest that leave be granted. Senator Missen —I make just one point, sir. It is the same point as Senator Coleman made. An important subject such as this should not be brought before this chamber when the papers are not available and are not in our rooms. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he agrees with the comment in Budget Statement No. 2: It is crucial that wage and price developments be constrained within the broad guidelines set by the prices and incomes accord. Secondly, is it not a fact that, even if the prices and incomes accord holds, interest rates will rise, unemployment will rise and inflation will continue at high levels? Thirdly, given recent wage settlements-for example, in relation to building workers and food processors-can the Minister assure the Senate that wage developments will be constrained within the broad guidelines set by the accord? Senator WALSH —The Government has always regarded the prices and incomes policy as essential to economic recovery in Australia. That is scarcely news. One does not have to go to Budget Statement No. 2 to find reference to that, although of course Budget Statement No. 2 is prepared by the Department of the Treasury and not by the Government per se. For several years in opposition the view was stated consistently by the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, and other members of the then shadow ministry who had economic responsibilities that a prices and incomes accord was essential to sustaining high rates of economic growth, without which unemployment cannot be reduced. The empirical evidence in support of prices and incomes agreements, irrespective of whether they are formally recognised as such, has been quite compelling from overseas sources where high rates of growth with low rates of unemployment and inflation have been sustained over many years. I would have hoped that by now the present Opposition might have acknowledged the existence of that empirical evidence and have begun to change its views on this subject. The answer to the first part of Senator Chaney's question is yes, the Government, as it has long done, regards an effective prices and incomes policy as being essential to economic recovery and lower unemployment. Senator Chaney asked also: Is it inevitable that interest rates will rise? Budget Statement No. 2 sets out in some detail the various factors which influence interest rates. Clearly, it does not endorse the simplistic dogma put forward by members of the Liberal and National parties when they were in government, and still apparently, regrettably, put forward by the present Leader of the Opposition, namely, that there is a simplistic one-to-one correlation between the size of the public sector borrowing requirement and interest rates. As Budget Statement No. 2 makes quite clear, interest rates are influenced by a variety of factors, one of which is the public sector borrowing requirement. Others are private sector borrowing requirements, anticipated inflation rates, the level of interest rates overseas and so on. Whether interest rates will rise or fall is not something which can be predicted with any certainty, although I note in passing that in the run-up to the 1977 election it was predicted with absolute certainty by the discredited former Prime Minister and the discredited former Deputy Prime Minister that interest rates would fall by 2 per cent over the coming year. The discredited former Deputy Prime Minister said that it was a target which could and would be met. We all know what happened. Interest rates went up by 2 per cent in the following year, and not down. Senator Sibraa —And he did not eat his hat. Senator WALSH —He did not eat his hat either, as he promised to do-another broken National Party promise. Of the various factors likely to affect nominal interest rates, probably the most important will be the future course of inflation. The Budget Papers predict a consumer price index rise of 7 or 7 1/2 per cent. The Government believes that is achievable, principally because of the consensus of the incomes policy which it has sought. If the effect of Medicare is to bring the CPI below the implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product-- Senator Chaney —What is the effect of Medicare? Senator WALSH —If the honourable senator wants to argue that that artificially depresses the CPI, a case can be put for that point of view. Conversely the case can be put that other measures artificially boost the CPI. But to return to the central point, the likely most important factor on nominal interest rates will be changes in the direction of the inflation rate. Because of that it can be anticipated, without making the sorts of rash promises which were made in 1977, that provided-I stress this point, we have always said it is crucial-the incomes accord is respected, interest rates will be on a declining trend within the next 12 months. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Part of my question was not dealt with. I asked the Minister representing the Treasurer whether, given recent wage settlements-I referred to the building workers and food processors-he can assure the Senate that wage developments will be constrained within the broad guidelines set by the accord. Senator WALSH —This sounds like a rerun of yesterday's Question Time when Senator Button was asked an almost identical question, I think twice. He stated that the Government is putting in a submission. The decisions made by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are not under the direct control of the Government. As Senator Button stated yesterday, the Government has made a general submission to the Commission. Senator COLSTON —My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, relates to the unlikely event of the National and Liberal parties being able to form a government coalition after the 22 October election in Queensland. Given the National Party's commitment to retaining a malapportioned electoral system and the Liberals' timidity to do anything about it, could the Federal Parliament legislate to insist on a one vote, one value electoral redistribution in Queensland? Senator GARETH EVANS —I take it that the honourable senator is referring to suggestions that have been made in various quarters since the Tasmanian dam case that the external affairs power might enable the Commonwealth to take this kind of action by implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in particular certain guarantees of democratic political rights contained in that instrument. All I say to the honourable senator is that a very complicated legal and constitutional question is involved as to whether any such legislative enterprise involving the electoral boundaries within the States would in fact withstand constitutional scrutiny. Any further trespassing into these waters would engage me in giving a legal opinion which is, of course, outside the bounds of my duties and responsibilities as a member of this place. I simply further add that the situation in Queensland has been criticised by all responsible commentators of any colour of independence for many years now, and it is time manifestly that action was taken by all Queensland politicians of good will to put their own house in order. Hopefully that will be done after 22 October. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns articles which appeared in the National Times of 6-12 May this year entitled ' The Austeo Papers', written by the National Times editor, Mr Brian Toohey. If I show the Attorney-General a copy of the front page, I am sure he will remember the newspaper. I refer to the reproduction on the third page of that newspaper of the letters accompanying the special supplement to the fourth part of the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, classified 'Austeo', 'Top Secret' and 'Oyster'. I refer also to a reproduction of the covering letter to that report by Mr Justice Hope, dated 24 September 1976, which concludes: Two copies of this supplement have been made. I recommend that it be not further copied. I refer also to the National Times' claims of access to 'tens of thousands of pages of classified documents' and to this statement in the National Times: Access to these documents has been backed up by interviews with dozens of officials in these fields. I ask the Attorney-General: Does he yet know the source or sources of these leaks and who are the dozens of officials who have been interviewed? If he does know, will he make a statement to the Senate giving the information or explaining why it cannot be revealed? If he does not yet know the sources or the interviewees, will he advise the Senate whether there has been any investigation and, if so, what, into these questions? Finally, in due course will he inform the Senate of the results? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I understand it at the moment, the situation is that intensive investigations involving the Australian Federal Police and other appropriate agencies have been taking place since the time of publication of the articles in question, with a view to identifying the sources. This is a matter which the Government manifestly took seriously at the time and continues to take seriously. My further knowledge at this point is that those investigations are still proceeding. I certainly do not know who the sources are or whether the investigations have succeeded in pinning down the sources in question. I am not sure but, if and when information comes to light as a result of those investigations, no doubt it will be made public in the ordinary and proper way. Whether it will be appropriate to do so by a statement in this House or whether, rather, it will be more appropriate to do so through the ordinary processes of criminal law is a matter for judgment, which will need to be made at that time. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: What hormones and other additives are permitted in the diet of livestock produced for human consumption in Australia? Senator WALSH —I will refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry and secure an answer as soon as possible. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I ask: Will the Government make an immediate approach to the Indonesian Government for an absolute guarantee that no items included in Australian military aid to Indonesia will be used against the people of East Timor? Will the Government, while still pressing for an act of self- determination in East Timor, seek as an interim measure a full and permanent amnesty for those Timorese who have opposed the Indonesian invasion? Will the Government seek, through the good offices of the United Nations and with the concurrence of the Indonesian and other interested governments, an open door for a comprehensive pattern of aid for East Timor in the form of both money and expertise that would enable it to become a prosperous and viable society? If that last objective could be achieved, and I believe it could, can that be on the basis of normal disclosure of events in East Timor being permitted by the Indonesian Government so that world opinion can be satisfied as to the intentions of Indonesia in regard to East Timor? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's intense desire to protect and advance the interests of the people of East Timor has been made explicit on many occasions, including by me in this chamber. I assure the honourable senator that there is no resiling whatsoever on the part of this Government from that endeavour. Nonetheless, given the quite explicit and specific nature of the questions that have been put this morning by Senator Mason, the best I can do by way of an answer at this stage is simply to give an undertaking to him that I will immediately refer his questions respectively to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to ensure that answers are given to those questions as soon as possible. Senator SIBRAA —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs : Has the Government expressed any concern at the brutal murder three days ago of the Filipino democratic opposition leader, Senator Benigno Aquino? In light of this murder, will the Government re-assess its substantial aid program to the Philippines? Senator GARETH EVANS —Two days ago the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated publicly that the Government deplored the death by violent means of former Senator Benigno Aquino on his return to the Philippines on 21 August. Senator Aquino had long enjoyed a fine reputation world-wide for the force, vigour and persistence with which he advanced civil liberterian and democratic values in the Philippines. His loss is a gigantic one, not only for the Philippines and those who over the years he represented in that country by the force and vigour of his advocacy, but also to civilised values world-wide. I understand that the Australian Ambassador has conveyed to the Philippines Foreign Minister, General Romulo, the Australian Government's concern that the Philippines Government spare no effort in bringing to justice the perpetrators of this brutal assassination. Our concerns in this respect cover the manner of Senator Aquino's death, the need for the full processes of law to be brought to bear on the incident and the continuing uncertainty in the accounts of his death. I note that in a statement a day or two ago President Marcos condemned the assassination and pledged that his Government will apply all its resources towards bringing the perpetrators to justice in the quickest possible time. We certainly look forward to that occurring. As to the final part of the honourable senator's question, about the implications of this for Australia's aid to the Philippines, I will bring that to the attention of the Foreign Minister and seek an early reply. Senator JESSOP —I ask you, Mr President, whether you are able to assure the Senate that the offices of senators and members and the committee rooms in the Parliament are not subject to electronic surveillance. If not, will you engage an electronics expert to conduct a thorough investigation-I think the technical term is electronic sweep-of Parliament House to ensure that the offices and committee rooms of the Parliament are not bugged, provide peace of mind for constituents who wish to discuss in confidence personal representations with their parliamentary members and ensure that civil liberties in this sense are preserved? The PRESIDENT —I have already arranged for discussions to take place this afternoon between myself and the security controller of Parliament House. I will ask the security controller for a report and I will present the report to the Senate. Senator ROBERT RAY —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Given the fact that the Polish trade union movement, Solidarity, will celebrate its third anniversary on 31 August, will the Minister again convey to the Polish Government the Australian Parliament's support for a free trade union movement in Poland? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will draw the honourable senator's question to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who I am sure will be very receptive to that suggestion. Of course, it is one which not only is very much in accordance with the views of the present Government but also has across the board bipartisan support from the Parliament. That is a very significant state of affairs. As to the larger situation that now prevails in Poland, the Polish Government has lifted martial law and announced a partial amnesty for detainees, including Solidarity members, although, as the chamber will be aware, special legislation has been brought into force to cover the period following the lifting of martial law, which could well have the effect of maintaining essential elements of that martial law notwithstanding its formal removal. It is to be regretted, and is regretted by this Government, that the amnesty for political prisoners was only partial in nature. Under these circumstances a good deal of further study will be needed and representations made to ensure that the measures introduced by the Polish authorities are, in fact, appropriate to meet the expectations and aspirations of the Polish people, particularly as expressed through the free trade union movement. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the Prime Minister's secret telephone conversation on 24 April, which is a matter of public record, warning Mr Richard Farmer and Mr Bill Butler not to enter into a lobbying partnership with Mr David Combe. As the warning gave confidential information to Mr Farmer and Mr Butler 17 days in advance of the rest of the community receiving knowledge of this matter and saved those two would-be lobbyists many hundreds of thousands of dollars in partnerships costs, I ask: Is the Government considering any course of legal action open to the clients of Mr Combe who were not in receipt of Mr Hawke's privileged information and who, in those 17 days, were entitled to expect that Mr Combe was still lobbying Ministers in a service for which they were paying high fees? Do they have a case against the Prime Minister or the Government on any grounds whatsoever? The PRESIDENT —Insofar as the question does not seek a legal opinion I shall allow it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Even with the help that you have now given me, Mr President , I still think it will be possible for me to resist the temptation to answer Senator Walters's question, canvassing, as it does, numerous matters of detail that are presently before the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and which will be the subject of report by His Honour in a matter of weeks. I do not want to be taken, by my non-answer, as in any way giving credence to any of the allegations and fantasies that have been perpetrated in the course of the question by Senator Walters. I simply make the point that it is no more appropriate now than it was during the last session of this Parliament for me or anyone else to be canvassing matters which are properly being dealt with by the Royal Commission. Might I also say, Mr President, that, indebted as I am to the Opposition for giving me so much attention this morning, I and other members of the Government front bench are viewing, with some fascination, as no doubt will be most people in the Australian community, the profound indifference-indeed, it may be ignorance-of the other side of this chamber to the fact that last night a Budget was handed down in this place with quite profound implications for the future course of the Australian economy and the Australian people. It is a matter of very considerable fascination that the Opposition should be so concerned with pursuing hares and Will-o'-the-wisps of the kind involved in Senator Walters's question. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the Attorney saying that my question was sub judice? If so, does the Chair give that ruling, because I would be most interested to find out from the Attorney, who on previous occasions has never considered that that was relevant in this chamber. Why has he changed his opinion? I would like a ruling from the Chair. Mr PRESIDENT —I think I should intercede and say that the rule of sub judice is a matter for interpretation by the Chair. If the Chair thought that sub judice was involved, the Chair would have intervened. Having said that, I invite the Attorney-General to reply to the supplementary question in the way in which he chooses. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would not be allowed to, Mr President. I simply make the point that I was making no formal claim of protection or otherwise under the sub judice rule. I was simply making the point that it is manifestly improper, in terms of the normal conventions of decent behaviour and respect for the operations of tribunals of this kind, that Senator Walters should be pursuing such matters while they are still being dealt with by that tribunal. Senator COOK —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate . Recently the Government announced assistance to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Why is assistance, and assistance of the magnitude announced, justified? Is there any guarantee that the Big Australian will not retrench any more workers? Senator BUTTON —The plan announced by the Government in respect of steel involves the payment of bounties to BHP and other steel producing companies over a period of five years. The first point I want to make clear is that the reason for Government assistance, which was negotiated over some period with the companies involved and others, was simply to encourage an investment program by BHP over that period of five years. It was determined by the Government, having regard to all the circumstances, that that degree of assistance was necessary and desirable in order to encourage an investment program by BHP. I must say, in answering this question, that yesterday a comment was made by the Opposition spokesman on industry, Senator Peter Rae, which suggested that the level of investment undertaken by BHP was insufficient. The level of investment was compared by Senator Peter Rae with the level of investment which BHP had put forward as the desired level before the Industries Assistance Commission in November 1982. I just make the point that the level of investment over the five years of the plan is in excess of the level of investment over the first five years proposed by BHP to the IAC in November 1982. Senator Peter Rae —But theirs was part of a 10-year plan and this is only five years. Senator BUTTON —Theirs was part of a 10-year plan which sought certain concessions from government, such as immediate expensing at a cost to revenue of about $2,000m-that would have been the total cost if immediate expensing had been introduced-group taxation at a cost of $150m in revenue to the Government in the first year, and a number of other matters, including an 85 per cent market share, which the Government was not prepared to guarantee to BHP. So I do not think it is feasible to compare the wildest aspirations of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd put before the IAC with the details of the plan which has been announced. The essence of the steel industry plan is that there be contributions from all those involved-contributions from the Government in terms of bounty assistance, contributions from BHP in terms of investment and particularly in terms of the question which Senator Cook addressed in the second part of this question relating to employment. The undertaking given by the company in respect of employment is that there will be no compulsory redundancies during the five years of the plan. That does not mean that the size of the work force may not be reduced by a process of attrition or by voluntary retirement schemes. But there will be no sackings during the five years of the plan. I simply make the point, because it has become a matter of some issue, that the cost to the Government of providing the level of assistance to BHP which has been agreed on is something in the order of $2,000 per year per employee. That is the cost of assistance. The cost of non-assistance to BHP by the Fraser Government was 14,000 jobs in the steel industry at an estimated cost to revenue of $7,000 per employee. I think that is an important point to draw to the attention of the Senate. Up until May of this year 14,000 jobs were lost in the steel industry, and the cost to revenue of each of those who became a recipient of unemployment benefit is in the order of $7,000 a year. Senator Chaney —That was avoidable, was it, by State Government intervention? Senator BUTTON —It may have been avoidable, if the Fraser Government had done something more than just refer the matter to a steel industry advisory council. Whatever bleatings might rise from the Opposition, those facts are essential facts to remember when considering the steel industry package. The answer in relation to employment and the level of investment is clear. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Budget Papers indicate: Firstly, an anticipated decline of 13.1 per cent in the collection of company tax, thereby indicating a turndown in private sector activity and profitability; secondly, a marked fall in private business fixed investment; thirdly, an increase in the average number of unemployment beneficiaries from 540,200 last year to 680,000 this year, revealing a rise in unemployment to 11 per cent or at least 30,000 more unemployed on top of the peak; and, fourthly, a predicted rise in interest rates . In view of these indications, I ask: How can the Government reconcile its rhetoric in the Budget Speech that the Budget will stimulate activity and reduce unemployment with its statements in that Speech that there will be higher unemployment and reduced activity? Senator BUTTON —It would be idle during Question Time-I am sure Senator Sir John Carrick would want to lead a debate on this issue-to reconcile a series of figures plucked out of the Budget Papers, some of which, by the way, are not as stated by the honourable senator in his question, with what he describes as the rhetoric of the Budget Speech. That is a matter which in due course undoubtedly will be debated and about which we will hear from the Opposition in the course of its attack-if there is such a thing-on the Budget. It is not a matter which I propose to deal with in terms of reconciliation during Question Time. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since the Government Leader indicated that what I said was not in fact what was said in the Budget Speech-I interpolate that the phrases I used were taken from Budget Paper No. 1-will he now indicate where the deviation occurs? I repeat that the Budget indicated that there will be a decline of 13.1 per cent in company tax. Is that right or wrong? The statement that there will be a marked decline in fixed capital business investment is taken straight from the Speech. On the statement that there will be an increase in the average number of unemployed, I refer the Senate to page 135 of the Budget Statements where those exact words can be found. The Government also predicted a rise in interest rates . Where do my words differ from those of the Speech? Where was I in defect or fault in what I said? Senator BUTTON —I have only to go to one matter. Senator Sir John Carrick referred to the projected decline in the collection of company tax. As I recall, it was not stated in terms of a projected decline. Senator Sir John Carrick —Actual. Senator BUTTON —Yes, it is an actual decline in company tax which reflects last year's activities. Senator RICHARDSON —I address to the Attorney-General a question in relation to an article that appeared in the Bulletin on 28 June regarding the fate of Lord Casey's diaries. Is it true that the diaries, which were willed to the National Library of Australia by the late Lord Casey when he died in 1976, have not yet been delivered to the Library? If this is the case, are the diaries in the possession of the Australian Security Intelligence Service or the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? If the diaries are in their possession, have these organisations tampered with, edited, altered or interfered with in any way the contents of the Casey diaries? Given that the diaries would be of immense value to Australia's historical and political heritage, when can the Minister assure us that the diaries in their original state have been delivered to their rightful place in the National Library? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been advised by my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs that officers of the Foreign Affairs Department have had access to the diaries of the late Lord Casey. On the basis of the briefing material before me, I am not clear as to whether those diaries are still in the possession of the Department of Foreign Affairs. If that is the case I will certainly make representations to ensure that they are transmitted to the National Library as soon as possible. This access by the Department of Foreign Affairs was, I understand, authorised by the Director-General of the National Library of Australia, the inheritor of the diaries. I further understand that it was in accordance with Lord Casey's wishes. The purpose of access was to allow a check to be made for material injurious to the reputation of individuals or of continuing diplomatic sensitivity. Any embargo that may be placed on particular words or passages in the diaries in pursuit of one or other of those two objectives will be temporary only. I am further advised that there will be no interference whatsoever with the physical integrity of the diaries. The original itself comprises both typed and bound volumes, and sensitive material will be masked in a way that is common to both archives and libraries. As to the particular role that has been played by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in this matter as distinct from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the situation, I am advised, is as follows: ASIO has not at any stage had physical access to the papers or sought such access; at one stage comment was sought of ASIO by the Department of Foreign Affairs in relation to one matter of detail concerning a particular person, namely as to whether that person had been or was still an ASIO officer. The advice given to Foreign Affairs was in the negative and that remains the one and only contribution to the saga that, notwithstanding all the publicity to the contrary in the Bulletin , has been made by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. On what grounds or with what educational advice has the Government been so quick to abolish the equity principle, until now long established, that financial support for non-government schools be a determined percentage of the cost of a government school place? At the same time, why has the Government sacked from the Schools Commission representatives of non-government schools leaving these, one quarter of all Australian schools, inadequately and disproportionately represented at the very time that the basis for funding these schools is being comprehensively reviewed by the Commission? By these actions- the abolition of the percentage link and the sacking of the non-government schools representatives-is the Government putting all non-government schools on notice that they are to be undermined by this Government, partly directly and partly by stealth? Senator RYAN —I suppose I had better make some effort to address myself to the substance, insofar as there was any, in that outburst by Senator Teague. The first matter that Senator Teague raised was the question of the changing of the formula by which non-government schools are assisted through the Commonwealth Schools Commission. This was actually the subject of a question yesterday. I will just repeat very briefly that the formula which gave to non-government schools a set percentage of government schools' cost was changed by us because it was not achieving equity and was not leading to a situation where schools which were struggling to provide proper education for the students in them were able to improve at an adequate pace. We have made a series of decisions whereby extra resources have been allocated to those schools most in need. In the non-government sector there are about 2, 200 schools, the vast majority of which received increased funding under our new way of funding non-government schools. Indeed, the vast majority of non- government schools which were in category 3 received a 3 per cent real increase on the funding they received last year. So I think that any questions about equity will be resolved very clearly in favour of the Government's recent decision. I also informed the Senate yesterday that so as to have a better way of judging the needs of schools and achieving an even more equitable result than we have achieved this year, we will be developing a new formula for assistance to all non-government schools and all non-government schools and their representatives will have the opportunity to participate in the development of that formula. The second part of Senator Teague's question concerned what he liked to describe as the sacking of a member of the Schools Commission who represented the point of view of non-government schools. The first thing I would like to say about that is that nobody has been sacked from the Schools Commission. The Schools Commission is so composed that there are three full time commissioners and several part time commissioners. The terms of the part time commissioners expire, of course, at different stages. Shortly after the change of government there was an opportunity to make some new appointments. I did what I think all my predecessors have done and sought views from different sections of education as to who would be appropriate members of the Commission. Clearly, with a commission which has only eight members, not all sectors can be represented at all times; not all States and Territories can be represented at all times. With regard to the replacement of the part time position, which had been held by a representative of the Australian Parents Council, I decided to do something which was an innovation and was very important. I think all honourable senators will agree with that. I decided to appoint somebody with an expertise in Aboriginal education. I appointed Mr Paul Hughes, who is also the full time Chairman of the National Aboriginal Education Committee, thus bringing together the work of that Committee and the work of the Schools Commission and giving, for the first time, a real policy emphasis in the very difficult and complex area of providing adequate education for Aboriginal children. However, it is simply untrue-I think it is very mischievous-to suggest that there is no voice for the non-government sector on the Schools Commission. Mr Dudley Clarke, who is the Principal of the Hutchins School in Tasmania, is a part time commissioner who was appointed by my predecessor. He is still a member of the Schools Commission. Senator Walters —He is not on the Commission. Senator RYAN —Mr Dudley Clarke is a part time member of the Schools Commission, as he has been for some time. I also invited some suggested participants from the National Catholic Education Commission. From the suggestions that it made I appointed Mr Vin Falconer, who is the Administrator of the Catholic Education Commission in Victoria. I thought it was very important that there should be somebody on the Commission from such a large system as the parish system in Victoria because clearly the vast majority of non-government schools are schools in the Catholic parish system. I thought it was most appropriate to have the benefit of Mr Falconer's contribution. However, having said that, I indicate that other vacancies will occur from time to time. It is certainly my intention and the intention of the Government to continue to have a representative group of commissioners and to rotate, amongst the different interests and the different States, participation in the work of the Commission. I do not know that Senator Teague raised any other matters. I hope that he will pay attention to what I have said today because, unfortunately , there has been some misrepresentation of the matter concerning appointments to the Commission. I hope that I have clarified that position for him today. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. I do so because we still receive hundreds of letters from all over Australia about these matters. There is concern in the community. Will the Minister give consideration to non-government schools being able to make direct representations since the basis for funding is being so comprehensively reviewed and they feel so strongly that they are not sufficiently represented on the Schools Commission? Senator RYAN —In response to Senator Teague's supplementary question, I can only agree that there is a great deal of concern and a great deal of very legitimate interest in the question of how the Government is going to undertake its responsibilities for the non-government school sector. I agree that there ought to be very extensive consultation between the representatives of those schools and officers of the Schools Commission. I told the Senate yesterday that these consultations are already under way. The commissioners are travelling around Australia meeting, week by week, with the various representatives of the non- government sector. I endeavour to meet with as many representatives as I can, although I am sure Senator Teague will understand that some of this consultation work has to be carried out by the Schools Commission itself because of the sheer number of people who are interested in education. I do meet as often as I can with national organisations and State organisations. Apart, of course, from the work of the Schools Commission in consulting, all non-government sectors are represented on the State planning and finance committee. There may still be a need for consultations over and above those which I have described. I would be very interested to hear from Senator Teague any suggestions that he may have so that we may carry out even more fully the consultation process because it is not in the interests of the Government and it is not in the interests of anybody concerned for education that there be misunderstandings, feelings of neglect or points of view not taken into account. We really want to resolve in a long term way a method of dealing equitably with all sectors of education, and I am hoping for-and I must say I am getting-a great deal of co- operation in this exercise. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What measures have been taken in the Budget to assist with the problems of our ageing veteran population? Senator GIETZELT —The Government has recognised the importance of taking steps in this Budget to improve visibly the problem facing the ageing sections of the Australian population. Veterans, an important segment of that population, come within that category. So, within the context of the Budget, a major initiative has been taken. In excess of $2m has been made available to the Department of Health and $1m to the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the purpose of establishing geriatric assessment units. In my case these will be in each of the six repatriation hospitals. In Dr Blewett's case, in the Department of Health, similar assessment units will, on a regional basis, concern themselves with what is regarded by social scientists and others as the problem of the ageing section of the Australian population. These units will operate to assess the needs of ageing veterans, in the case of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and make available to them a combination of services suited to their medical, social and emotional situations. The aim of the units-I heartily endorse the comments of Senator Messner who said earlier today in response to the bringing down of a report that there was a need for local government to be involved in looking after our ageing population- will be to give veterans the ability to maintain their independence and dignity at home rather than in nursing homes or institutions. That is a very important commitment which this Government accepts. I hope it is accepted by the Opposition on a non-partisan basis. The service will be made available to the general public, where possible. It is expected that this approach to care of the aged will develop rapidly in the life of this Government. I hope that in the Budget next year we will be in a position to take very big strides towards recognising that we have a major social problem on our hands. My department accepts without hesitation its obligation to provide an increasing range of services and particularly to apply them to the home care situation and not see aged persons just sent off to institutions, nursing homes, hostels and such like which has been the practice in the past. Senator COLLARD —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware of the statement by Mr Eric Risstrom, Secretary to the Australian Taxpayers Association, that extra taxation to be paid this year will have a staggering effect on the typical Australian family? Does he know that Mr Risstrom has stated that a man on an income of $15,000 last year, in line for the Budget-estimated 7 per cent wage rise during 1983-84, faces a 16 per cent increase in tax? Will Senator Walsh confirm Mr Risstrom's assessment of the extra tax burden to be borne by the ordinary Australian? Senator WALSH —I cannot confirm off the top of my head the accuracy of the figures quoted or alleged. However, I can confirm that the same Mr Risstrom has described the Budget as being a very responsible Budget. Members of the previous Government ought to be well aware of the phenomenon of fiscal drag-their revenues were boosted very substantially almost every year they were in government because of it-whereby the proportion of income paid in tax on the same taxation schedule increases while incomes rise. If incomes rise by 7 per cent and the taxation schedule remains the same then not only the absolute amount of tax paid increases but also the proportion of income paid in tax increases. The discredited former Prime Minister made a very heavy feature, prior to his election in 1975, of a promise to index automatically-- Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Every time Senator Walsh says 'the discredited Prime Minister' I believe we must take into consideration the fact that he, as Minister for Resources and Energy, was sacked by the Prime Minister from taking part in negotiations with Tasmania on energy matters. Therefore, if anyone is discredited it is certainly Senator Walsh who is a discredited Minister. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —On the authority of the present Leader of the Opposition, Senator Walters's own Leader, we have it that Mr Fraser and his comments on current political events should be taken about as seriously as another former Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon. To return to the question and the phenomenon of fiscal drag to which Senator Collard has drawn attention, the discredited former Prime Minister featured very heavily in his 1975 election campaign a promise to index automatically the entire income tax schedule so that the phenomenon of fiscal drag would no longer apply. If I remember correctly, that promise lasted for one year. It was then cut by half and in the following year it disappeared, never to be seen again. The general theme of this Budget, as the Treasurer stated last night, is one of equity, fairness, fiscal responsibility-of which there was a notable dearth in the dying days of the previous Government-and a reordering of priorities. Even if the figures which were cited by Senator Collard are correct, it is the judgment of the Government that in this time of economic crisis it is quite reasonable to expect that those who are fortunate enough to be employed, particularly those who are employed under somewhat more favourable conditions, might make some contribution to alleviating the plight of those who have been most severely and innocently affected by the depression which was caused partly by external forces and partly by the mismanagement of the previous Government. Last night's Budget has focused its assistance on the people most in need. Throughout it the consistent theme which has been followed is equity, fairness, fiscal responsibility and a reordering of priorities in accordance with the present needs of the nation. Senator GEORGES —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. In May of this year I asked a question concerning repatriation payments made to Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines and I was critical of those payments. Since the question and the answer raised the expectations of these people, I ask the Minister whether any progress has been made in this direction. Senator GIETZELT —I do recall Senator Georges asking a question in the autumn session about the underpayment, during World War II and subsequently, of Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aborigines who served in the Australian Army during World War II. At that stage I indicated that I believed the Government had a moral obligation in this respect to rectify the decisions that were made during World War II. I recognise that the honourable senator is one of the leading exponents of the principle of overcoming all forms of discrimination in Australia, and he finds that particularly difficult in a National Party State such as Queensland. However, I undertook to take this matter up with the Government and I am pleased to announce that, as announced in the Budget last night, the Government has agreed to allocate $100,000 for payment to those Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and their dependants who served in those special units during World War II. In my area of repatriation this will cover the differences between what they actually received in disability pension payments between 1943 and 1962 and what they should have received under their full entitlement. This goes some way towards redressing the discriminatory legacy of a most unfortunate World War II decision which was made by a small group in the War Cabinet during that period, not properly endorsed either by the Cabinet or the Parliament at that time but, of course, reflecting the attitude then held by the community that a different rate of pay and benefit should be available to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. After consultation with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I have undertaken to seek the assistance of the National Aboriginal Conference in locating the veterans and their dependants so that our obligations in financial terms in this matter are met. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In the light of the importance of small business to employment and to the economy within Australia, and in view of the restraints imposed on corporate structures for small businesses under existing legislation, will the Minister confirm that a Small Enterprise Incorporation Bill, as proposed by the Company Directors Association of Australia Ltd and as presented to the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, will be introduced during this session of Parliament? I point out that this Bill would provide for a new type of business structure which would combine a corporate structure with a limited liability partnership. If such legislation is not to be introduced will the Minister inform the Senate of the action which the Government intends to take in order to relieve the burdens and handicaps imposed upon small businesses by the existing legislation? Senator BUTTON —I cannot confirm that a Small Enterprise Incorporation Bill will be introduced in this session of Parliament. I certainly am able to say that the Government will examine that question, but I cannot confirm that legislation along the lines suggested by Senator Jack Evans will be introduced. Senator Chaney —It is not in the list for introduction. Senator BUTTON —It is certainly not in the list for introduction. I am indebted to Senator Chaney for his help. The point I am essentially making is that the introduction will be considered but not confirmed in any way. Senator Evans raises the question of assistance to small business generally. There are a number of matters in the Budget and under consideration by the Government in relation to assistance to small business. I will be able to detail those matters at length if Senator Evans requires. But let me say briefly that the question of taxation and retention allowances under Division 7 is under examination by the Government. The small business division of the Department of Industry and Commerce has been established. In due course the Government will make an announcement about a number of other matters, including the consideration of the Espie proposals, which are relevant to small business. Senator ROBERTSON —Will the Minister for Social Security clarify what is meant by the types of assets which will be taken into account in assessing pensioner benefits? There seems to be a great deal of confusion surrounding the $1,500 value placed on assets in the Budget Papers under the heading 'Other Assets'. Does this mean that if a person has $1,500 invested at, say, 10 per cent for a yearly return of $150 or $3 a week his or her pension will be affected? Senator GRIMES —No, indeed, it does not mean that. The only reason that people may think it means that is the misrepresentation of the assets test by honourable members opposite. In fact, under the proposal that the Government has foreshadowed, single pensioners without other income will be able to have $17, 000 in a savings account and still receive a maximum pension. A married couple will be able to have $28,500 in savings and receive the full pension. I think it is important to realise that the introduction of an assets test will take about 12 months because of the need to consult and the need to introduce administrative changes. In reverting to an assets test of the type that existed before 1976 certain assets will be excluded, including a pensioner's home, car and other personal possessions such as caravans and boats. We will not count other assets on top of these to the extent of $1,500 for single people and $2, 500 for married people. That is similar to the situation which existed before 1976 when, for the purpose of administrative ease and so that people were able to have at least that amount of money available, $400 and $800 for single and married people respectively were added to those assets. The assets test is aimed at overcoming the situation whereby certain wealthy people are exploiting and circumventing the existing income test. It is a problem which has been addressed not only by this Government but also by previous governments. One would have to be blind not to realise what is going on . A reading of the financial Press and of various pensioner journals will show numerous advertisements for artificially contrived schemes to enable those in the fortunate position of having large amounts of assets to convert them into capital and therefore avoid the income test as it existed. This is to the detriment of the taxpayer generally and in particular to the detriment of those who are not in that fortunate position and therefore have to cope on a lower pension than one would like. So the misrepresentation being put about that people with only $1,500 in the bank will have their pensions affected is an unfortunate one. It does not assist sensible debate in this area. One can expect, as one heard this morning, someone like the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, to go on in this way. One would hope that responsible members of the Opposition in this place, who when in government battled with this problem over the years, would take a more responsible attitude. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate or, alternatively, to the Attorney-General. I refer to the undertaking given on 25 June 1978 by the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser on behalf of the then Government that the responsible Minister would report within six months of the tabling of a parliamentary committee report indicating the Government's attitude towards recommendations in that report. I draw particular attention to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled 'The Constitutional Qualifications of Members of Parliament' tabled by me on 2 June 1981, to which neither the past nor the present Government have made any considered response. I ask: Does the present Government intend to maintain the undertaking given by the Fraser Government to respond to parliamentary committee reports within six months of tabling? If so, will it ensure that at least an interim response will be given within the period indicating the progress made in processing or implementing the recommendations in a report? Can the Parliament anticipate an early response in respect to the detailed recommendations contained in the Senate Committee's report on the constitutional qualifications of members of Parliament? Senator BUTTON —Irrespective of any undertaking given by the previous Government and the previous Prime Minister, the Government has decided that a response to parliamentary committee reports will be made on behalf of the Government by way of a ministerial statement in Parliament. It has been determined by the Government that the period in which such response should be made should be reduced from six months to three months. That has been done because it is desired to make the reports of committees as relevant as possible to any considerations which the Government may have to make in respect of policy matters. The period of response will be reduced from six to three months. In terms of Government responses it may of course be that the response can take the form of only a statement of principle about policy issues raised in the relevant parliamentary report. Senator Durack —It might be just a reponse you are dealing with. Senator BUTTON —Yes. I also make the point that in order to try to meet the time which the Government has imposed on itself when Parliament is not sitting, if it becomes necessary Ministers will be asked to respond in writing to the committee . Senator Missen then asked what would happen in the event of the Government not being able to respond within a three-month period, or a defined period as he put it. Ministers responsible have been requested to advise Parliament accordingly, together with reasons why responses cannot be given. There are certain reports to which the new guidelines determined by the Government do not apply, such as house management reports, reports of the Joint Committee on Public Works, the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House and the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The last part of Senator Missen's question is appropriately a matter for the Attorney-General. I will ask the Attorney-General to provide an answer as quickly as possible. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday at Question Time Senator Chaney asked me a question relating to an argument allegedly advanced by the Government on the question of capacity to pay in the course of national wage cases. The position is that the Commonwealth Government in the national wage case argued the relevance of national economic capacity to pay. In the course of that submission a question was asked whether the Commonwealth should look to an industry's capacity to pay as the determinant for the wage fixing process. The answer given to that question by the Commonwealth counsel was 'no'. The basis for that answer was that if one agrees to that proposition, namely that an industry's incapacity to pay is relevant, then one must also in the course of national wage hearings make available to parties an argument that an industry's capacity to pay is relevant. If one advances incapacity and accepts that as an argument, capacity becomes relevant. In the Government's view that would lead to an encouragement of sectional wage claims where industries are clearly in a position of having the capacity to pay. The Government is determined to avoid sectional wage claims. It is the Goverment's view that there should be national standards and that the centralised wage system to which the Government adheres should not be prejudiced by the capacity to advance sectional wage claims. Senator GARETH EVANS —Without trespassing too much on the time of the Senate, I will give an answer to Senator Missen's question today about the future of the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on constitutional qualifications of members of Parliament. That report was languishing for nearly 18 months during the life of the previous Government. There was a question, when we came into office in March, of our giving an immediate response. It was thought preferable not to do so given that the matter was on the agenda for the April Australian Constitutional Convention. It was dealt with by the Constitutional Convention by way of simply referring it to a standing committee for further consideration. Although that consideration will be actively pursued, I understand, there will not be a report from that standing committee until the middle of next year. Under those circumstances it is the Government's intention as quickly as possible to move to give a reply on its response to the recommendations in the report. We will endeavour to do so before mid-September which will be the expiry of at least six months since our coming to office. I assure the honourable senator that how this issue is addressed is a matter of great interest to members and senators. There are many anomalies, many inequities and many instances of unfairness in the way the existing rules operate. It is something which needs priority and we will give it that priority. Sitting suspended from 1.10 to 2.15 p.m. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's adoption of wages policies which will increase unemployment. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.15) —The Opposition has brought before the Senate as a matter of public importance the Government's adoption of wages policies which will increase unemployment. Mr Deputy President, as was observed in Question Time this morning, the Opposition has brought a number of matters of public importance before the Senate and has raised this matter for debate since the Hawke Government took office. Indeed, we have raised it on each of the major economic debates which have occurred in the Senate and in particular on the discussion of the National Economic Summit Conference communique and the economic statement put down by the Government on 19 May. On both of those occasions we pointed out to the Senate and to the Government the very real danger that the Government's policies, whatever other effects they might have, neglected the fundamental task of halting and reversing unemployment. In a debate which takes place in the context of a Budget having been brought down yesterday it is important to note the significance of the question of wages policy to the general economic performance of Australia. Indeed, on the day of the Budget, in an article which I think Government Ministers could profitably read, the following appeared on the front page of the Australian Financial Review: While the wages pause has led to a moderation in the growth of labour costs, these costs have continued to rise in the first half of 1983, and the prospects for 1983-84 are that labour costs will rise more rapidly in Australia than they will for our main trading partners. This represents the main threat to Australia achieving a sustained economic recovery over the next two years. It would be common ground in this place that Australia requires a sustained economic recovery. It is not some partisan Opposition view that there is an unemployment problem in Australia and that the problem is getting worse. The Government's own spokesmen have been very clear in their statements that unemployment in Australia will rise further. In a statement made on 10 July and reported on 11 July, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, confirmed that unemployment will continue, in his words, 'to creep up' next year, despite his prediction of an economic recovery. He predicted at that time that unemployment would not start to 'creep down'-again his words-until 1984-85. Mr Deputy President, another leading Labor spokesman, Premier Wran, when he was emerging from the aftermath of the Royal Commission in New South Wales a couple of weeks ago said: The biggest problem for Australia and Australians is that the economy's going to get better but there aren't going to be many more jobs . . . We've all thinking of getting inflation down, holding M3, all these economic indicators, we're grasping bits of the bloody web but no one's worried about the spider because when that's happened the people who are out of work, the bulk of them are going to stay out of work. I think that is a matter of deep concern to all Australians. It is certainly a matter of deep concern to the Opposition. Last night the Treasurer, Mr Keating, put down a Budget Speech. We heard in that Speech, which was the third of the Government's major economic statements since it took office, that the fears that have been expressed about unemployment are correct. Mr Keating confirms Premier Wran's prediction and Mr Willis's prediction that there will be increased unemployment in Australia. The Budget, on the Treasurer's own confession, is predicated on increased unemployment. The most optimistic gloss that he could put on the situation was to say that the average level of employment this year may not be very different from that of last year. Budget Statement No. 2, at page 65, puts it more bluntly. It says that there will be an edging up in the rate of unemployment. That report is worthy of reference for many reasons. At page 68, from the comments made on the labour market, one sees that there is great cause for concern about what will happen to employment in this country. They set out clearly that the labour force will grow by 2 per cent while employment might grow by 1 1/2 per cent. On that prediction we will get an addition of another half per cent to the unemployment lists in the course of this financial year. Mr Deputy President, the debate takes place in the context of a Budget which again, on the face of the documents which have been put before the Parliament by the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), make it clear how fragile the Government's assumptions, including its assumptions on employment, really are. Budget Statement No. 2, at page 70, notes: A wages outcome higher than currently assumed would have an especially damaging impact on business confidence and private sector spending propensities. The renewal of pressures on corporate profitability, together with a consequent slackening in private demand, would be likely to manifest itself in a further round of labour shedding and another sharp ratcheting up in the rate of unemployment. Put simply, the documents put before the Parliament by the Treasurer himself, and by the Minister for Finance, point out that a wages outcome higher than that assumed by the Budget, namely about 7 per cent, will damage business confidence and lead to labour shedding and another sharp ratcheting up in the rate of unemployment. That is something of a message of despair, given the reality of pressures on wages at present and the great difficulty which it is apparent the Government will have in delivering on the accord which it has entered into with the trade union movement. Mr Deputy President, again, one only needs to look at contemporaneous activities within the wage fixing sector to see how real those difficulties are. A headline in one newspaper on the day of the Budget stated: 'Heinz wages surrender'. That article pointed out that there had been a settlement of the 11- week industrial dispute at H. J. Heinz and Co. Australia Ltd which had added to an emerging $15 to $20 pay rise trend for pay movements outside the wages pause. That is not a lonely example of the sorts of pressures which exist outside the centralised wage fixing system for wage rises which exceed the 7 per cent on which the fragile holding situation of the Budget is predicated. We have that particular example before us. We have also the situation of 130,000 building workers seeking a rise outside the guideline and oil industry workers seeking reimbursement of medical insurance payments and so on. There is a whole series of pressure points on the wage system which it is quite clear present a great challenge to the ability of the system to maintain the situation on which the Budget is purported to be based. Of course, the Budget is only one of the instruments which the Government has to hand if it wishes to affect the economic performance of Australia. Indeed, at the moment we are seeing something of a diffusion of the instruments which are available to the Government. In the very short life of this Government so far we have had the May economic statement, which made a number of decisions which were of a budgetary nature. We see in the Budget the extension of indexation-upwards, of course, not downwards-to certain taxation arrangements. This will result in biannual adjustments to excise. There is outside the confines of the Budget a whole series of ways in which the Government affects the economy of the country. I refer for instance, to the biannual indexing of pensions and benefits introduced by the previous Government. So a great deal is happening, outside the Budget Statement which was put down by the Treasurer last night, which will affect the vital question of employment and the operation of the economy generally. In this debate I draw attention particularly to a matter which was raised in Question Time in the Senate yesterday and which was mentioned again today in a supplementary answer given by Senator Button. It relates to the tool which is available to the Government through its appearance before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the stance which it takes on wages generally before that Commission. I believe it is a matter for grave concern that, despite the overwhelming consensus that the wage pause was useful-and that , of course, is acknowledged in the Budget documents over and over again-and notwithstanding the broad public support which has existed for the wage pause from its very inception, the Government has acceded quite supinely to the request for a full flow on of the consumer price index since March. Support for that 4.3 per cent flow on, on the Government's own statement, will be damaging for employment. Given the outlook for inflation, it is now extremely unlikely that the next indexation flow on, which can be expected next year, can be limited to a total of 7 per cent within the calendar year. Of course it is a total wage rise of 7 per cent which underlies all of the Government's assumption in this Budget. May I repeat the key assumptions which exist as far as the Budget is concerned and the Government's economic strategy is concerned. The Government assumes a centralised wage system; it assumes half yearly indexation; and it assumes strictly limited sectional claims. The Opposition has raised a warning on frequent occasions about the sectional claims to which I have already referred and no one who has been watching the recent activity by the Builders Labourers Federation, the Australian Workers Union and the Food Processors Union of Australia can avoid the conclusion that they are breaking the bounds of what could be defined as strictly limited sectional claims. This morning there has been newspaper comment on that matter. I believe that this morning's editorial in the Australian Financial Review puts the matter in a nutshell. The editorial states: Already there is clear evidence that the union movement has no real intention of sticking to centralised wage fixation which delivers only indexation. The H. J. Heinz settlement reached this week is one indication of this. Rather the unions are already moving towards using indexation only as a way of generalising wage increases to weak unions while the stronger ones bargain for sectional increases outside indexation. We have the facts before us. It is quite clear that unions which see themselves as having a strong bargaining position, unions which can take advantage of the fact that they are in employment and that their employers will try to stay in business, can use the system to obtain claims which are outside the centralised wage fixing system and at the same time use the centralised wage fixing system to obtain general claims, even when those claims have to be paid by industries which cannot afford them. The National Economic Summit Conference gave us many useful contributions to economic debate and we should all go back and read the speech which was made by Mr Fitzgibbon, the Deputy President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He made the point very forcefully that a centralised wage fixing system meant something to which there were no exceptions. One received the rises that were awarded by the central authority and not any others. It is quite clear that large sections of the trade union movement, without any serious or significant opposition from the Government, are flouting that principle. One might also think that the future of indexation is in doubt when one looks at the effect of the shift in the figures which the Government achieves through the change to Medicare. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the unions to realise that the predicted 7 per cent to 7 1/2 per cent increase in the CPI is something of a con job based on the exclusion of those Medicare costs because of the way the Australian Statistician works on the CPI. It will be interesting, too, to see how social security beneficiaries respond to indexation which is made on the same basis when they are not subject to charges for their medical costs at the moment. The consequences of the mishmash which we have in this area at the moment needs to be spelt out with great clarity. It is clear, on the Government's own statements, that the Government's permissive stance on wages is in itself a guarantee of continuing and increasing unemployment. That is true even if all of the assumptions on which the Budget is based hold true. The Government tells us that we will have continuing and increasing unemployment. Second, it is quite clear, on what the Government has told us, that even if there are wage increases outside what we would regard as that quite permissive stance then the outlook for employment is even worse, and the evidence is that we will get those increases. I believe that the Opposition, and the Australian people who have so recently elected this Government, are entitled to ask: Does this Government really care about unemployment? Indeed, the Government's arguments before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission suggest that it does not care two hoots about the unemployed in Australia. It certainly cares about the situation of those employed who believe that they should be getting more, but it accepts that they can get more at the cost of those who are unemployed. If I may touch on the question which I raised during Question Time yesterday, and to which I got some response in a supplementary question from Senator Button this afternoon, dealing with the industry's capacity to pay, this Goverment's counsel, speaking on behalf of Mr Hawke and his Ministers before the Commission, argued strongly against any consideration being given to capacity to pay. Counsel summed up his arguments as follows: In any economic circumstances marginal firms or industries will experience economic difficulties. This is part of the normal process of growth and readjustment within the economy. The Government sees no compelling reason why these firms or industries should be subsidised by the wage system. What an extraordinary proposition to be put forward by the Hawke Labor Government. It is suggesting that if an employer is in economic difficulties, if he is in a marginal situation, if he might be about to sack his workers, then tough luck; he will wear the wage increases which are granted because otherwise he would be subsidised by the wage system. What an extraordinary argument to be put forward on behalf of a Labor Government which should be concerned about unemployment. That sort of logic pervades the whole of the Government's approach to the national wage case, and indeed, the supplementary answer that Senator Button gave to the Senate today highlights the logical problem for the Government in this whole area. Senator Button pointed out to us-I do not yet have a full record of his reply-that if we look at the industry's capacity to pay, if we agree that the capacity of an industry to pay is a reason for refusing a wage rise which cannot be afforded by that industry, then we will encourage people who work in more profitable industries to seek sectional wage claims outside the centralised system. I agree with that. I think that is a correct statement of the difficulty the Government faces. But it is simply not good enough to pose that difficulty, to pose that dilemma; to say that the Government's hands are tied and that the Commission's hands are tied; to say that we simply have to put up with the fact that where an industry cannot afford to pay its workers at the present rates of pay or cannot afford any increases, those increases will have to be granted in any event in the interest of some sort of wage justice. Mr Justice Issaacs, during the hearing, asked this perfectly reasonable question: To what extent can a centralised system operate if there are breaches of the guidelines outside the system taking place? The reply by Government's counsel was: . . . when that problem arises it is precisely the sort of problem that we would see as appropriate to be addressed when the review of the principles, which we would hope arises out of this decision, occurs . . . Those words are cold comfort to those people who are told they must pay wage rises which will close down their place of work and which will ensure that further jobs are lost. It appears to be quite clear that a government which is committed to the submissions that this Government is putting to the Arbitration Commission at the moment has no commitment to reducing unemployment, and it is eminently clear from the Budget that this Government certainly has no program to reduce unemployment in Australia. The Government predicts a rise in unemployment . Labor spokesmen, from Mr Willis to Mr Wran, accept it as a fact of life. The usual response from Senator Button in these debates is to complain about the Fraser Government. I can only say to him that I hope that he heeds the words of Mr Keating who pointed out in an interview this morning that the members of the Government 'have engaged ourselves in an enormous clearing exercise to clear away a very large part of the programs of the former Government.' He continued: What we have done is to put in place thereof the expenditure priorities of the present Government. I should like to remind Senator Button that this Government, the Hawke Government, has set aside the wage pause which its own documents acknowledge was one of the positive effects on economic affairs in Australia in 1983. We are now living in an Australia which is governed by the Hawke Government. The policies of that Government are in place and it can no longer blame the previous Government for what has gone before. I commend to the Senate the words at page 70 of the Budget statements which point out-I read part of them before-that a wages outcome higher than the 7 per cent assumed can lead to another sharp ratcheting up in the rate of unemployment. It appears that under the policies of the Hawke Government that is what we have before us. As far as wages policy is concerned the Hawke Government has rejected the wages freeze which was supported by the Australian people. It has embraced anti-employment policies. There was one message of comfort for the unemployed in the Budget last night-a rise in the unemployment benefit. Of course, the Opposition welcomes that message of comfort but it says to the Government that that is not the message that the unemployed of Australia wanted. They wanted a message that the Hawke Government would set about fulfilling its promise to reduce unemployment in Australia. That is what is sought and demanded. The Government must find a wages policy which will reduce unemployment. It must work out how it can apply such a policy. It must not apply policies which will increase unemployment as it has persisted in doing since it was elected in March of this year. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(2.36) —Mr Deputy President-- Senator Townley —Where are your troops? Press the button. Senator BUTTON —I am asked where my supporters are in this matter. I think they are probably bored with Senator Chaney's contribution to this Blue Hills debate and have left the chamber. Senator Chaney —So are the unemployed. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney makes that statement on the basis of five months experience in opposition and seven years in government. In the course of this debate he will not, by reading some totally irrelevant statement that Mr Keating made this morning, stop me from discussing the seven years which the Fraser Government-- Senator Withers —What about the three dark years of Whitlam? Senator BUTTON —If I might say so, that is a good interjection, because Senator Sir John Carrick, if he speaks in this debate, will no doubt crank that up. But the fact of the matter is that the seven years of Fraser Government have vital relevance to current economic policy and Government wages policy. In the course of his remarks Senator Chaney seemed to be saying that the one policy on wages that seems to have had some success was that which was characterised as the ' need to be seen to be doing something' policy. He suggested that that policy, I suppose, be extended. Is that the Opposition's view? Is that Mr Howard's view? I think it is Mr Howard's view. Is it Mr Macphee's view? I do not think it is his view. The Opposition comes here with no coherent view other than the implicit suggestion that if it were in Government the wages freeze would be extended. Would it be extended for another six months or another 12 months? As I have been reminded by Liberal Party spokesmen in earlier stages of this debate, the whole issue is that of the competitiveness of Australian industry. Both in government and in opposition the Liberal Party has had only two things to say about that issue. The competitiveness of Australian industry is dependent on wages policy or, alternatively, on industrial relations policy. One of those two policies can be blamed for the lack of competitiveness of Australian industry. That argument went on for seven years and it is still going on as if the Opposition had learnt nothing. Of course, the two policies, wages and industry, are very much related. I would have thought that the debate might now be broadened to include a number of other issues when examining the competitiveness of Australian industry. Such issues include: Investment in industry; on-wage costs-not wage costs-which are very high in Australia; industrial unrest, which has been a factor militating against the competitiveness of Australian industry; and the level of inflation. All of these things, to mention but four, might be relevant to the issue of competitiveness and the capacity of Australian industry to sell its products and employ people in those industries. I concede quite frankly that if the national wage Bench this year determines a wage increase which amounts to full indexation that will create difficulties for some Australian industries in some areas. I concede that. That is not shrunk from by anybody who is concerned about this issue. I think Opposition senators know that. The point involves what a Government is to do on balance in a period of economic recovery in terms of ensuring as far as possible that wage levels and increases in wages do not get back to the sorts of figures which we saw in 1981 and 1982. In 1981, for example , there was a 15 per cent increse in wages in Australia. In 1982, there was an 11 per cent increase. In Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries during each of those years the equivalent figure was about 9 per cent. If we average the figures out for the two years the Australian figure is 26 per cent and the OECD figure is 18 per cent. According to the wildest predictions which can be extracted from either the Budget Papers or any other comment which has been made, in 1984 the level of wage increases in Australia will be 0.5 of a per cent above the OECD average for the same period. In our view that is a vast improvement on the pattern of the past. The main objection which the Opposition has to the Government's wages policy, from what one can guess, is that it is different from what it might have done in similar circumstances. Had the Opposition been in government, I suppose it would have extended the wages pause. No other suggestion has ever flowed from the Opposition as to what might have been done about wages. I refer very briefly to the likely outcome of the national wage case. I cannot be sure what the national wage Bench will do. I put it to the Senate earlier that the Government's approach is based on balancing short and longer term economic and industrial relations considerations, both of which are relevant to the future success of Australian industry. There is a no extra claims provision which the Government has argued for which will provide employers with economic and industrial stability. We have already had questions in the Senate from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle yesterday about the so-called Heinz settlement and again suggestions from Senator Chaney today about the increase in relation to the building industry. The building industry increase has to go before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission before it is dealt with. The Government will intervene in that case in the public interest. The Heinz claim has to go before the Arbitration Commission in the context of any outcome of a national wage case. As I said before, the Government will intervene in that case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is not the Government's intention to allow sectoral claims. It might be open to the Opposition to wish that the Government's position on that does not succeed. I am not sure that that is helpful, but the Government is determined that that position will succeed in relation to sectoral claims made outside the centralised wage fixation system. The Government would argue that extending the existing wage pause is simply not sustainable in the light of what Senator Chaney in his speech referred to as pressures in the wages system. What would the Fraser Government have done about those pressures? Would it have passed another law to penalise unions in some way ? Is that how it would have dealt with the pressures in the wages system? The Opposition passed 11 such laws in its seven years in Government and the pressures in the wages system were never worse than in 1981 and 1982, its last two years in government. What would the Opposition do to alleviate pressures in the wages system, as Senator Chaney calls them? Would it pass another piece of wage freeze legislation? I do not believe that that argument has any viability or logic at all. Any attempts to continue the wages pause can result only in the sort of leapfrogging that has gone on in the past and which is building up and occurring as the economy recovers. I make just one point about a matter of fact that Senator Chaney dealt with: I ask the honourable senator next time we have this debate not to confuse a projected 7 per cent increase in earnings with a 4 1/2 per cent projected increase in wages, because there is a difference. There is a considerable difference between an increase in earnings, which Senator Chaney talked about, and an increase in wages. That is a different thing altogether. I say this about the Government's attitude, because it is not perhaps quite clear: First, the Government is committed to a return to the centralised wage fixation system for the sorts of reasons which I have suggested. The Government is committed to an effective prices and incomes policy. It may be that that policy will fail. However, the time to criticise us is when that policy fails. The Opposition should not indulge in dire prognostications. It is buoyant and excited with gloom at the prospect of the Government's wages policy failing. Nothing turns the Opposition on or makes it happier than the prospect of the Government's wages policy failing. That has been the point of the last three, I think, matters of public importance we have had on this question. In talking about a centralised system and an incomes and prices policy, the Government is concerned to avoid the confrontational approach of the previous Government. Discounting of indexation of wages occurred in 12 out of 18 decisions between 1975 and 1981. The then Government's attitude finally destroyed wage indexation in 1981. Although there was a minor upturn in the economy in 1980-1981 there was no rational and equitable approach to wage fixation. There were increases of 15 per cent and 11 per cent in those two years . The problem was aggravated by Government indecision and conflict between Senior Ministers in the Government. The consequent wage pause was introduced as a matter of panic and had disastrous effects in terms of inequities for low income earners. No prices surveillance was considered. There was no policy, and there still is no policy, for coming out of the wages pause. So it remains a problem for the Opposition to advance a coherent and rational argument against the Government's position. In terms of Government policy, there has been an extended period without adjustment of general award wages in Australia. A year will have passed by the time the national wage case decision is known. Let me just say that in terms of the many other factors which are irrelevant to an industry's capacity to pay, to produce goods and to employ people, nothing has happened as a result of the wages pause in terms of investment policy and so on. It is time now to establish a viable and equitable system of wage determination before the economy moves into a period of expansion. This is necessary on both equity and practical grounds. We want a lasting system. We want to escape from the ad hockery of the previous Government. The Government advanced support for full indexation in its submission to the national wage case. It went on to say that we would not expect any review of real wage levels until late 1984. No 'extra claims' measures have been suggested to the Commission and these, of course, have been referred to during Question Time in the Senate. On the question of growth in wages, both independent and Government estimates suggest a much lower increase in award wages in 1983 and 1984 than in previous years if this Government's policy is followed. Average weekly earnings for 1983- 84-Senator Chaney referred to this-are estimated to rise by about 7 per cent, representing a marked slowing down from the 11 per cent of last year. That estimate is supported not only by the Government in its Budget Papers but also, for example, by the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, which put a slightly lesser figure on it in its economic outlook statement of two or three weeks ago. So, in looking at the potential rate of wage increases and earnings increases in 1983-84, I just want to say that the Government's policy is in general line with the views which were enunciated at the National Economic Summit Conference. Government policy, if agreed to by the Arbitration Commission, will result in award wage increases of 5 per cent in both 1983 and 1984, compared with 15 per cent an 11 per cent in 1981 and 1982 respectively. This is a vast improvement when one looks at the other factors which are relevant to the broad question of unemployment. I turn to the question of employment under the previous Government. Seven years of the previous Government saw an initial period of virtual stagnation in employment give way to a final period of unprecedented absolute declines in employment. The traditional approach to economic management based on the indirect control of prices and wages by restrictive fiscal and monetary policy has succeeded in effectively stalling the long term growth of jobs for Australians. From 1976 to 1983 employment grew by less than three quarters of one percent and teenagers and older workers had absolute falls in employment during that period. The combination of the failure of growth in employment and continued growth in the labour force meant that the level of unemployment doubled-up 118.4 per cent in the seven years to February 1983. This happened despite a substantial decline in the level of labour force participation in that period. The consequences of those disastrous policies, both in terms of wage fixation and unemployment figures, have of course been reaped by this Government. We came into government, as the newsletter of the sharebrokers, Potter Partners, put it, with the worst economy this country had seen for 50 years. The ex-Treasurer, who now talks about this Budget with such concern, is rightly concerned because the parameters of this Budget, both in terms of what this Government could do about unemployment and this Government's capacity to deal with the wages issue on the basis of its own assumptions about wages policy, were very much determined by the actions of the previous Government. This matter of public importance has been raised often and no doubt it will be raised again. If I might say so without undue patronage, the standard of the debate is improving and more issues are being raised that are relevant to the vital question which I believe sincerely concerns all Australians. But a very highly speculative argument was advanced by Senator Chaney today-- Senator Chaney —You should not wait till it is all over to argue about it. You are arguing in prospect. Senator BUTTON —I am sure the honourable senator will do both: He will argue in prospect and he will wait till it is all over. I am not sure which gives him the most pleasure. But I am not sure whether arguing in prospect will in the longer term give him the most pleasure. I summarise by saying that this Government has commitments in respect of employment. It has never shrunk from the fact that these commitments would not be easily dealt with. But this Government also has commitments in terms of other factors which affect the capacity of industry in this country. Those factors, amongst others, include a desirable, stable and predictable industrial relations environment and a desirable, stable and predictable economic environment-something which industry in this country has not had for years. It is in that context that the Government embarked on its present wages policy. It is in that context that it will pursue it. It is in that context that it will insist that the wages policy which has been enunciated will be carried out by all concerned. We reject the nexus which is drawn artificially in this matter of public importance between the two issues. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(2.55) -The Senate is debating a matter of public importance, namely: The Government's adoption of wages policies which will increase unemployment. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has complained and has chastised the Opposition for raising this matter as though it is unimportant . He further chastised the Opposition for raising it during the all too short autumn sitting of this Parliament. I would have thought that the Leader of the Government would have said: 'This is singly one of the most important issues facing Australia and I am glad that the Opposition is showing concern about it'. I would have thought that the Leader of the Government would have been more positive by indicating some of the things that the Government proposes to do rather than chastise and lecture us, advocating, as he did, the sorts of measures which we have been advocating for years and which this Budget, in its strategy, does not in any way implement. It is all very fine for Senator Button to come into the chamber and say that we need to restore competitiveness and that we need to ensure that there is a reduction in wage on-costs; that need to ensure that militancy in the workplace is reduced, that inflation is reduced and that Australia's competitive position in relation to its Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners is not higher than the average but lower than the average. All of those things we have been saying repeatedly in debates on matters which we have raised in this chamber both before the last election and certainly since the election. Senator Button has adopted our rhetoric and apparently has adopted our policies but has done nothing to persuade his colleagues, in particular the newly discredited Treasurer, Mr Keating-I am adopting what Senator Walsh has been saying about others for some time-of the importance of the points about which he has been lecturing us. He has singularly failed in any attempt to persuade Mr Keating. If we look at the wages policy of this Government and the effect that it has on unemployment the first thing we should look at are some sections of the accord upon which the wages policy is based. The first quote I should like to read to honourable senators appears at page 9 of the accord. It states: The maintenance of real wages is agreed to be a key objective. It is recognised that in a period of economic crisis as now applying that this will be an objective over time. I wonder, therefore, what sort of time scale the Government is talking about. Whereas the accord said that there would have to be some recognition that there could not be maintenance of real wages during the crisis period, what is proposed by this Budget is a maintenance of real wages during the crisis period; that is, unless the Government is suggesting that the crisis is over. Nothing in its economic projections indicates that the Government believes that. One of the factors which appears throughout the whole of the Budget document is the difference between the Government's rhetoric about what it says it is trying to achieve and the economic projections, particularly those of its advisers in the Treasury. The accord goes on to state: Accordingly it is agreed: To protect the purchasing power of wages and salaries the adoption of a system of full cost of living adjustments will be strongly supported in tripartite consultants and before industrial tribunals. It also states: In formulating claims for improved wages and conditions at the national level the unions will have regard to government economic policy and will consult with the Government on the amount of such claims. Obvious to everyone in Australia is the fact that this part of the accord has already broken down quite disastrously. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has already referred to a number of the aspects of that breakdown. Let me summarise by saying that we have seen in particular the agreement between H. J. Heinz and Co. Ltd and its workers to which I believe the Leader of the Government referred. We have seen the reimbursement of medical insurance payments as part of an agreement in relation to building workers. We have seen the Altona Petrochemical Co. Ltd building workers agreement. Average weekly earnings are forecast to increase seven per cent year on year compared with the consumer price index rise of about 7.5 per cent. That, of course, leaves out all of the separate agreements which appear to be flourishing in Australia notwithstanding anything that may have been said in the accord. It is relevant to refer to an article by Bob Carr in the current issue of the Bulletin which was published today and which stated: Wages policy could well become the bane of the Hawke Government, as it became for the Whitlam Government half way through its life. It states further: The Australian Workers' Union in New South Wales and the Electrical Trades' Union in New South Wales and Victoria have lodged claims based on the building industry agreement. It is too early to say if these claims amount to a new wages push. But, on the other hand, they suggest scepticism about any assertion that the building settlement can be fenced in. Current wage pressures in the industrial system can be summarised as: Government support for full indexation for the March and June quarters this year; The new $17 to $19 standard at tradesman-level set in the building industry. That such pressure has built up in a depressed economy is further proof of the resilience of wages in the Australian industrial relations system. It offers little hope that when the economy picks up the government can persuade unions to temper pay claims. That is an expression of a view of concern which I think is held by most commentators who look at what is the difference between what the Government has said and agreed, what it is in fact doing and what is in fact happening. In addition to the parts of the accord to which I have already referred I wish to refer briefly to pages 5 and 6 on which it is stated: Government taxation and expenditure policies also markedly affect the distribution of real disposable incomes. Traditionally LNCP Government's policies have considerably increased the inequity of that distribution. Current and past policies of the Fraser Government are completely repudiated by the parties to this statement as manifestly unfair; they promote industrial confrontation and they provide no effective resolution of the fundamental economic problem of achieving low unemployment with low inflation. All of this is very fine except that the previous Opposition critcised some of the major points in the former Government's policies. It said that they increased the inequities of distribution and created unemployment. They are the very things which this Government is implementing in the Budget it has brought in and in the policies which it is adopting. I turn to what the pressures on wages will be in the forthcoming year. One of the aspects of this pressure is described by Mr Risstrom, the Secretary of the Australian Taxpayers Association as staggering. On the national Today show on television this morning, he said: Now the effect on the typical family is staggering . . . a staggering 16 per cent increase in tax this year. He was asked the question: That could have put pressure on the prices and incomes accord. If the Australian work force says we are not going to cop this, we want more, then the budget is in trouble. Mr Risstrom replied: Yes, I believe that it is. He referred to the fact that there was a $2 billion addition to the tax bill last May. A lot of the impact and the pressures on the wages system in Australia are not just the product of the Budget which was introduced last night but rather the product of the mini-Budget introduced in May. When those effects are taken cumulatively we find that scenario A of the National Economic Summit Conference-it has already been exceeded by nearly 50 per cent-will be exceeded by far more than the 50 per cent which this Budget projects. There is an upward trend in unemployment which is acknowledged in the Budget. In the Budget's economic assessments the fact is that the growth in demand for jobs will be greater than the creation of jobs which will result in a net half a per cent or something like 35,000 extra unemployed people in the next 12 months. The point that I think has to be made is that criticism has been made of the wages pause policy which was implemented by the former Government. It has been successful because the downward trend in wages, the breaking of the disastrous trends in Australia, came as a direct result of that wages pause. The fact is that from early this year until the middle of this year there was an expectation -in fact, the figures reveal this-that the downslide had bottomed out. Two things happened: The wages pause had its effect and there was an effect from the upturn in world trade and the breaking of the drought. Those things had nothing to do with this Government's wages and incomes accord. Insofar as Australia could take advantage of them, this was the product of the former Government's wage pause-now so discredited by this Government. In substitution of that wages pause, the Government wishes to put in place something which, if I had more time , I could show is inherently unlikely to succeed because of the tremendous pressures on wages in Australia that will result from this Budget. The possible effect of the withholding tax on small business employment, unless that measure is cleaned up, is one more matter to which reference has not been made. Undoubtedly, the huge demands imposed by government and semi-government borrowings on the capital markets of Australia will, unless the Government is saved miraculously by an inflow of capital from overseas, have a tremendous impact on interest rates, which will in turn have a further impact on inflation. Insofar as projections go, page 66 of the Budget Speech gives some indication that public sector employment will be down, because capital expenditure is down in real terms. Therefore, this government is not investing as much in the provision of capital and the employment which it creates; rather, it is approaching the probem from the point of view of making handouts. It is saying that it would rather pay somebody a bit extra for being unemployed than create real employment. Public sector borrowing amounted last year to 6 per cent of gross domestic product. This year it will amount to 8 per cent, which means that it is up by 33 1/3 per cent. That pressure would be serious enough without the fact that GDP fell last year and is anticipated to grow this year. Those facts will have a cumulative effect, making the increase in the pressure imposed by public sector borrowing much greater than 33 1/3 per cent. There is to be an increase in the deficit and an indexation of outgoings such as pensions which, during times of inflation, is bound to have an effect upon the need to raise further taxes. Simply put, greater indexation of excise will not provide the extra revenue needed and the net result will be further pressure on wages. So far as jobs are concerned, an alarming prospect is created by the various Budget projections. I refer, for example, to that for the textile industry. The anticipated bounty payment for that industry will suffer a net 10 per cent drop. In other words, there will be a 10 per cent reduction in the production that is eligible. I do not have time to go through the other areas of policy to show the large number in respect of which a drop in assistance is projected. If one takes inflation into account, the maintenance of bounty or assistance payments at the same level represents a significant reduction in support. We have the disaster of some of the aspects of the steel package, particularly as it impacts on wages policy. The Government agreed to the unions building in further automatic increases at consumer price index levels-the very antithesis of the prospect that was in view for Australia had the wage pause been maintained. The unions have given some quid pro quo so far as productivity is concerned but that has no real sanction. They have given no quid pro quo for the protection which the industry is receiving, that is in relation to wages, one of the things which has built into Australian industry a lack of competitiveness, as demonstrated by the impact which the 28 per cent increase in the metal trades industry had. It was followed immediately by a drop in metal industry jobs of 82,000 in a period of 12 months. I agree completely with what Senator Button said about the importance of Australia getting back to a competitive state, about the importance of a number of those issues which he identified as being significant. But none of them are taken into account in the Budget. Nor are they taken into account in the Government's wages policy or its wages accord. All of the pressures which can be identified at the moment are pressures for a break in the prices and incomes accord and the whole Budget is predicated on the basis that that will hold. Inevitably, the pressures will blow out this Budget, which will reduce job opportunities even further. Already the Government is projecting an increase in unemployment of 35,000. We believe that if this policy is pursued the figure will certainly be far in excess of that Government projection. Time does not permit the further identification of the various aspects of the ironical position in which we find ourselves-a government that says one thing, which sounds quite good, but clearly does something else which will have a disastrous effect. I support the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in submiting this matter of public importance for discussion. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.10) —I find this matter of public importance to be a very narrow proposition indeed. It implies that the level of wage costs is the only cause of changes in labour market conditions and the only cause of changes in unemployment levels. Of course that is not so. The level of wage costs is just one factor amongst others. It just suits the Opposition to talk about wage costs being a cause of unemployment. It fits the Opposition rhetoric; it is as simple as that. There are a number of causes of labour market slack and high unemployment levels. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, has referred to the sheer lack of competitiveness of sections of Australian industry. I would like also to draw attention to the absolute low levels of aggregate demand in the economy at the moment. If there is one thing that is reducing demand for labour at the moment, it is the shortage of aggregate demand and, particularly, the low levels of investment and capital spending. Those things have been conveniently ignored by the Opposition, which seeks to focus entirely on wage costs as the cause of unemployment. I would like also to examine the wording of the proposal before the Senate as a matter of public importance because it refers particularly to the concept of increasing unemployment. I am especially surprised that this Opposition should talk about increasing unemployment as though it was something that had happened in just the last couple of months. The electorate knows full well that rising unemployment has been with us for some time. Indeed, the former Government now occupies the Opposition benches because it was repudiated by the electorate as a result of rising unemployment last year. For example, in April 1982 436,000 people were unemployed in Australia. In April 1983, a staggering 707,000 people were unemployed. That was an enormous, unprecedented rise. A 60 per cent increase in unemployment in Australia in one year had never before been experienced. That rise, by itself, has done enormous damage to the Liberal Party in the long term because for so long its members traded on the myth that they were the only competent economic managers; they were the people who knew how to run the economy; they were the people who could keep demand at high levels, keep production at high levels and keep unemployment at low levels. Of course that myth was abolutely destroyed in the space of 12 months in 1982, and they will find it very difficult to recover lost ground. This Labor Government, unlike the previous Government, or this Opposition, has a labour market policy. The former Government fuelled wage rises in 1981 an 1982 by talk of the resources boom. We know what happened to the resources boom, but the former Government bid up wages in the market by such talk. All it could offer was the concept of the wages pause-a concept that was pulled out of the hat like a rabbit for the Premiers Conference in December last year. The only thing that Government could come up with during the chaotic rise in unemployment which occurred last year was some sort of holding operation. Basically, it was a gimmick for the election. It was designed to hang together for only a few months and tide the Government over its very difficult election passage. But of course the former Government did nothing to identify or explain what would happen after the wages pause ended. That was the big question. The then questions asked by the electorate were: What is going to happen after the wages pause? Is there going to be a market forces approach and decentralised wage fixing? That was the approach of the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, who believed in market forces. He believed in a decentralised approach to wage fixation, reflecting the rather Friedmanite ideas that were permeating the Government at that time. On the other hand, was a centralised wage system to follow the end of the wages pause? Was there going to be a return to the former system, whereby the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had an overview of wages in Australia, which had been gradually eroded? That was the position supported by the former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Macphee, and it was radically opposed to the view put forward by the former Treasurer who believed in a decentralised or market forces approach to wages setting. That would have led to many members of the community being left out. Was there to have been support for indexation after the end of the wages pause? Was it intended to gain support for this and make it stick? These questions were never addressed. No answers were ever given. We in the Government do have a wages policy. In fact, I wish to castigate the Opposition on this matter of public importance because, as I have said, it is very narrow. We have something better than a wages policy; we have an incomes policy. I think it is about time the Opposition woke up to the fact that there are other incomes in the community besides wages. The Opposition might advance its cause enormously in the electorate if it were to address itself to the twentieth century and talk about incomes policies. I do not think the Opposition has any policies over prices, dividends, other non-wage incomes and rents. Does the Opposition have any policies regarding those things? All the Opposition can do is talk about wages and the cost of incomes earned by blue collar workers. We have a more comprehensive policy than the Opposition. It is a more equitable policy. Unfortunately, the Opposition still thinks in sectional terms. It lives in the past. It looks only at wages. All sections of the community should bear the burden if there are to be cuts in the growth of incomes. Within the incomes policy we favour a centralised wage fixing system. We reject the market forces, decentralisation approach which was pursued by some sections of the former Government. I remind the Senate that the centralised wage fixing concept was endorsed by all State Ministers for labour at a conference which was held in May this year. I am not quite sure how the Premiers would react to the mishmash of ideas and concepts spraying around in the Opposition at the moment. The incomes policy is a feature of the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is our strategy to reduce inflation and unemployment simultaneously, instead of the old so-called 'fight inflation first' policy which we had to put up with for five or seven years. That policy was bankrupt. The central strategy of fighting inflation first was sales tax increases. Sales taxes were increased by record levels. Our policy is to allow controlled expansion of demand in order to boost economic activity without large inflationary pressures. The accord was an historic first. It attempted to establish, by mutual agreement, non-inflationary income settlement arrangements. It related to incomes, not just wages. I remind the Opposition that many sorts of incomes beside wages affect costs. The accord gives scope for an expansionary fiscal policy. The Government's support for centralised wage fixing and wage indexation gives wage earners confidence that the particular system will endure. It is a strategy to keep down sectional wage pressures. That is why the Government has supported quarterly wage indexation for the March and June quarters in the Arbitration Commission. Such an approach gives predictability in the wage system and, along with higher demand, gives employers more certainty about investment, production and employment decisions. Greater certainty will mean more investment. Confidence is returning amongst employers. The Government's major initiatives to date, including the National Economic Summit Conference and the currency devaluation-to give added protection from imports-have added to confidence amongst employers. Let us look at the economy as it is now. Since April this year there has been an increase in employment of 41,000. I remind the Opposition that for the same period last year the level of employment actually fell. Unemployment has been stable, in seasonally adjusted terms, for four consecutive months-that is, from April to July. Before that we had an inexorable increase month after month; the figure just went up and up. For the corresponding period last year, unemployment , in seasonally adjusted terms, rose from 6 per cent to over 10 per cent. That was a very poor record indeed. There has been a very strong increase in dwelling approvals in Australia in the last two recorded months. There was positive growth in May and June compared with the corresponding months of the previous year. Before that time there had been 19 consecutive months in which there were annual falls in dwelling approvals. The Budget has been introduced in that context. It will boost employment and give a major fiscal stimulus. The structural domestic deficit- that is, the deficit in the domestic economy excluding overseas transactions- will be much more expansionary. This shows the impact of the Budget on the economy without the effect of the economy on the Budget being brought into the calculations. The stimulus to the economy will be around $2,600m this financial year over and above last financial year. It actually moves the Budget into a positive stimulus phase rather than a contractionary situation as applied last financial year under the previous Government. The key elements of the Budget include a direct job creation program, that is, the community employment program ; a very imaginative housing scheme to boost home ownership by enabling people to borrow more money from building societies and savings banks; a program of bounties for the steel industry valued at around $70m; and a major and overdue increase in capital works programs. The Premiers Conference endorsed the overall Budget parameters. The Budget will boost employment this financial year by 1.5 per cent compared with the 1.4 per cent decline last year under the former Government. There will be a turnaround from negative employment growth to positive employment growth. One hundred and thirty thousand jobs will be created this financial year. This is the first instalment of the creation of half a million jobs over the three-year life of the Government. This Government does have a strategy to deal with unemployment. It has an incomes policy, not just a wages policy, of which the Opposition is so fond. The Government has an incomes policy, plus fiscal stimulus. The 1982-83 Budget actually withdrew funds from the economy. As I have indicated, this Budget will turn that around to the extent of $2,500m. That means that $2,500m more will be in circulation in the economy. That is the way to get the economy moving. That is the way to boost employment. That is the way to reduce the blight of unemployment. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.25) —I take a moment of the Senate's time to convey the compliments of the Australian Democrats and, I am sure all honourable senators, on this historic occasion at the arrival of a lady at the table. It is my understanding that this is the first time we have had a female Clerk and we hope it is the forerunner of many more such occasions. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator JACK EVANS —I am concerned at the tenor of the debate on the matter of public importance. I know we have heard it all before. I know we are dragging out the old rhetoric, but it concerns me that today, during one of Australia's greatest economic crises and with the worst unemployment situation we have had, the best that some people can do is to try once more to find some old scapegoats . Will we go back to the last Government and blame Howard and Fraser? Will we go back before that and blame Whitlam? Will we go back to perhaps Menzies, Chifley or Barton? How far back will we go to find a scapegoat for the present economic and employment situation? My concern is that in looking for scapegoats rather than looking for solutions-I believe there is one solution which stands out above all others-we will unfortunately continue to drag not only this Parliament apart but also the whole country and take a great risk at destroying what might become an ecomonic recovery, given some support and assistance from all sides of this Parliament. I will be quite happy to enter into the debate on the Budget in due course, at which time I will certainly make it clear that as far as the Democrats are concerned the Government has muffed its chance to improve the employment situation in the coming 12 months. We believe it could have presented a stimulating Budget last night instead of the stagnant status quo Budget which was presented. Plenty of avenues could have been entered by this Government to improve the employment situation within the next 12 months instead of asking everybody to hold his breath for another 12 months while the Government allows Australia to catch up with the rest of the world. It is fair to suggest that the Government does have an employment policy as well as a prices and incomes policy. The problem with those policies is their fragility. They will become even more fragile if we continue to denigrate the approach which the Government is taking, particularly in trying to bring together what would normally be the quite disparate approaches of employers and employees. I am worried that in bringing on this matter the Opposition may be seen in the outside world to be deliberately undermining the policy of the Government. I do not think it is in a position to do that because it is itself bereft of a policy. Its only policy on unemployment and the economy when it was in Government was to use it as a weapon to reduce inflation. The results of those policies, of course, were quite disastrous. In the context of this matter the results are self-evident. The Opposition needs to note this. Over the last couple of years average weekly earnings have increased. In 1980-81 they went up by 3.7 per cent in real terms. In 1981-82 they went up by 3.8 per cent, and in 1982-83 by 0.4 per cent. Of course the bulk of the reason for that was the wages pause. I compliment the Opposition-the Government as it was then-for introducing the wages pause, but that was the beginning and the end of its policy. There was no way of coming out of that wages pause. That was the tragedy that led to the last election because there was no policy with which to escape from the wages pause. There was no forecasting, no predicting and no planning for escape. We finished up instead going to the people and asking them either to return that Government and possibly to follow the same policy after that election, or to elect a new government of a different complexion which would follow with a new policy. The people have chosen a government with a different approach. I am suggesting that the Senate needs to be conscious of the potential harm that it can do not just to the Government but to the policies which may get Australia out of its economic recession. If this policy remains intact-there is a possibility that it may-we can avoid the excessive increases in wages. I am the first to acknowledge that those excessive increases would cost jobs. On the other hand excessive constraint would equally cost jobs because the restraint would lead undoubtedly to industrial pressures. It would lead to strikes and to the Opposition doing what it did in Government, would honourable senators believe, and going overseas and preaching to the world that this is a country on which one cannot rely because of its industrial record. That was tragic for us. Speaking as a Western Australian senator, I can assure honourable senators that even when our Premier went overseas and talked to overseas customers about the effects of industrial disharmony in this country, he created the atmosphere which led to our loss of iron ore orders this year. It is time that we all behaved as Australians and stopped this bickering, this nonsense which unfortunately is communicated overseas once we get into an industrial conflict situation. We should endeavour to create industrial harmony. It is said that politicians follow the people rather than lead the people. Well , we have an example to follow. We have employers and employees working in harmony. They are willing to sit down and work out a prices and incomes policy with the Government. They are willing to support such policies. Far be it for this Senate to destroy the harmony which has been created as a result of the National Economic Summit Conference. Far be it for us to break up the harmony which is coming out of the current approach to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Let us recognise the impact that uncertainty will create on those people who are seeking the harmony which will allow this economy to recover. Let us look at the impact on small businesses. They need certainty. They need good industrial relations. They do not need the implementation of government policies which intrude on the good relationships between employers and employees, and they demonstrated this last year when they fought against the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bureau. They do not want Government interference. They are capable of getting on with the job on their own. I believe that the prices and incomes policy of the Government does have a chance of maintaining the sort of harmony which has been building up in the first few months of this year. The desperate need is for predictability. I am sure I speak not just for small business but also for large businesses. We need to be able to plan in small and large businesses. The creation of the Economic Planning Advisory Council may contribute towards that ability to plan. There is a potential now for us to work with at least a degree of certainty provided we do not cause unnecessary disruptions, provided we do not create an aura of uncertainty. The Government's wages policies, as implied in the Budget, are not all that I would like to see in terms of both wage justice and economic stimulation. I believe there are better ways of getting the economy going. For instance, if this Government were really interested in wage justice it would fight the unions for an approach to plateau indexation instead of succumbing meekly to the unions ' opposition to this approach. It would then have the opportunity to see justice done across the Australian economy, not just vis-a-vis business and unions but between highly paid workers and low income workers. The potential would exist for injecting the sort of economic stimulus where it is needed to help low income earners and to obtain economic justice for the workers of this country. The Government has to take that suggestion on board. It has to be willing to stand up to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it has to be willing to set new parameters. It has indicated its willingness in terms of pensioners and disadvantaged people. It is willing to set new parameters, new guidelines, for all other sections of the community, but it is timid in its approach to the unions. I appeal to the government to recognise the justice in plateau indexation. My final appeal is to both the Opposition and the Government. The Opposition's approach has been either to use the sledge-hammer or do nothing. In government it used the sledge-hammer approach when it belted the unions and it used the do- nothing approach when it allowed the laissez-faire market to increase wages dramatically over a period, matching the 1974 Whitlam era in the damage that it did to the economy. Then it returned to the sledge-hammer approach and belted the unions because they obtained increases for their members way above what the economy could cope with. Regrettably, the Opposition never had a prices and income policy when it was in government. It introduced the interim measure of the wages pause but gave no indicators as to how and when it would end. This Government came into office with an appeal for consensus. It got the support of the unions, the employers and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It now needs the support only of this Parliament. I therefore appeal to the Opposition to give that support in an attempt to gain consensus. The Opposition should not become isolated, as its attempts today have indicated it is willing to be, simply to score political points. Let us get the members of this Parliament, this Senate, working together in an endeavour to make both the economy and the wages policy, the income and prices policy, which are so desperately needed for this country, work and then increase employment. Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.38) -Today the Senate is debating this matter of public importance: The Government's adoption of wages policies which will increase unemployment. There is probably no more serious and worrying matter that the Opposition could raise. It is a pity that Senator Jack Evans believes that the matter was raised simply for political point scoring. This is quite incorrect, particularly when one considers the tragic circumstances currently facing the unemployed in this country. The issue is unemployment-jobs, jobs, jobs, as Premier Wran said at the recent National Economic Summit Conference. Unemployment stands at 10.3 per cent, about the highest level since the 1930s. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are out of work. The last figure I saw showed that 718,700 of Australia's most valuable resource were unemployed. When one assesses not only what these people could be contributing to the economic growth and strength of the nation but also the cost involved when a huge proportion of Australia's population requires to be supported, and reasonably so , the immensity of the problem and the loss facing this country can be realised. It is not just an economic problem; it is a social problem. The social instability of a generation of unemployed, hundreds of thousands of disappointed , disillusioned, disheartened and distressed Australians, is yet to be measured. What do those people see? They see this Government, upon which many pinned their hopes, going to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and saying that it supports wage rises for all those employed, proportionate to increases in their cost of living. What the Government is not saying is that it supports such rises notwithstanding the effect upon the unemployed. It is therefore saying either that its action will not affect the chances of the unemployed getting work or that it does not care. I think we accept the Government's motive to be the former. One must think that the Government must care. No Australian who is employed could be unconcerned at the totally unacceptable level of unemployment which exists currently in the community. The argument of the Government is that its wages policy will not detrimentally affect the unemployed or the potential unemployed, and let us not forget the potential unemployed. Many Australians who are in work at the moment are worried about their employment future, and they have reason to worry. Talk of the recession being over is premature. I remind the Senate of a survey recently compiled by the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia and the Commonwealth Bank, which was referred to in an article in the Australian of 2 August. The article stated that the survey was 'a sobering reminder of the difficulties now facing the economy'. The article continued: The survey points to a number of economic indicators in the metal sector which demonstrate that the industry, which is in many ways an economic pace-setter, may not yet have hit bottom. The policy of this Government is inconsistent with the best prospects of the potentially unemployed to keep their jobs. In the same way, it is inconsistent with the best prospects of those unemployed to obtain jobs. I remind the Senate that Australia relies on trade for 30 per cent of its gross domestic product. To trade successfully we must be competitive. Our inflation rate was 11.2 per cent as at the June quarter. That of our trading partners, taken at the same time, is, on average, 5.6 per cent. Some of our major trading partners, such as Japan, have a much lower rate-approximately one-quarter of our inflation rate. Indexed wage rises will play a significant part of inflationary growth. The Government's policy is therefore inconsistent with strengthening our trading position as far as that relates to employment and to creating and safeguarding jobs. The wage freeze initiated by the former Government was never seen as an end in itself. It was seen as an important part of a package to enhance competitiveness , a realisation that, to stay in the market, costs had to be reduced and/or productivity improved. One major cost was labour. Thus Australians were asked- they responded readily-to be prepared to make small sacrifices and to realise that in a recession they must expect less or they would simply put themselves or their work mates out of business. As I said, Australians responded admirably, and a number of gallup polls have indicated that Australians are prepared to sacrifice further. Regrettably, certain union leaders have been unable to see what is so obvious and they locked the present Government into indexation as a trade-off for political support at the last election. Indexation does not take into account profitability or the ability to pay, and in the last few years firms have been unable to maintain profit levels. On a ratio basis of wages to costs, between 1980-81 and 1981-82 there was an increase from 65.7 to 66.3. Profit to cost fell from 14.7 to 13.9. Declining profit levels mean that firms have less operating surplus available for investment from internal funds. Continuing high interest rates have limited the borrowing alternative. What happens is that previously intended investment expenditure is shelved, stocks are allowed to run down, and pressure exists on payroll costs. I remind the Senate that profit share was higher a decade ago. In pressing its indexation policy this Government has failed to appreciate that increased employment prospects are linked to improved business profitability. I ask whether members of the Government have read the Government's Budget statements. If one looks at page 66 of Budget Paper No. 1, it reminds one of the difficulties we face. It states: Business fixed investment is projected to fall again in 1983-84 at about the same rate as the very sharp decline of 14 per cent recorded in 1982-83. The forecast reflects the view that, given current low levels of capacity utilisation, business wil be cautious in responding to the pickup in activity and improved profitability in the face of high real rates of interest and uncertainties about wage moderation, international competitiveness and the durability of the recovery. We are far from out of our difficulties. There has been room for some restraint on the average worker without undue suffering. Why is that? It is because from about early 1980 until the commencement of the wage pause last year the average increase in weekly earnings had significantly exceeded the increase in the consumer price index. This is part of the explanation for the lower corporate profitability to which I just referred. In 1980-81 average weekly earnings increased by 13.5 per cent whilst the CPI increased by 9.4 per cent. In the following year, 1981-82, average weekly earnings increased by 14.6 per cent as against a 10.4 per cent increase in the CPI. Whilst no one wants to trim an improving standard of living, the sacrifice has not been as great as the Government wants us to believe. Where do we go now? The long term beneficial effects of continued wage restraint via an extended wage pause were confirmed in the information provided to participants at the National Economic Summit Conference. The Senate will recall that of the three economic scenarios presented to the Summit it was scenario C, which in part encompassed an extension of the pause until April 1984 , which provided the best results for the economy in terms of lowest inflation, highest profit shares, highest gross domestic profit growth, strongest private investment activity and, most importantly, lowest unemployment. But the Government could not accede to scenario C, let alone the call by the late Sir Keith Campbell for even greater wage restraint, because it was locked into its indexation deal with the unions. It was its part of the 'industrial peace in our time' bargain. Now the Government is before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commision arguing for full indexation. But it has already been caught out. In accordance with scenario A it envisaged a wage rise of about 3 per cent over the remainder of 1983. So in the lead-up to the national wage case it said to the Commission: In the light of its assessment of the national economy . . . the Government considers that the economy can only sustain a national wage rise in the second half of 1983 in the order of 3 to 4 per cent without serious detrimental effects . But the March and June quarters CPI figures have compounded to 4.3 per cent which, not surprisingly, the Government has accepted. That emphasises the extent to which the Government is locked into its no compromise position notwithstanding the damage it causes to the economy and to the unemployed. Last night's Budget, which has built CPI increases into the excise structure, can only compound the matter further. It is of regret that the Federal Government will not heed its colleagues in New South Wales who are opposed to full wage indexation and who expressed concern that the system would collapse because the economy could not yet afford full indexation. The Australian Financial Review of 21 July, which in turn was quoting the New South Wales Government advocate, stated: What we fear is that the guarantee now of full indexation simply may not be capable of being sustained and there is no surety yet of economic growth. The Government would do well to reassess the benefits of the wage pause it is so keen to abandon. I remind the Senate that the wage pause had two purposes. The first was to ensure sufficient time for firms to recover profit levels which had fallen to an historic low, as I have indicated. There has been insufficient time , although there have been positive steps in the right direction with the growth of wages in the June quarter falling to one per cent. The second purpose was to allow money saved through the wage pause to be applied in employment creating programs. The Sydney Morning Herald of 18 July 1983 reminded us that money diverted as a result of the wage pause had allowed a total of 4,597 jobs to be opened up from money that was originally earmarked for federal public servants. I remind the Government of that because positive job creation has come out of this wage pause that the Government so readily wishes to condemn. The Labor Government would do well to look at the experience of wage indexation elsewhere. France has recently abandoned indexation as a failure. In France, as in the United States of America, West Germany and Japan, wage indexation is not part of the wage negotiating process. Examining that, the Australian Financial Review of 25 May stated: Even the most cursory of examinations of OECD experience with these matters shows the ACTU demand for a return to full wage indexation to be the dreamiest of pipe dreams. It is precisely these nations, out trading partners, who are now, in the face of economic reality and logic, refusing to adopt indexation into their wage fixing procedures. Instead they accept a vital link between money wage growth and productivity increases, which in turn impacts upon their international competitiveness. The Australian Financial Review editorial of 25 May stated: As a small trading nation we do not have the luxury of adopting a head-in-the- sand or emu-like posture on these matters. We cannot ignore what out trading partners are doing on the wage front . . . the ACTU must accept the inexorable logic of our current plight. A return to full wage indexation would be economic madness. The editorial in today's Australian Financial Review brings me back to where I started, that is, with the New South Wales Premier. It states: While the central problem of economic policy ought to be, as the NSW Premier put it at the summit, ''jobs, jobs, jobs,'' there is no doubt that the central pre-occupation of this Budget and the Government's economic policy so far has been wages, wages, wages. The Government has called for sacrifices, the community is prepared to make sacrifices but it is of great regret that the Government's preoccupation with increasing wages of those employed can only at this time further disappoint those who need support more-the unemployed and potentially unemployed. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.52) —Since Senator Robert Hill concluded his remarks by quoting from a number of editorials in the Australian Financial Review and the Sydney Morning Herald, I hope that when the debate on the Budget comes before the Senate he will accept the opinion of those editorial writers that it was a good Budget, a strong sound ahead for economic growth Budget for Australia, and that he will not selectively quote those parts of the editorial that he chose to use in his argument. I take some solace from the fact that he resorts to those editorials as though they are definitive judgments. When the Budget debate comes around, I hope he will not retreat from that view. Senator Hill —We are talking about the Government's wages policy, not its Budget . Senator COOK —We are talking about the Budget. The editorial in the Australian Financial Review from which Senator Hill quoted was about the Budget and it delivered a verdict of approval for this Government. However, most of the speeches in the debate today have had an air of deja vu about them; we have been there before. Nothing new has really been said by the Opposition, which is the tragedy that Senator Jack Evans pointed out about the contributions made by the speakers from the other side of the House. Obviously, the rule that is being followed by Opposition speakers in this debate is: 'If you have nothing to say, trot out the old cliches and have a bash. That might at least cover the fact that there is really nothing serious that you can comment on'. Whilst many things can be said about the speeches made by Opposition senators, I will concentrate my remarks, on behalf of the Government, on about four areas. As I have said, we have heard a replay of the old record: Blame wages and unions for the level of unemployment and then pretend that if something is done about that all problems will be resolved. That is a simplistic view. My colleague Senator Maguire dealt quite extensively with that in terms of macro-economic policy and I do not propose to dwell on it, except to say that the Fraser Government, of which honourable senators opposite were members, was responsible in the seven years of its office for increasing unemployment in this country by 100 per cent. It seems to me odd that, after six months of Hawke Government, they should say that our wages policy will create unemployment. After all we the Opposition had seven years to employ a wages policy and unemployment has doubled as I have indicated. It is from those who created the problems with which the Hawke Labor Government is grappling that we get criticism and the claim that we will fail. It seems that the Opposition does not really have a defence on that argument. We will not adopt the economic policies of the Liberal Party; we will pursue the economic policies of the Australian Labor Party for which we have a mandate. I do not think it is useful for the Opposition to continue to argue that its economic policies of the past carry any sustainable evidence of creating employment. Empirically they do not. The second area I want to comment on is that essentially there has been an attack which has ignored the fact that the Government has a mandate from the electorate to pursue an income policy. That mandate was achieved in two forms. As I have said before in other debates in this House, it was achieved firstly by the electorate voting for a Labor Government after it was clearly aware of the content, even though somewhat misrepresented by the Opposition in the election campaign, of the prices and income accord. Secondly, it was achieved because the accord was supported at the National Economic Summit Conference. That Summit represented a supportive view of all major sectors of Australian industry and commerce and all other sections necessary to seek and find a consensus of approach in this country in getting a resurgence of the economy. It seems to me that what has been overlooked by the Opposition is that the quite reasonable proposition which underpinned the deliberations of the National Economic Summit was a recognition that in order for Australia to manage its way out of recession restraint needed to be shown on all sides and that that restraint should take the form of a recognition that there needed to be an equality of sacrifice. I do not want to harp on the record of the Opposition in this House, but when it introduces a proposition such as this the point ought to be made that it was the Opposition in this Parliament that voted against the bottom of the harbour legislation. Here we are talking about an economic scenario that involves equality of sacrifice and here we have an Opposition which voted against legislation to recover money lost to revenue by tax avoidance and allowed those who have avoided their taxes to go free. At the same time the Opposition says to workers in this country: 'Restrain your incomes'. The Opposition is holding up by its example an argument on workers to say that they will not do as they are required but will do as the Liberal Party suggests and go out and achieve in the economy as best they can. They would say: 'Let us not follow the line of equality of sacrifice. If it is good enough for the Liberal Party to oppose bottom of the harbour legislation then it is good enough for us to maximise our wage claims'. I think the Opposition should consider seriously the example it sets in economic conduct before it starts preaching to other sections of the community what the conduct should be. The other area in which the Opposition's performance is, to say the least, a little patchy, is that during the recess a number of Opposition spokesmen criticised the Government on the withholding tax. This is another area in which taxes have not been paid. The obligations required of all wage and salary earners should be fully met but they have not been met in the cash economy. So in giving a principal foundation for conducting a reasonable discourse over the issue of wages and employment it seems to me that the conduct of the Opposition in the bottom of the harbour and withholding tax areas cannot be ignored for the example it sets for other sections of the community. Let me turn to a third area. Senator Chaney, in opening the attack for the Opposition, dwelt on this matter to some extent. He tried to argue that a swallow proves the coming of spring by citing a number of areas in which wage settlements and wage adjustments could be described as sectional claims. The first thing that can be said about all of those areas to which he referred is not original to me. In immediate rebuke Senator Button pointed out that all of those wage settlements will go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for scrutiny. In terms of a national wage case decision, obviously they will be held up to the criteria brought down by the bench on that occasion. In Question Time this morning Senator Chaney inferred that the whole of the food industry would be subject to an outbreak of wage claims following the H. J. Heinz and Co. Australia Ltd settlement. At least that was the implication. I think that that is trying to pretend again that a swallow makes a spring. The Secretary of the union concerned indicated to the Australian Financial Review in the article from which Senator Chaney quoted that the settlement would not flow on to the rest of the food industry. For the record, the Heinz factory employs 400 people. There are 162,095 workers in the whole of the food industry. The 400 employed by Heinz represent only 2.4 per cent. I do not think it can be said that if 2.4 per cent of workers in the food industry receive a wage increase which, according to the Secretary of their own union, will not flow on to the rest of the industry, the whole industry is involved in a wages breakout in terms of the accord. If we want to set the hares running I could make the ridiculous comparison that those 400 people represent .0064 per cent of the entire Australian work force. The Opposition has also identified the building industry as one of unrest because the Australian Workers Union and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia have filed wage claims to pick up the building trades settlement. The thing that has to be said about the building trades settlement is that clearly its conditions have not finally been determined and the Government will intervene before the Commission in the public interest to put its views. But, on the credit side, the settlement seems to have tied up all unions in a two-year agreement which will bring some peace to the blighted building industry for at least that time and allow, in the economic regrowth under the policies of this Government, some consistency of approach in an industry which has been dispute- ridden in the past. Demarcation problems and others that have blighted previous practitioners in the field of industrial relations are involved in that agreement. Hopefully, that will mean a much greater degree of peace in the building industry than we have seen before. Again, the Government will appear before the Arbitration Commission. The terms of that agreement are such that the agreement will go before the Arbitration Commission for ratification. I could go to other areas that have been referred to but the story is the same. Certainly there have been negotiated changes in wages in other industries but in each case they ended up before the Commission to which this Government can appeal and before which this Government has already made its position clear in the national wage case. The Australian Government, in dealing with the possibility of sectional wage claims being promoted in the national wage case, has asked the Commission to bring down a decision whereby unions which accept the national wage case increase will have to agree to comply with the guidelines of the decision or they will not get the increase. The Victorian Government has gone a bit further and asked unions to sign a declaration to that effect. But the Australian Council of Trade Unions, on behalf of unions, has indicated that it supports a declaration of that nature. Thus we have, from the union side, at least from the ACTU, a commitment to comply with the guidelines. That submission has been supported by the Australian Government. The argument attempting to be sustained in talking up the image of a wages breakout from the accord is empirically, on the facts, not sustainable. I find it surprising that, from a party-- Senator Chaney —I hope you are right. Senator COOK —That is the record. I have the figures here. I am happy to discuss them with Senator Chaney in this forum or any other forum. It comes as more than passing strange from a party which has stated publicly that it does not have a wages policy, that it should make those criticisms of a government that does. The Government is operating an orderly policy which, in the very few minutes left to me, I will talk about. Our policy provides predictability in the area of wage fixation. It is a basic tenet of industrial relations that where there is uncertainty and anxiety on the part of workers, they go out militantly to protect their interests. That is the nature of the market form of wage approach which it seems Mr Howard favours. Our system, under the accord of industrial relations, provides a degree of predictability that reasonable expectations will be met and thus absolve workers from the inducements to take industrial action which is inherent in the system advocated by the Opposition. The primacy of the predictability, the certainty about the future-that wages will rise according to prices-is essentially what underpins the approach of the Government. Our Budget has set down a series of measures which by themselves will lead to slow-ahead but steady growth. It is from growth based on a sound and predictable, well understood and clear wages policy that industry can plan and start to develop, in terms of where the real jobs will come from. While this Government has made a very strong allocation of funds for job creation, the strategy of the Budget is to rely not on that short run mechanism but on a system in which there can be overall growth in industry and real long term sustainable jobs can be developed. I conclude by saying that the Liberal Party should keep two questions in mind when next it contemplates bringing this matter before us as one of public importance. The first question is: What would its policy have been, if it had followed the wages pause, when that pause ended. The question of how one transfers from a pause of the sort that it advocates to a normal area of wage fixation is critical and our policy addresses that matter correctly. I make the point that in 1974-75 nearly four million man days were lost in Australia as we transferred from a system of wage fixing to the centralised system under wage indexation brought in about March-April 1975. There have been far fewer disputes since. The sorts of disputes that have been cited by speakers from the Opposition are those which can best be described as transitional problems, as we move from one form of wage fixing to another. We never though that it would be perfect. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.7) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT BILL 1983 The Ombudsman Act 1976, which came into operation in July 1977, was the result of bi-partisan support for the proposal that there should be an Ombudsman with jurisdiction over the administrative actions of Commonwealth Government agencies . Legislation to establish the office was an initiative of the Whitlam Labor Government, carried forward by the succeeding Government. In a similar way the present Bill exemplifies the bi-partisan approach to Ombudsman legislation; it is substantially the same as the Ombudsman Amendment Bill introduced in the last Parliament by the previous Government which was designed in accordance with recommendations of the Administrative Review Council , a statutory advisory body set up under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. This Government has undertaken to be closely guided by the Administrative Review Council in further developing the administrative review system. The present Bill instances that undertaking and provides a development and expansion of the Ombudsman's role. The Bill has two purposes. First, it will create and confer on the Commonwealth Ombudsman a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman. Second, it will amend the Ombudsman Act in the light of operational experience to date. Defence Force Ombudsman The proposal to create a Defence Force Ombudsman with jurisdiction to investigate administrative actions related to or arising from a person's service in the Defence Force, had its origin in the platform of the last Labor Government. Legislation to establish the office lapsed in 1975, though an interim office of Defence Force Ombudsman has continued to operate in the Department of Defence since that time. In 1979 the previous Government requested that the Administrative Review Council examine the proposal. Its report was tabled of 4 July 1981 and the present Bill reflects its conclusions. The Bill proposes that the office of Defence Force Ombudsman, although being established within the Ombudsman Act as a complement to the Ombudsman's general jurisdiction, should be identifiable and distinct. In particular, the Bill provides for a Deputy Ombudsman (Defence Force) to be designated to perform the day to day work of the Defence Force jurisdiction. Recognising the importance of this new position for the Defence Forces, before a Deputy Ombudsman is approved or designated for the Defence Force jurisdiction, the Prime Minister will consult with the Minister for Defence. While the creation of the new statutory Defence Force jurisdiction will result in some extra costs, notably the salary (approximately $50,350 pa) of the new deputy ombudsman, establishing the jurisdiction within the Ombudsman's office will avoid administrative duplication and ensure that it is effectively exercised at minimum cost. The creation of a statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman will provide an important advance in the conditions of employment for service members. Serviceman and women differ from most other Australians in that their relations with their employers can extend into almost every aspect of their lives. It is in the nature of Defence Force service that members do not have the advantage of external grievance mechanisms typical in civil employment. With the creation of a Defence Force Ombudsman an independent avenue for the review of grievances will be established. The Defence Force Ombudsman's function is to investigate, either on complaint being made or of his own motion, administrative actions related to or arising from a person's service in the Defence Force. Although most complaints will come from current or former service members, other persons, such as their dependants, will also be able to lodge complaints if they are affected by actions which are within the Defence Force Ombudsman's jurisdiction. In recognition of service members' special position, the Defence Force Ombudsman's jurisdiction is defined by service in the Defence Force, whereas the Commonwealth Ombudsman is excluded from investigating matters arising in Commonwealth civilian employment. There are, however, some exclusions from the proposed jurisdiction which parallel exclusions from the Commonwealth Ombudsman' s existing jurisdiction. In addition, the Defence Force Obudsman is excluded from investigating action taken in the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, and action relating to the grant or refusal of most honours and awards though not, for example, campaign medals. Review by the Defence Force Ombudsman will complement, rather than compete with , existing internal redress procedures: for effective management in the Defence Force, officers should usually hear and have the first opportunity to remedy the grievances of those under their command. The legislation applies most of the procedural provisions in the Ombudsman Act to the Defence Force Ombudsman-such as those concerning the conduct of investigations. As well, transitional provisions in the Bill provide for the transfer to the statutory office of Defence Force Ombudsman any unfinished business of the interim non-statutory office. Other Provisions The remainder of the Bill makes a number of amendments to the Ombudsman Act based on the Ombudsman's operational experience to date, drawing on the review by the Administrative Review Council. The full report of that review was tabled in the House on 23 September last year. The main theme to these amendments is that the Ombudsman, an independent officer with the statutory formal duties and powers essential to vigorous investigation and reporting of defective administration, should normally operate less formally than is appropriate for other administrative review mechanisms, such as courts and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Accordingly, several amendments are made which give the Ombudsman greater discretions and flexibility by modifying procedural requirements in the Act. In particular, the Bill includes amendments which: recognise that the Ombudsman may accept and resolve oral complaints (unless there is a need to investigate formally); simplify the Ombudsman's discretion not to formally investigate certain complaints; streamline the requirements for the Ombudsman to notify the Minister and agency head of his decision whether to investigate a complaint; and give legislative backing to the Ombudsman's practice of making informal inquiries. This last amendment will also clarify that the Ombudsman may inquire informally to establish that a matter is within his jurisdiction before investigating formally. In amendments which are similarly to facilitate his role in encouraging better and more accessible administration, the Bill also gives the Ombudsman greater discretion to disseminate information or comments on his investigations to Commonwealth agencies, the Parliament, other people with an interest in the outcome of investigations (for example, Parliamentarians) and, where special circumstances so warrant, to the public at large. Other amendments variously strengthen or widen the Ombudsman's role in line with developing practice and the intention of the Ombudsman legislation. These amendments will: provide a sounder statutory basis for co-operative investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman and his counterparts in the States and Northern Territory where both Commonwealth and State or Territory activities or undertakings are involved; empower the Federal Court to determine issues that may arise in relation to the Ombudsman's powers and jurisdiction; expand the circumstances in which the Ombudsman can cause matters to come before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and clarify certain doubts that have arisen regarding the Ombudsman's jurisdiction over particular types of action, including administrative action leading up to or following action by a Minister, and jurisdiction over particular types of Commonwealth bodies. More detailed information on the provisions of the Bill is set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I commend the Bill to the House. OMBUDSMAN (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 This Bill makes amendments, primarily to the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, which complement the provisions of the Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983. The Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 in part provides for the independent investigation by the Ombudsman of complaints against the Australian Federal Police. The Act provides a role for the Ombudsman in relation to complaints, substantially similar to that in the Ombudsman Act 1976. Parallel amendment of both Acts is desirable to ensure basic uniformity in the Ombudsman' s powers and duties in relation to complaints. The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated provides more detailed information on the manner in which amendments to the Ombudsman Act have been reflected in this specific complaints jurisdiction. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 62 MR PRESIDENT, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: That paragraph (14) of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform be omitted and that the following paragraph be substituted: (14) That the committee report by 15 September 1983. J. A. JENKINS SPEAKER House of Representatives, Canberra, 23 August 1983 Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: (1) That the Senate concurs in the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 62 of the House of Representatives relating to an extension of time for the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform to report. (2) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent such senators as are members of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform attending a meeting of the Committee during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday 25 August 1983. Reference to Standing Committee Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.12) —I move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The Income Tax Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 111, and made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 4 October 1983. I do not want to speak at great length on this matter. The motion relates to the regulations which have been made with respect to the Government's new withholding tax. That is a matter which has received a great deal of public interest over the last few weeks. I think it would be well known to all honourable senators that there is widespread concern in the business community over the introduction of the withholding tax scheme. Much of the concern arises from the lack of time for businesses to become familiar with their rights and obligations under the regulations and the short amount of time which has been available to them to apply for exemptions or for variation of tax rates before the system begins. It is said by many of those who are making representations, both to the Government and to the Opposition, that employment is threatened by the precipitate introduction of this proposal. The Opposition is of course concerned at these representations and it has sought the delay of the implementation of the proposal, as indeed have the Australian Democrats and other people but the Government has indicated that it proposes to proceed to the implement the regulations from 1 September. It is prepared to make certain administrative concessions, but it wishes to proceed. I indicate why the Opposition believes that the matter should be subject to committee examination. It is of some importance because of the suggestion that businesses and hence employment are being threatened. I will go quickly through the facts. Less than one month before the introduction of the regulations, information booklets were still not widely available. The Commissioner of Taxation, in a statement dated 22 July, said: The Taxation Office anticipates that limited supplies of officially printed copies of the various papers will become available from the Taxation Offices on the following dates: General explanatory booklet and schedule of prescribed payments, 4 August 1983; Paying authority notification form, 4 August 1983; Applications for variation or exemption, 8 August 1983; Booklets of deduction forms, 8 August 1983; Explanatory booklet for householders, 18 August 1983; Bearing in mind that the new system was to commence on 1 September but the forms and the instructions issued are quite complex, it can be seen that the amount of notice given has been very limited. The Government has made a lot of the fact that about 16,000 taxpayers have applied for exemptions or reduced rate certificates and most have been approved. But the Opposition is concerned that this is a very small portion of the 300,000 or more taxpayers who will be subject to the new system. There is also widespread concern that the administrative arrangements which the Government has introduced are unnecessarily complex. The Housing Industry Association on 3 August stated: The proposed system of paper work is so complex as to confirm that the Government's advisers know absolutely nothing about the way in which a small business is run . . . Most small builders and subcontractors will now need to pay an accountant on a continuous basis adding further unwarranted costs to their businesses and hence to their price of housing. It is a fact that large companies have their lawyers and accountants who can examine and comply with new requirements. No doubt they are the taxpayers who have already lodged their exemptions and applications. Small business and individuals do not necessarily have the same facilities and ready access to all extra professional help and have to struggle, often by themselves, through what is a maze of bureaucratic red tape and very difficult forms that have only just been made available. It is understood that for those people who feel they may need to apply for an exemption, considerable costs can be involved in obtaining professional services. There is also concern over the unrealistic requirements placed on honest taxpayers to become eligible for a deduction exemption certificate. In a letter to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) dated 5 August, the Institute of Chartered Accountants wrote that it is: . . . considerably concerned that the legislation requires 'prescribed persons' to go beyond reasonable standards of either audit or professional care in the provision of declarations for the purpose of applications for deduction exemption certificates. In the light of these concerns I think it is appropriate that the Senate examine the matter and satisfy itself as to the arrangements which have been made for this method of tax collection. Finally, there is concern that while various members of the Government have acknowledged problems in the proposed system and some attempts have been made to remedy them, no serious attempt has been made to remedy all of them. Mr Hawke, the head of this Government, on 9 August was reported as saying that he and his Ministers could see that there were some elements of the proposed new tax 'that may need to be refined'. The Acting Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, said: The Government would press ahead with the tax despite fears in the building industry that it would cause widespread bankruptcy. He went on to say, rather inelegantly: Builders are always going to the wall, nothing is new about that. I do not think that comment cheered up those people who are objecting to the tax . Mr Hawke is also reported as saying: . . . the Government had the choice of waiting either until it had 'some perfect completely acceptable system on the one hand' and allowing in that context hundreds of millions of dollars to be avoided, or going out and tackling it immediately and then 'refining it as you go along'. The Opposition is heartened to see yesterday's announcement by the Commissioner of Taxation that was brought into the Senate by Senator Walsh yesterday in Question Time. The announcement allows for a two-month breathing space in processing applications for exemptions under the new system. The Opposition believes that a public examination of this matter will provide an opportunity for the Government, the Taxation Office and those who are concerned about the administration of the tax to put the facts before the Senate so that the matter can be examined. I anticipate that in the event that the Committee examination shows continuing real difficulties in the administration of the tax of a sort which poses real difficulties for people who are in business and trying to maintain employment in Australia, the Government and the Commissioner would look further at the administrative arrangements. That is a matter on which, I suppose , the Government can give no prior assurance but I express the hope that the Committee examination would be positive in that sense. I had indicated an intention to give notice of motion to disallow the regulations which have been made under the Act. I have not done so. Instead, I seek in the motion to have a report from the Committee by 4 October, which is within the time permitted for notice of disallowance to be given. No decision has been taken by the Opposition to disallow the regulations. It believes that the principle of the withholding tax is one which it should support. However, it is concerned that the administration of the withholding tax should be in accordance with the views which it held in Government and which it still holds; namely, that it should not be cumbersome and difficult for people who are honest taxpayers and it should not impose unnecessary administrative burdens on taxpayers. We will make our judgment on the matter in light of the facts which emerge from the Committee's inquiry. I commend the motion to the Senate and hope that the Committee will make a speedy examination of this matter and report back to us. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.22) —I want to make a clear distinction between a proposal to refer this matter for study by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and the campaign which has been waged, if not by Senator Chaney himself then certainly by some of his more primitive Western Australian and other colleagues. I refer to the campaign of distortion and misrepresentation against this legislation which, I emphasise, was forecast in a more severe form by the former Treasurer more than a year ago. The Government has no objection to the Committee conducting the proposed examination and will therefore not oppose the motion. However, we do so with the proviso and in the expectation that the sword of Damocles, the disallowance of the essential regulations, is not to be held over the implementation of the Act proclaimed last June. It would obviously be intolerable if, at the same time as the pre-payments are actually being collected and source deductions are being made and transferred into a Taxation Office account, there were any doubt as to whether the regulations under which those source deductions were being made and paid to the Taxation Office were endangered ultimately in the Senate. I know that there are legal precedents and even if the regulations were disallowed by the Senate the Government could immediately re-issue them. They would remain valid until such time as the Senate again disallowed them, but the Government regards it as quite intolerable that the effective enforcement of an Act already passed by this Parliament should be held under threat when it is actually in operation. I seek from at least two non -government senators an assurance that the regulations will not be disallowed. On the understanding that the regulations would not be disallowed, yesterday I gave to Senator Chipp in the Senate an undertaking on behalf of the Government that if the Senate Finance and Government Operations Committee study, which was then proposed and for which Senator Chaney has now moved a motion, uncovered clear anomolies or administrative shortcomings in the application of those rules and the effective enforcement of an Act of this Parliament the Government would act accordingly. That has been completely consistent with the attitude the Government has taken all along on this matter-that is, that our objective is to stamp out tax evasion in the industries concerned, as it is to stamp out tax evasion generally. We were at all times willing to review the operation of the legislation and accompanying regulations if it could be shown that it could be administered more efficiently. Likewise, we were willing to review the rates and the notification threshold. I make that clear distinction between not opposing a committee examination of this question and the opportunistic hypocrisy of many members of the present Opposition. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey ) is to my knowledge the most startling or most disgraceful example of the type of opposition which has come from some members of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) probably runs him a close second. I want to set some facts straight in response to the misrepresentations and the spurious and ill-informed arguments which have been advanced on this question. It has been asserted that when the previous Government forecast the introduction of this system more than a year ago it had led people to believe, or it had been understood, that it would be an easy matter-indeed, virtually a formality-to obtain an exemption certificate. I quote from the information paper distributed by the former Treasurer on 17 August last year in which, amongst other things, he said: In recognition of the fact that there will be business taxpayers receiving prescribed payments who can demonstrate that they have clearly maintained a satisfactory level of compliance with income tax law, provision is to be made in the new system for such a payee to be granted a certificate authorising a payer to make payments without any deduction of tax. The important points now follow: Among the tests that a payee would have to satisfy to obtain exemption would be that he or she has been in business for a significant period during which time a satisfactory taxation record has in all respects been maintained, that the business is carried on from established business premises and that all financial transactions of the business are conducted through a bank account separate from any private or domestic account or accounts. That is what is said in the information paper that was distributed by the previous Treasurer more than a year ago. Those same conditions still apply. I would like to return to Senator Chaney's motion that this matter be examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I think that such a proposal could have some real value in another respect. It may have some value in exposing the previous abuse of taxation laws in the industries concerned. I note that the West Australian newspaper of 18 August reports a meeting held in Perth the previous day and the comments of a Mr Jack Furey, the President of the Western Australia Sub-Contract Bricklayers Association. Mr Furey is reported as having said that because of the introduction of this source deduction system it would be necessary for the contract rates paid to sub- contract bricklayers to be increased by 5 per cent. On the assumption that no tax evasion was previously involved, given the fact that all that is required by the new Act and its consequential regulations is that a maximum amount of 10 per cent of the payment made to the sub-contract bricklayer in this case-I stress the words 'a maximum of 10 per cent'-would be lodged with the Taxation Office by the payer as a credit against the sub-contract bricklayer's ultimate tax liability, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to support the assertion that the contract price would have to be increased by 5 per cent. But Mr Furey was even more illuminating in a subsequent comment. The newspaper report stated: Mr Furey said sub-contractors also had to deduct 10 per cent of payments made to people working for them. Bearing in mind that the case outlined is that of a sub-contract bricklayer who has employed other people, the prima facie case is that these employees should always have been subject to full pay as you earn tax deductions. The prima facie assessment of this report is that the fears expressed by Mr Furey are compatible with a tax evading situation but they are not compatible with the legislation which has been passed and which will come into operation on 1 February. There seems to me to be a very strong prima facie case for the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to call Mr Furey as a witness to explain how he and other sub-contract bricklayers dealt with the tax liabilities of their employees-that is, the people who actually have the trowel and lay the bricks-in the past. Such an investigation might have considerable value. Before closing, I want to make two or three other points. With respect to the spurious and/or ill-informed arguments which have been used in this campaign to have the Government delay the introduction of the legislation which I stress was forecast albeit in a somewhat harsher form by the previous Government, a Housing Industry Association letter of 3 August argued that while supporting the Government's objective of eliminating tax evasion in the building and other industries, the method chosen by the Government was flawed. Senator Chipp —What was that? Senator WALSH —Flawed; not 'fraud' but 'flawed'. It was asserted by the HIA that a notification system would be adequate as distinct from a source deduction system. Some paragraphs later in the same letter the HIA asserted that as a result of the introduction of the source deduction tax a phoney system of owner- builders would develop within the industry-that is, people would call themselves owner-builders and engage their own sub-contractors. Instead of engaging a master-builder, a normal householder would call himself an owner-builder and engage his own sub-contractors thereby escaping the necessity to deduct portion of the tax liability at source but comply with the obligation to notify the Taxation Office. According to the Housing Industry Association letter of 3 August this would still leave the industry wide open, under the owner-builders loophole, to tax evasion. So it was proposed in this letter that a notification system would fail when applied to owner-builders but would succeed if applied to the entire industry-a proposition which I found difficult to accept. I want to state two other facts. The legislation originally forecast by the former Treasurer was to provide for a maximum-I stress this-of a 25 per cent deduction as against the 10 per cent deduction in the Act finally passed by the Parliament and for private householders a threshold of mandatory notification of $3,000 per construction job as against the $10,000 notification threshold finally adopted by the Government. Whether the judgment used by this Government or the previous Government on those matters was more correct is something that I believe only experience with the operation of the Act will reveal. Senator Chaney —It could be that more of the abuse is at the lower end of the scale. Senator WALSH —That is a matter of judgment. I have said and other members of the Government have said that if experience suggested that there should be a lower notification threshold than $1000 the Government would alter that threshold accordingly. But that is something which, by definition, cannot be stated with any certainty in advance. Nor, of course, can it be judged within the next month in any informed way by the Senate Committee. In closing, I indicate that we do not oppose the proposition to refer this to the Committee. But the Government is seeking a guarantee from at least two non- Government members in the Senate that the threat of disallowance of the regulations which would place the administration of this law in a completely untenable position will be removed. We are seeking a guarantee from at least two non-Labor senators that the regulations will not be disallowed. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader Australian Democrats)(4.36) —The Australian Democrats also support the motion moved by the Leader Opposition (Senator Chaney ). It looks as though the Senate will have a unanimous vote on this question because the Government also is wisely supporting this reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. What are we talking about? We are talking about a proposition to prevent disclosed tax evaders from avoiding, and to make tax evaders who are operating in the cash economy pay, their just taxes. This proposal was first put by Mr Howard on behalf of the Liberal Party, over a year ago. That proposal was put in a much more severe form than the proposal now before the Parliament. Any ojections that any member of the Liberal Party of Australia might have towards the present proposal will ring a little hollow because, as I understand it, that proposal in a more severe form in fact was agreed to by the Liberal Party over a year ago. I commend Mr Howard. I commend the Liberal Party for taking action to attack one of the most vexed questions of tax evasion-namely, the black economy, the cash economy. I was informed by a reputable economist last week of the shocking estimate of tax evasion in this country-something like $9 billion or $10 billion a year. I find that figure almost incomprehensible because, after all, it is more than the current deficit. People are ripping off the system by tax evasion of one form or another. The figure involved is greater than the deficit. This economist went further and suggested that at least half of that $9 billion was being ripped off , or evaded, in the cash economy sector. Therefore, this move which was originated by the Liberal Party and is being sustained by the present Government is to be commended. Both the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party are to be commended for going into this area. The Government has the total support of the Australian Democrats in this. After legislation was passed in May at the end of the parliamentary session, and the regulations were put down, certain reputable people in the building industry and the road transport industry raised genuine objections to the scheme . I am sure that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who made reference to certain people a moment or two ago will recognise the fact that genuine people have raised genuine objections to this scheme in the past two or three months. Those people have put their objections to both the Liberal members of Parliament and the Australian Democrats. I point out that I have registered with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the objections we consider proper. We found him most receptive in contemplating those objections. I compliment him on that. What does this legislation seek to do? What it virtually seeks to do is-I am putting this in precis form-unless a subcontractor can produce a certificate of exemption or variation to the payer, who might be a contractor, the contractor or payer must deduct 10 per cent of the contract price. This is designed to eliminate the possibility of the subcontractor or the payee putting the money in his pocket. This, as all honourable senators know, is a flagrant and blatant form of tax evasion. Last week a person told me-I want to get hold of the documentation-of a bricklayer who was so brazen and arrogant in his attempt to evade tax that he put in writing a quotation to build a domestic barbecue for $1 ,800. A note at the bottom of the quotation said: 'If you pay in cash I will reduce the sum to $1,300'. All of us know that this goes on. This legislation is designed to correct that situation and to collect some of the tax which is being evaded. The Australian Democrats would have preferred to see a reporting system instituted initially rather than a withholding system. In effect, this makes people in private enterprise become unpaid tax collectors for the Government. One could argue that it does no more than what the system does to private enterprise employers in forcing them to deduct pay as you earn instalments each week and remit them to the Australian Taxation Office. That is a valid argument. But it is worth noting that this is an extension of the load on private enterprise, particularly small business. It puts the onus on them to collect tax in an unpaid capacity on behalf of the Government. Notwithstanding that fact, we support the legislation because it has been illustrated to us that if a reporting system only were instituted-namely, that the obligation on the payer was only to report to the Taxation Office each month the name, address and amount-there would be a loss of revenue of something like $70m a year. We, of course, unequivocally accept the figures supplied by the Taxation Office. Therefore, with some reluctance we support the withholding system, which obliges the payer, the contractor or the builder to withhold a certain amount each month from the payments he makes to subcontractors. All through our negotiations with the Treasurer he has provided senior officers of the Taxation Office to discuss these matters with us. Those discussions have been taking place regularly over the past month. We finally came to the view late last week that the regulations were still unacceptable to the Australian Democrats because they could well place undue and onerous burdens on small businesses. As a consequence, I asked for an appointment with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), which was readily granted. As a result, the Australian Democrats were successful in gaining concessions. Those concessions were announced in the Senate yesterday by Senator Walsh. They were announced also by the Commissioner of Taxation on the same day. The first concession is that if the Taxation Office , notwithstanding the fact that it will possibly have an additional 800 new staff and has been instructed that its officers can work virtually unlimited overtime, cannot process all the applications for exemption or variation by 1 September it will grant an interim zero rate of variation certificate for a period of up to two months in relation to any application that has not been processed. That virtually defers the scheme for two months in relation to those applications which have not been processed. I believe that is a very generous and flexible action by the Government and the Commissioner of Taxation. Secondly , the Commissioner has agreed that if tax agents or accountants make an application for clusters of clients whose applications they have not been able to complete by 1 September, then the same variations down to zero certificates- interim certificates-will be issued. Again that is a generous concession. The fear that the Democrats had of total confusion and chaos reigning and onerous, unnecessary hardships being placed on people who could not comply with the Act by 1 September have essentially been removed. The third concession the Government gave the Democrats is even more significant . If any anomalies are exposed by the reference to the Committee contained in Senator Chaney's motion, which will be agreed to by the Senate, the Government has undertaken to remedy those anomalies as they are exposed by that Committee. I believe also that that is a most responsible, receptive and co-operative action on the part of the Government. I commend it and I commend the various Ministers I have mentioned, including Senator Walsh who I think has been most approachable in this matter. In conclusion, the Government has said, I believe quite properly, that it cannot proceed with this matter with the threat of disallowance of the Income Tax Regulations hanging over its head. I do not know to what extent the sword of Damocles is being waved, or whether it is being waved at all, but I can understand the Government's reluctance to proceed and I can understand the reluctance of the Commissioner of Taxation to proceed. What position is a responsible Commissioner of Taxation put in if he believes it is possible that these regulations could be disallowed by the Senate within 15 sitting days, five sitting weeks, or whatever it is? In other words, will he employ 800 more people and process these certificates with the possibility that in five weeks time the regulations will be disallowed by this Senate and hundreds of thousands of dollars will be wasted, along with thousands of person hours, for no purpose? Therefore, I believe the Government is quite within its rights, in view of the undertaking it has given to remedy the anomalies exposed by the Committee, to request that in the circumstances any such motion to disallow should not have the support of the Senate. I am prepared, on behalf of myself and my Party, to give an assurance that that motion for disallowance would not have our support if it were moved from any direction in this chamber. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.48) —None of this debate would have been necessary had the Government taken a little more time over the measure and allowed more time for its discussion when it came before the Senate in the dying stages of the last session of Parliament. It is all very well for the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, to stand up here and criticise those who have taken the part of persons who feel that they will be unfairly treated by the regulations that are to come down and by the actions of the Australian Taxation Office. It is all very well for him to name certain members of parliament in another place. I cannot even bring their names to mind at the moment, but he mentioned the electorates of two of them. I just have this to say to Senator Walsh, through you Mr Acting Deputy President: That leaves me cold. Senator Walsh is quite adept at vilifying members of this Parliament, from throughout the length and breadth of Australia. On a number of occassions during the recess he accused members of this chamber of acts which, of course, would be inconsistent with the integrity of those honourable senators, and, indeed, the integrity of this chamber itself. Let the Government realise that so far as I am concerned, if Senator Walsh does not take action either to apologise for those references-- Senator Walsh —What references? Senator HARRADINE —I will be able to name the date, the time, the place and what the Minister said on an appropriate occasion but it will not be this occasion. I just point out to the Government, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that so far as I am concerned, if Senator Walsh takes carriage of any of these measures and is not prepared to have the matters debated on their merits without improper reflections on the integrity of members of parliament, he will get the answer that he deserves. This particular measure was pushed through the dying stages of the last session of Parliament, despite the concern, expressed by an Opposition amendment, that it failed to protect the independence and continued survival of sub-contractors. That opinion was expressed freely at that time, yet the measure was hurried through in the dying stages of the last session. Senator Chipp —And the Representatives were up. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, as Senator Chipp has reminded me, the House of Representatives had risen for the recess. As Senator Chipp has said, everyone agrees that the blatant cash economy abuses and the gross evasion of taxes, require remedy. Not one member of this chamber would say otherwise. The concern, of course, is to protect the independence and continued viability of sub- contractors. I have received a number of representations about this matter, not so much from industry groupings but from individual contractors-people who have regularly paid their taxes, people who are concerned about the fact that they will be hit in advance for taxes and that these taxes will have to be paid on materials some of which already incur substantial sales tax. I welcome the proposition that this measure go to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I hope that that Committee will have sufficient time to hear representations not only from industry groupings but also from individual contractors who are likely to be affected. I take this opportunity, publicly, to alert all those contractors, those small business men and women who have expressed concern about this, to come forward and give evidence to the Committee. I commend the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, for moving this motion for reference and I give it my wholehearted support. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.54) —in reply-I thank honourable senators for their support of the motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. I express regret at the intemperate remarks of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, who I think should have borne in mind the fact that we are dealing with a Government measure, the administration of which the Government has been prepared to modify in light of the representations which have been received. That ought to indicate that there is real substance to the complaints which have been made. It may well indicate, of course, that there is substance to the outstanding complaints which have not been met, so far, by government action. Senator Walsh mentioned two members of the other place-the honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Curtin-and suggested that they had been inconsistent in their approach to this matter. Again, that is typical of the broad brush way in which Senator Walsh is prepared to criticise and abuse members of the Opposition. To my knowledge the honourable member for Curtin, Mr Rocher, has held an utterly consistent view on this matter. To the best of my knowledge so has Mr Tuckey. In other words, they have always been concerned about the practical implementation of this measure. They have always been concerned about it being implemented in a way which would not interfere with the business of people, in a way which would not be destructive of business, employment and so on. I believe they have been assiduous in responding to the genuine concerns of their electors and of those who have made representations to them. On behalf of the Opposition I reject the personal criticisms which were made of those members who have, I think, been carrying out their representational function. Also, it should be made clear that Senator Walsh seems to have a misunderstanding of the procedures of this place and the effect which would flow from any action to disallow the regulations. When I spoke earlier I indicated that I did not propose to give notice of disallowance at this stage, although that is something that might flow from the findings of the Committee. If disallowance were effected by the Senate the regulations would no longer be valid. They would be in operation, and would retain their validity, until the point of disallowance was reached. Senator Walsh suggested that the Government could then step in and simply repeat the performance. I draw the attention of Senator Walsh and the Senate to section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act, which points out that where any House of parliament disallows a regulation, no regulation being the same in substance as the regulation so disallowed, or deemed to have been disallowed, shall be made within six months after the date of disallowance unless there has been a turnabout by the House of parliament which is concerned. Senator Walsh, in his approach to this matter, showed ignorance on two counts: Firstly, there would not be a situation in which action would have been taken by the Commissioner of Taxation under regulations which were, in a retrospective sense, made invalid and, secondly, if the Senate were to take action it would not be open to the Government to step in and simply repeat the regulations within that six-month period. I do not think we should muddy the waters at this stage with too much reference to disallowance. I share the view expressed by Senator Harradine that it is important, since there is support for this motion, that those people who feel they are adversely and improperly affected should put the facts before the Senate Committee so that they can be examined by this chamber. I welcome the fact that the Government has indicated that it is prepared to make changes where anomalies and shortcomings are disclosed. There may, of course, be differences of opinion as to what are anomalies and what are shortcomings. I express regret at the fact that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, is prepared to prejudge this matter and to say that he would not support a disallowance at this stage. It seems to me that until we have the benefit of the Senate Committee inquiry, until we have the evidence of the Commissioner of Taxation and of those who say they are affected in a damaging way, it is a judgment that should be suspended. For Senator Chipp to say that he would rely upon the good faith of the Government is admirable, but I suggest that Senator Chipp has forgotten his Shakespeare. The most important advice which I think Shakespeare would give to Senator Chipp would be to put not his faith in princes. When the Senate has some very limited power to influence the actions of government, I do not suggest that we should trade that off in anticipation of right actions by government. This is a significant matter to many self-employed Australians and others who, in turn, employ other Australians , many of whom are struggling in a difficult economic climate. I believe it most appropriate that the Senate should examine the administration of this proposal. I commend the motion to the Senate and thank honourable senators for their support. Question resolved in the affirmative. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1983 [No. 3] Motion (by Senator Chipp) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in relation to gifts of certain property to charitable funds . Bill presented by Senator Chipp, and read a first time. Second Reading Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.01) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The aim of this Bill is to remove a serious anomaly from the Income Tax Assessment Act. Under existing legislation, farmers who donated food and other products after the disastrous Victorian and South Australian bushfires could be asked to pay income tax on their donations. This is incomprehensible and blatantly unfair. A producer who donates some of his produce to a recognised charity has his gift treated as income for taxation purposes. A money donation, however, would attract a tax deduction. There seems to be no good reason for rewarding one act of charity whilst punishing another. At present, the producer could sell the produce and donate the money but then the charity would have to pay the market price when it sought to buy similar produce. This, in effect, would leave fewer products, be they food, shelter or blankets, in the hands of the charity. Apart from this, it seems to me that there would be many instances where it would be preferable for the charity to get the goods rather than the money. Taxing donations to charities seems incredible at any time, but it actually stands in the way of getting help to people quickly and effectively during a national disaster. In these instances, our aim should be to get aid to the victims in the quickest possible way. Yet those who are in a position to donate food, shelter and the whole range of products needed to sustain and rebuild the lives of those adversely affected are discouraged from doing so by the current legislation. Should a farmer be penalised for donating food to those who have lost everything, or livestock and seed to a fellow farmer, whose property was destroyed by a bushfire? Should a manufacturer be penalised for donating blankets, processed food, clothing or furniture to recognised charities? Should he be taxed on his generosity? When I first began to receive representations on this issue, I was amazed that his anomaly had not been rectified before. The Australian Taxation Office is aware of it; governments have been aware of it for years but nobody has been prepared to act. I understand that some members of the government and Opposition have, in the past, expressed interest in correcting this situation, yet the anomaly remains. This legislation will rectify a long standing problem. It will remove the penalty presently attached to donations of trading stock. It will, therefore, facilitate a speedy and more effective transferral of goods to those adversely affected by national disasters. It will allow more people to make a gesture of humanity and generosity without being punished for their troubles. I thank the Senate for its indulgence and commend the Bill to it for a speedy passage. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I move: 1. DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING Unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of meeting of the Senate shall be Tuesdays at 2.00 p.m., Wednesdays at 10.00 a.m. and Thursdays at 10.00 a.m. 2. SUSPENSION OF SITTINGS Unless otherwise ordered, on Wednesdays, the sittings of the Senate, or of a Committee of the Whole, shall be suspended from 12.45 p.m. till 2.00 p.m. and from 6.30 p.m. till 8.00 p.m. 3. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE Unless otherwise ordered, at 6.30 p.m. on Tuesdays, 11.00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 7.30 p.m. on Thursdays the President shall put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the Question-That he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn- which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to till the result of such Division has been declared; and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day . 4. ROUTINE OF BUSINESS Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: Tuesdays: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Motions and Orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Wednesdays: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Motions and Orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2.00 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Consideration of Committee Reports, pursuant to Sessional Order (10) Further Motions and Orders of the Day or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Thursdays: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (4) Presentation of Government Papers and consideration pursuant to Sessional Order (5) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (6) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (7) Motions and Orders of the day or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (8) At 2.00 p.m., Questions (9) General Business (10) Motions and Orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper 5. GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL BUSINESS-PRECEDENCE On all sitting days of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall take precedence of General Business, except that General Business shall take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays after Questions until the expiration of two and one half-hours or until there is no further debate; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Business Orders of the Day shall take precedence of General Business Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays. 6. CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT PAPERS Unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders: (1) On Tuesdays and Wednesdays after Questions and any proposals pursuant to Standing Order 64 and on Thursdays after Notices and any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64, Papers may be presented by Ministers. Upon the presentation of such Papers a motion may be moved, without notice, that the Senate take note of one, or several, of the Papers. (2) The debate on any motion moved pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be conducted as follows: (a) No Senator shall speak for more than five minutes; (b) If debate pursuant to this Sessional Order is not concluded it shall be interrupted after 30 minutes, and the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of the Business of the Day; (c) If the debate is adjourned or interrupted by Sessional Order, a motion may be moved for the resumption of the debate either for the Thursday of that week at the time for the consideration of General Business, or for the next day of sitting; (d) On Thursdays, at the commencement of General Business: (i) when an Order of the Day is called on under this Sessional Order, Senators who have previously spoken may speak again for 5 minutes; (ii) motions without notice may be moved to take note of Government Papers tabled during the current sitting week and in relation to which no such motion has previously been moved: provided that debate under this Sessional Order shall be interrupted after 1 hour. (3) Where debates on motions moved under the provisions of this Sessional Order are adjourned until the next day of sitting and are called on in the normal course of business, Senators who have spoken to the motions under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A. 7. CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORTS (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, where in any week there are Orders of the Day for the resumption of debate on motions for the consideration or adoption of reports of committees: (a) on Wednesdays after Questions, any proposals pursuant to Standing Order 64 and consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, Orders of the Day relating to reports of committees presented to the Senate during that week shall be severally called on, in the order in which the respective reports were presented; (b) if there were no committee reports presented during that week, or if debate on motions relating to such reports concludes before the expiration of one hour, Orders of the Day relating to committee reports presented prior to that week shall then be severally called on in an order which is the reverse of the order in which the respective reports were presented; (c) in any debate on such motions so called on, each Senator may speak for not more than 10 minutes; and (d) any debate pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be interrupted after the expiration of one hour. (2) Provided that, where debate on any motion debated under the provisions of this Sessional Order is adjourned or is interrupted under the provisions of this Sessional Order, Senators who have spoken to such motion under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again to the motion for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A when the debate on the motion is again called on in the normal course of business. 8. That the foregoing Resolutions have effect from Tuesday, 30 August 1983, and cease to have effect on the first sitting day after 22 September 1983. Senator GRIMES —The Government is happy to formalise the agreement made with the Opposition and the Australian Democrats that these hours apply for a trial period of three weeks. The effect of this motion can be readily determined by reference to the notional pattern of sittings, copies of which have also been distributed to honourable senators. I will not seek to debate the matter further at this stage. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.06) —I welcome the amended motion just moved by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) as it gives effect to an agreement between the parties in the Senate that we should at least, in colloquial terms 'suck it and see'. Senator Robertson —But you do not put your trust in princes either. Senator CHANEY —It is a classic case of not putting my trust in princes because I did ask the Government, and I am grateful that it acceded to my request, that it specifically make the proposal the subject of review after three weeks in accordance with the agreement between us. In any event I would like to move one amendment to what has been put forward. I move: In paragraph 1. 'Days and Hours of Meeting': Leave out '2.00 p.m.', Insert '2.30 p.m.'. I will speak both to the general proposal and to the amendment. The general proposal with respect to sitting hours is not regarded as satisfactory by the Opposition and I would like to place on record why that is so. The proposed sitting pattern needs to be considered alongside the sitting pattern which is proposed for the House of Representatives. In the broad what we now have is a proposal for sittings during the afternoon of Tuesday for the Senate and during the afternoon and evening for the House of Representatives; during the morning, afternoon and evening on Wednesday for the Senate but during the morning and afternoon only for the House of Representatives; and on Thursday for the morning and afternoon for the Senate but the morning, afternoon and evening for the House of Representatives. In other words there is a very considerable degree of difference between the sitting hours proposed for the two chambers. There are long periods when neither chamber is in session but not enough of those long periods coincide. The difficulty which the Opposition has with the Government's proposal for both here and the House of Representatives is that taken together they present very real difficulties for running the normal party arrangements which are a part of the operation of this Parliament when a party is represented in both chambers, as of course are the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Australian Democrats are peculiar in that sense in that they have representation only in the Senate and it is immaterial to them when the House of Representatives chooses to meet. The sitting hours which are proposed for the two chambers effectively limit the opportunities which we will have to meet as Opposition parties. Traditionally Tuesday morning and Wednesday morning have been available. They were available to the Labor Party when it was in Opposition. It asked, sought and obtained the maintenance of those free mornings not because it liked to have mornings off but because it wished its Caucus and its shadow Cabinet to meet. We have precisely the same wish. Unfortunately, with sittings on Wednesday morning, our shadow Cabinet is required to meet on Monday. That puts a requirement on those of us who live in the more distant parts of Australia, such as Western Australia, north Queensland, the Northern Territory and so on, to leave home, if we can get home on the weekends, on Sunday. That is disruptive both to one's time in the electorate and to one's domestic life. The arrangements we therefore see as being not those which are most favourable to the orderly running of the Parliament-certainly not to the orderly running of the parties which are such an important part of our parliamentary system. I want that put on the record because I hope that the experience of the sitting hours will demonstrate to the Government that more convenient arrangements could be entered into and that in the trial period we might have some further positive discussions on some rearrangement. I acknowledge the very real concern on both sides of the Parliament to try to find more satisfactory sitting hours. I think that in every debate we hear about the health of members and senators, both mental and physical, and I suspect that both suffer from the arrangements we have. There has been a series of attempts to find more satisfactory hours. I agree that members of the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, the National Party and my own Party have joined in common searches for sitting hours. When I look at the pattern of sittings I find a standard pattern up to March 1982. There was a change in the period from March 1982 to the end of 1982. We changed again until the end of May 1983, and we are now changing again. I think those changes evidence the very real difficulty in meeting the demands of the chambers, the demands of the parties and the problems of operating a multi-party system in a bicameral legislature. They are real difficulties. Most honourable members and honourable senators live in their respective States and travel great distances. I wish to put on the record my concern that we do more to seek more sensible sitting hours which will enable us to conduct our business better in the national interest. I am sure that the taxpayers who are paying for this place would not want us to be standing around endlessly discussing this issue. I will close by saying that I move with a clear conscience on behalf of the Opposition the amendment which would give us an additional free half hour in the afternoon on Tuesday because the sitting hours proposal which the Government has put before us provides for 24 1/4 actual chamber hours per week. In my experience that is an all-time high for the number of hours provided. If honourable senators look at the history of sitting hours over recent years they will find that the traditional sitting pattern provided for 21 1/2 hours. The amendment which we made in 1982, very much in co-operation with the then Opposition, was for 21 1/2 hours of sitting. The further change under the new Government took us up to 23 3/4 hours and these proposals are for 24 1/4 hours. If the amendment which is put forward by the Opposition is supported it would take us back to 23 3/4 sitting hours per week, which would match the highest point we have attained in the past, and would, I think, be quite reasonable. I should explain that the reason why that half hour is required is that it is the normal practice of our Party to meet before the Tuesday sitting to make the necessary arrangements for the week's sittings. We, as a Party, need that additional time. We think it is a reasonable request and we think it leaves the Government with an adequate number of sitting hours. Our history during the life of this Government has been not to waste unduly the time of the Senate. We ran a very modest number of matters of public importance during the first five weeks of sittings-far fewer than the number sought by the previous Opposition. In the interests of fairness to everybody I ask for the support of the Senate in this reduction and I ask the Government to consider very carefully the actual operation of these revised sitting hours with a view to, if possible, making more satisfactory arrangements for the rest of the Budget session. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.13) —At the beginning of this week we were all circulated with a set of sitting hours which again would have had us sitting late on two nights and in fact would have had us very close to the hours that were rejected previously by the Senate. Rumour had it that the Executive of the Government was ambushed in Caucus by some people who did not like that idea and that the proposed sitting hours we have before us are a result of that. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, has outlined the difficulty this set of hours raises for the Opposition and for its personal arrangements. The reason I rise is to make a point and a plea. In the great saga of the subject of sitting hours in this place, which now is spread over years, I think one lesson surely has been learnt and that is that one group of people, getting together in someone's office or wherever and trying to draft a pattern of sitting hours, does not have all the information that is necessary for workable sitting hours. Two problems confront the Opposition as a result of this arrangement, matters which, when we were in government and attempts were being made to decide on new sitting hours, the Australian Labor Party in opposition said were absolutely fundamental in any agreement on the matter. I am not suggesting any breach of faith because I understand that these suggested hours do not come entirely from the people who were involved in the previous discussions and negotiations. However, the fact is that things that were previously agreed as being fundamental are not met in the new pattern of sitting hours. I will be supporting the Opposition amendment because it does make the sitting hours a little more workable for us. However, I wish to make a plea, because I understand that this will be on trial for several weeks, and difficulties will emerge. If we are going to change sitting hours again, and I hope they will be changed or modified a little, could we possibly look at putting together a parliamentary committee-it would not need to meet for very long-to examine the interests of all parties involved. The very long procedure we went through some time ago before we all balloted in this Parliament was one in which I was very involved. I will state briefly to the Senate the major factors that have to be taken into account. One has to take into account Government and Opposition Caucus meetings or party meetings, shadow Cabinet and Cabinet. One has to consider back bench committees, Government, Opposition, parliamentary committees , the dining room, Hansard, even matters such as Senate transport. These are all factors to be considered in putting this piece together. When one puts all that information together and looks at it objectively, one can come up with a pattern which suits all parties. One side is not trying to ambush the other by suggesting hours that do not suit it and destroy its party meetings or committees. We are trying to agree on sensible hours that will enable us to do our work properly. So if we find bugs in this plan and there is a desire to look at it again, I indicate to the Senate that I think the sensible thing to do is to put together a committee-we could make it a parliamentary committee or an informal committee, as it was previously -put down the information and work it out in a spirit of good will. I think the subject of sitting hours has been basically a subject of good will, although there have been the odd hiccups along the way in debate on it. If we can approach the subject in that sense then we may finally arrive at a set of sitting hours that will stick. I speak, I am sure, for many of my colleagues when I say that I am terribly confused at the moment about when the Senate is sitting and when it is adjourning, because day after day it is different. It is a subject that we would like to see resolved to everyone's satisfaction to the satisfaction of the Western Australians', Government Ministers, and everybody else who has a particular interest in the hours that the Senate meets. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.18) —The motion moved on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Chaney does not have the support of the Australian Democrats. We are basically neutral in regard to the sitting hours during the day. We do not have any members of our Party in the other place and therefore we do not have any interest one way or another as to whether that place starts at 2 p.m. or 2.30 p. m. However, in negotiations the Government has given away half an hour at the end of the afternoon by moving the suspension time from 7 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. and has indicated its willingness to give away another half an hour elsewhere in the program. It seems to us that those are reasonable concessions. The fact that the Government has agreed that Parliament will sit for three-week periods seems to be a major concession and therefore, on balance, we will support the Government' s proposition at this stage and give it a trial for three weeks. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.19) —I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Chaney, although not out of malice or for any similar reason. As Senator Macklin said, the Government was willing to remove half an hour from another day's sitting if the length of the sitting hours on Tuesday was a problem. I understand that the problem is the desire of the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia to have a meeting on Tuesday at 2 p.m. The Government is faced with the problem that the sitting hours on Tuesday are very short for the introduction or application of any Government business, and if a matter of public importance were to be moved there would be almost no time. For the short three-week period our preference is that we sit from 2 p.m. From a personal point of view and as one who has been involved for almost as long as Senator Martin in trying to settle some sensible sitting hours in this place, and as one who has been-euphemistically, I suppose-negotiating on this matter in the last couple of weeks, I share Senator Martin's frustration in trying to get sensible sitting hours for this chamber. I put it to the Senate quite frankly that certain difficulties exist. I wonder whether we will ever overcome them unless we do what the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and the House of Representatives in the United States do, and that is to ignore the nonsense such as the calling of quorums unless we consider sitting through the meal hours. There seems to be a basic intractable difference between the attitude of people in this place and people in another place. The people in another place seem to be dominated by those who live in the Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane axis, although Senator Martin cannot be considered in that group, who have a very different perception of how long we should be here and what constitutes reasonable hours. They seem more determined to get out of this place and this town as quickly as they can, more often than we do. I wonder whether we will ever reach the stage, which I agree with Senator Chaney is the more satisfactory stage, where both Houses have essentially the same sitting hours and the same time off for parliamentary committees and party meetings. I think that, unless we can overcome those difficulties, the Senate will have to do what it has done in the last few years and that is largely to ignore the sitting hours of the other place, except perhaps on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, and go our own way. I ask the Senate to support the sitting hours proposed for the next three weeks . Certainly in that time I will talk to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), the Australian Democrats, Senator Martin, and anyone else who is interested to try to get some sensible hours for this place, hours which do not disrupt the functions of parties and government, or disrupt them as little as possible. I am almost resigned to the fact that we will have to go our own way. I say to Senator Martin that I will not give up. It has been a long time. Senator Kilgariff —How about back to back sittings? Senator GRIMES —If Senator Kilgariff, who like me has to change planes to travel to and from his State, and for whom the airline schedules are not very convenient-- Senator Martin —That applies to Brisbane too. Senator GRIMES —Yes. If Senator Kilgariff would like to put a proposal for back to back sittings, he will find that it does not fall on barren ground in the case of many people on this side of the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out . The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R.Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Button Messner Question so resolved in the negative Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation . The PRESIDENT —The honourable senator may proceed. Senator HARRADINE —During the previous debate it was indicated by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Grimes, that the Government was prepared to discuss the question of sitting hours with any honourable senator or honourable member. The fact is that no such discussion has taken place with me. It appears that it has taken place with all other senators or their representatives. Under Standing Orders measures are available to me to disrupt the proceedings of the Senate and, if a similar situation arises at some future stage, those measures will be used. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I apologise to Senator Harradine for not involving him in previous consultations. In future negotiations I will ensure that he is included because that is the right thing to do, not because of any threat he makes in this place. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.31) —We are debating the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 and I sincerely hope we are able to get through it in this session. It has been a long drawn out debate which first started in 1981. At that time, as the Government of the day, we gave a conscience vote on this legislation. This Government now has decided for the first time not to allow a conscience vote on it. Of course, when the Australian Labor Party was in Government in 1975, the then Whitlam Government allowed a conscience vote on this matter. I am not quite sure on what grounds this Government has decided that it must caucus its members which is the Labor Party's only alternative to a conscience vote. Senator Grimes —Do not misrepresent the situation. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes has told us in this place that he will not allow Government senators a conscience vote and that he will caucus them on this Bill. Now, because I bring it to the notice of the people of Australia that he is frightened of giving members of his Party the opportunity of voting how they choose-- Senator Grimes —That is not so and you know it. Senator WALTERS —I am terribly sorry. Why does Senator Grimes not change the ruling right now and make it a conscience vote. Senator Grimes —If anyone wants a conscience vote on any clause, he can have it. Senator WALTERS —I was told yesterday by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that that would mean a return to Caucus. Mr President, I believe one of my amendments will need a conscience vote. What will the Government do? Will it have a special Caucus meeting to decide whether it will permit its members to vote how they wish on that amendment? I thought that the Attorney-General believed time was rather important and that this debate should be carried out and the Bill passed in a speedy fashion. That cannot possibly be done if every time an amendment comes up-I gather there are a considerable number of them- Caucus has to meet to decide whether its members can vote the way their conscience tells them. It really is as ludicrous as that. Had Senator Mulvihill been here, I am quite sure that no such decision would have been taken in Caucus because he would have demanded his rights on this issue. Senator Grimes —And any other senator on this side can do so. Senator WALTERS —We were told that it was a unanimous decision of Caucus that there should not be a conscience vote on this issue. Senator Grimes —If any honourable senator wishes to, he will do so. Senator WALTERS —But that will happen only after a Caucus meeting. My goodness, this is a democracy. In the past we have been allowed a conscience vote on these issues, but of course that is not to be the case on this occasion. I will be interested to see what happens to some of the amendments I propose to put forward-whether Caucus will meet and say 'Okay boys, you can all vote how you like' or whether Caucus will say 'Not on your life. We might not get it through if you do. You will toe the line'. That is what it amounts to. That is consensus , is it not! The Government says: 'We started this Government with a consensus'. Gee Whiz! Senator Macklin also said that the Australian Democrats have various views on this Bill and that while they will not make it a conscience vote they will be allowed to vote as they like because they hold different opinions. I am not quite sure what all that means but, according to Senator Macklin, they will be voting all over the place too. At least the Opposition has always maintained the same discretion on any moral issue: Every member on this side of the chamber can vote exactly as he or she likes. Senator Macklin —Not all over the place. We are voting according to our consciences. Senator WALTERS —Earlier, Senator Macklin told us that there is no such thing. The Family Law Bill was passed in 1975. Because it was passed with a majority of just one vote in the House of Representatives we were promised that there would be a review. That review took place under our former Government in 1980. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act was set up. I believe that the hearings conducted by that Committee, of which I was a member, made every politician on that Committee aware of the very great problems, traumas and, indeed, great sadness that accompanies divorce proceedings. That Committee submitted 72 recommendations. They were not unamimous recommendations but there were 72 of them. I am sure that that indicates to the Senate that the original Act was far from being a good Act and that the people of Australia had many problems with it. Individuals primarily affected by that Act did not appear before the Committee; groups represented them. It would not have been possible to have had individuals appear before the Committee. Those groups brought to our notice all of the problems created by the Act. It was from all of those opinions which were put to us that the Committee made 72 recommendations. I want to discuss some of the figures relating to the number of divorces and the number of children involved in those divorces. I seek leave to have a table relating to those figures incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows: Number of Percent- Percent- Children age of age of Ratio of Number Involved Number B/grooms Brides Divorce of in of Previously Previously to Year Divorces Divorces Marriages Divorced Divorced Marriage 1970 12,249 16,895 116,066 6.36 6.10 1:9.5 1971 13,002 18,451 117,637 6.62 6. 35 1:9.0 1972 15,707 22,061 114,029 7.29 7.06 1:7.3 1973 16,266 23,078 112, 700 8.29 7.85 1:6.9 1974 17,744 25,505 110,673 8.53 8.02 1:6.2 1975 24,307 34 ,992 103,973 10.3 9.9 1:4.3 1976 63,267 73,645 109,973 17.6 16.5 1:1.7 1977 45,175 57,878 104,918 19.4 18.3 1:2.3 1978 40,633 51,599 102,958 19.5 18.5 1:2.5 1979 37,873 46,130 104,396 20.0 18.7 1:2.8 1980 39,258 46,836 109,240 20.2 18.8 1:2.8 1981 41,412 49,616 113,905 20.4 19.2 1:2.75 1982 44,088 53,010 117,275 20.8 19.5 1:2.66 Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr President. The table begins at 1970, when there were 12,000 odd divorces. Quite a legitimate comparison to make is that there was, in that year, one divorce for every 9 1/2 marriages. Nearly 17,000 children were involved in those divorces. That is a considerable number. As divorce at that time involved proof of fault, parents in particular went through a pretty rough stage. I do not think that the fault provision protected the children in any way. That all changed in 1975. At the end of 1975 the new Family Law Bill was enacted. Because under that Act no fault needed to be proved a very big backlog of divorces had to be dealt with. Obviously, people who had been separated for some time but who were not prepared to go through a divorce involving the proof of fault provision were now able to sue for divorce after being separated for the legal period of 12 months. So in 1976 there were over 63,000 divorces. Those divorces involved 73,645 dependent children. That is a tremendous number of children. There was one divorce for every nearly 1 1/2 marriages in that year. The number of divorces then decreased from the high figure in the years immediately after the enactment of the Bill. In 1978 there was a ratio of one divorce for every 2.8 marriages. So the divorce rate did sink. Of course, it started to rise again. This was a great disappointment to me. I could see the figures going down. I thought that when the figures flattened out they might be back to what they were before the new divorce laws came into effect. But we have not reached that stage. The figures started to rise again. I believe that the people of Australia and this Senate should be greatly concerned that these figures are now rising again. In 1979, which was the low year after the backlog, there were nearly 38,000 divorces. Over 46,000 children were involved in those divorces. As I said, there was one divorce for every 2.8 marriages in that year. In 1980 the figures started to increase. There were over 39,000 divorces. Nearly 47,000 children were involved in those divorces. The figure as a ratio of divorces to marriage started to rise. The latest figure I have is for 1982, in which there were 44, 000 divorces. Fifty-three thousand children were involved in divorces that year. We are now back to the figure of one divorce for every 2.6 marriages in Australia. I believe that those figures are frightening. The Family Law Act states: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction . . . have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of man and woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; I believe that is a tremendously important section of the Act. If we took that out of the Act I would be very upset. The fact that it is in the Act means that we really must abide by it. The Bill should support the institution of marriage as indicated in that section of the Act. Unfortunately, I do not believe that all of the proposed amendments support that section. I will come to that. I shall indicate some of the amendments with which I agree in the Bill. Under the Act there is a system of closed family courts. A tremendous number of complaints were brought to the Committee about these courts being closed. Judges of those courts now say that they believe that the courts should be open. The Committee visited Western Australia, which was the only State where family courts have always been held in open session because that was the only State which took up that responsibility. When we visited the Western Australian Family Court we found that people did not go to the court just to view the proceedings of the court. Some had said that the courts would be overflowing with spectators but people are not the busybodies that they are depicted to be. I believe that we have to make sure that the identity of the people who are going through this process is protected and I agree that the newspapers must not identify them when they are reporting on the procedures in the courts. As I said, many complaints were heard that closed courts were a bad thing. The judges now agree and they say that justice must not only be done but also must be seen to be done. One of the other provisions with which I agree relates to injunctions for the personal protection of the wife and children. We were told on many occasions that whilst injunctions had been taken out, the police could not protect the mother and children from a husband who may enter the home against that injunction, threaten violence and often carry it out. That situation is being amended in this Bill and I agree with that. We have also considered the wishes of children. Under the old Act there was an age limit. The wishes of a child were not taken into account until the child reached the age of 14 years. Under the present amendment, children's wishes can be taken into account. But this is a tremendously difficult area. It is a traumatic and very sad area for the children. Many people gave evidence to our Committee. A doctor who specialises in the problems of children said: 'The new divorce law is quite all right for parents. They can get through their divorce very quickly and very easily with virtually no trauma but the children are the ones they seem to fight over and this has affected many children'. According to the evidence we had the problems that the children are now facing are very much greater than they were under the old Act. Another provision with which I agree is that stepchildren born to the wife of the family and foster children should be treated as part of the family. Any child born through in vitro fertilisation should also be included. Yet another amendment with which I agree is that a third party should be considered in guardianship cases. I think that is most important. I think that often grandparents are the most appropriate people to bring up a child when perhaps both parents are no longer interested or suitable. Guardianship and maintenance can now be given to allow grandparents to bring up the child. Another area of concern about which the Committee had a lot of evidence was that prior to a divorce, during the 12-month period of separation, many people organised their property to the disadvantage of the other party. We now have amendments which will stop any of this organisation of property until the divorce comes around when the judge will be able to organise the maintenance and property settlements. One of the other matters considered by the Committee was joint applications for divorce. I believe that if both parties want to put in a joint application there should be only the one fee and the Act will be amended to make this situation more equitable. We now come to one of the provisions with which I do not agree, and that is divorce by post. It was a recommendation of the Committee of which I was a member. I dissociated myself from that particular recommendation and I put in a minority report on it. I believe that divorce by post is very aptly named. It substitutes the posting of documents for the appearance by the parties in court. I do not believe that that does anything at all for the institution of marriage. I quote again what the original Act was meant to do: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction . . . have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of man and woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; If anyone can tell me that divorce by post upholds that statement in any way, I will be most surprised. I do not believe that it does. I quote from my minority report, in which I said: I submit that this procedure devalues marriage. As marriage is an institution central to the continuation of our society, we must ensure that this legislation , while providing the mechanism for divorce, does not destroy the basic structure. In the Committee's report to the Senate, in the second reading speech of Senator Gareth Evans and in a letter that he sent around trying to allay our fears about divorce by post the reasons for it are given. The reasons for this amendment are given. It is said that divorce by post will save costs, that the parties will not have to pay as much and that they will be able to get their divorce much more cheaply. That is the first reason. It was always No. 1 in the priority. The second reason is that it will save court time. Senator Evans has told us that the second reason for divorce by post was to save court time. The Committee also agreed that it would save court time. Surely to heavens there is more in the dissolution of marriage, more in a marriage vow than costs and the saving of time. I quote again from my minority report in which I said: The Committee Report states that, quote: 'the real issue is one of costs, both to the State and to the parties involved'. This is the fundamental issue with which I disagree. The Report concludes that measures must be introduced which will save expense. I do not believe that there is any need to go further on that issue. I do not believe that the prime objective in getting a divorce is how cheaply one can get it. There must be justice in it. I firmly believe that there is no doubt that the law of the land influences individuals and community values and it would therefore be irresponsible for the Parliament to set an example through legislation which failed to endorse a commitment to stable marriage. If all that is required to end a marriage is to fill in forms and post them off, then the concept of long term commitment to a shared partnership is weakened from the very beginning. That is how I wrote my minority report. I will be moving an amendment in the Committee stage of the debate against divorce by post. It really does concern me greatly. If young people of today are told or become aware that all they have to do is to fill in a lot of forms and they can get a divorce, what value will they place on marriage? It will be so easy. There will be no trauma. There will be no sense of responsibility. It will be a matter of 'let us give it a go and if it does not work we can fill in the forms and get a divorce'. If that happens, in 10 years time, perhaps less, there will be hardly any need at all for any marriage vows of continuity. There is certainly no suggestion that what I quoted from the original Act to support the marriage concept is of any use in this particular amendment. I will move another amendment because of my prime concern for children. As the Bill stands, with regard to custody very little direction is given to the court, although the proposed amendments give additional direction and guidelines. I will go into more detail on that later but I believe that further amendments should be brought forward for the protection of the child in that area. A further amendment-I have only three-will be in relation to maintenance and the guideline that the judge must follow in that regard. The amendment is very similar to that regarding custody. Again, I will go into it in more detail at the Committee stage. I believe that the judgment and interpretation to be exercised by the court make it necessary for the Senate to spell out its intentions a little more clearly. In her speech on the Bill last night Senator Crowley said: I wonder a little about the absence of a clear definition of de facto arrangements being treated in the same way as legal marriages. That concern was brought to the Committee in 1980 and it was decided that people who enter a de facto relationship have every right to do so. They do so because they do not want the ties. It comes through loud and clear that they do not want any legal interference. They do not want ties, formalisation of their marriage or full responsibility. They make a deliberate decision for freedom from all these areas. They say that if one wants to walk out one can. They do not want that legal tie. If, as a parliament, we interfere in their rights, where are they to go? It would force them to live in short term casual relationships, to avoid legal responsibilities. When people take on a de facto relationship, as many do these days, they say to the world loud and clear that they do not want any of these legal ties. It is not up to us as a parliament to force them to do so. As I have only a few minutes left, I will deal with an area that concerns me. I refer again to divorce by post, because I am concerned that we have not yet seen any regulations. We have not yet seen what appropriate notices and documents must be filled out. Senator Evans, in his letter to us, said: . . . the Family Court will still have to be satisfied on the basis of evidence before it that the ground for granting a divorce has been established . . . How? At the moment the Senate has no idea. Senator Evans added that divorce by post would take place only 'where one party has requested it to do so and the other party has not objected'. The other party might not even know it is happening. How the Attorney-General plans to overcome that I am not quite sure. He continued: It can be expected that the precise procedure to be specified will require the giving of appropriate notices by one party to the other . . . He said 'it can be expected'. We have no idea how they will be able to contact the spouse of one party if they have no idea where they are. They may be overseas. They may not even know that the divorce is taking place. Again, how is a judge to satisfy himself that the best interests of the child have been catered for if he has not seen the parents? Only one parent would fill in the documents. The other parent may not necessarily be contacted. The judge then has to make a decision that the best interests of the child have been catered for. I do not believe that this is at all possible. It is all pie in the sky stuff. Unless the judge has before him both parents, the two people involved in the dissolution of marriage, how can he possibly assess not only the best interests of the child but also the just and equitable division of property or the amount of maintenance payment? My time has almost expired, but at the Committee stage of the Bill I will say more on the amendments that I have foreshadowed. Once again, I appeal to the Minister who is in charge of this legislation, Senator Grimes, to allow to members of his Government and his party, for example Senator Tate who is sitting beside him, the freedom to vote as they choose and not, having caucused his members-- Senator Tate —You do not know what arrangements I have made. Senator Grimes —You have picked the wrong person. Senator WALTERS —I have just been told that we are not being allowed a conscience vote. Now Senator Tate tells me that I do not know what arrangements he has made. Senator Tate —That is right; you do not. Senator WALTERS —I am quite well aware that I do not. I can only take the word of your Attorney-General that it is not a conscience vote, that it is indeed a caucused vote. If that is not accurate, I would be most delighted to hear about it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.03) —My purpose in participating in this debate tonight on the Family Law Amendment Bill is to try to enhance the institution of marriage, as difficult as that might be. In 1975, when the Family Law Act was passed, it was described as an enlightened piece of legislation. It was a major breakthrough, but with the passage of time it has brought its own problems. The chief persons who are affected or disadvantaged by this Act are the children of those families. It is proposed this week to make amendments which will in effect make divorce very much easier. One who has been very close to the situation of family breakdown in Launceston and who has had a very close relationship with those in need is the superintendent of the Launceston City Mission, Moreton Jones. Some time ago he wrote to me and I sought his permission to quote from that letter. It reads: Dear Mr Watson, As you would be well aware our work in the Mission is to do with families and family counselling. We work with an average of 160 families per month-and what the family breakdown does-especially to children when you see it every day-would make you cry. Now, to even give the slightest thought to making divorce easier is surely beyond all reasonable thinking, and is certainly against the laws of God. I have had many discussions with Government officials-especially in the welfare sector. The Government is saying on the one hand 'how on earth are we going to cope with the ever-increasing cost of Social Security-particularly as we have people coming on to Benefits each and every day'. On the other hand, to think that they could even consider for one moment passing legislation to make divorce easier, is surely one of the most tragic pieces of legislation that there has ever been proposed in the long history of legislation. Perhaps the thing we should do is pour more money into FAMILY EDUCATION PROGRAMMES and help the families of our so called 'lucky country' to see and understand that when the family breaks down so does every part or sector of the community. The work force suffers because of bad home relationships-education suffers for the same reason-accommodation becomes an even greater problem-health costs soar- we breed more alcoholics-more drug addicts-more mental breakdowns occur-more crime, violence and vandalism is evident. All this and more happens when the family breaks down-and now the proposed legislation will only send us further and further 'down the drain' of moral decay. I plead with you on behalf of the hundreds this Mission services-and those I see personally-to fight for the defeat of this Proposal, and come together and do something constructive to build up the family life and not tear it down. I think that is a very significant contribution from Moreton Jones of the Launceston City Mission. Professor Mitchell of Oxford University believes that the function of law is not only to protect individuals from harm but also to protect the institutions of society. These functions, he says, overlap since the sort of harm an individual may suffer to some extent is determined by the institutions he lives under. Now, we have a massive piece of legislation before us which is aimed at virtually streamlining the concept of divorce rather than reinforcing the concept of marriage. Figures from England show that the number of single parent families is rising by about 6 per cent annually. Further, we find that remarriages are prone to failure. Let me quote some figures. In 1976, 47.9 per cent of previously married couples separated within four years of marriage. However, by 1980 this figure had risen to 55.6 per cent. Toffler, in his book Future Shock, referred to this sort of 'plug-in' type society. I think many people today regard marriage in a similar light-a particular person for a particular age and so on. The cost to society is tremendous and cost alone, I suppose, should be one factor which discourages government from making divorce very much easier. But what is the effect of all of this? Actually, a cycle of marriage is being fostered-divorce and remarriage, second divorce and so on, with corresponding increases. In my own small State of Tasmania the tragedy of divorce is seen from the figures. In 1981 there were 1,139 divorces. The number rose in 1982 to 1,391. However, 67.3 per cent of divorces in the 1982 figures involved children under 18 years of age. The point I am making is that children are the main sufferers when divorce is made easier. It is now too late to make fundamental changes to the Family Law Act but I hope that we can make sure that the amendments proposed in the legislation before us will not further destroy the fundamental institution of marriage which, according to the figures I have quoted, is disintegrating at an alarming rate. Today we are witnessing a divorce rate of something like one in every three marriages within the country. Since 1975 more than 400,000 children have seen their parents divorced. I want to take issue with a number of matters that have been raised by Senator Gareth Evans. In this second reading speech he said: Free from the burden of attributing fault, the Family Court can now concentrate on being satisfied as to the fact of marriage breakdown and on deciding the most equitable distribution of property, the proper level of maintenance and . . . the best possible arrangements for the welfare of any children . . . How can a court satisfy itself as to marriage breakdown if it does not see anyone about that marriage? I do not agree that 12 months' separation is a sufficiently long period to prove that a breakdown has taken place. However, again, that is a matter of personal opinion. The other issue to which I wish to refer concerns clause 47. Senator Evans had this to say in his second reading speech: . . . the Government is convinced of the value of this amendment as an important development towards streamlining the procedures of the Family Court and reducing costs to litigants. There is an emphasis on reducing cost. We have before us a massive piece of legislation which is aimed essentially at streamlining divorce rather than reinforcing the concept of marriage. What really has been done since 1975 to try to reinforce the concept of marriage? Basically, there has been an effort to destroy it. If we focus our attention on funding we can get some indication of what has been happening in this area. The Budget allocation for pre-marriage education courses in 1975 amounted to $50,000. In 1982-83 again only $50,000 was allocated . The amount allocated for marriage counselling in 1980 was $2.5m. In 1982-83 it was $3.3m. This funding represents an increasing cost to the community, apart from all the social costs and problems that arise. In 1980, $11m was allocated for Family Law Act services. An amount of $14.8m was allocated in 1981-82 and $ 16.1m in 1982-83. In speaking against these amendments we should look at the statements made by the honourable member for Dundas, Philip Ruddock, when he tabled the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act on 28 August 1980. Mr Ruddock, speaking on behalf of his Committee, said: The Committee shares a concern that marriage be supported and that steps be taken to ensure the stability of marriage. In our view there is a role for family law in supporting an ideal and stable view of marriage. It will be seen that the approach favoured by the Committee is that more emphasis be placed on marriage and the obligations that it entails, rather than the deterrent effects of the provisions of the divorce law as a factor influencing the stability of marriage. I acknowledge that the Bill picks up about 37 of the 72 recommendations of that Committee but I believe that the legislation is becoming rather hypocritical. Streamlining provisions have been introduced to make divorce easier and these have the effect of breaking down the institution of marriage. Yet section 43, which Senator Walters quoted, states: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction . . . have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; I presume that on the one hand we are trying in section 43 to enhance and protect the institution of marriage. On the other hand, amendments have been introduced that have the purpose and intent of effectively breaking down marriage. I think this is somewhat regrettable. I agree with the humanitarian view expressed by the Committee. I share its concern but I believe that the provisions of this Bill do not, as I mentioned earlier, enhance and emphasise the institution of marriage. Essentially marriage has become pretty much an unenforceable contract. People who argue in favour of clause 47 again point to the ease and low cost of divorce by post, as it is called. I believe that these concepts are a little bit misleading and are not necessarily always in the interests of those who are undergoing divorce. Proponents of the Bill claim that the present proceedings surrounding an undefended divorce application are somewhat farcical and routine because many applications take less than one minute to be granted and in many cases the outcome is known well in advance. Although this is usually the case, I believe that for a variety of reasons it is still useful and beneficial to both parties to be present in the court unless it is ruled to be impossible. Senator Coleman —Why? Senator WATSON —The termination of marriage is an important event and it needs to be marked by some sort of ceremony or some right of passage. This is done not to increase the hardship, the embarrassment or the pain of the couple but to allow them the opportunity to make a mark and to start their lives afresh. The appearance in court to some extent could be likened to a funeral service. It is a decisive act. It is an important part of the grief process. Some psychologists point out that it aids a healthy recovery from an emotional loss. It may be easier and it may be more comfortable initially if the parties do not have to attend a court hearing. But ease is not always good. Non-appearance allows people the opportunity to escape from the reality of the divorce and the failure of their relationship. But one of the most worrying aspects of divorce is the number of second marriages which also end in divorce. I cited those figures earlier. Unfortunately the numbers of second marriages ending in failure are increasing at an alarming rate which is a further indication of the breakdown of the institution of the family in our society, with all its consequent social problems. I will be supporting a number of amendments including those proposed by Senator Walters and Senator Harradine. I believe that we are discussing a very important issue, an issue which I believe is going to have far reaching effects on the community at large. The stability of our society is very much at risk. I have some concern about the impact that these proposed amendments will have. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.18) —Mr Deputy President-(Quorum formed) The Senate is debating the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. This particular measure had its genesis in the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on the Family Law Act. The amendments now before us are not greatly dissimilar to those that were before us in 1982. In fact, they were first brought into the Senate in 1981. Insofar as the amendments give greater protection to children, tighten up measures which are designed to achieve some semblance of equity in property matters and enable a proper attention to be given to areas which previously were neglected, I support them. However, the amendments really amount to fiddling with a system which has been found to be wanting. The test of that, of course, is in the enormous amount of correspondence that each and every member of parliament receives, in the expressions of concern abut the operations of the Family Law Act and, indeed, in the expressions of genuine grievance which innocent persons feel as a result of having been through the Family Court system . Nothing in this Bill will go towards remedying the deep sense of grievance and injustice experienced by those people. The reason for that is that this Bill does not go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem, insofar as it is legislative, is contained in the original Family Law Act and, specifically, in the definition of irretrievable breakdown which is the sole requirement for dissolution of marriage. That definition, as we all know, is simply separation for 12 months. Furthermore, in the original legislation there is not adequate emphasis on the need to ensure that the parties or the prospective parties have, and are required to have, access to marriage counselling and family counselling services which should achieve, if possible, reconciliation of the parties. These are evident failures, evident blemishes, in the legislation at the moment. The facts have been stated before in this debate by the two previous speakers, Senator Watson and Senator Walters. The facts concerning marital breakdown, divorce, and their effects on the children, have been stated. Let me remind the Senate of those facts. There is a growing trend towards divorce within Australia . In 1982 there were over 44,000 divorces. The number of children under 18 years of age affected by those divorces was over 53,000, bringing the total number of children under the age of 18 affected by divorce since the family law registration came into effect in 1976 to more than 400,000. It is said by the advocates of the family law legislation that there is machinery-namely, the Family Court of Australia and the family law system-to which they can bring their differences and those differences are then determined by a decree of dissolution of the marriage. But of course that does not determine the basic human problem. The problem very often is still with the persons concerned. In fact, the evidence for that is in the rate of marriage breakdown for second marriages. The rate of marriage breakdown in Australia for persons who have been divorced and have married for the second time is 50 per cent-almost twice the rate of breakdown of first marriages. The Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 does not even attempt to go to that problem. It fails to give genuine legislative support to the institution of marriage. As I said at the commencement of my speech, I will support the majority of the amendments in the legislation before the Senate because most of them are not harmful. They tend to assist in certain areas. But they do not go to the heart of the matter. A number of honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives last year, concerned at the fact that the legislation did not give genuine support for the institution of marriage, and concerned at the continued and increasing sense of grievance experienced by a large number of persons who go through the Family Court, sat down and considered what amendments should be made to the original legislation. They were not there to knock the proposals in this Bill or those which were in the previous Bill that came before the Parliament, except of course the matter that has been raised relating to undefended divorces, or the so-called divorce by post proposition. They were not there to knock the other provisions. They sat down simply to grasp the opportunity which this amending Bill provided to do something about the heart of the matter, to go to the heart of the problem. The meeting came up with certain amendments. A former senator went a good deal further and proposed other amendments which were acceptable to a number of persons. I refer to the amendments proposed by former Senator John Martyr of Western Australia. However, the majority of the meeting considered that those amendments at that stage would not attract majority support of the Parliament. We then proceeded to consider what amendments might attract majority support of the Parliament. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator HARRADINE —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had described how provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 and those of its predecessor, the Family Law Amendment Bill 1981, had been discussed at length in this chamber. It is not my intention, at this stage, to canvass those propositions at length. It is my intention, however, at the Committee stage, to question the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about some of the matters contained in the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 and the differences between that Bill and the 1981 Bill. I mentioned also that most of the provisions in the Bill were unexceptionable and would receive my support. One of the glaring exceptions to that is, of course, the amendments to the Act relating to the divorce by post proposition. I pointed out to the Senate that the Bill does not go to the heart of the problem. I pointed out that last year there were over 44,000 divorces with over 53,000 children affected, bringing the total, since 1976, to over 400,000 children-that is to say, children under the age of 18 years-affected by divorce. I said that the amending Bill which is before us does not assist those people who feel a grievous sense of injustice as a result of having gone through the Family Court, particularly those persons who have been deserted and whose partners made applications for the dissolution of marriage which were granted on the basis of 12 months separation. I indicated that a group of senators and members had met and had attempted to come to grips with this problem early last year when the 1981 Family Law Amendment Bill was before the Senate. They did this because the 1981 Amendment Bill and this Bill provide the opportunity for any member of the Parliament to move amendments to the original Act. That provision is contained within the Standing Orders. Earlier I mentioned that a former honourable senator had put forward a number of wide ranging amendments with which, in principle, I agreed, but in practical terms it would have been impossible for the amendments to be accepted by the Senate. A number of amendments were proposed and were agreed to by that group of senators and members. The amendments attempted to come to grips with the real problem and provide some genuine legislative support for the institution of marriage. Those amendments related to required reconciliation counselling; the rights of applicants for dissolution of marriage; young marriages and the need for required reconciliation processes as well as the time lapse, required before an application for dissolution would be entertained; and additional matters relating to property settlements and the extension of the separation period. Copies of those amendments were circulated in this chamber last year at the time of the debate on the 1981 Bill. Each and every senator received a copy of those amendments. For the benefit of honourable senators I am having those amendments reprinted and redistributed. They were the subject matter of a considerable amount of discussion, and generally of agreement, by the people with whom the matters were raised. Prior to this legislation coming before the Parliament, a further meeting was convened. Notice of that meeting was sent to a number of honourable senators requesting that they attend. Notice of the meeting was sent to the Whips of all the parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives with a request that others be notified so that consideration could be given to amendments which would give genuine legislative support for the institution of marriage. At that meeting a compendium was tabled. The people who attended the meeting received the compendium which listed the differences between the 1981 amending Bill and the 1983 amending Bill. It listed also the amendments which were foreshadowed during the debate on the 1981 amending Bill in 1982. It included also, of course , the 1983 amending Bill and the Attorney-General's second reading speech. What concerns me is that these genuine attempts to come to grips with the real legislative problems about which there is so much concern within the community have been somewhat dented by the decision of the Government to declare this amending Bill a Government Bill and bind Government members to vote for it. I was told by an authoritative source within the Australian Labor Party that it was a general feeling that the amending Bill itself should go through, that members were bound to vote for the amending Bill by a decision of the party, and that if other matters were to be brought forward these should be brought forward by way of a private member's Bill. This was quite clear. In fact, this is the bottom line of what has happened. On 23 August the Attorney-General, in answer to a question that I raised in the Senate, replied: . . . I recommended to my Party-I did indeed initiate this, Senator Harradine, and I make no apology for it-that the Bill be treated as a social measure of an ordinary government kind, save and except insofar as any individual Caucus member wanted to raise, within the Parliamentary Labor Party, the propriety of any particular clause in the Bill being treated in that way. Agreement was reached, without any dissent in the Labor Party room, that the Bill be treated in that particular way with the opportunity being given to honourable members to raise any particular clause of the Bill, as it was then before them and the Parliament, which they thought should attract a conscience or an undisciplined party vote and that the Caucus could then determine that the matter be dealt with in that particular way. I then asked a supplementary question as to whether that decision bound members of the Australian Labor Party in respect of other amendments that came forward. By implication Senator Evans is now saying that it does not. He said that at that time too. He continued: I do not think the Caucus decision should be taken as in any way referring to those amendments which have been previously foreshadowed but which are now formally before us. He immediately went on to contradict that statement by saying, in relation to these amendments: . . . they are not bound to do so;- that is, to vote against them- that is not what I am saying. If any individual wants the matter dealt with in that particular way, as I have indicated, I hope that the procedure to be applied is that that matter will be raised with me. Accordingly I, having the conduct of the legislation on the Government's side, will seek the adjournment of any such matter in order that a party room position on it can be worked out. So far as I am concerned that is the thin end of the wedge. That puts paid to any attempt by honourable senators to seek to have freely considered amendments which give genuine legislative support to the institution of marriage. The Attorney-General has taken the unprecedented step of declaring matters concerning family law, abortion and the like as social policy of a government character. Senator Murphy did not do that in 1974. What, might I ask, through you, Mr Deputy President, is the position so far as the Caucus members are concerned in relation to the 23 amendments to the amending Bill which honourable senators received only at 12 noon today. What is the situation with respect to, for example, the 'young marriages' provision? Is that a Caucus or a bound vote? Senator Watson —They do not know. Senator HARRADINE —Of course they do not know. The net result of all of this rigmarole by the Attorney-General to bind his party will be that members of the Labor Party who previously indicated support for the very moderate and reasoned amendments that I was going to propose, will not support them on this occasion. Senator Gareth Evans —Nothing to do with their merits? Senator HARRADINE —They indicated support for them last time, Senator. The indication that the honourable senator has given now is that if any of them wish to support them on this occasion, they must report to him. Senator Coleman —Oh, come on! That is a nonsense statement and you know it. Senator HARRADINE —Then you must report that to the Caucus. These are your words -- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, you should address your remarks to the Chair. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry. Senator Coleman said that is wrong and that I know it to be. Senator Coleman —I said it is a nonsense. Senator HARRADINE —Of course it is a nonsense, but that is what Senator Evans has said. In answer to me he said: If any individual wants the matter dealt with in that particular way- that is, to free up the tied vote, the bound vote- as I have indicated, I hope that the procedure to be applied is that that matter will be raised with me. Accordingly I, having the conduct of the legislation on the Government's side, will seek the adjournment of any such matter in order that a party room position on it can be worked out. If that is not a party dictating to the individual consciences of the members of the Labor Party, I do not know what is. It does not allow a free and unfettered consideration by the members of the Labor Party of this matter. The only excuse that the Attorney-General has given-Senator Bolkus has not stated his decision; he gave it in Caucus-- Senator Coleman —How do you know what he did in our Caucus? Senator HARRADINE —I know a good deal of what went on in your Caucus. The only reason given was that there has been a great deal of difficulty in bringing this legislation forward. That difficulty is not my fault. I went to a lot of trouble in relation to the compendium and in preparing the amendments. Honourable senators will see that I have not delayed it. There have been a lot of proposed amendments to this legislation. We have even had 23 more since noon today. In fact, we did not cause the delay. If the truth of the matter is known, the Attorney-General was largely responsible for the delay in these measures coming forth. I repeat that most of these proposals will have my support. I believe that an opportunity should be allowed to consider these matters on their merits. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.18) —in reply-I am grateful to all honourable senators for their contribution to the second reading debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983-a contribution which for the most part has been constructive and has recognised the significance of the particular measure with which we are now dealing. It is very significant when compared with a good deal of other Commonwealth legislation that occupies the time of this Parliament . The Bill does contain a large number of measures which are of real significance for ordinary men and women in this country. For example, it will permit all children who have been treated as part of one family to be dealt with now by a single court at a single hearing in the event of a breakdown of that family. The need to achieve a uniform jurisdiction in this respect, in relation to the guardianship question in particular, has been referred to by Senator Missen and Senator Macklin in this debate. The Bill will again permit a spouse to apply for a property settlement under the Family Law Act, which Act of course recognises indirect and non-financial contributions to the acquisition of property within the marriage without having first to go through a divorce proceeding, which is of course a measure of extreme importance to certain religious denominations. The Bill will now permit a surviving spouse to continue a property settlement action where the other spouse dies before the determination of that action. The Bill will permit the Family Court to be truly able to do justice between parties to the marriage where one party is entitled in the future to substantial superannuation benefits, one area in which there have been spectacular injustices in the way the present law has been operating. The Bill will allow the wishes of a child of any age, where these have been expressed, to be taken into account in the Court's determination of that child's future. No longer will the arbitrary rule apply, and this was adverted to by Senator Zakharov in the debate, that a child must have reached 14 years of age before his or her wishes will be taken into account. The Bill will enable the Court to attach a power of arrest order to injunctions granted under the Act for the personal protection of spouses and children, again a matter to which Senator Zakharov drew attention in the second reading debate, as did Senator Crowley. The Bill will enable married people to obtain the benefit of State laws in relation to domestic violence in a way that has not hitherto been the case. The Bill will allow the Family Court to be open and the details of its proceedings to be published, with due regard to the privacy of those involved in the proceedings. Those are important measures which will, I believe, assist the public image and understanding of the Family Court and maybe make Family Court judges a little less insulated from public scrutiny than might otherwise be the case. Most of these reforms have been under consideration for a very long time, some for almost as long as the Act itself has been in operation. Most of them have now been before the Senate, as Senator Harradine indicated, for close on two years. Given the significance to ordinary people in the community of all these measures in the Bill, and given the delays in the implementation of this legislation, it seems to the Government that the passage of this Bill is now a matter of the utmost urgency. This is the reason, as I explained yesterday in Question Time, why the Government has taken the action it has in relation to the free vote issue, an issue which has so exercised Senator Walters and Senator Harradine, that formidable Tasmanian duo-Senator Harradine and Senator Harridan, as someone once said-- Senator Harradine —That won't wash. You could have made it a Government Bill for the purposes of the debate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have explained the situation in that respect. Let me go on. Since Senator Harradine is so deeply interested in the internal processes of the Labor Caucus, having been party to them for so long, let me simply clarify the situation further by drawing to Senator Harradine's attention the actual terms of the Caucus resolution which was passed on 24 May-not earlier this week, as some newspaper reports had it-on this particular matter. Senator Harradine —I did not say it was earlier this week. Senator GARETH EVANS —You may not have, Senator, but that was the substance of some reports. The resolution was in the following terms: That the Bill not be treated as a free vote Bill except insofar as Caucus may resolve in relation to any particular clauses clearly raising conscience issues. That resolution, as I said in a letter I wrote yesterday to other members of my Party, because I believe it is important to clarify this issue, was based on the Bill as it stood in May. Since then, as I told my fellow Caucus members, further consideration has been given to the Bill and I propose to move a series of further amendments. What I said to my Caucus colleagues in a letter, which I circulated after Question Time yesterday, was this: I have also received notice from various non-Labor Senators of their intention to move further amendments. The amendments are as follows: Senator Missen: see Attachment B; Senator Durack: see Attachment C; Senator Walters- and I summarised the three amendments of which I had notice from her relating to clause 25, clause 30, and clause 47-- Senator Harradine — and I summarised the three particular matters with which I had clear intimation that Senator Harradine was going to proceed, namely, his amendments in relation to clause 4 and two amendments in relation to clause 20. I then said this: I would be grateful if you would advise me immediately whether, in terms of the Caucus resolution set out above, you consider that any of these further amendments should be considered by Caucus with a view to resolving that the vote on such amendment be a free vote. What I have said all along, and there seems to have been some misunderstanding by Senator Harradine about this, is simply that if a member of our Party believes that a particular matter raises a conscience issue he is fully entitled , in terms of our own internal Party processes, to raise that issue within the Caucus in order that a decision can be made by Caucus, not on whether that clause should be opposed or supported but on whether or not the debate and vote on that clause should be treated as a free vote matter. Senator Harradine —Well, that is the same thing. Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Harradine believes it is the same thing, he is occupying a slightly different planet from the one on which I am standing at the moment. What I further said was this: In relation to amendments which may be moved from the floor of the House and of which we have therefore not yet received notice, I propose that any Labor member who regards an amendment of this kind as requiring a free vote should raise the issue with me. I will then take steps to seek an adjournment of the debate on that amendment pending consideration by Caucus. Again, the clear implication and my clear intention there was that the resolution of Caucus be to determine whether or not the vote on that particular clause should be a free one. I hope that has clarified the issue and set at rest the doubts that Senator Harradine has been so noisily expressing. It is for the reason of the urgency and the significance of this measure that I do urge honourable senators not to use the debate on this Bill as an opportunity to indulge in a fruitless re-examination of the underlying philosophy of the Act . That must now be taken as settled, and the task before the Parliament is surely to make that Act work. In the course of this debate Senator Durack appeared to suggest that there had not been enough time for adequate consideration of this Bill since its introduction on 1 June. He was referring in particular to interested bodies such as the Family Law Council and the Law Council of Australia. I say to Senator Durack and anyone else who might be minded to take the same point that the Bill has been very fully considered by both these organisations, and most of the amendments that I will be moving tonight or tomorrow do result from the recommendations of those particular bodies. Let me now foreshadow briefly the amendments that I propose to move in the Committee stage. In doing so I hope that I will be able to dispose of at least some of the issues which have been raised by earlier speakers in the second reading debate. For a start, there was some discussion in the debate last evening as to the fate of the negotiations with the States for a reference of family law powers. One of the obstacles to a successful conclusion of those negotiations has always been the issue of State child welfare law and the concern of the States that the Commonwealth somehow proposed to intrude into that area. On a number of occasions since assuming office I have endeavoured to assure my State counterparts that that is not so. In a further attempt to convince them of the Commonwealth's position on this matter, I will move an amendment to what is now section 10 of the Act to make it clear that orders made under the Act with respect to guardianship, custody and so on, of a child cannot override orders made in relation to the child under what is commonly termed State child welfare law. In answer to Senator Missen's queries concerning the progress of the reference negotiations, I can say that earlier this year I was offered by certain States a reference on the terms that it be accompanied by an agreement that would have imposed, unfortunately, unacceptable restrictions on the exercise by the Commonwealth of the powers referred, restrictions that in a number of respects were incompatible with the Bill presently before the Senate. Therefore in July this year-just last month-I wrote to the States asking for a reference to be given in clear and unqualified terms, save for a qualification in respect to child welfare law, that is in terms similar to the proposal put to the Adelaide Constitutional Convention earlier this year, the unfortunate fate of which has already been mentioned by Senator Macklin. Senator Durack also asserted in his speech that the provisions for parties to consider reconciliation in section 14 of the Family Law Act have become a dead letter. I am pleased to be able to tell him that, in line with a recent Family Law Council recommendation, I will move a group of amendments, the effect of which will be to revise the provisions in section 14 (6) which, as it stands at the moment, requires parties to a marriage of less than two years to consider reconciliation, with a marriage counsellor, prior to the hearing of their application for divorce. The revised provision will require those who have been married for less than two years to have reconciliation counselling prior to the filing of the application for divorce, rather than just before the hearing of the application. Futhermore, I indicate that this revised provision will not be buried away in section 14, where it is at the moment, but will appear in section 44 of the Act, which deals with the institution of proceedings. I understand that particularly when parties act for themselves, as they now do often in dissolution proceedings , it is possible for them to overlook this requirement, buried as it is in a quite different part of the Act, for reconciliation counselling where the marriage is of less than two years duration. It is expected that, when parties act for themselves, they will at least look at the provisions in the Act where the basic procedures are laid out. That is now where this particular new and more far reaching requirement will be located. I draw this amendment particularly to Senator Harradine's attention since I understand that he is concerned particularly about the breakdown of short marriages-as well as, of course, about long ones and medium sized ones. But he has indicated a particular concern about short marriages and I believe that this amendment will seriously assist the cause, if it is a possible one, of saving at least some of those marriages from dissolution. Another group of amendments that I will be moving relate to section 87 of the Act under which parties can enter into an agreement in substitution for their rights to apply for property settlement or maintenance orders under the Act. Such agreements must be approved by the Court before they can be of any effect but nonetheless they will make unnecessary a number of present court proceedings . I will leave the details of these amendments to the Committee stage. At this point I merely say that I did not include these amendments in the Bill when I originally introduced it in June because I considered that they were of such complexity and significance that they required consideration of the Family Law Council in conjunction with the Law Council of Australia and also a Family Court judges committee. That consideration and consultation has taken place and I am now, as a result, in a position to move these very important amendments to section 87. I take this opportunity to thank the Family Law Council and the Family Law Committee of the Law Council and the judges for their very prompt assistance in this very complex and difficult matter. Similarly, most of the other significant amendments that I will be moving have resulted from recommendations of the Family Law Council, the Family Court Judges Law Reform Committee and the Law Council Committee. I will mention these amendments only briefly. They include, for example, an amendment to the wording of the definition of custody, amendments to the provisions concerning the exercise of additional powers by registrars and amendments to permit the publication of Family Court lists, by names of parties, in newspapers, at least in large cities, where there are exceptional circumstances of which the judges are persuaded. I wish to say a few words about some of the more fundamental philosophical issues that have been canvassed, inevitably I fear, in this debate. As to any suggestion that the present separation period necessary to establish irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce should be extended from one year to two, as has been suggested by Senator Durack and which I believe is also favoured by Senator Harradine, it ought to be pointed out that that kind of move is at odds with experience in comparable countries elsewhere. In particular , in the United Kingdom the sole grounds for divorce is that a marriage has irretrievably broken down. That ground is established by several different kinds of proof: Proof of adultery, certainly; proof of intolerable behaviour or desertion by the respondent; as well as proof by separation for two years with the consent of the respondent to the divorce or, alternatively, separation for five years. Senator Missen —It received no support from the joint committee investigating it . Senator GARETH EVANS —Indeed, and that is the very point that I want to make, Senator Missen. In a country where this, albeit as one among a number of grounds rather than the sole ground, is expressed in terms of a two-year separation period rather than one, the move has in fact been away from that back to a period of one year. In 1979 a committee of United Kingdom solicitors, in a report known as 'A Better Way Out', recommended that the sole ground for divorce should be irretrievable breakdown or marriage established by proof of separation of not less than one year immediately preceding the presentation of a petition. This recommendation was reviewed by a further committee in 1982 which endorsed the position of the 1979 committee. The question of an extension of the separation period required for divorce was considered by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and that committee considered that there should be no change to the provisions of the Act relating to the grounds for divorce in this country. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee received many submissions advocating extension of the period of separation required for divorce on the grounds that this would enhance the possibility for reconciliation. However, the Joint Committee accepted the evidence of those working in the area of marital therapy-I refer to marriage guidance organisations, the Family Court counselling service and the marriage guidance councils-that the prospect of reconciliation diminishes with the period the spouses remain separated. On the evidence of those bodies working at the coal face twelve months is ample for the full consequences of separation to be experienced. Also it is true that many of the submissions received by the Joint Select Committee in this regard recommended the inclusion of adultery or various kinds of intolerable behaviour as grounds for instant divorce. It needs to be repeated that the Joint Select Committee emphatically rejected the reintroduction of the concept of fault into Australian divorce law. It was particularly critical of the introduction of instant grounds for divorce as an alternative to the ground requiring a separation period on the basis that that went much further towards establishing the genuineness of the irretrievability of the marriage breakdown than any more instant ground, however much more instant grounds might satisfy the moral fervour of some people in this chamber or who contributed to that debate. I mention finally that Senator Durack has indicated that he and Senator Chaney intend to move an amendent to section 75(2) (f) of the Family Law Act that will have the effect of not requiring the Court to take into account pensions or benefits under any law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory in the context of making maintenance orders. I point out immediately that, even if successful, that amendment would not prevent a court taking account of such pension or benefit under section 75(2) (o) which enables a court to take into account any fact or circumstance which, in its opinion, the justice of the case requires it to take account of. The issue underlying all this, as to whether public funds should be utilised in supporting spouses and dependent children in the unfortunate event of a marriage breakdown, is, I readily acknowledge, a vexed and complex one. But I consider that persons who are capable of maintaining their spouses and children in need of financial support should not be relieved of their responsibilities because the dependent spouse is eligible for social service benefits. But against that, I also agree with the view expressed by the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that those without adequate means of support should be assisted by the State. Inextricably linked with this issue is the present quite unsatisfactory state of maintenance enforcement and collection. I believe Senator Durack's amendment would result in higher maintenance awards and would place a much greater burden on the already inadequate maintenance enforcement system. Because of my concern about maintenance, I have established a departmental inquiry into the present state of collection and enforcement. That inquiry is now investigating the mechanisms in place in various States and overseas and examining the possibility of establishing a national maintenance enforcement and collection agency. That inquiry is well advanced and I anticipate receiving its recommendations by the end of this year. Until maintenance collection is operating properly and until there is clear evidence that there will be savings to the Commonwealth-it is no use having maintenance orders if they cannot be enforced and if the social security system has to bear the burden anyway-I am not disposed to accept this particular amendment foreshadowed by Senators Durack and Chaney. Senator Durack —Were your views on this subject correctly reported in the Australian on 11 April this year? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is very rarely that my views are correctly reported in the Australian on this or any other matter. I will need to take that question on notice. Family law is of vital importance to hundreds of thousands of Australians. This Bill will effect a number of long overdue reforms in family law and procedure. I wish it, although I do not expect it to have, a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 and 2-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 3 (Interpretation). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.41) —I move: (1) Page 4, clause 3, lines 25 to 41, leave out proposed paragraphs (ea) and ( eb), substitute the following paragraphs: '' '(ea) proceedings between- (i) the parties to a marriage; or (ii) if one of the parties to a marriage has died-the other party to the marriage and the legal personal representative of the deceased party to the marriage, being proceedings- (iii) for the enforcement of, or otherwise in relation to, a maintenance agreement that has been approved under section 87 and the approval of which has not been revoked; (iv) in relation to a maintenance agreement the approval of which under section 87 has been revoked; or (v) with respect to the enforcement under this Act of a maintenance agreement that is registered in a court under section 86 or an overseas maintenance agreement that is registered in a court under regulations made pursuant to section 89; (eb) proceedings with respect to the enforcement of a decree made under the law of an overseas country in proceedings of a kind referred to in paragraph (c), ( cb), (cc), (cd) or (ce); or';''. Essentially, this is a technical amendment on definitional matters. It is related to the more substantial group of amendments that I will be later moving in relation to clause 87. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to. Proposed new clauses 4A, 4B and 4C. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.43) —I move: (2) Page 6, after clause 4 insert the following new clauses: Child welfare law not affected ''4A. Section 10 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub- section (2) 'Subject to sub-section (3), nothing' and substituting 'Nothing'; and (b) by omitting from sub-section (3) 'and an order made in accordance with this sub-section has effect notwithstanding any order or action of the kind referred to in paragraph (2) (b) or (d) made or taken before the making of the order made in accordance with this sub-section'. Conciliation ''4B. Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (6). Admissions made to marriage counsellors, &c. ''4C. Section 18 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (1) (b) 'in accordance with sub-section 14 (2A) or paragraph 14 (6) (a)' and substituting 'for the purposes of sub-section 14 (2A) or sub-paragraph 44 (1B) ( a) (ii)'.''. I should explain the context of the amendment. Clause 4A amends sections 10 (2) and 10 (3) of the Family Law Act to provide that an order made under the Family Law Act with respect to the maintenance, custody or guardianship of the child of the marriage does not override an order made with respect to the child under what is commonly termed State child welfare law. As I indicated earlier, the impact of this is to preserve clearly State child welfare law for the States and make that absolutely clear and, in the process, one hopes assist the States to concentrate their minds on the merits of a reference of powers to the Commonwealth. Proposed new clauses 4B and 4C are simply consequentials related to amendment No. 3 which we will get to later on and which I understand is uncontroversial. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.46) — A full explanation has not been given of the proposed new clauses. As I read the amending Bill, the position as previously envisaged by it could well have involved foster children in the decision-making process of the Family Court of Australia. Now clearly, were foster children ever to be considered by some natural parents to be, at some subsequent stage, subject to decision by the Family Court rather than the welfare agencies of the States, then those parents could well lose faith in the welfare agencies which had the responsibility to place their child in a home which reflected all of the circumstances of the case. I am not too sure whether the amendment which has now been moved by the Attorney-General to his Family Law Amendment Bill is designed to overcome that fear. It has been raised with me that there is a real fear that the credibility of welfare agencies in the States may be at stake were the original amending Bill carried in its pristine state. Maybe this amendment is an attempt to overcome that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.47) —I sought to make clear in my second reading speech and also in my brief account of what these proposed new clauses are about that that is indeed as I understand what the draftsman is about and what we are trying to accomplish here to make it absolutely clear that orders that are made in essentially child welfare matters by State courts are not overriden by the Family Court of Australia in the exercise of its essentially Family Court jurisdiction. It is to deal with that particular concern on which we are quite willing to accommodate the State that this exercise in clarification of what is actually section 10 of the Family Law Act was set in train. So I do not think there are any grounds for Senator Harradine to be concerned here. I think we have attended to what I understand to be the nature of his problem. Proposed new clauses agreed to. Proposed new clause 4D. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.48) —I move: Page 6, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: ''4D. Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (6) and substituting the following sub-section: '6. In any application for dissolution of marriage the court shall not hear the proceedings unless the court is satisfied that- (a) the parties, together and separately, have had the assistance of a marriage counsellor, an approved marriage counselling organization or other suitable person or organization nominated by the Principal Director of Court Counselling of the Family Court or by an appropriate officer of a Family Court of a State for the purpose of considering a reconciliation; or (b) there are special circumstances by reason of which the hearing should proceed.'.''. The purpose of this amendment is to raise the question of required conciliation conferences in respect of applicants for dissolution of marriage. I am attempting to omit section 14 (6) which has already been omitted by Senator Gareth Evans. I believe that the amendment deserves the support of this Parliament. It relates to the situation in which two people who have made a covenant or a commitment to each other, for some reason or other come to the situation where one of them has made an application for dissolution of that covenant, namely, the dissolution of marriage. All members of parliament would feel, I think, that if something could be done to resolve that problem it ought to be done. At the moment it is quite clear that though the judge has the right to question whether cohabitation can be resumed and whether there has been counselling, those of us who know something about the operation of the Family Court know that much of the counselling is not reconciliation counselling but is in fact separation counselling. I do not deny that it is necessary for the parties to the dispute, if you like, to have made available to them by professional persons details of the consequences of their own actions as far as their children, their property and they themselves are concerned. What this amendment seeks to do, however, is to require reconciliation counselling. On the face of it, that may seem to be a contradiction of terms. How can one force a person to have reconciliation counselling? But of course this is provided for in other legislation. It is contained in the various pieces of racial discrimination legislation and it is in the sex discrimination legislation which is currently before the Parliament. In fact there is, under threat of heavy penalty, a requirement of the persons involved in those difficult areas of personal communications and personal conflict to come to what is called in those instances a conciliation conference. Senator Missen —It has not much chance of success though, has it? Senator HARRADINE —I will come to that in a moment. It has a chance of success insofar as the Sex Discrimination Bill is concerned because of the powers of the person before whom the conciliation conference takes place. It is a bit like the conciliation and arbitration provisions. The conciliation processes are effective because of the recommendatory powers of the chairman of the conciliation conference or the conciliator. In this instance, of course, a report goes from the counsellor to the court. In my view, it is absolutely essential to raise this issue of required conciliation. The experience of conciliation counsellors in the field suggest that, whilst there is resentment sometimes when it is suggested that persons sit down and conciliate, once that resentment is directed to the proper area very often a settlement can be achieved. I believe that we as parliamentarians, if we are in the business of community consensus, which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself is very clear about, surely we ought to be in the business of giving legislative support for reconciliation consensus in the very important human relationship area of marriage. I commend the Attorney-General for the additional amendment that he proposes to move in respect of young marriages, short marriages, call them what you will. In that instance the proposition which will be put before us at a later stage will be that there will be required conciliation with the aim of a reconciliation prior to the application for the dissolution in respect of marriages which are of a duration of less than two years. I am not proposing that that proposition be applied in this instance. I would like to see that occur. In fact, I would like to see the layers right out of it and their being required, before they submit any paper or document to the Family Court, to ensure that there is a conciliation process. Lawyers being lawyers, once the documents are filed people are in an adversary position and the parties very often feel that they are in a situation which is grinding to a conclusion. I apologise to lawyers for saying that. This amendment does not do that. What it does is simply this: It requires conciliation for the purpose of considering a reconciliation after an application is made for the dissolution of a marriage, ensuring that the court does not hear the proceedings unless the court is satisfied that that has taken place. It is the old story-I think this is the real problem with the whole of the Family Law Act-that hard cases make bad law. I think that has been the problem from the start in the whole of the family law legislation. It might be said: 'Oh well, that is a hard case. We cannot get Joe Blow to conciliate, to come to the conference'. He might be overseas. He might be in a situation which makes it impossible for him to come to the conference. There might also be a situation in which the very presence before a conference of two people whose love has turned to absolute enmity might lead to physical conflict or something of that character. In this proposition that I am putting to the Senate I am leaving it open to the court to proceed when there are special circumstances under which the hearing should proceed. In all fairness, I suggest that this amendment merits the support of the whole of the Senate. I believe that it is not one of those measures that actually reopens the whole debate, although the next one will be. I believe that it is very worth while considering. It had the very strong support of a group of honourable senators, many of whom held quite divergent opinions on many other issues, on the last occasion it was debated. I ask the Attorney-General to consider this matter very thoroughly and if he cannot agree to it immediately at least to postpone consideration of the clause. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.00) —Senator Harradine's amendment would make compulsory reconciliation counselling for all divorcing couples, not just those who have been married for less than two years. It is an attractive concept, I readily agree. Certainly, the opposition to it, which I feel now bound to express, is not based on any considerations of principle but rather on considerations of resources and the best cost benefit application of those necessarily scarce resources. It will be recalled-indeed, Senator Harradine mentioned it-that I will be moving my own amendment to section 14 (6) in a few minutes to replace it with new provisions in section 44 to require persons married for less than two years to have that kind of reconciliation counselling not just at the moment before they get into court but before they file their applications. I think that is sufficient demonstration of my desire and the Government's desire to accommodate as far as possible the kind of point Senator Harradine is making. The difficulty about it is that it would require a very considerable increase in resources both of the Family Court counselling service and approved marriage counselling organisations which play such a marvellous supplementary role. For the last year for which we had complete figures readily available, 1980, there were 523 completed compulsory section 14 (6) counselling conferences. In the same year there were 39,258 divorces. Those 523 conferences represented just 2.2 per cent of all counselling provided by the Family Court counselling service . The stark reality of those figures would be readily apparent. There are just not the resources either within the counselling service itself or externally in the community to enable any kind of serious attempt to provide reconciliation counselling for all couples undergoing the divorce experience. Given that fact, it seems more desirable to focus reconciliation counselling attention on those areas where experience demonstrates that such counselling is likely to have the most useful impact. That is undoubtedly in the area of short or young marriages, as the case may be. Moreover, the fear is that the extension of section 14 (6) to all divorce applications would be likely in practice to lead to little more than the applicants being required to go through a further procedural step. It would not be likely to be seriously regarded, particularly given resource constraints and presumably the necessity as a result to process people very much like sausages through the machine in order to satisfy this procedural step. That point itself was acknowledged by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. Nonetheless, it thought that section 14 (6) was certainly worth preserving in its present form for marriages of short duration. I can do no more than repeat that no further consideration of this in the present resource climate would alter the Government's reaction, although I am very tempted by the merits of Senator Harradine's proposal and very much appreciate the sincerity with which it is put forward. It is simply not a proposal that we are able to accommodate consistently with the resources available to the family law administration. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.04) —I wonder whether that exhausts the ultimate view of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). It seems to me that it is something of an indictment of this community and this Parliament if our priorities are such that resources are not available to prevent the dissolution and failure of marriages. We may well find that there is merit in the amendment put forward and that with more concilliation we might have fewer divorces. That might be a cost saving in itself. As Senator Harradine said, there are compulsory conciliation provisions in other pieces of legislation. Marriage is a socially and legally binding contract and is one of those contracts that in many cases does not only influence and affect the direct participants but also may well have a traumatic and direct effect upon others such as the children to a marriage. I would have thought that it was a pretty unsatisfactory proposition to say that this amendment cannot be carried because the community cannot afford it. I ask Senator Evans to reconsider it on that basis. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.05) —Senator Evans, I honestly am not being difficult in any way. I want to understand what you intend to do about the voting on your side? Would this be the sort of situation-I am not being difficult, I do not understand it- The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I think, you should address your remarks through the Chair. Senator WALTERS —Mr Chairman, could you ask Senator Evans? I fail to understand how these amendments are to be put through. I am not the only one on this side of the chamber who does not understand what procedure the Government is to adopt on the voting on these clauses. In all good faith, I honestly do not have a clue . I support Senator Crichton-Browne. I believe we could make a lot more use of the conciliatory services of the community. Many community services are not used to the hilt at the moment. They would, of course, need subsidising but not to the same extent as the family law councillors would need payment. We should not wipe off what Senator Evans has admitted is a very good idea. He said that the only reason he is not taking it up is that the cost to the taxpayer is too great and that we just do not have the facilities or the counsellors available. When we look at the figures he has given us we can understand the difficulties. But I think it would be a shame to wipe the idea off rather than attempt to alter the fault that is stopping its adoption. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.07) —The sentiments in paragraph ( a) of the amendment could not be disagreed with, as the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has said. If it were brought into effect the real work would probably need to be done in the area of marriage counselling organisations . There is no doubt whatever that what should be in place of this clause is pre- marriage counselling. Young people should be encouraged to seek counselling prior to entering into marriage. A large and constant advertising program of the right kind should be mounted to encourage people to seek advice about the state of their marriage at a time when they understand or feel that it is not working as they would wish it to. If we get toothache we go to the dentist as soon as we get it. But for some reason in personal relationships there is a natural tendency to try to hide the problem and not talk about it, or else, talk about it to someone who is totally unsuitable to try to help solve it. We need some sort of educative program to encourage people to seek help at a very early stage preferably, in that instance, through a marriage counselling organisation rather than the court structure. The mere fact of going to a court counsellor at that time would perhaps make a person feel that he was getting near the stage of being in court. They are my views as to what we should aim for in the first part of the amendment. What really troubles me about the amendment is paragraph (b). I wonder what is really meant by 'there are special circumstances by reason of which the hearing should proceed'. I know that the same phrase appears in section 14 of the Family Law Act as it has been operating. It relates there, though, to the provision that the parties to a marriage of less than two years duration must have been to counselling with a view to seeking a reconciliation. It says that in the event a hearing can proceed if there are special circumstances. But in that situation if a person cannot establish that there are special circumstances at least he knows that he has only to wait for the expiration of the period of two years and then he is entitled to a divorce. It cannot be stopped. In this situation, the paragraph seems to me incredibly open-ended. In some cases a person may want a divorce-perhaps is entitled to it-and the other party, for no reason of genuine reconciliation, may use this device merely as a means of stringing out the process and making life more difficult for the party seeking the divorce. My real concern is that paragraph (b) is incredibly open-ended in this situation. I say this even though I have a lot of sympathy for the concept of paragraph (a). However, I hope we would in fact work towards the advertising, promotion and education to which I have referred. However, I feel I really cannot support the amendment in view of the open-ended nature of paragraph (b). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(9.10) —I express a similar view to that of Senator Reid, that though it is desirable, of course, in the best of all worlds to have more conciliation, opportunities for conferences and so forth-of course this would help-the facilities of the court are restricted. There have been restrictions on the extent to which we have developed the Family Court system. We have never achieved a situation in which the Family Court covers the whole jurisdiction. A great deal is done by magistrates' courts, which do not have the facilities of a Family Court. I would accord a higher priority to the attempt to bring, to a lot more people in this country, the Family Court system and its facilities, than I would the provision before us. I join Senator Reid in saying that I believe the proposed provision could be an obstruction to people who wanted to proceed. There may not be enough people to carry out the work that would have to be done. As a consequence, delays would be caused and perhaps people would not have their family situation resolved until much later than would otherwise be the case. That would be a poor feature of any such procedure. Having more conciliation has, of course, desirable features. There may be occasions on which people who have gone a fair way along the road to divorce may be conciliated and as a result withdraw their proceedings. However, once they had broken up, this would be a pretty rare occurrence. Therefore, I believe that the proposed amendment would very much hamper the ability of the court to bring justice-often quick justice-to people whose families are in a state of considerable disorder. For these reasons I think that the amendment should be opposed. Senator HILL(South Australia)(9.12) —I would also like briefly to put my position in relation to the proposed amendment. I am not so concerned by the expressions of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and my colleague Senator Missen about the costs and practical difficulties in implementing the provision because it is accepted that marriage breakdown itself is costing the community a great deal. Also I am not so concerned with the expression of concern by my colleague Senator Reid as to the broad language used in paragraph (b). I understand its purpose, which is to ensure that the court has added flexibility. But my concern is that the proposed amendment appears to be trying to resolve a problem far too late. Parties that come to the Family Law Court do so when their marriage has broken down. I do not believe the amendment will have the effect of saving marriages. If I thought it would I would have a different attitude to it and would support it. But I am afraid it is really trying to resolve a problem far too late. When I spoke during the second reading debate on the legislation that was before the Senate in August of last year I put views similar to those of Senator Reid on that aspect. I said that the community and law should look to support marriage and the family, for example, in the encouragement of, and if necessary, financial assistance to, voluntary counselling organisations, in seeking ways to overcome the stress of unemployment, ways to overcome the damage caused by financial pressures and so on. I also mentioned that we should look at ways of reforming the income tax laws, which actually put pressure upon marriages. I think that if we looked in directions such as those we would have a better chance of achieving the purposes that Senator Harradine wishes in good faith to achieve by his amendment. However, I feel that the amendment, in the terms in which it has been put to the Committee tonight, will not achieve the purpose he desires. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.15) —The only contrary point that I would like to make about Senator Hill's comment, that dissolution could reach a stage where counselling would be too late, is that the requirement to seek counselling would be part of an educative process. If people were aware that they must go to a counsellor before their case was actually heard in court it would be a fine way of educating people that it was right to do so. People would go to counsellors at an earlier stage. Senator Hill rightly said that people at this stage of the proceedings go- Senator Missen —How will it get them to go to a counsellor earlier? Senator WALTERS —Because it will become an accepted practice to go earlier. At the moment it is not an accepted practice. The figures that Senator Gareth Evans has given us tonight prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it is not at the moment the accepted practice in the community to go before a counsellor. If that is compulsory before one can get a divorce, people will be educated to the fact that it is an acceptable thing to do. I think that, as a result, people will go to a counsellor at an earlier stage, the stage at which, as Senator Hill has said, their problem should be picked up. However, because counselling is not yet acceptable in the community it is almost impossible to pick up people at that stage. For that very reason I would support the proposed amendment. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(9.17) —I find some difficulty in understanding what I perceive to be the almost universal view in this chamber, in support of the amendment proposed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), that participants in marriages of less than two years duration should be compelled to seek compulsory conciliation of one sort or another while at the same time one hears four or five arguments put that in respect of marriages of more than two years duration such a requirement is not necessary, will not work or deserves a poor priority. I would have thought that there was an absolute conflict in what had been said. I am sure that most of us have had the experience of having friends who over the years have separated. Inevitably one feels that if only they had been compelled to seek some form of conciliation and had overcome pride and a prejudiced view about conciliation, things might have been quite different. Perhaps if more wives had managed to get their husbands to the barrier, many of the hurdles that have caused marriages to fail for all the wrong reasons might have been overcome. I find it difficult to reconcile the support that has been given the Attorney-General's proposition and the lack of support that has been given to Senator Harradine's proposition. I accept what the Attorney-General says, although I do not agree with him, that his only reservation concerns the cost. Whilst I thoroughly disagree with the priorities in the community, I find it difficult to reconcile the support that that proposition has with the lack of support that has been given to other arguments. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.18) —I would like to just add this: I would not wish it to be thought that the only point I was making was one relating to the hard cruel world of cost and resources. I did say that it was a matter of calculating both the costs and benefits involved and weighing one against the other. Of course, when one is trying to assess the benefits side of the equation in relation to compulsory counselling, there is more than one view abroad about that. The view of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, for example, was that any counselling which is compulsory in character can very easily be reduced to a mere procedural formality. In fact, the expression ' farcical' was used. That is a concern that has been quite genuinely expressed by many people who otherwise are totally committed to the concept of counselling in appropriate cases. I think the other view, of course, of the benefits of counselling is that there is merit in it in all situations whether it is compulsorily or voluntarily entered into. I think all I was really trying to say was that when one is weighing it all up, although on balance it may well be that counselling would be of very strategic and useful significance in particular cases of marriages of longer duration than just the short ones for which compulsory counselling will obtain, that benefit is not so obvious or startling that it would justify the really quite massive use of resources that are involved on the other side of the equation to match it. I think that is the sort of point that was being made by a number of other speakers in different ways. Senator Crichton-Browne —Would you support it if you could afford it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think I probably would but I would be concerned about the element of compulsion in relation to any aspect of counselling for the reasons that so many professionals in the field have put forward. I think that, on balance, I probably would support it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.20) —It appears that the proposition has a good deal of support in principle. I am heartened by the last statement of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The question, of course, boils down to three arguments. As I understand it the arguments against it are cost, consequent delay and the use of the device to string out the point that Senator Reid raised about the possibility that paragraph (b) was incredibly open-ended, to use Senator Reid's words. A couple of other points were made, one of which was that we ought to concentrate on pre-marital advice and education. I am not sure who made this point but it was stated that by the time people made an application to the Family Court it really was too late. I will deal with those two latter comments first. In relation to the last matter, the fact is that we are about to vote in support of a proposition whereby to a person who goes to a lawyer and asks a lawyer to serve documents and then to file the documents with the Family Court will be required to undertake conciliation counselling. If the arguemnt is valid that it is all too late when the application is made to the court-that may be half an hour after the people have seen the lawyer-is that argument then valid in respect of the previous matter? Of course it is not. There is always hope for reconciliation. The point made by Senator Ried about pre-marital education and advice is very important. I think that point was made by Senator Hill as well. But too much lip service has been given to that issue over many years. Do honourable senators know how much the taxpayers of Australia spend on such advice? How much did the previous Government spend on it? It spent a miserable $50,000 a year. That is not enough to scratch oneself with. The amount spent has been the same for many years. As far as I know-the Attorney can correct me if I am wrong because I have not looked at the Budget figures this year-the Budget is the same this year. That is an indictment on us. I agree with what Senator Hill and Senator Ried have said. We do not give enough emphasis to pre-marital education. We do not even see- Senator Kilgariff —Organisations do try. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. There are a number of voluntary organisations in that field but those voluntary organisations are struggling. I come back to the major points. Another point that was made in passing related to cost. It is suggested in this amendment that the conciliation counselling should take the form of counselling by the court counsellors. As the Attorney has said, the fact of the matter is that only 2.2 per cent of all applicants for a dissolution of marriage receive any counselling whatsoever from either the Court or-I do not know whether the figures were meant to include- Senator Macklin —I doubt it. Senator HARRADINE —The figures probably include those from the Court. Much of that counselling is not conciliation counselling, as I mentioned before. It is really separation counselling in an endeavour to get them off the books. I do not think that that is an argument at all. If, by the carriage of my amendment, we salvaged only 1,000 marriages, how much would we save the taxpayer in the cost of the supporting parents' benefit and the like? The economic cost-I ask honourable senators to forget about the psychological cost for the moment-of marriage breakdowns and divorces is a matter which is coming to the fore in the consciousness of the Australian public. If we as a Parliament are not prepared to tackle this issue, to give conciliation a go in this area, then, in my view, we are not doing the job. The major point that was raised by Senator Reid concerned the possible open- endedness of paragraph (b). I included paragraph (b) in my amendment specifically to enable the Family Court to declare that special circumstances exist. Those special circumstances may indeed not necessarily be related to the applicant for the dissolution of marriage or the other party. I have left it open-ended so as to ensure that the Family Court judge could decide on that particular issue. Otherwise, what could be done? What would Senator Reid do? Would she include in special circumstances such things as continuous adultery, and violence in marriage? That would bring in just causes. Does she want to do that? I am happy about that. If that is what she wants to do to amend it, it is fine by me. Let us not criticise this particular proposal by nitpicking in that way. I believe very firmly that it is desirable to extend the spirit of reconciliation and consensus that is abroad in this nation and that has been declared by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to be abroad. Let us extend that to the institution of marriage. We have this spirit of reconciliation and consensus in human relationships disputes in the industrial area, the sex discrimination area and the racial discrimination area. The one area in which we do not have it is in the most fundamental area of human relationships, namely, the relationship between a man and a woman in a marriage covenant. The institution of marriage is the fundamental institution of society and if we have required conciliation and counselling in all other areas of human relationships, why can we not have that here? The argument about costs will not wash; the argument that it is too late will not wash; the argument that we cannot by definition have required conciliation will not wash, because we have it in all other areas. Of course we cannot force a person to conciliate. We can force a person to be there. Let me quote from an organisation involved in marriage counselling; namely, Centacare in Hobart. It has had this to say: We believe that the approved community organisations should be given a higher profile in legislation, so that people seeking assistance in their marriages and family difficulties are made aware that other options for service exist. We have found that people can get locked into the legal system when their only assistance is offered within the court itself (whether or not court counsellors are housed separately from the Family Court). The opportunity to air grievances, hostilities and general marital discord away from legal centres can give people a broader view of problems and can open up possibilities for reconciliation. Senator Hill —But these are not people seeking assistance. Senator HARRADINE —No, but in regard to this amendment this organisation said: The amendment (Clause 5) changing 'may' to 'shall' can have one party forcing the other party into counselling. Whilst we have reservations about 'required counselling'. Agency experience indicates that unwilling counsellees can make rational decisions once initial hostility is appropriately directed. That is from an organisation the professional business of which is in this particular area. I quote that in the hope that the Committee may adopt this proposition, and may adopt it in a free and open manner. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.33) —I support Senator Harradine's amendment because, as I expressed in the second reading debate, the time has come after many years of experimentation with the Family Law Act and the Family Court of Australia for this Parliament to have very serious regard for the way in which the Act has operated, in the light of the principles that the Act itself lays down and which I regret have been ignored by those who have administered it. Section 43 of the Act states: The Family Court shall- 'shall', not 'may'- in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act . . . have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life; (b) the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children; So it goes on. That is the major object of this Act, and it is the responsibility of the Family Court. Section 14 of the Act-I am talking about the Act that this Parliament passed in 1975, not the present Bill- Senator Gareth Evans —The luxury of Opposition. Why did you not put this clause in your own Bill last year if it is such a good idea? Senator DURACK —The honourable senator should just listen to the section. This is what the Act says: Where proceedings for a dissolution of marriage have been instituted, or financial or custodial proceedings have been instituted by a party to a subsisting marriage, it is the duty of the Judge or magistrate constituting the court and of every legal practitioner representing a party to give consideration , from time to time, to the possibility of a reconciliation of the parties. As I understand it, one of the proposals before the Senate is that before any matters of dispute in relation to custody, property or maintenance go to the Court itself, they should be referred to a conference either before a registrar, if it is in relation to property, or a counsellor if it is in relation to custody of children. So this Bill, itself, recognises the need to enhance the role of conciliation between parties. Senator Harradine's proposed amendment, as I understand it, simply takes the procedure one step further and is entirely in accord with the philosophy and principles of the Act, to which I have referred. It has been a long-standing policy of not only the Family Law Act but also its predecessor, the Matrimonial Causes Act, to support marriage counselling organisations and successive governments over the years have done so. Senator Missen —Why don't we spend some money on it? Senator DURACK —Large sums have been spent on it. Certainly it may be a matter of debate that more money should be spent on the services of these organisations , but if there were a more specific encouragement or requirement for counselling to be undertaken then of course governments would be more encouraged and required to provide the funds for it. I also believe that parties to the marriage should be prepared to pay to some extent, if necessary, for the services. Why should it all be provided by government? I could never understand the view that all marriage counselling organisations had to be supported and had to survive on only Government funding. Why should not people dealing with the most fundamental problem that they face in life be prepared to pay at least to some extent for this service? Certainly the Government could pay for those who cannot, but the majority of people could pay for it. If the Act were really serious in requiring the philosophy of section 43 of the Act to be carried out, or section 14 which places the responsibility fairly and squarely on judges, and if marriage partners could proceed under this Act only by seriously facing up to their obligations, particularly in regard to children, I am sure that people would feel the services provided for under the Act well worth their while even if they have to pay for them themselves. The amendment which Senator Harradine has moved seems to me to be very practical. It does not require that the parties appear before a counsellor of the Court at the time they- Senator Gareth Evans —Why did you not suggest that while in government? The luxury of Opposition. Senator DURACK —Frankly, I wish I had thought of this. The proposal simply provides that the parties should have had the assistance of a marriage counsellor or an approved marriage counselling organisation. It does not say that it has to occur at the time the proceedings are going on. As I read it, it simply imposes a requirement on the parties to show that they have, in fact, faced up to this question and have had some assistance in it. If they had done so at the time they parted and it had failed to reconcile them the requirement of this amendment would be satisfied. If further resources are required to be provided by the Court and if the Government is unable to provide the resources to enable people to receive immediate assistance, I do not think there is any great harm done in their having to wait a while or for them to have to organise assistance through some suitable marriage counsellor or marriage counselling organisation to satisfy this requirement. Obviously, practical problems would arise if one party disappeared and could not be found, and so on. As I understand it, the purpose of limb (b) is to provide that the Court can resolve an issue if it considers that special circumstances apply. That would be determined on the facts of the case. I think the second limb is desirable. It would provide a solution to that problem. It seems to me that the amendment is designed to give effect to the very clear philosophy and policy of this Act as set out in sections 14 and 43 to which I referred. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) seemed to indicate that in principle he would agree with it, but he used an argument, which is familiar to me, that resources may make it difficult- Senator Gareth Evans —That is pretty compelling. Senator DURACK —I have suggested that perhaps the time has come when people should be prepared to accept some responsibility themselves to satisfy these requirements. There is no reason for us to go on believing that this requirement has to be funded by the taxpayer all the time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.43) —Our committee of review received a considerable amount of evidence about conciliation and counselling. Many people believed that counselling had fallen down in the Family Court of Australia. Many of the counsellors who appeared before us were asked to provide figures on where they believed conciliation had taken place. As Senator Hill said, the cry from all of them was much the same. They said that in many cases by the time the people got to them it was too late, all they were able to do was to make the separation easier on the children and the partners and to try to cut out the bitterness. But in the majority of cases the counsellors told us that it was too late. They were very frustrated that they could not get to the people earlier. They felt that if there were some method of getting to people at an earlier stage they could succeed. Senator Gareth Evans —This proposed new clause would not ensure that. Senator WALTERS —I ask Senator Evans to wait until I have finished. I realise that it would not ensure that but, as Senator Durack said tonight, it would not limit it to people seeking divorce. The amendment does not say: 'You can seek it only when you have gone to your lawyer and are putting in your papers'. The amendment just says that some sort of counselling must have taken place. I do not know of any other way of altering attitudes in this country to make it acceptable, if one is having problems within one's marriage, to go to the conciliators, the counsellors. As I have said already, the figures which were provided tonight by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, prove that at the moment people's attitudes are that it is not acceptable to go to the counsellors. We have a responsibility in this place to attempt to change that attitude. Can anyone in this chamber suggest a better way of changing attitudes than by saying to people 'There will be no divorce until you have had some sort of counselling' and by saying to the next generation 'People have counselling when they have problems; they have to have counselling before they can be divorced'? That is the only way I can see that we can change attitudes in this country which will, I am quite sure, eventually, over a period, help our divorce rate. We have to realise that about 400,000 children have been affected by divorce since the new law was introduced. In 1982 there were 44,000 divorces-that is, one divorce for every 2 1/2 marriages in this country. If we cannot introduce something in this chamber tonight that will change the attitudes of people who are having problems , by saying to them 'Go to the conciliators; it might work; give it a go', I think we are falling down on our responsibilities. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.47) —I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Harradine. In this debate I follow eight honourable senators who, in the last hour, have taken up the issue of the public concern that there should be more attempt at reconciliation before the dissolution of marriage is reached in an attempt to avoid that dissolution. It is evident from what was said to the committee of review by way of submission from what has been put to us as senators by members of the public and from what has been echoed in the statements that have been made in our consideration of this matter today, that in the operation of this basically sound Act-that is, the Family Law Act-there is a great weakness in that there is not sufficient provision for counselling for reconciliation. Two objections have been put to the argument that I believe has been very well summarised by Senator Harradine, particularly in his second speech tonight, and also by the former Attorney-General, Senator Durack. He foreshadowed it in his speech at the second reading stage yesterday and, in detail, set out an excellent complementary speech to Senator Harradine's. The argument is this: The present procedures which seek counselling for reconciliation are affectively void; they do not amount to anything. Senator Durack summed up the situation in his speech yesterday in this way: The Family Court pioneered this field and the role of counsellors is very important. I am not criticising it; nor do I want to be seen as criticising them . Nevertheless their approach was this: 'Well, it is too late at this stage to do anything. The parties have decided that they want a divorce and the best thing we can do is to ease them through it as painlessly as possible.' What we need are better efforts to be made to counsel people towards reconciliation. This is not some attempt in this amendment to go back to some patronising, dragooning compulsion of persons to meet another bureaucratic step. It is not a bureaucratic step. It is a humane, neighbourly, direct encouragement for professional counselling by approved marriage counsellors before the full process of papers coming to the court for dissolution of a marriage are accepted and proceeded with. Two arguments have been put. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has in principle agreed to the spirit of the amendment. It applies to marriages of only two years duration. The exact procedure is in operation with regard to those marriages. It is workable for them and is seen to be of some benefit. The burden of the case that has been put by myself, by the mover of the amendment and by a number of us in the Senate tonight is: Why should not that procedure be applied to all marriages that are in danger of breaking down or that come to the court for dissolution? If the argument is one of resources then I believe Senator Durack is right in saying that the words of the amendment allow flexibility as to the marriage counsellor. It can be any marriage counsellor or any marriage counselling organisation approved by the court. If there is a need for thousands of such marriage counselling sessions there will be sufficient professional persons in the community to deal with them and the partners themselves will pay for that professional service. They have to pay the court costs and legal costs in any event. Are we to expect that in the dissolution of a marriage-the most fundamental and important relationship that there is in our community-we do not make provision for professional services to be sought also by the persons involved that may lead to the avoidance of the breakdown of that marriage? I believe that the partners themselves should bear the cost of such professional marriage counselling. I know it is a farcical and trite analogy to draw, but the law of the land provides that persons seeking workers compensation must go to a professional person, a doctor, and pay for a medical certificate to show that they are suffering sickness or disability that will lead them to gain the compensation that the law of the land allows. I believe it is in a matter such as this, where the public is concerned, that more effort should be made at counselling for reconciliation in marriages that are breaking down, that this may well be a requirement. My colleague from South Australia, Senator Hill, fears that it may well be too late for such counselling for reconcilation to be effective. I share the same fear that if 12 months of separation in a relationship have elapsed then there is a danger of reconciliation being too late. But if it is seen to be a requirement before the papers can be received by the court and if preliminary advice is sought either from the court or from a lawyer as to the eventual process in the dissolution of a marriage that is in difficulties, the parties will be encouraged, hopefully, by those persons to seek that counselling at an earlier stage. In my mind the argument about resources does not stand up. The resources can be fully provided by the partners of the marriage. I believe it is well worth giving every encouragement to try that counselling towards reconciliation before it is too late. At least the principle has been approved by the government of the day in the case of marriages of a duration of only two years. It is seen to be of benefit to them. I maintain that it is also of benefit to other marriages. Therefore I not only support the amendment but also urge other honourable senators to support it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(9.56) —I place on record my support for Senator Harradine's amendment. I consider that counselling for all marriages that are likely to break down is certainly very worth while. The Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) mentioned the cost to the community. From figures provided by Senator Harradine apparently to date the Government has made available $50,000. Senator Gareth Evans —Up to $80,000 this year. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Well that is a big improvement. I suppose $30,000 might do a little bit of good for somebody. We hear of so many cases where after divorce husbands do not accept the responsibility of looking after their wives. The Government is then forced into quite a lot of extra expense in looking after wives and families that have been deserted. I guess that is fair enough, but I wonder whether it would not help the cost to the community and the Government if husbands were forced to take the necessary responsibility. I certainly agree with the idea of compulsory marriage counselling when we realise, as Senator Walters said, that there is one divorce for every 2 1/2 marriages. They are very bad figures and they do not speak very well at all for our community. I support the amendment that Senator Harradine has moved. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.57) —I will oppose Senator Harradine's amendment for a reason which has not been expressed by anybody here tonight, and that is that paragraph (a) of proposed new clause 4D states 'for the purpose of considering a reconciliation'. There is a view in the community, which has not been expressed here, and that is that I do not believe any responsible counsellor would want to counsel a couple when he has a statutory obligation upon him to consider a reconciliation. Quite frankly, there are many marriages which should not be reconciled simply because of the enormous damage which is being done both to the spouse and to the children. This is based on a premise which is not accepted by a large number of people in the community-this view also has not been expressed here tonight-that there is nothing wrong with divorce, neither is there anything wrong with a marriage continuing. Tonight we have heard a covert religious debate. That is perfectly all right. I have a religious conviction about marriage-but I do not stand here tonight to express it. I stand here to express the views of a legislator. I believe we are doing a major disservice to a very large section of the community whose marriages should not continue because of the enormous personal damage that has already been committed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.59) —I take strong exception to what Senator Macklin said. It is nonsense to say that we are engaging in some covert religious debate. Does he suggest that the Attorney-General who has supported this proposal in principle, is engaging in some covert religious debate? That is absolute nonsense. I attempted to suggest that in the area of human relationships, where a clear commitment has been given, whether it be in a marriage, in an industrial relationship between a worker and an industry, in a matter between the sexes generally in regard to sex discrimination, or whether in a matter between white Australians and Aboriginal Australians, what is required of this legislature is that it give support to moves to bring reconciliation and consensus into the whole Australian community. I repeat for the information of Senator Macklin that that should apply to the most fundamental relationship in our society, that is, the institution of marriage. I have a good deal more to say but I do not think it is necessary for me to say it . While I have been listening to the debate I have been going over a couple of things which reinforce what has been said in support of this amendment. Time does not permit me to continue, but those matters are available to all members of the Senate and have been distributed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.01) -The Attorney-General has not answered my original question. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.02) —That was an hour and a quarter ago but, because Senator Walters still has her nice voice on, I will do my best to help. As I recall it, the honourable senator asked me about what the Australian Labor Party would do in the event of matters that might prove controversial on a conscience front if they arose in the course of the debate. I endeavoured to tell the honourable senator precisely what we were going to do in the course of second reading reply. In case the honourable senator did not hear that particular exchange, I did read at length from a letter I sent to my Caucus colleagues. I indicated that if any of my colleagues at any stage indicated in relation to any amendement that they wanted it treated as a conscience matter, then I would seek an adjournment accordingly. Senator Kilgariff —What would happen if there was not an adjournment? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think that would be a matter for the member in question. The Labor Party has done remarkably well in handling its internal affairs without the assistance of Senator Kilgariff or anyone else. I find it a little tiresome to have to go on explaining that. It is something about which we have never been hypocritical. The way in which we conduct our affairs as a Party is perfectly open for all to perceive. I have explained the reasons why we are treating the measure in the way we are. I have also indicated that if any member of our Party does feel that a matter of conscience has arisen in the content of the original proposals before the Senate or in any amendment that might arise, then the Party would look at the matter accordingly and allow a free vote if the resolution of the Party was to that effect. I can assure the honourable senator that so far I have not had any request from any member on this side to treat a matter in this way, except from one member in relation to a clause that has been foreshadowed by Senator Harradine dealing with grounds for marriage. I think that that member will make his position clear in the course of that debate. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) 10.04)-I am sorry if the Attorney-General finds me tiresome. I understand that the Attorney-General agrees with a report in the Canberra Times because he has answered it to some degree. Would he not agree that what he is endeavouring to do within the Australian Labor Party is to take the matter out of the hands of the Senate and put it back in the hands of the Party? Senator Gietzelt —Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? Senator KILGARIFF —I will allow the Attorney-General to answer. This report is headed 'ALP drops conscience vote'. I am sure that the Attorney-General is quite capable of answering this media report. I do not think it is necessary for Senator Gietzelt to speak for him. If he needs assistance, then the honourable senator should go right ahead. Senator Gareth Evans, in his dictatorial manner, said in reply to Senator Harradine that he had initiated the action. The action to which he referred was the decision that if any person within the Labor Party felt that he or she as a matter of conscience could not vote with the Government , that person could not stand up in the Senate and put up a hand in a conscience vote. He or she would have to say: 'I do not like this. Will all the members of the Senate stand with me and have the matter adjourned so that I can go back to the Attorney-General and to the members of Caucus and ask whether they will change their minds?'. This is a very important matter, and the votes that will take place tonight and tomorrow-- Senator Reynolds —It is your problem, not ours. Senator KILGARIFF —I know the honourable senator is upset and I can understand why. The Attorney-General in his dictatorial manner said that he had initiated such action not because he wanted to ram anything through Parliament but because he wanted to expedite an overdue piece of socially necessary legislation. That might be the Attorney-General's attitude. It might be his wish to see that a piece of socially necessary legislation is passed. But what about the senators in the Labor Party? The vote has been taken out of their hands because they cannot stand up in the Senate tonight and say: 'We vote against the Government's attitude and its proposals'. It is a pity that when a piece of legislation such as this comes before us-probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before the Senate this year-the Attorney-General, the dictator, tells honourable senators on his side of the House how they will act. Should honourable senators on the Government side stand up and say: Please, give us your help. We want to adjourn the matter so that we can go back to Caucus and go down on our hands and knees and plead to be allowed to have a free conscience vote? What a lot of nonsense! Listening to the debate I have noticed varying degrees of views on this side of the chamber, occupied by members of the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia, the Australian Democrats and the Independent, Senator Harradine. I hope that from these varying degrees of views some sanity will be brought into this legislation because we cannot expect it from the other side. Having listened to the debate tonight, I lean towards Senator Harradine's views and I believe the points he has made are quite good. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.08) —I wish to refer-- Senator Sibraa —You are filibustering. Senator PETER RAE —This is no filibuster. I wish to refer to the amendment proposed by Senator Harradine, which refers to the desirability of marriage counselling. Proposed new sub-section (6) (a) states that proceedings shall not go ahead unless the Court is satisfied that the parties, together and separately , have had the assistance of a marriage counsellor for the purpose of considering a reconciliation. It seems to me that the point raised by Senator Macklin, and a matter of concern to a number of people, would be overcome if the final words of paragraph (a) of Senator Harradine's amendment, 'for the purpose of considering a reconcilitiation', were read as meaning 'for the purpose of considering the possibility and desirability of a reconciliation'. I imagine that is really part of the process of what is intended there anyway. It may very well be that there are circumstance in which it would be quite undesirable to encourage a women to go back to a situation simply for the sake of avoiding the trauma of a dissolution of marriage. I spent some six years as the honorary secretary of the Legal Aid scheme. One of the saddest sights was to see battered women come in with little kids and ask for assistance for purposes of separation and for maintenance. Not very long afterwards, having been pressured by people to go back into that situation, they would return to my office, again battered, with wounds, with broken arms, with heads bandaged up and with all the rest of the trauma that results from marriages which are disasters-marriages to drunken, abusive, vile men who behave in that sort of way and who repeatedly bash the women and the kids. I do not want to see women pressured back into that situation. But I do believe in marriage counselling. I believe in the importance of it and I have for years advocated an increase in the funding for marriage guidance counselling organisations. I believe that a very useful purpose can be served by them. I simply take the opportunity to say that I imagine that what Senator Harradine intends, and what people who passed this proposed amendment would want, is that the possibility and desirability of a reconciliation should be considered. I hope that that interpretation is adopted. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.12) —I concur in what Senator Rae has just said. But I want to return to the issue of our procedure in considering whether we will adopt the amendment moved by Senator Harradine. In the last hour and a half there have been a dozen speakers. It may be tiresome to one or two honourable senators on the other side that there have been so many, but it is an important matter and I do not think other clauses of the Bill will be considered at such length. However, all of the speakers in the last hour and a half have been from this side of the chamber. Only the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has spoken from the Government side of the Senate. That, in practice, shows us the kinds of concerns that Senator Kilgariff has mentioned, that Senator Harradine mentioned earlier and that a number of speakers have referred to, are soundly based; that there is a barrier to Labor senators participating fully in a discussion of amendments to the Family Law Act. Senator Chipp —Is it not too important a subject to be scoring political points? Senator TEAGUE —I am not seeking, Senator Chipp, to score political points. I am seeking, whatever opposition there may be from the Australian Democrats or the Australian Labor Party to my speaking, the possibility of all of us in this chamber, having heard the debate, voting conscientiously on this issue. Is the whole hour and a half debate on this matter towards reconciliation in marriage all for nought? Is it already tied up? Let us consider the logic of the situation outlined to us by the Attorney-General. If one or two honourable senators on the Government side wish to support an amendment-for instance, this amendment-they will have to appeal to all of us in the Senate to adjourn the matter so that they can see whether they can persuade the Caucus to change its attitude and allow them to vote conscientiously. That may be fair enough. Senator Gareth Evans —You would no doubt respect their wishes in that regard, wouldn't you? Senator TEAGUE —Senator Evans is appealing to us to allow his procedure to work. But anyone opposite who wants to vote according to his conscience must appeal to the rest of us to allow the debate to be adjourned in order to obtain that right . I believe that such a barrier has been placed in front of too many senators in this chamber; that it is not an appropriate way for us to debate on the Family Law Act. I will sum up what I am saying in this way. Many of us on this side of the Senate are not convinced that there is a workable procedure which permits senators on the Government side to put conscientiously any objection to the course that the Government has already determined. I appeal to the Attorney- General, through you, Mr Chairman, for the establishment of a blanket provision whereby any amendment discussed here can conscientiously and directly be voted upon by any honourable senator on that side. In that way, we could appeal equally to all honourable senators in the chamber. We would not then just have honourable senators from this side speaking in the debate and appealing to honourable senators on their own side. I do not want to score political points; I want conscientiously to appeal to the Attorney-General to give blanket access to Government supporters to a conscientious and direct vote on each amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.14) —I indicate quite clearly that I agree with the interpretation by Senator Rae concerning the desirability and possibility of reconciliation. It was for the very reason of the case that Senator Rae put that I put in paragraph (b) of my amendment the safeguard that there should be ' special circumstances by reason of which the hearing should proceed'. In cases such as those involving battered children, as described by Senator Rae, I have no doubt that when the affidavit is filed by the lawyer concerned, it will also include the point-no doubt made by the lawyer representing the applicant or the lawyer representing the other party as the case may be-that these special circumstances obtain and that therefore paragraph (b) should apply. To return to the point, quite clearly a reconciliation counsellor would be required to concentrate on the possibility and the desirability of reconciliation. I see no problem in that at all. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.18) —Senator Peter Rae was just wondering whether Senator Harradine might be prepared to amend-- Senator Tate —Can't he ask his own questions? Senator WALTERS —Senator Tate has not been here previously. Now, the first time he opens his mouth, it is to interject. Senator Tate —I have been listening-- Senator WALTERS —Well, it would be a good idea for Senator Tate to be in here and contributing. Senator Gareth Evans —Come on Shirley; you are doing very well. Senator WALTERS —I thank Senator Evans very much for his solicitous comments. Senator Peter Rae was wondering whether we could perhaps amend the proposed amendment. I did not want the provision to be passed without the opportunity being taken to further amend Senator Harradine's amendment. That is why I rose to speak. I am simply giving Senator Harradine time to look at the wording of his amendment. I am not quite sure how long I will have to stand here. I wonder whether he is prepared to alter his amendment accordingly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.19) —I do not see that there is any argument on the matter. The meaning is implicit in the words. If Senator Walters looks at amendment No. (3) proposed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), she will notice that is states in part: (1B) An application for dissolution of a marriage shall not, without the leave of the court granted under sub-section (1C), be filed within the period of 2 years after the date of the marriage unless there is filed with the application a certificate in the prescribed form- (a) stating that the parties to the marriage have considered a reconciliation, with the assistance of a specified person or organization, being- It then lists those persons or organisations. The let out which is specified in the Attorney-General's proposed new sub-section (1C) is precisely the same as the let out that I have in my amendment, namely: '' '(1C) Notwithstanding sub-section (1B), if the court is satisfied that there are special circumstances by reason of which the hearing of an application for dissolution of a marriage should proceed notwithstanding that the parties have not considered a reconciliation with assistance of the kind referred to in sub- section (1B), the court may- It then indicates the action that the court may take. Senator Missen —That only relates to under two-year marriages. Senator HARRADINE —Yes. I am saying that the principle applies. I am not much of a draftsman and I would be quite happy to incorporate in my proposed new clause the types of words which are included in that sub-section. I request that the consideration of the proposed new clause be postponed so that it can be redrafted accordingly. Senator PETER RAE —(Tasmania) (10.23)-I wonder whether the Attorney-General would agree that this is a matter on which time could be saved if it is postponed with a view to obtaining an agreed form of wording. It may be desirable to get that done outside the chamber rather than on the run. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.24) —Certainly. I have no opposition to postponing consideration of this proposed new clause. Consideration of proposed new clause 4D postponed. Clauses 5 to 8-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Appointment, removal and resignation of Judges). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.25) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 9, page 7, lines 21 and 22, leave out 'inserting after sub-section ( 2)', insert 'omitting sub-section (2A) and substituting'. (2) Clause 9, page 7, line 23, before proposed sub-section (AA), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(2A) The Governor-General shall appoint- (a) The person who, at the date of commencement of section 7 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983, hold office as Judges of the Family Court of Western Australia; and (b) any person who is subsequently appointed as a Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia, as Judges of the Family Court of Australia, and a person so appointed may serve in the office of Judge of the Family Court of Australia notwithstanding that he continues to hold, and serve in, the office of Judge of the Family Court of Western Australia.'' The first amendment is purely a matter of construction. The second amendment is the substantial amendment. That amendment seeks to bring into the Family Law Amendment Bill recommendation 41 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act which states: It is accordingly recommended that the Attorney-General pursuant to s.22 (2A) of the Family Law Act grant federal commissions to the judges of the Family Court of Western Australia. Paragraph 7.31 of the report sets out why these powers should be given to the judges in Western Australia. There is already one judge in Western Australia who is a judge of the Family Court of Western Australia and who also has a Commission in the Federal Court of Australia. There may be more. Perhaps I should read paragraph 7.31 of the Committee's report. It states: It has been submitted by the Government of Western Australia that steps should be taken to confer federal commissions on the judges of the Western Australian Family Court to enable them to participate in the appellate work of the court. The Committee agrees that judges of that court should be included in the appellate work under the Family Law Act. I have had quite a discussion with officers of the Attorney-General's Department about this. I am aware that there is opposition to this proposal. But the Joint Committee felt it was desirable, as far as possible, that where there is a separate State court to which appeals can be lodged against decisions which may sometimes relate to State matters and sometimes relate to Federal jurisdictions these matters should be dealt with by judges who, in Western Australia, could also be able to sit on Federal matters. In accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Committee, I persist with these amendments because I believe they would be helpful. That was the view of the Committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.27) —This is another one of those matters in respect of which the principle itself seems perfectly sound, namely, that judges of the Family Court of Western Australia should enjoy federal commissions although, I suppose, the point of principle could be made that it is a rather odd business, in effect, for Parliament by passage of a legislation provision, to be, in fact, making judicial appointments. But be that as it may, the principle has certain attractions. The problem that the Government perceives with this-it is a problem that was very much perceived by the former Government, as I am sure Senator Durack will indicate if he is minded to speak on this-is that there really are quite intractable practical problems. One aspect of that problem goes to the questions of comparative judicial status. The truth of the matter is that the Family Court of Western Australia has District Court status only in that State whereas the Family Court judges elsewhere are of at least Supreme Court level or approximating the status and level of judges of the Federal Court of Australia. That is perceived in a number of quarters to give rise to difficulties. Another aspect of this is that it appears that it is not simply the commission itself that is being sought by those who wish to acquire the status but rather also a number of the things that go with that commission. There are financial implications for the Commonwealth if the full entitlement to cars and other privileges that accompany Family Court appointments-indeed all federal judicial appointments-are to be applied to the judges in question. It may well be possible to overcome, over time, these particular practical problems to which I have referred but it is not a situation that we have been able to solve so far. We believe that it would be quite premature to allow the very difficult practical problems that prove to exist in this area to be determined by an amendment to the Act. So while again expressing sympathy for the thought underlying this matter, I believe it is not something that could be accomplished by the legislation. Of course there is no barrier to the commissions being granted to the States' Family Court judges as a matter of Executive action under the existing legislative arrangements should that be thought desirable and should it prove practicable. So it is not as if there is some legislative barrier that we would be getting out of the way by this amendment. We are seeking rather to do the unprecedented thing-of accomplishing by legislation what is able to be accomplished in other ways but which has not, for practical reasons, been able to be accomplished so far. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.29) —I support the views expressed by the Attorney-General in relation to this matter. I think the amendment is inappropriate. It raises serious questions about the appointment of judges and the method of their appointment, and also it completely ignores the difficult problems that the Attorney-General has mentioned in regard to the structure of the Family Court of Western Australia. That Court has been created under the provisions of the Family Law Act, which enabled arrangements to be made with State governments for the establishment of State family courts to exercise jurisdiction under this Act. It was a major initiative of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act in the first place and of this Parliament in accepting the recommendations that this would be an alternative way of administering the Family Law Act. The initiative that the Western Australian Government took at the very commencement of the operation of the Act has been very successful. I think it is a great pity that other States did not take up the opportunity that was provided to them. The fact of the matter is that the Family Court of Western Australia is a State court. It has to fit into the structures of the Western Australian judicial system and, without going into any details-I do not have time anyway this evening to do so-I say briefly that there have proved to be, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has said, very intractable problems in fitting into the structure of that court commissions under the Federal Act. I think it would be, as I said, quite inappropriate for this Parliament to seek to solve those problems in this rather blunt manner. Amendments negatived. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- Death of Mr Benigno Aquino-Philippines: Human Rights-Excise on Grape Spirit- Radford College The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.32) —I rise tonight in my capacity as Chairman of the Parliamentary Amnesty International group to raise in this Parliament matters which I and other honourable senators will also be raising relating to the tragic death at the beginning of this week of Benigno Aquino, former senator of the Parliament of the Philippines who was killed on his arrival back in the Philippines. Remarks which I make on this matter will be supported and different things will be said by Senator Mason of the Australian Democrats and also by Senator Coleman. I want to say that this is a matter which is a culmination of many quite deplorable developments in the Phillipines. It is not just a sudden occurrence. We know that this man, who was at the time of his death still the Secretary General of the Liberal Party in the Philippines, was not a man of some wild or radical disposition but a man who, of course, came from a wealthy background and was well known in the Philippines. He had fought a valiant fight for many years, not only politically, to try to restore freedoms in the Philippines but also while in court. He had been subject to some very harassing experiences as had his family. He came back after a serious operation in the United States and, as we know, was killed upon his arrival in the Philippines. He was warned, of course, not only by Mrs Imelda Marcos in the United States that he might be killed if he went back, but also was warned while he was on the plane that it was likely that he would be killed on his arrival and that the person who killed him would be killed. It is strange that these things have come to pass. We know that Senator Aquino has for years fought a battle against President Marcos and those who support his dictatorship. We know that in the Philippines there has been a gross betrayal of human rights for many years. One has only to refer, among many documents, to reports which the Amnesty organisation has made, and to its Amnesty Report of 1975 in which it set out the details of this man's struggle and the other conditions that were also taking place in the Philippines . Perhaps I can summarise some of the things that happened to Senator Aquino, who may well have succeeded President Marcos as President and could have, in 1973, if constitutional government had continued but of course it was succeeded by martial law. He was a man who came from the Tarlac province of central Luzon, a traditional centre for support for the revolutionary movement there. He held office in those areas. After his arrest, which immediately followed the declaration of martial law in 1972, he was charged with the murder of a local official in Tarlac, with subversion and illegal possession of firearms. The people called as witnesses against him were people who themselves had been charged with other offences. He suffered considerably in imprisonment and from the victimisation of his family and was of course in due course convicted and sentenced to death but was permitted by President Marcos, in 1980, to go to the United States for medical treatment. After that he was determined to return to his country to continue his fight for democratic rights. It will be recalled that when he was brought for trial, it was not under the normal laws of the Philippines or under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Philippines has committed itself over the years, but it was to a military commission and he had to struggle to vindicate himself. He continued to do that and to confront and embarrass President Maros. In 1977 he demanded that his case be transferred to a civilian court, but this was refused. When he was permitted to leave the country and have a serious operation in the United States , he might well have stayed there. He might well have protected himself but he did not choose to do so and he made it clear that he was intending to come back. He must, of course, have known and did know, the dangers that he was facing. He must have known-of course he knew-the background of violence which has accompanied President Marcos. In fact President Marcos first came to national notice, and this was pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, in the late 1930s when he was convicted of the murder of the candidate who defeated his father for Congress. The winning candidate had been shot brushing his teeth, and when Mr Marcos ran for President 30 years later, oppositions rallies waved thousands of toothbrushes as a reminder. Therefore, there has been this record of violence in the country. We know that in the present state of politics, with the President declining in health, that there are factions and the faction that supports Mrs Marcos is largely led by General Ver and he and his troops controlled the airport at which the assassination took place. It has been said in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which Alfred McCoy wrote yesterday that he would have been all right once out of the airport, that he would then have been under the protection of the other faction and beyond General Ver's reach. I do not go into the details, with which we are all familiar as to the way he met his death. We know that there are the gravest doubts as to whether this was an accidental or individual action. I do not know who the person was. Senator Peter Rae —It certainly was not accidental. Senator MISSEN —It was certainly not accidental, but I mean accidental in the sense that an individual gets through all the security of the airport and manages to kill him. There are witnesses who say they saw the troops actually firing and striking down Aquino. As the Sydney Morning Herald said, we do not know who killed him or the circumstances of the person who killed him. But, of course, dead men tell no tales as they say, and that man was shot straight away. I do not speak of this just because of the death of this man. I remind honourable senators of the fact that there have been the most recent and gruesome reports of the activities of the Marcos regime in the Philippines. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the report of an Amnesty International mission to the Republic of the Philippines dated 11-28 November 1981. In that report Amnesty set out in very graphic detail the way in which so many other people in the Philippines are being treated at the moment. It refers to the extent to which the various rights of the people have been denied. Many examples are given of deaths and disappearances of political opponents in the Philippines and of the complete abolition of the rule of law. There is also the detention of many people without any charge whatsoever being made. It is necessary for all of us who are democrats to stand up and be counted when something like this happens. We must not allow this type of dramatic death of a democrat who really stood for three major things in the Philippines. He believed strongly in a free Press, which the Philippines does not have. He stood for an independent judiciary, which that country surely does not now have, and for a parliament which, of course, has entirely gone. He was drawing around him support from people who took similar causes to heart. I believe it was to remove this idealistic but very practical leadership that this man's life was destroyed . There has been a cynical leadership of the Philippines. Last year when I was in Lagos with the Inter-Parliamentary Union I sat in a drafting committee with one of the Philippine delegates. He was very hot and strong on civil rights and helped me draft resolutions which upset the Russian and other delegates. I could not help thinking what a shame it was that his excellent command of these ideas was not translated in some way into the legislation and activity of his country. We are to be concerned with the future. We are to be concerned with what we can do to highlight the activities in the Philippines which need to be changed. We must be concerned that our ally, the United States of America, should be firm likewise. It has a considerable strength and ability to influence the Philippines. I hope that the President of the United States will not visit that country as planned. I read that he is now doubting whether he should make his anticipated visit to the Philippines. Last year President Marcos was welcomed in the United States and returned to his country and put more people into prison. It is important for the United States too to stand up and be counted in this situation. John Dowd, the President in Australia of the International Commission of Jurists, in the last few days has said that there is a need for an international inquiry into this killing, into how it happened and into what the situation is. I believe that would be excellent. It ought to be pressed by us and by others. People often will say: 'Oh, you cannot interfere with the internal affairs of other countries'. We in the Amnesty organisation never accept that when matters of human liberty, victimisation, death and disappearances are concerned. We will not accept that we can stand by and ignore these things. We will not stand by just because we have important trading relations with a particular country. I believe that it is very important that the Government, the Parliament and its members exercise every influence they can to ensure that these facts are known, that every effort is made to turn the Philippines away from this path of oppression and that the sacrifice and loss of Benigno Aquino will not have been suffered in vain. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.45) —I felt it important as a senator in this Parliament, as a long time member of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International and as a person who has raised the subject of human rights, particularly in the Philippines, many times in this place, to express my concern at the death-I suppose one could say the untimely death, but that is not quite the phrase I am looking for-of Benigno Aquino of the Philippines. I believe we are speaking for all honourable senators in this chamber and indeed for all members of parliament when we say how deeply concerned we are about his death and particularly about the manner in which he died. We have to recognise that it was only recently that Benigno Aquino determined to return to the Philippines and fight to bring the country back to what he thought was a democratic situation. The whole affair of his arrival has that air of suspicion about it which I am sure has been raised in everybody's mind. There are a number of questions that a lot of us would like to have answered. Some two days before he arrived an assurance was given, at least to the leader of his party, about the security of the airport. Yet at the very time he arrived he was escorted from the plane by armed military personnel and was taken, not through the normal arrival channels, but to an area where an assassin was able to get within 50 centimetres of him and to shoot him dead. Therefore, there are a number of questions that have to be asked and should be answered. For instance, we have to ask why his body was left lying as it was for the benefit, it would appear, only of photographers. We have to ask perhaps the ultimate question: Why was this one man so important that he could not be allowed to communicate with his people in his own country? The answer to that, of course, is that he was the one person who perhaps could have led that country to a democratic situation. The editorial in the Age on 23 August puts it very well. It reads: Whether the Marcos Government likes it or not, there is about this affair an aura of conspiracy and orchestration which only a completely open and honest inquiry will dispel. 3It continues: If Mr Aquino's death could have one positive effect it would be to convince the Americans that they must speak and act clearly and consistently against self- aggrandisement of a sinister and destructive form. That, after all, is what the defence of democracy is supposed to be about. Mr Aquino knew it, and it cost him his life. The editorial also mentions the comments of President Reagan in relation to the Philippines, when he said that great progress had been made in the area of human rights in that country since martial law was lifted. I think it was Vice- President Bush who complimented the present regime's adherence to democratic processes. The editorial warns that the whole attitude of other countries must be reviewed in the light of recent events. I believe that Australia has to review its attitude to the Philippines in the light of those recent events. As I said earlier, I have spoken about human rights in the Philippines many times. The last occasion on which I raised the issue in this place was 4 May when I spoke about a lay preacher in the Philippines in the area of Davao, Mindanao. I spoke about Karl Gasper who was working with a Christian development centre. I had been advised that he had been arrested without having committed a crime, that we were aware of, and that he was to stand trial. The advice that I had at that time was that he was being permitted to receive his family and that he was being represented by counsel at his trial. I expressed my concern at that time that the counsel had not been selected by him or by his family but had been appointed by his prosecutor, by the Government itself. I said then that I was concerned that I was unable to get any information on his whereabouts even through people from all over Australia who were involved in church movements, in Christian movements, were expressing concern to the Philippine Embassy that we were unable to find out any information at all. It would not advise us whether he had been arrested, where he was being held or whether we could communicate with him. It was through the Department of Foreign Affairs that I eventually found where he was being held. Through Mr Cyril Gare, who will be very well known to all Western Australian senators, I received a communication that I want to read into the Hansard because I believe it is important. It shows exactly what is happening in the Philippines at the moment as far as human rights, or the lack of them, is concerned. The communication was written by Karl Gasper on 8 June 1983 from the Davao Metro Discom Detention Center in Davao City. I received it on 12 June. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring it to the attention of honourable senators. The letter states: Dear Friends, Greetings of peace! Here comes another letter from prison on my 75th day of detention. Today I celebrate my birthday with friends and co-detainees. It is a rather unique setting for celebrations. One can't really be fully happy, given the situation of the political detainees here and our loss of freedom (although one can console himself with the thought that there really isn't that much freedom out there anyway.) Our situation has worsened since I last wrote. There hasn't been any improvement in any way. We've had two very distinguished visitors lately, Atty. Cesar Europa, the President of the Davao Chapter of the Integrated Bar Association; and Mrs. Tan-Gatue, the wife of the PC/INP regional Command. Both asked for feedback on our condition and both listened to our complaints. Our relatives have followed up on our petitions. Despite all these, nothing has been done by the military authorities to respond to our demands. In fact just a few days ago, they added new rulings. No tape recorders are to be allowed inside the cells, since supposedly these are used to play ' revolutionary songs' and for receiving/sending out communications. We had no choice but surrender the source of news, our contact with the outside world, and the music that compensates for the tediousness of life behind bars. Last Sunday, they were going to take away our guitars. We fought back and managed to hold on to our only remaining source of music. There seems to be a conspiracy to take away our music, our songs. They don't want us 'to sing songs'. The 'bunlot' practice has claimed another victim. The poem below is about him, and is a cry of despair. I think it is important to read the poem because it talks about all of the things that we are discussing here tonight and it tells how they happen in places like the Philippines. The poem is entitled Still another detainee salvaged. It reads: We heard he was padlocked All alone by himself In the bartolina On a Sunday We didn't know who he was Where he came from Why he was arrested And on what day We all knew intuitively That he needed urgent help There could be further torture If there was delay We couldn't do anything else But pass the word outside Help! send a lawyer! Ora mismo! today! Sunday and Monday passed No relatives and lawyer came But he was finally surfaced On the third day He was brought out in the sun A figure straight from el greco Gaunt, thin, soulful eyes Half-dead, that Tuesday We embraced him with our eyes Saw the wound on he forehead Blood was still oozing out Then, they took him away Again, the bastards took him away Haven't they extracted everything From Him? So why go on? He's practically dead anyway Like Lazarus he came out of the tomb But in the light, there wasn't Much promise of joy For us, that Tuesday Wednesday, Thursday passed We didn't see him anymore We wanted to know where he was But there was no way Friday night, word came in a whisper He is no longer in prison At 2:00 o'clock that afternoon They brought him to a place far away Is he alive? or is he dead? No one knows among us As he disappeared, we couldn't Do anything, but pray. Then he adds the final verse: A day after I wrote this poem Word came from a detainee He said he saw him inside a Fiera There his dead body lay. He continued: Since I last wrote three detainees have joined us. Two were spared the pain of torture, but the third went through the works. He was isolated from the other detainees for a week, and surfaced only the other night. There have been some joys in the past week. Two detainees were released. Both were victims of the brutal dehumanization of torture. One lost his sanity and the other ended up with a broken back. We all celebrated their release. Still we have some really sick people here inside. The coming of the rains is also very much joyfully welcomed not only because the peasants can now plant, but also because our cells are a little cooler when it rains. There are bursts of creativity in the cells as detainees learn to paint, do art work, play the guitar. Our Sunday liturgies have become more meaningful and enriching as we continue to be joined by relatives and friends who share their songs and prayers. Friendships deepen as detainees get to know each other and there are many inspiring moments as detainees reach out to one another to provide solace and comfort, consolation and encouragement. Day after tomorrow I will appear before the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch IX here in Davao City with my case No. 9198 for Inciting to Rebellion. Like the cases of the other detainees, this one might just drag on for months. The witnesses of the military have a bad habit of not appearing at trial hearings, which necessiatate endless postponements. As if by delaying justice, they can further instill fear among the victims of injustice. Four days from now, we celebrate Independence Day. It is also the start of Ramadhan. We all look forward to this day, especially because it is a Sunday. All of us detainees will be all gathered together for Sunday liturgy. Perhaps we might even have a more meaningful liturgy, as we are preparing the liturgy ourselves. Since the event itself is very significant, one can foresee high spirits during the celebration. It is very ironic that our dictatorial government will make a big show of this Independence Day as they did in the past years. But the irony is not lost among more and more people. There can never be a genuine Independence Day celebration for as long as there are political detainees. The blood shed by the heroes of the 1890s that led to the event of June 12, 1898 has not yet led to the birth of a truly free and independent nation. More blood is being shed and will still flow before peace and freedom will reign. We are going to celebrate this day with a fast. Enclosed is our statement which we will read during our own celebration here, which explains why we are going to fast. We hope you could be one with us on this day. We hope to keep you updated on our fast as we go along. While we hope it won't take long before our demands are met, we are also aware of the risks we are going to take. Please keep vigil with us. Your prayers and expressions of solidarity will be greatly appreciated. I end with a prayer which was on a greeting card from a friend: 'I pray for you constantly, asking Abba our Father to flood your heart with light, so that you may know the great Hope, to which He has called you, that you may understand, how very great is His power in us who believe'. The letter is signed: Peace, Karl That is one letter form a political detainee in the Philippines. We have heard already of other matters that have been raised through the Amnesty International . I believe that until such time as the Philippines can demonstrate that it is really concerned with human rights, that it has a peaceful process whereby people can have justice delivered to them as justice is meant to be delivered and not in the manner in which that country sees fit, Australia should look very carefully at its program in relation to both trade with and provision of aid to that country as it should with any other country that denies people the right to dignity and humanity. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.58) —I want to speak briefly on the same subject. I begin with two comments. The first is from Cardinal Jaime Sin, the spiritual leader of 38 million Catholics in the Philippines who, speaking of his people when interviewed in the latest edition of Newsweek, said: We have been deprived of our civil liberties for some time . . . The second quote is from Mrs Imelda Marcos who, speaking of the late Senator Aquino, said: If he comes back he's dead. Mr Aquino was no communist, no left wing extremist. Rather, he was very much the product of the right wing Manila establishment. At the time he entered the Senate in the Philippines legislature he was the youngest senator ever to sit in that place. He was imprisoned by the Marcos regime and was allowed to go to the United States of America for medical treatment. When he returned to Manila, as we know, he was murdered in highly suspicious circumstances as he got off the aircraft. His death brings those circumstances of poverty, oppression and economic disparity in the Philippines that have been a cause for disquiet to so many people for so long to an outrageous, even bizarre pitch. I say 'bizarre' because I think the time has been reached where I would agree with Senator Coleman that continued normal association of Australia with the Philippines must now be called into serious question. I think we must ask ourselves how far we are prepared to go in concurrence with and actual assistance to regimes which prey on their own peoples, which use murder and torture to maintain a rigorous oppression and which force the bulk of those people into virtual starvation to benefit a few who are indecently rich. That is certainly the case in the Philippines, as any honourable senator who has been there will know. Some honourable senators who might have been to the Philippines will have been to the enormously affluent suburbs of Manila, like Forbes Park, where displays of wealth are quite shameless when one considers the poverty of the majority of the people. When I visited Forbes Park some years ago-perhaps it is not the same now-what I found interesting about it was that it is a fortress. It is a virtual castle. One can only get into the place by passing barbed wire barriers, with guard dogs and armed guards on duty. The ordinary people have no access to it. The whole question of the status of the population of the Philippines came to our attention again forcibly some months ago because of the case involving Perth -born Columbian priest Father Brian Gore. I have made a number of inquiries about Father Gore. I feel that it is fair enough, when one of our nationals in another country is accused of certain things, for us to check out the reliability of that person. Everyone I have spoken to who knows Father Gore says that he is a man of peace, a good man, an honest man and a principled man who is not moved to wrath or to action easily or quickly. Apparently he could not stomach the sight of what was happening to the ordinary people in his area. Ordinary Filipinos were being preyed on by the local soldiers. I heard from the Columbian fathers of one charming case involving a Filipino who had bought a jacket which had been cast off by the military and which still carried the shoulder flash. Soldiers came upon this Filipino in the market. They forced him to take it off, chew it and swallow it. I gather that that was not an isolated incident. Reports of similar incidents and of people disappearing are common. People being put in prison for no apparent reason is also a common occurrence. The attempts by Father Gore to draw attention to the misery of those people led to his being held on a series of charges which give every appearance of having been trumped up. I think we must ask ourselves what we achieve by supporting such regimes. Those who say we must go on supporting them-and of course, there are those who say that-are ignoring the plain history of the last four decades. It was the counsel of that kind of person which resulted in China becoming communist and in Vietnam , Laos and Cambodia becoming communist. Support of the privileged autocracies, the Chiangs, the Suns and the Ngo Dinh Diems of this world led directly to that consequence. If we believe that we are assisting regional stablity by supporting such regimes we are deluding ourselves sorely. It is not in our hands, of course , to interfere in the affairs of another nation. But, by the same token, we should not encourage what is plainly wrong and what are clear and repeated breaches of what should be fundamental to human rights. I ask the Government to act responsibly in this matter, in regard to our relationship with the Philippines now, and to realise that acting responsibly and acting cynically are not the same thing. The world is going through a phase in which the number of democracies reduces year by year. I cannot see that a cynical view of humanity, as representing so many counters in a power game to the exclusion of all other factors, is responsible or wise. Oppressed societies can be pushed only so far. That is also the lesson of the last four decades. If we support those oppressive regimes and find them replaced by something we like even less we will have only ourselves to thank. The Aquino killing seems to me to have been a blatant intrusion on the political process of the Philippines and, indeed, of the world. It could hardly have been cruder or more brutal. If that is the sort of world we want then so be it but, if not, we will have to apply every effort we can to change it. We should not dissemble, should not try to disguise or cloak the disapproval and disgust we feel, and feel reasonably. I think we should express these views. The more of us who express these views, and the sooner we do so, the better. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(11.04) —I wish to address myself briefly to the same matter. I am indebted to those honourable senators who have already raised this question in the adjournment debate. I say to those who have raised it that it is necessary for us to address the matter again at a time when a substantial debate can take place during the normal hours of the Senate. The matter which has been raised is of considerable concern or should be to the whole of the Senate and, in fact, to the nation. I have stated recently that what is emerging to the north of us is a military fascism which we cannot tolerate. What happened in the Philipines underlines and emphasises that very fact. This thuggery is apparent not only in the Philippines but also in Indonesia and now in Sri Lanka. We should be taking a very firm stand against it. I am certain that if the matter is raised-as it should be-as a matter of public importance, the ensuing debate on both sides of the chamber will show the concern that we have about what is occurring to the north of us. I have before me some figures which indicate that we give considerable aid, including military aid, to the countries which I have mentioned. In fact, we train personnel. It is possible that the person who was responsible for the assassination may have been trained in methods of military oppression by Australia. The numbers of foreign troops trained in Australia are as follows: Papua New Guinea, 197; Indonesia, 91; Malaysia, 415; Singapore, 73; and Thailand , 110. Some 119 Filipino personnel were trained in this country last year. For what reason were they trained? They have been trained in this country and given aid by this country to be used against their own populations, in order to oppress and deprive. Aid is given also to other countries although perhaps at a lower level. Aid is given to Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka at the present time the Tamul people are persecuted and slaughtered. People are dying by the thousands. In the streets of Jakarta, possibly as a result of aid that we have given, training that we have given and arms that we have supplied, many are dying. It could be argued-it is argued by the Indonesians-that such action is directed against criminals. But who defines who are the criminals? It seems to me that in the Philippines the criminals are those who politically oppose the government of the day. I will not speak much longer on this matter. I wish merely to express my concern and add it to the concern of others. I suggest that at an opportune time we should engage in a full debate which will indicate to the people in those countries who are in responsible positions that we will not condone such action. I think it is important that the Senate express that view. It is important that we should express to the Indonesians the view that we are not prepared to appease such thuggery. We should express to the Government of the Philippines also the view that we are not prepared to appease such thuggery in that country. We should now look at what is happening in Sri Lanka and say to that country: ' We are not prepared to appease and to condone such thuggery'. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.09) —I wish to raise another subject which is of some concern in my State. It relates to the announcement last night of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the imposition of excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine at the rate of $2.50 per litre of alcohol. It should be noted that in fact, due to the Government's decision to index excises, the actual rate to apply immediately is $2.61 per litre of alcohol. To say that this has caused concern amongst winemakers in South Australia is a gross understatement. Their concern obviously is justified. In placing a tax on wine the Government has chosen the worst possible option and the one that is likely to do most damage to sections of the industry. The Government has chosen to place an excise on grape spirit, which is basically a raw material used in the manufacture of certain wine products, for instance, sherries, ports and muscats. Over the winter recess South Australians constantly heard talk about the possible imposition of a general tax on all wines. I think it is not overstating the case to say that all South Australians viewed that proposal with a great deal of concern as they recognised the importance to South Australia of the wine industry. That is particularly important at the moment when the economy of the State is in such disorder. Over that period various State and Federal Ministers and some South Australian Federal Labor members ran around the State assuring everybody that this action would not occur. Indeed, one can well remember that at the pre-election meeting at McLaren Vale the now Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, definitively stated: The industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax. There we have it. One wonders what the Australian Labor Party would have dreamt up had it turned its mind to it. Even as late as July, in the Riverland area of South Australia, Senator Bolkus confidently predicted that no wine tax would be imposed. Those assurances have proven absolutely worthless and we now have an excise imposed on the most important part of the industry. I would like to explain to the Senate why it is such an important part. The grape industry in South Australia is subject to surpluses and shortages in the same way as most primary production is. It is a tradition in the industry that in years of surplus wine makers take in the surplus grapes and press them for spirit to be used in the manufacture of brandy and/or fortified wines in later times when there may be shortages. The obvious result is that this provides some stability in the industry, especially to the small grape growers who occupy small tenancies or properties in the Riverland and other parts of the State. It has been a conscious and traditional part of the industry. The imposition of an excise is about the most iniquitous form of taxation that the Government could have applied to that part of the industry. The excise has to be paid within a very short time of the grape spirit being used. From present indications given by the department responsible for this matter, makers will have to pay within seven days of the use of the spirit. In other words, they will have to pay in advance of the time when they collect from the sale of the goods for which the spirit is used. Previously an excise operated, but not in this way. It was not paid until after the produce itself had been cleared for sale. The reason for that is obvious. Fortified wines require varying years of maturation. For example, good quality ports like Galway Pipe take 15 years to mature, and Directors' Choice takes eight years. By paying the excise at the time of the release of the produce, the sale proceeds of the goods could in fact be used to pay the tax. But this will not apply in this case. The excise will be demanded immediately the spirit is made, not at the time the final product is made. Therefore, the Government will have use of tax money before the growers actually sell their produce. Producers will have to cover those costs and in many cases this may require financing for periods of up to 15 years, as I have just demonstrated in the case of ports. The cost of this will be enormous. I believe that the Treasurer, by stating that the Government was simply re-introducing this excise, was trying to lull producers into the belief that the old excise arrangements which I just outlined would apply. I would certainly appreciate the assurance of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that my understanding of the facts as I have outlined them is correct. If he has other views I would very much like to hear his correction. In 1981 and 1982, out of the total wine beverage production of 303,040,000 litres, fortified wines totalled roughly 52 million litres, or approximately one -sixth. This excise discriminates against regions within Australia, chiefly the Riverland area in South Australia, the Griffith-Leeton area in New South Wales and the Sunraysia district in Victoria. Those areas will be hardest hit. South Australia will be slugged the most by the impost because about 65 per cent of grape spirit is manufactured in that State. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which I think the Attorney-General has seen. Leave granted. The table read as follows- GRAPE SPIRIT USED IN AUSTRALIA '000 litres of alcohol Other S.A. N.S.W. States Aust. 1981-82: Grape Spirit used: Wine of 1982 vintage 5,027 1 946 942 7,915 Wine of previous vintages 1,378 549 87 2,015 9,930 1980-81: Grape Spirit used: Wine of 1981 vintage 4,156 2,577 1,127 7,860 Wine of previous vintages 1,534 393 278 2,204 10,064 Source: ABS publication No. 8366.0 Wine Production : Australia and States. Senator MESSNER —I thank the Senate. That table is based on Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. It clearly reinforces the contention that the tax will bite hardest in South Australia, particularly in the Riverland area of the State. In talks with Riverland winemakers today, I was constantly told how they believed that this discriminatory impost would have a devastating effect on that area. For instance, one winemaker who used about half a million litres of alcohol grape spirit is faced with extra costs of the order of $1.25m plus the cost of financing that amount. At the rate of 16 per cent per annum, which is roughly the overdraft rate today, that will add another $200,000 a year to his operating costs. That starts seven days after the commencement of the production of grape spirit. Obviously this will have an enormous impact on the cost of processing and consequently will find its way into prices. Given that some 9.9 million litres of grape spirit alcohol were used in 1981 and 1982, this exercise is likely to bring in about $25m in revenue. As I said before, 65 per cent of that will come from South Australians. If ever South Australians needed further proof that their needs are ignored by Federal Labor governments, they now have it. This measure will have a very adverse effect on the liquidity of the industry in the State at a time when the State's economy is in poor shape. The Government should examine immediately the way in which this excise is to be paid. If the method of payment-that is, seven days after usage- is to be persisted with then I suggest that the Government will need to look very carefully at the future of the wine and grape spirit industry in my State. I urge the Government to consider how it may develop an alternative method of payment of this tax, perhaps along the lines which have been traditionally adopted for the payment of excise rather than by a confiscatory method of collecting the tax seven days after the production of the spirit. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.18) —Mr President, tonight I want briefly to canvass a matter about which I had hoped to be able to ask a question of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) this afternoon. However, I was not able to do so. It arises from a report which she published recently, known as the Radford report, on the impact of Radford College on Australian Capital Territory schools. A committee of inquiry was set up for the purpose of looking into that project. The report was released by the Minister on 21 July this year and at that time she asked for public comments on it to be made available by 31 August. Subsequently, when it was found that volume I was not available in large enough numbers for people to study it properly, she announced that the time for public inquiry would be extended until 30 September. I understand that volume I of the report has been made available to only a limited number of people. One hundred copies were made originally and I have been told that a further 100 copies were photocopied and distributed. But that is still only 200 copies for a community such as ours which, I am sure everyone agrees, has a fairly high level of interest in education. The implications of this report are much wider than that. In fact, I think it is of interest to people throughout Australia who are concerned about the quality of education in our community. From one point of view one might suggest that public comment should be sought and allowed to come in for, say, two months after people have had an opportunity to fully examine the report. There is another quite disturbing aspect of the report. As I said, volume I was available in limited quantities. Volume III was freely available but that was merely a summary of the recommendations. Volume II has not yet appeared. I understand that it is with the Government Printer and is not yet available. Volume I indicates that one needs to read volume II to perhaps fully understand volume I. Certainly, one needs to read volume I to get the full implications of the way in which some of the recommendations are worded and set out in volume III. I think that many people would be very reluctant to respond to the report without having volume II available to them. I ask the Minister: When will volume II be available and what length of time will she allow for public comment? Of course, we are interested in the Government response and we would like to know when it will be forthcoming. Will it be before or after public comment has come in? I think the Government should respond to this. I can understand the Government wanting to wait until it gets public comment but I suggest that the public has already commented. Last week two meetings were held in Canberra-one in the Albert Hall at which over 700 people attended and the other in a suburb called Florey at which over 900 people attended. I think that those two meetings said a great deal about what people think of the content of the report. It may well be that the Government will respond to that public comment and make an announcement quite soon as to what its reaction to the Radford report will be. It is quite clear that the committee went well beyond the terms of reference in inquiring into the impact of Radford College upon the school system in the Australian Capital Territory. It was referred to at the meeting held in the Albert Hall the other night as a tyrannical abuse of power that the committee should have been ranged so widely. Certainly it has caused a great deal of distress and concern in this community among people who believe in the right of choice in the matter of education. The committee went beyond the question of choice in education in that, in part, it referred to technical and further education colleges and their future. As I understand it, none of the TAFE colleges in the Australian Capital Territory gave evidence to the committee or were even invited or given the opportunity to put in a submission. Notwithstanding that, the committee has sought to gather them up in this report. The most important aspect of the report from the point of view of members of the public who have been responding to it is the question of the integration of non-government schools into the government school system. I do not think one could pretend that that was something which the committee was intended to do but , in fact, it did so. A number of aspects of that have caused great concern to the community. One of those is the local Australian Labor Party policy with respect to the non-government school system, part of which stated that an ALP government would establish procedures to enable private schools to integrate into a restructured public schools system. The local Teachers Federation has been very vocal in its opposition to non-government schools. I do not think anyone doubts that it wishes to see them wiped out completely. When one considers those two facts and a report from a committee set up by the Minister, which makes comments on integration, which this committee has done, I think one can understand why there has been such wide public response. Subsequent to that we have had the new education guidelines which seriously attack the future viability of non-government schools. Again, that has added to the community's concern about any commitment towards choice in education. The link between the funding of non-government schools with the cost of educating a child in the government school system has been broken in a way which many people feel indicates that the funding arrangements for the future will be far from certain. I think that the Minister should make the Government's position clear. I suggest to her that she make her position clear in this her electorate. I ask: Will she denounce the integration of non-government schools into the government system? Will she denounce the Teachers Federation's attitude towards the existence of non-government schools and the concept of choice in education? Will she denounce also a paper put out in the last couple of weeks by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority which, I must say, most provocatively at the very least, refers to the future of public and subsidised schools? It could refer to public and private schools; it could refer to government and non- government schools; it could refer to fully subsidised and partially subsidised schools; but to put out a paper entitled 'Public and Subsidised Schools' can do nothing but make this debate more inflammatory. I think the Minister should make her personal position quite clear on all of these matters so that the community knows exactly where she stands. A number of other matters are relevant to the debate. I think that I have ranged a little more widely than I might have had the opportunity to do in Question Time, but I have at least cancasseed and touched on matters which I think are very important and which need to be answered. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.26) —A number of honourable senators have spoken tonight about the tragic, senseless, and indeed the sickening, death of former Senator Benigno Aquino in Manila on 21 August. In Question Time yesterday I made clear the Government's attitude to that assassination and I can do no more than repeat briefly tonight the substance of our reaction. Former Senator Aquino was, of course, a symbol of opposition in the Philippines and to the existing Government. According to a statement which was to have been released on his return, and which was subsequently distributed by his relatives, Aquino said that he had returned to the Philippines of his own free will to join the ranks of those struggling to restore rights and freedoms through non-violence. It is a tragedy indeed that his violent death prevented him from following such a course. The Australian Government deplores his assassination and offers its condolences to all those in the Philippines-not just Senator Aquino's family-who are aggrieved by it. As to the question of aid to the Philippines, which was raised by Senator Sibraa yesterday in his question to me, and briefly adverted to by Senator Georges in his contribution tonight, I answer by saying: The Government believes it can best improve the lot of the people of the Philippines by continuing its development assistance programs. Poverty and under-development themselves are, in important senses, violations of the human rights of those affected. Senator Aquino was a man internationally known and respected for his human rights concerns. Rather than his death leading Australia to abandon its concern for the under privileged of the Philippines, it should reinforce our concern to ensure that Australian assistance goes to alleviate in some ways their poverty. Senator Messner spoke of the implications of the grape spirit excise. I wish to not reply in detail to what he said but perhaps to put some of his remarks in perspective by saying that the effect on the price of a bottle of port, per bottle, is, on our calculations, less than 25c. As such it can hardly be expected to have massive implications for the industry. That calculation was supplied by my comrade in arms, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, whose figuring on these matters is usually impeccable. I am advised by him that one litre of spirit has 860 millilitres of alcohol which, at a rate of 3c per millilitre, would produce a situation as follows: Port wine fortifies with approximately 75 millilitres of alcohol-that is to say, 10 per cent-and, therefore, the additional cost per bottle, by virtue of this excise, is 22.5c. I am further advised by my colleague-no doubt, again, this is based on impeccable information-that if Mr Howard were still the Treasurer a 20 per cent sales tax would have been imposed on all wine, producing a result of around 80c being added to the price of a bottle of wine. Senator Messner would really have had something to yelp about under those circumstances. Senator Messner —That is exactly my point and you missed it. Senator GARETH EVANS —Quite possibly, but the night is late and the speeches were tedious. The final speech to which I am obliged to respond is that of Senator Reid. In response to what she had to say about the report of the committee of review into the impact of Radford College, I am simply advised by my colleague the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) that she plans to table in this place volumes I and III of the report tomorrow and will make a short statement on the issue at that time. Senator Messner —Mr President, I seek leave to ask the Attorney-General a question. Leave not granted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.30 p.m. The following papers were presented: Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 139. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 137. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determination-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 142. Export Control Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 136. Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 140 . Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 138. Salaries and Wages Pause Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 141. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1983- No. 16-Sale of Motor Vehicles (Amendment). No. 17-Money Lenders (Amendment). No. 18-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 19-National Exhibition Centre Trust (Amendment). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the subsidy scheme in relation to the State of Queensland, dated 16 August 1983. Telecommunications Act-By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 36. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 29. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 12 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Does the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) extend home loans to members of its executive and its staff at below market rates. (2) Did the AIDC, in August 1972, extend a $30,000 loan at 3 per cent over 25 years to Sir Alan Westerman, the Chairman of AIDC. (3) Was this loan secured by first mortgage over a house at 47 Tasmania Circle, Forrest, ACT, a house owned by Sir Alan Westerman. (4) What other below-market home loans have been given to members of the executive and staff of the AIDC since that body was established in 1970. (5) Who are the members of the executive and staff who have received such loans . (6) What amount of money was loaned in each case. (7) What was the rate of interest charged in each case. (8) What period was each loan taken over. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Under section 33 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970, the Corporation is empowered, among other things, to provide financial benefits in connection with housing for its executive and staff, who are not public servants. The effect of section 33 is to enable the Corporation to offer such conditions as are necessary to attract, in competition with other businesses, executive and professional staff of the appropriate calibre and with the required skills and experience. The provision of staff housing benefits is a common occurrence in the finance industry. Housing loans have, therefore, been made to executive and professional members of the Corporation's staff at an interest rate similar to that which, I am informed, is used by a major private bank when making housing loans to its staff. Particulars of remuneration and any benefits provided to staff of private enterprise firms are confidential between the employer and the employee. Staff of the Corporation, I consider, should be in the same position. However, the AIDC has advised that no director or member of staff of the Corporation has ever received a housing finance package at a cost to the officer as low as 3 per cent per annum. In this connection I am advised that some documents available from the Titles Office do not accurately reflect the terms on which housing benefits were provided. Question No. 28 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) What are the regulations covering the discharges and admissions to hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) Is there any special provision made for patients to be discharged for one or two nights under special circumstances, as part of a rehabilitation programme ; if not, have there been any such provisions in the past, and if so, when and why were the relevant regulations altered. (3) Would long-term patients, such as cancer sufferers, those undergoing mastectomies and various rehabilitation programmes, benefit from special provisions for short-term discharge under special circumstances. (4) Will the current regulations be altered to accommodate special circumstances as outlined in the above questions. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The admission and discharge of patients from hospitals conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission is not specifically regulated by statute. (2) Yes, but not under regulation. The discharge from hospital of long-term patients for short periods is established hospital administrative practice when of therapeutic value in the opinion of professional clinical staff. This policy is currently in force and has been operative for many years. (3) Yes. (4) No, this is not a matter requiring specific statutory control by regulation . Question No. 41 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, 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 Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (2) Functions now within my responsibility were before March 1983, part of the Department of Administrative Services and their expenditure on ADP prior to 1983-84 is included in the response to Senate Question No. 53. The tables below set out the proposed expenditure figures for the Department of the Special Minister of State, for the period 1983-84 to 1985-86: (a)-Hardware/software: 1983-84-$6,132,000; 1984-85-$8,429,000; 1985-86-$700,000 . (b)-Repairs/servicing: 1983-84-$2,124,000; 1984-85-$3,075,000; 1985-86-$3,207, 000. (3) A list of major purchases which are now obsolete or will be in the next five years, is set out below: Natsemi AS7000 Dual Processor Sundry ancillary equipment IBM 360 processors and associated peripherals Question No. 45 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, 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 Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) (b) and (2) The following table gives details of estimated and projected expenditure. The figures given for projected expenditure are subject to further examination as part of the normal ongoing budgetary process and may vary from that projected in accordance with government programs and financial directions current at that time. Proposed expenditure Estimated expenditure $'000s $'000s Expenditure incurred by 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Department of Education* and Youth Affairs- Hardware and software 20 53 59 103 104 462 525 920 420 462 508 Maintenance nil 5 10 12 15 15 72 71 110 163 179 Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission- Hardware and software nil nil 7 13 3 nil 53 nil 51 nil nil Maintenance nil 4 3 3 4 3 9 12 12 15 15 Commonwealth Schools Com- mission- Hardware and software nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 91 138 30 60 Maintenance nil nil nil nil nil nil nil 1 17 19 19 ACT Schools Authority- Hardware and software nil nil 15 178 21 54 36 22 461 67 32 Maintenance nil nil nil 16 22 22 22 30 48 52 54 Curriculm Development Centre- Hardware and software nil nil 2 2 4 19 15 5 5 5 5 Maintenance nil nil nil nil nil 2 3 nil 3 3 3 Australian National University**- Hardware and software 894 1515 1953 1508 1486 2051 2400 2423 2423 2500 2500 Maintenance 308 338 405 488 557 634 712 881 1026 1350 1730 Canberra College of Advanced Education- Hardware and software 28 101 101 73 101 132 97 204 200 2000 100 Maintenance 67 78 81 95 107 110 106 206 230 250 275 Australian Maritime College- Hardware and software nil nil nil nil nil 37 36 139 30 30 500 Maintenance nil nil nil nil nil 31 31 31 32 33 60 * The Department of Education became the Department of Education and Youth Affairs in March 1983 ** Estimates for financial year based on calendar year figures (3) The following equipment is expected to become obsolete in the next five years. Department of Education and Youth Affairs-WANG processors with associated terminals installed in both central and State offices. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-AMTEXT 425 Word Processor and WANG computer. Commonwealth Schools Commission-No items. ACT Schools Authority-A PDP 11/60 and DATAPOINT 1800 computers. Curriculm Development Centre-No items. I am advised by the institutions concerned that the following equipment is expected to become obsolete in the next 5 years. Australian National University-1 x Burroughs B 1700 system, 1 x Perkin Elmer 8/ 32, 1 x Edac system, 1 x VAX 11/780 system, 1 x Hewlett-Packard 21 MX. Canberra College of Advanced Education-1 x Burroughs B6700 system including 140 terminals, 1 x Wang 25/2 Word Processing system, 3 x Wang System 5 Word Processing systems, 25 x Northstar Advantage micro computers, 25 x miscellaneous microcomputers including Apple, Sorcerer, ERA and IMS micros. Australian Maritime College-No items. Question No. 49 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, 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 Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1 and 2 as per attached table Part 3-Obsolete Equipment 1982-83-10 x VTE6 Terminals purchased in 1976-77 1985-86-1 x PDP 11/34 Minicomputer system purchased in 1976-77 at a cost of $ 116,076. Parts 1 (a), 1 (b), 2 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 Hardware/ software 31 455 252 073 105 658 89 840 68 944 393 979 673 019 667 724 327 000 306 355 304 000 Repairs/service 3 368 16 706 30 097 57 837 43 632 67 175 66 186 159 334 178 206 191 206 176 050 Total 34 823 268 779 135 755 147 677 112 576 461 154 739 205 827 058 505 206 497 561 480 050 Note: 1. Expenditure shown for 75/76 is for the full financial year. Question No. 65 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: Have arrangements been concluded for removal or disposal of demountable capital improvements on the Karumba, Queensland, properties which the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation holds under lease from the State of Queensland, used until recently for research into banana prawns; if so, will this property be made available to the Karumba township to help alleviate the shortage of land in that town, or is that a decision for the Queensland Government. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No, but CSIRO has requested the Department of Administrative Services to arrange for the disposal of the site and capital improvements. Any interested body should approach the Department of Administrative Services to ensure that their need is considered. The site is leased in two portions from the State of Queensland. The termination date of one lease is 31 May 1996 and the other 30 June 1997. The final decision on the use of the site is the responsibility of the Queensland Government. Question No. 108 Senator Colston asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 3 May 1983: Are students who are in de facto relationships eligible for independent status for TEAS allowances upon the basis of those de facto relationships: (a) if not, were students previously able to qualify for independent status in this way; (b) if so, when were the regulations altered; and (c) will the Government alter the regulations so de facto relationships are once again recognised for the purpose of qualifying for independent status. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: No. One of the decisions of the previous Government following the Review of Commonwealth Functions was that with effect from 1 January 1982, de facto relationships would no longer provide a basis for eligibility for independent status under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS). The situation prior to the Review of Commonwealth Functions was that students were able to be considered for independent status if they had lived in a de facto relationship for two years continuously or for one year if they had a child. The regulations were amended on 27 November 1981. There is no present intention of altering the decision. Question No. 118 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1983: (1) Is Australian foreign aid designed to be: (a) an instrument of foreign policy, or (b) an instrument of economic and social advancement for recipients. (2) How will Australian aid serve foreign policy requirements, as well as humanitarian concerns. (3) What will be the determinant for giving aid if foreign policy requirements and humanitarian considerations are in conflict. (4) How will the Government give humanitarian factors the fullest consideration if there are no non-government aid agencies on the current review committee. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government views the economic and social advancement of recipients as a fundamental consideration in framing its aid policies. Bilateral aid provided by Australia on a government to government basis, however, cannot be divorced from our broader relations with the recipient. (2) and (3). One of the tasks of the committee established to review Australia' s overseas aid program is to make recommendations on the future form and direction of our aid with a view to ensuring that it reflects Australia's interests and values and makes a real contribution to the economic and social advancement of the people of recipient countries. (4) The review committee is made up of people who bring considerable personal skills and experience to the task. While there are no non-government agencies on the committee, one of the committee members is a past Chairman of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid and also served as the president of one of the major non-governmental agencies. Question No. 126 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry , upon notice, on 4 April 1983: Will the Minister for Trade consider the introduction of a royalty or levy on the export of Australian pearls, by weight, to eliminate the possibility of manipulation of 'floor price' valuations in the countries of destination; if not , what alternative measures would permit Australia to better share the economic benefits of this diminishing resource. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The economic benefit to Australia from unprocessed products primarily sold on the export market is a matter which is kept under continual review by the Government. I am advised that the Commissioner of Taxation takes a close interest in situations where it is possible to manipulate the price paid for such products to the Australian producer or partner in such industries. The Government is not considering a royalty or levy on the export of Australian pearls. The effect that any such levy or royalty would have on the demand for Australian pearls, its impact on the net return to Australian partners and the impact on our international trading relations would need to be carefully evaluated before the Government could consider taking any such action. The announcement by Australia's largest operator that it will be terminating activities would suggest that the industry would be hard pressed to survive imposition of a special royalty or levy. In the event of price manipulation by overseas buyers being identified, it is open in the first instance to Australian producers to introduce marketing measures to counter such practices and thereby achieve maximum commercial returns for their industry. The success of such measures would be expected to be dependent on the supply and demand for pearls from time to time. Question No. 156 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: What are the names and addresses of all those organisations for whom payroll deduction facilities are permitted in relation to voluntary deductions made by Commonwealth employees. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Under the Finance Directions-made pursuant to the Audit Act-Commonwealth employees can have voluntary deductions in respect of- (a) premiums on life insurance policies on behalf of an approved life insurance company; (b) approved Public Service funds; (c) loan repayments and savings deposits to approved credit unions and permanent building societies; (d) subscriptions for membership of an association or union registered as an organisation pursuant to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; (e) a hospital/medical benefits fund registered under the National Health Act; (f) repayment of housing loans to the Defence Service Homes Corporation, the Department of Territories and Local Government or the Department of Home Affairs and Environment; (g) rent of residence, furniture and/or appliances provided by the Commonwealth ; (h) repayments under the Reserve Price Instalment Scheme for the purchase of land in the A.C.T.; (i) national savings groups (not available through the Department of Finance ADP Payroll System). In relation to such deductions by Commonwealth employees (numbering approximately 165,000) paid through the Department of Finance pay system the Department currently remits deductions to 47 approved life assurance companies; 57 unions/associations; 47 departments/ authorities receiving home loan repayments or home and/or furniture rental payments; 51 hospital/medical benefit societies; 11 Public Service funds; 102 approved credit unions and 55 permanent building societies. Over all categories, there are some 370 individual deduction authorities. However union/association subscriptions are paid on a state basis, thereby increasing considerably the number of names and addresses stored by the system. To provide complete details in response to the honourable senator's question- even if confined to deductions made under the Department of Finance Pay System- would involve the provision of more than 700 names and addresses. Given the considerable clerical and administrative effort that would be involved, the information provided above has been limited to the approved categories of organisations to which voluntary deductions may be made. Names and addresses of organisations within any given category could be made available to the honourable senator if required. Information in respect of those payrolls not the responsibility of the Department of Finance (for example, those of the Defence Force, Telecom Australia, Australia Post, various other commissions and authorities and some wages payrolls) would need to be obtained separately. Question No. 163 Senator Sibraa asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) How many aged people who receive a social security benefit live in the federal electorates of Cowper and Richmond. (2) How many aged people are being cared for in public hospitals in the federal electorates of Richmond and Cowper. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) It is estimated that at 8 April 1983 there were some 13,650 age pensioners in Richmond and 15,290 in Cowper. Women aged 60 or more and men aged 65 or more may qualify for an age pension. It is not known how many persons of age pension age in the Richmond and Cowper electorates are receiving an alternative pension or benefit from the Department of Social Security, but the number would be small . (2) The information requested by the honourable senator is not available from my Department. I am advised that in the most recent census conducted by the N.S. W. Department of Health (5 August 1981) of aged people (65 and over) in public hospitals, 386 aged people were in public hospitals in Richmond and 338 aged people were in public hospitals in Cowper. Question No. 170 Senator Scott asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Did the Minister for Veterans' Affairs claim at a recent conference of the Vietnam Veterans Association (VVA) in Sydney that the former Government's record on the Vietnam chemical issue had been 'shameful'. (2) Did the former Government establish the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service (VVCS). (3) Did the former Government set up scientific investigations of (a) the health problems of Vietnam veterans' (b) the incidents of birth defects amongst the children of Vietnam veterans, and (c) the rate of mortality amongst Vietnam veterans. (4) Did the former Government establish free treatment in urgent cases for Vietnam veterans and their families at repatriation hospitals and other, including country, hospitals. (5) Did the former Government establish a 'fast lane' system for handling Vietnam veterans' claims. (6) Did the former Government establish a committee of review of all repatriation legislation. (7) Did the former Government enact legislation to establish a test for liability of the government to compensation on a basis common to all categories of veterans. (8) Did the former Government establish a National Advisory Committee on the operation of the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Centres. (9) Did the former Government set in train the extension into country areas of VVCS. (10) Did the former Government provide compensation to some 7000 Vietnam veterans. (11) Was the former Government provided with a most detailed and comprehensive report by the Department of Defence on the result of an examination of some 20, 000 files, previously unlocated but providing significant information about Australia's involvement with chemicals in Vietnam. (12) If the answers to (1) to (11) above are in the affirmative, how does the answer to (1) above equate with the answers to (2) to (11) above. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) to (11) Yes, although, in regard to (10), a high proportion of the disability pensions in fact were granted under earlier governments. (12) The record of the previous government in not establishing a judicial enquiry after four years of public debate and calls from the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia was shameful. The steps taken did not address the substance of the fundamental problems Vietnam veterans and their families see facing them. Question No. 171 Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs attention been drawn to an article in The Bulletin dated 17 May 1983 based on authenticated Amnesty International accounts, detailing the horrible tortures meted out to prisoners and their families in Iran. (2) Has the Minister received any information from his representatives in Iran, regarding such activities. (3) Will the Minister ask his representatives in Iran to investigate this matter and provide further information. (4) Does the Minister intend to take any action to seek an explanation of these charges from the Iranian Government or its representatives in Australia. (5) Has the Minister considered taking any actions against the Iranian Government in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. (6) Will Australia respond as a civilised community should, to actions which are such a flagrant violation of fundamental human rights. (7) What measures will the Minister institute against the government of Iran in response to such contemptible treatment of human beings. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) and (3) The Australian Embassy in Tehran reports on a continuing basis the information it can obtain on the human rights situation in Iran. The Government also pays careful attention to information from other sources, such as reports prepared by Amnesty International, which can have access to information that is not available to diplomatic missions. (4) (5) (6) and (7) The Australian Government has on several occasions made known to the Iranian authorities its concern at the lack of respect for human rights in Iran. The Government has made unilateral approaches to Iranian officials both in Canberra and Tehran. It has taken part in joint action with other concerned missions in Tehran. The government has also been active in the appropriate international fora, such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, to register its concern over human rights in Iran. In all cases where other countries fail to respect human rights, the Government will continue to take appropriate action in all these fields as circumstances warrant. Question No. 183 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Special Minister for State, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: (1) What research on the level of informal voting and the reasons for informal voting has been conducted by the Australian Electoral Office in the past six years, including research at the divisional level. (2) Will the Special Minister of State release this research for public information. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) In 1979, the Australian Electoral Office prepared a document entitled 'A Survey of Informal Voting at the December 1977 Elections'. It contained a detailed analysis of the informal vote recorded for both House and Senate in all divisions. A copy of the Survey has been provided to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which has authorised its publication. At the request of the Committee, a similar (though not identical) analysis was made of the informal votes cast in fourteen divisions at the 5 March 1983 Senate elections. The publication of this analysis has also been authorised by the Committee. In addition to these national surveys, a differently based analysis was carried out in Tasmania in 1978 on the informal votes cast in the divisions of Denison, Franklin and Wilmot at the 1977 elections. Copies of the tables setting out the results of this analysis are available from the Australian Electoral Office on request. Question No. 189 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 19 May 1983: (1) Has Trans Australia Airlines decided on a date when regular Airbus flights will service the Adelaide domestic airport; if so, what is that date. (2) Did TAA previously announce June 1982 and September 1982 as dates for the Airbus to service Adelaide regularly; if so, what has caused the delay. (3) Why is the Airbus servicing Perth regularly, but not Adelaide. Senator Gietzelt —TAA has provided the Minister for Aviation with the following information in relation to the honourable senator's question: (1) No firm date has been determined. (2) When the Airbus was first introduced in July 1981, the future probability of servicing Adelaide was announced on the basis of traffic expectations. Due to the subsequent traffic decline, regular Airbus flights to Adelaide would result in either an unwarranted level of capacity or an unacceptable reduction in frequencies; therefore, the decision to operate on a regular basis to Adelaide has been deferred until traffic demand improves. (3) The nature of the Perth market is different from that of Adelaide and can more easily sustain Airbus operations, especially with the higher volume of cargo demand and greater proportion of premium class traffic. Question No. 193 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1983: Does the Australian Government make a contribution towards the salary of a ' fraud officer' located in the Commonwealth Secretariat in London: if so, (a) what are this officer's duties; (b) what contribution does the Australian Government make to the officer's salary; (c) what benefit does the Australian Government receive from this contribution; and (d) has the Australian Government received requests for a further contribution so that an additional officer or officers may be employed, if so, what has been the Australian Government's response. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: An officer having special responsibility for commercial crime enforcement was appointed to the Commonwealth Secretariat early in 1982. This was in response to concerns expressed by Ministers at the Commonwealth Law Ministers' meeting in Barbados in 1980. The Australian Government contributes to the salary of this officer through its assessed contribution to the overall budget of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The duties of the position are as follows: (a) Facilitating and promoting judicial assistance between Commonwealth countries and in appropriate cases with non-Commonwealth countries in regard to commercial crime enforcement and related matters; (b) Developing criminal commercial intelligence and other intelligence bases between Commonwealth law enforcement agencies and between Commonwealth and such other agencies as may be appropriate and, to this end, in a catalytic manner engendering and enhancing the flow of information to and between Commonwealth law enforcement agencies from both official and unofficial sources; (c) Gathering and disseminating relevant information with particular regard to criminal modus operandi, targeting and new facilities relating to combating commercial crime and related matters; (d) Assisting in the development of appropriate training programmes, exchange of personnel and the publicising of existing training opportunities both within countries and organised by other international agencies; (e) Providing a general facility for liaison for cooperation in combating commercial crime and related matters in the Commonwealth including in the area of international investigations, and in particular the development of close liaison with the General Secretariat of ICPOINTERPOL and other such international organisations; (f) Facilitating and, where appropriate, conducting studies relevant to the combating of commercial crime and related matters; (g) Assisting in the establishment of a Commonwealth Panel of Experts (as called for by Commonwealth Law Ministers at Barbados) and the servicing of this Panel. The meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers in Colombo in February 1983 reviewed the appointment of the fraud officer. The communique issued at the conclusion of that meeting indicated that 'Ministers welcomed the appointment of the fraud officer for a trial period to assist them to combat serious international commercial crime. They said that dramatic results had been obtained in just one year. The seriousness of the cases already referred to the officer, and the prompt action taken, had amply justified the initiative taken in Barbados. In order to consolidate the advances made, they requested the Secretary-General to constitute the post on a permanent basis.' As regards the question whether the Australian Government has received requests for a further contribution so that an additional officer or officers may be employed, the Commonwealth Secretariat budget for 1983/84 has provision for the establishment of an additional post of project officer to assist the fraud officer's functions. The Finance Committee (on which Australia is represented) recommended the approval of the Commonwealth Secretariat budget on 28 June 1983. Question No. 203 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Will legal costs incurred by officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who were reasonably accused of misconduct injurious to other departmental officers, in future, not be charged to the taxpayer. (2) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs examine sympathetically, any claims for legal costs submitted by officers claiming to have suffered injury due to misconduct by senior or other officers of his Department. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The conditions under which officers receive Commonwealth assistance in respect of legal proceedings against them are set out in the Finance Directions issued under the authority of the Government and the provision of assistance must be approved by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor. Any applications for assistance have been, and will continue to be, dealt with in accordance with those directions. Question No. 205 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) Does Telecom Australia use commercial debt collection agencies; if so, for how many years have they been used and what was the annual cost of employing such agencies for each year. (2) Why was it considered necessary to use commercial debt collection agencies instead of public sector bodies. (3) What was the success rate of legal action to recover bad debts in (a) 1981- 82; (b) 1980-81 and (c) 1979-80. (4) Has Telecom decided not to take legal action against certain categories of subscribers; if so: (a) when was this decision made; and (b) was it because of the high cost of legal action and low success rate. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Telecom Australia has used commercial debt collection agencies since 1 September 1981. The estimated annual cost of employing the agencies for 1982-83 is $770,142. (2) The decision to use commercial debt collection agencies was made following advice from the Attorney-General's Department that the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office (DCS) would no longer be available to carry out the necessary debt recovery legal work for Telecom. The date of cessation of the DCS-Telecom relationship was set at 31 August 1981. (3) The success rate of legal action to recover bad debts, expressed in relation to amounts referred to the Deputy Crown Solicitor or Mercantile Agent is as follows: Recoveries Referrals Percentage 1981-82 1,488,211 7,097,515 20.97 1980-81 2,191,495 7,583,250 28.90 1979-80 1, 766,228 7,974,064 22.15 (4) Decisions regarding legal action are based on the following criteria developed over the period of a number of years: (i) The economics of recovery. A debt will be referred for legal action if it meets predetermined economic limits. (ii) The whereabouts of the debtor. In the event that the debtor's whereabouts is unknown then action is taken to locate the debtor only if the value of the amount outstanding meets predetermined economic limits. (iii) Expert opinion regarding the likely success of legal action. Question No. 206 Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications , upon notice, on 25 May 1983: (1) What is the expected national value of bad debts/ accounts to be written off by Telecom Australia in 1982-83 and what proportion of total Telecom revenue is this. (2) What was the national value of bad debts/account written off by Telecom in (a) 1981-82; (b) 1980-81; (c) 1979-80; (d) 1978-79 and (e) 1977-78. (3) What is the value of bad debts written off by Telecom in (a) 1981-82 and (b ) 1980-81 for each State and Territory. (4) Have any State Telecom offices expressed concern to head office in the past five years about the level of bad debts; if so, which State offices and when. (5) What are the reasons for the level of bad debts waived by Telecom. (6) What forms of credit assessment are carried out by Telecom. (7) Are credit checks carried out on applicants before services are connected. (8) Is a system of application for new services by telephone under consideration. (9) Does the level of bad debts have the effect of increasing Telecom's level of costs and so increase telephone charges for other subscribers, who pay their accounts. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) $18.2m 0.50%. (2)1981-82 $14.5m; 1980-81 $12.0m; 1979-80 $9.7m; 1978-79 $7.5m; 1977-78 $6.6m. (3)- 1981-82 1980-81 $m $m NSW* 6.43 5.20 Vic. 2.81 3.34 Qld 2.27 1.56 SA* 1.44 1.05 WA 1.28 .73 Tas. .27 .12 * Includes Australian Capital Territory * Includes Northern Territory (4) The level of bad debts is a matter of ongoing concern within Telecom; policies, procedures and bad debt levels are periodically reviewed at both HQ and in State administrations to ensure the continuing effectiveness of debt collection by, and on behalf of, Telecom. (5) (i) Uneconomic to pursue; (ii) whereabouts of debtor unknown; (iii) expert opinion indicates legal action would be unsuccessful. (6) and (7) The credit assessment of individual customers involves a check against Telecom's defaulters' register after service application. In certain cases, private companies are further assessed by information obtained from the Corporate Affairs Office. (8) Yes. (9) Yes. Question No. 219 Senator Mason asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) Was a report to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission completed in or about October 1982 referring to the Ranger uranium mine. (2) Did this report state that radium concentrations in bore water downstream from the Ranger tailings dam were found to contain radium concentrations of one hundred times the expected levels. (3) Was this report made public; if not, why not. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has advised that it is unable to identify any report to (or by) the Commission or officers of the Commission dealing with this matter. (2) See answer to (1) above. (3) See answer to (1) above. Question No. 220 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) Was Mr H. M. Loveday, MBE, Australian Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1980. (2) When was the Frankfurt Book Fair held in 1980, and did Mr Loveday make an official visit to that Fair. (3) Did Mr Loveday submit travel and accommodation claims for this visit for himself, his wife and his driver. (4) Did those claims include travel to, and accommodation at, Lindau am Bodensee. (5) How far from Frankfurt is Lindau am Bodensee, and is it located at the border between the Federal Republic of Germany and Austria. (6) How many days on this occasion were Mr Loveday, his wife and driver, absent from Bonn, and what were the total costs claimed, including vehicle costs. (7) Did Mr Loveday, his wife and driver, travel into Austria on this occasion; if so, why and where. (8) Does travel by an ambassador outside the country to which he is accredited need to be approved by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (9) Was such approval sought on the occasion; if not, why not. (10) Did Mr Loveday inform the Federal Republic of Germany's Foreign Minister of Foreign Ministry, of his proposed absence from his post. (11) Did Mr Loveday subsequently take recreation leave in Austria; if so, when and where. (12) Who decided the uses to which the Department of Foreign Affairs travel vote was put in Bonn during 1980. (13) For what percentage of that travel vote did Mr Loveday submit claims. (14) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs now inquire into the financial and other accountability of Australian ambassadors on such matters, in light of his answers to this question and the Department of Finance Inquriy into Mr I. Bowden . (15) Did the heads of the Department of the Treasury (Mr John Stone) and the Department of Trade and Resources (Mr Jim Scully) make complaints to the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr Henderson) about Mr H. M. Loveday's management of the Bonn Embassy. (16) Did a number of staff serving under Mr Loveday in Bonn make complaints ( including embezzlement) to Mr Henderson and his senior staff; if so, what action , if any, did Mr Henderson take to investigate these complaints. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. Mr Loveday was Australian Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany from 1977 to 1982. (2) The Frankfurt Book Fair was held in 1980, and on 9 October 1980 Mr Loveday made an official visit to that Fair. Mr Loveday also made an official visit to that Fair in 1979. (3) In respect of the visit in 1980, Mr Loveday did not submit travel or accommodation claims for himself, his wife or his driver. Vehicle running sheets show that the travel on 9 October 1980 was to Frankfurt and Hanau, returning to Bonn on the same day. In 1979 Mr Loveday visited the Frankfurt Book Fair on 12 October 1979 and then travelled further, visiting the cities of Ulm and Fribourg . In respect of that visit he submitted accommodation claims for himself and his wife for the period 12-14 October 1979. A separate claim for the period was submitted by his driver. (4) The claims for travel in1979 included travel to and accommodation at Lindau am Bodensee. (5) Lindau am Bodensee is approximately 400 kilometres by road from Bonn. It is within 10 kilometres of the border between the Federal Republic of Germany and Austria. (6) Mr Loveday, his wife and driver were absent from Bonn in 1979 for two days 5 1/2 hours. Total costs claimed amounted to Deutsche marks 1138.14 ($A581.88). (7) On 13 October, 1979 Mr Loveday and his wife made visits out of Lindau returning that evening. During that day he crossed the border into Austria and remained in Austria for some hours. (8) Yes, as a general rule. Where, however, the absence from the country of accreditation is brief as it was on this occasion, particularly in Europe where distances are relatively short, brief visits to neighbouring countries do not always require approval to be sought from the Department of Foreign Affairs. (9) Approval was not sought on this occasion. I am informed that Mr Loveday believed the visit to be of such short duration, not involving his absence from the country of accreditation overnight, that approval need not be sought. (10) Mr Loveday did not inform the Foreign Minister or Foreign Ministry of the Federal Republic of Germany on this occasion. I am informed that it is not a formal requirement of the Federal Republic that an ambassador notify the Foreign Ministry of proposed absences from his post. The Foreign Ministry does, however, expect ambassadors to notify it when they leave the country, because it needs to know who will be in charge of the mission during such absences. The Foreign Ministry does not expect such notification when an ambassador leaves the country for a very short time only, for example, a visit of a few hours during a weekend . (11) Not in connection with this visit. (12) The Ambassador has overall responsibility for the management of the Embassy's travel vote. In practice much of the expenditure was approved by the First Secretary (Consular and Administrative). This included expenditure on hire cars and taxis, meal allowances and officers' travel away from the post. (13) The post's total expenditure against its travel vote in 1980-81 was $A17, 938. Of this amount, $A5273 (29.4 per cent) related to claims submitted by Mr Loveday. In 1979-80 the total expenditure against the post's travel vote was $ A19,365. Of this amount $A9494 (43.9 per cent) related to claims submitted by Mr Loveday. (14) The financial and other accountability of Australian ambassadors is already subject to scrutiny. The Government requires that Australian ambassadors observe the highest standards of propriety and will continue to place emphasis on the Ambassador's management of financial and human resources in assessing his performance. (15) No. Mr Stone and Mr Scully confirmed in writing that they did not make any complaint to the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs about Mr Loveday 's management of the Embassy in Bonn. (16) I am informed that no complaints alleging embezzlement or any other financial impropriety were made by staff serving under Mr Loveday in Bonn to Mr Henderson or senior staff of the Department. The management of the post was the subject of examination as part of the Department's regular program of review of posts. The results of such examinations are carefully considered and action taken where appropriate. Question No. 221 Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) For what period was Mr H. M. Loveday, MBE, Australian Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany. (2) What is the normal or expected term of duty at the Australian Embassy to the Federal Republic of Germany of: (a) foreign affairs officials; and (b) consular and administrative officers. (3) How many such officers resigned from the service or transferred out of the Department of Foreign Affairs having served under the Ambassador, Mr Loveday, in the Embassy in Bonn. (4) How many such officers were withdrawn from Bonn prior to the expiration of the normal or expected term of duty, during the period when Mr Loveday was Ambassador. (5) How many senior administrative officers served under Mr Loveday during his term as Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany. (6) Is it intended that Mr Loveday be offered a further ambassadorial appointment. (7) Was Mr Loveday offered the position of Australian Ambassador to the Netherlands, which was later withdrawn; if so, who is going to the Netherlands in Mr Loveday's stead. (8) Did Mr Loveday's brother visit the Federal Republic of Germany while Mr Loveday was Ambassador and did he use an official car; if so, what are the full details of the arrangements made. (9) Did an official car transport Mr Loveday or his brother outside the Federal Republic of Germany. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Mr H. M. Loveday, MBE, was Australian Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany from October 1977 until October 1982. (2) The normal tour of duty in the Federal Republic of Germany is three years for Foreign Affairs officers and consular and administrative officers, with a period of two years for unaccompanied Fourth Division officers. These periods are often subject to minor variations. (3) Of the officers whose posting in Bonn coincided in part or whole with Mr Loveday's posting as Ambassador, eight have since left the Department. (4) Five officers who served the whole or part of their term whilst Mr Loveday was Ambassador served less than a normal tour of duty. (5) Four senior administrative officers served under Mr Loveday during his term as Ambassador. (6) No. (7) At one stage in the course of consideration, which is still continuing, of the future disposition of senior staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Loveday was identified as a successor to the present Ambassador to the Netherlands. In the event this was not proceeded with and the question of a successor to the present Ambassador is still under consideration. (8) and (9) I am informed that in the course of a visit to various West European countries in August and September 1978, Mr Loveday's brother visited Mr Loveday in the Federal Republic of Germany. He met Mr Loveday in Hamburg, on or about 21 August 1978, where Mr Loveday was making a regular visit to the Australian Consulate-General and to various German business firms in the Hamburg /Bremen area. On 23 August Mr Loveday travelled by his official car from Hamburg to West Berlin where, in his capacity as Head of the Australian Military Mission , Berlin, he inspected the Berlin office and called on German and Allied officials. He returned to Bonn by official car on 24 August. Mr Loveday's brother accompanied him from Hamburg to West Berlin and back to Bonn, after which he continued his travel making his own travelling arrangements. Question No. 222 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: Has any inspection been made of Commonwealth buildings in Australia to determine the amount of asbestos used in their construction and any dangers that the presence of asbestos in the workplace might pose to human health; if not, will the Minister for Administrative Services authorise such an inspection. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Housing and Construction has inspected or is in the process of inspecting Commonwealth buildings under control of the Department of Administrative Services in order to determine the presence of asbestos materials . Action has been and will be undertaken to rectify and make safe any buildings in which the National Health and Medical Research Council's (recommended) criteria for the safe concentration of such materials in the air are not met. Question No. 226 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: What steps are being taken to alleviate the staffing problems in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office which is causing a growing backlog of cases needing investigation. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Office of the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Ombudsman's office, has been considering the systems and procedures of operation of the Ombudsman's office as well as its staffing structure with a view to identifying what adjustments could be made to improve the productivity of the office. The study of methods of operation of the Ombudsman's office identified several areas warranting further investigation. These include the scope for an upgrading of word and data processing equipment to enable procedures to be streamlined and productivity improved. The Ombudsman's office will be seeking the advice of a consultant in further investigating these areas. The Board's office has also discussed with the Ombudsman's office the latter's establishment, and has concluded that adjustments to the classification levels of investigator positions should help to reduce staff turnover in the Australian Capital Territory office and enable more efficient methods of investigation. The question of additional staffing is being considered in the context of staffing estimates for 1983-84. Question No. 227 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: (1) What improvement did the Australian Safeguards Office recommend for Australian uranium mines during the period 1981-82. (2) Why is a list of these recommendations not included in the annual report of the Australian Safeguards Office. (3) Will the Australian Government continue funding uranium enrichment research at Lucas Heights. (4) Does the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories research contract to study physiochemical methods of separating sulphide and radionuclide concentrates from the Australian uranium mill tailings involve the transport to Adelaide of tailings; if so, what quantity and how are these tailings stored in Adelaide. (5) Have tests been carried out on samples of Caesium 137 found in Adelaide water tanks to determine their origin; if not, why not; and if so, what were the results. (6) What will happen to radioactive parts of the HIFAR reactor of Lucas Heights which will be replaced during the five year refurbishing program? (7) How much will the parts weigh and what will be the levels of radioactivity of these parts. (8) What are the estimates of the amount of radioactivity that could be released in the event of a nuclear reactor accident at Lucas Heights, in view of the statement in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's thirtieth annual report that estimates of the amount of radioactivity which could be released to the environment in nuclear reactor accidents are fundamental to the licensing and regulatory process, since they determine the restrictions to be placed on the use of land surrounding reactor sites, such as limits on population density and the detailed planning requirements for emergency response. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Safeguards Office (ASO) provided recommendations for improved physical protection procedures at one mine site in respect of a part of the plant containing uranium ore concentrates. At another site, it provided a specification for a storehouse to hold uranium ore concentrates. (2) Recommendations are not included in ASO's annual report as their publication could compromise the effectiveness of security arrangements at the sites concerned. (3) It is intended to phase down uranium enrichment research at Lucas Heights. (4) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) has awarded a research contract to the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (AMDEL) to study physiochemical methods of separating sulphide and radionuclide concentrates from Australian mill tailings. In this connection, small samples (totalling some 130 kg) of uranium mill tailings, derived from uranium ores at Jabiluka, Mary Kathleen and Nabarlek, were sent to AMDEL in June 1979 and February 1981. As AMDEL is an independent contracting organisation, established and operating under South Australian legislation, the Commonwealth Government has not involved itself in the operating procedures adopted by AMDEL. (5) The control of radioactive materials within South Australia is a matter for the South Australian Government. (6) There is only one radioactive component of the HIFAR reactor which will be replaced during the refurbishing program. This is an aluminium fuel storage tank which has low levels of radioactive contamination on its inner surfaces. After its removal, it is intended to decontaminate the tank. (7) The tank weighs about 600 kg, and following decontamination will have negligible levels of radioactivity. (8) I am advised that in the most serious case, a reactor accident involving melting or severe damage to HIFAR fuel elements (which is considered a highly unlikely possibility), the main health hazard would be that occasioned by the release of radioactive iodine gas. The AAEC Regulatory Bureau, in its advice on HIFAR safety, follows the current recommendations of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This approach is also followed by nuclear regulatory authorities in Japan and many EEC countries. Taking into account NRC recommendations, and the high standard of leak- tightness of the HIFAR containment building, the fraction of radioiodine which could escape into the outside environment is considered likely to be significantly less than one percent of the total radioactivity which could escape into the containment, i.e. no more than one quarter of one percent of the total radioiodine inventory present in the reactor. This would represent a maximum release of radioactivity of significantly less than 1250 curies. In such a hypothetical event, doses to individual members of the public would be very substantially less than the levels recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council as indicating the need for urgent counter measures such as evacuation. The NRC is currently re-examining its assumptions, in the light of a U.S. Department of Energy report which suggests that the release of radioactive iodine from a light water power reactor under accident conditions could be a factor of 50 less than that currently assumed for licensing purposes. The NRC conclusions are expected in mid-1984. AAEC scientists are also currently revising their earlier estimates of possible releases from HIFAR, taking into account this new information. Question No. 235 Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of experiments being pursued in Germany to develop engines using coal dust as fuel; if so have these experiments been successful. (2) Is any parallel research taking place in Australia either under the auspices of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or any other body. (3) What priority will the Minister give to research in this field; given the huge deposits of coal in Australia compared with the relatively limited reserves of petroleum. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am aware that a company in Hamburg, Germany, has claimed to have developed engines which use coal dust as fuel. Technical details of this development have not yet been published. Allied research in Germany and elsewhere is directed to the use of diesel engines of coal dust mixed with oil. Preliminary findings of this research indicate that satisfactory engine performance in the short term can be obtained by use of certain coal/oil mixtures as fuel, but engine wear is higher than when using straight oil fuels. The increased wear has been attributed to the ash liberated in the combustion of the coal. (2) Yes. In 1981 CSIRO's Division of Energy Technology commenced research into the use of mixtures of coal dust and diesel oil as fuel for conventional diesel engines. The aims of the research are: to develop methods for reducing the amount of ash in the coal and thereby decrease engine wear; to determine the conditions needed for complete combustion of the coal particles during the short time drops of the fuel mixture spend in the engine cylinder; to determine what coal types and size range of particles give the best performance. (3) Energy technologies related to the conservation of liquid fuels have been assigned a high priority in the 'Guidelines and priorities for grants' under the national energy research, development and demonstration program. Question No. 238 Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 2 June 1983: What Australian defence equipment will be on display at the Trade Fair in Kuala Lumpur in September 1983. Which companies will be exhibiting. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. Details of the companies and organisations which have indicated that they will be participating in the Defence Support Equipment and Services Display, Kuala Lumpur, 13-14 September 1983 and the products and or services they intend to display are set out below: Exhibitor Display items Australasian Training Aids Pty Ltd, New South Wales Radio scoring system FSK transmitter Projectile location system Lindsay Knight rifle trainer Two way turning target system Australian Aircraft Consortium, New South Wales Training aircraft Maintenance facilities Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, Victoria Aircraft parts Aviation maintenance facilities Department of Defence Support, Australian Capital Territory Involves visual display panels describing functions and capabilities of the Department and Australia's regional defence support potential Dexion (Australia) Pty Ltd, New South Wales Storage and handling products Consulting services E.F. Australia Pty Ltd, Tasmania Lightning protection equipment with emphasis on protection of military installations including communications, radar, airports Evans Deakin Industries Ltd (Export Division), Queensland EDI-Proline boring equipment Hydromaster drill rigs Schramm drill rigs Leyland 'Land Rovers' and specialised all wheel drive units Government Aircraft Factory, Victoria 'Nomad' aircraft Hames Sharley International, Victoria Expertise in defence force planning and design in capital works field using written and photographic display material and video tape Hawker De Havilland Aust. Pty Ltd, New South Wales Photographic display and presentation of technical paper on aircraft maintenance Marine craft M. G. Kailis Group of Companies, Western Australia P150 surveillance craft The Lincoln Electric Company (Australia) Pty Ltd, New South Wales Welding equipment Lucas Industries Australia Limited-Aerospace Division, New South Wales Repair and overhaul of aircraft fuel, electric, hydraulic and pneumatic systems Macnaught Pty Ltd, New South Wales Greasing and pumping equipment N.I.C. Instrument Company, Victoria Avionics test system Tacho Indicator Test Set Servicing facilities for aircraft instrument systems North Queensland Engineers & Agents Pty Ltd, Queensland 44 metre Australian design 'Taipan' class fast patrol boat range of high speed aluminium catamarans in both military and commercial configurations Olympic Hunt and Baird, Queensland Insulated building systems PCM Electronics Pty Ltd, Victoria Radio communications equipment and manufactured components Philips TMC (Radio Communications Div.), Victoria Computer controlled mobile radio telephone VHF-UHF base stations Plessey Pacific Pty Ltd, New South Wales 'Project Raven' tactical radio products Thick film microcircuits Sonar transducers Quintrex Marine, New South Wales Personnel boats Rockwell-Collins (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Victoria Airborne tactical navigation unit 10KW HF linear power amplifier Defence communications systems facilities Royal International Pty Ltd, Victoria Soldering/desoldering stations and rework stations Oxygen/carbon analyser system Stanilite Electronics Pty Ltd, New South Wales Portable, high intensity, rapid -use searchlight system Transfield (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd (Transavia Division), New South Wales Light aircraft Trippett Allan & Associates Pty Ltd, Victoria Consulting services Ultramare Pty Ltd, Victoria Ambulances Aircraft refuellers Aircraft servicing trolleys Aviation instrumentation Fire fighting vehicles and equipment Loading and unloading platforms Elevating platforms Survival equipment Wormald Fire Systems, New South Wales Fire protection (Haylon Systems) for marine application High technology fire sensing and suppression systems. Question No. 26 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) Do notices on traffic lights in Adelaide display a sign which advises members of the public to report failures in traffic signals by telephoning a local number 260 0400. (2) Do these calls have to be paid for. (3) Can Telecom operate reverse metering, or free calls, on this particular number. (4) Is it possible to make a separate line available; if not, why not. (5) Has Telecom advised that, as a matter of policy, such arrangements for free telephone calls are not possible; if so, what is the basis of this policy. (6) Would a co-operative arrangement between Telecom and the Highways Department in South Australia lead to a more effective and efficient method of reporting failures and faults at traffic signals. (7) Will the Government ask Telecom to review its policy in relation to this matter. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission: (1) Traffic and pedestrian lights located in the Adelaide urban and nearby rural areas and controlled by the Highways Department display such a sign. (2) Yes. (3) and (4) Telecom currently does not have a reverse charge facility for local calls to either a direct exchange line or to an extension of a PABX such as that mentioned in question (3). However an experimental reverse charge local call service is on trial in Victoria but some time will elapse before the technical and other problems associated with it can be overcome and a satisfactory service can be made available as a general facility. (5) Telecom (General) By-law 53 provides that a fee is payable for each local call, the only exception being the 000 emergency service which was approved prior to the establishment of Telecom. The provision of free calls to other services such as traffic light reporting would invariably lead to many other claims from equally worthy causes. Consequently, a considerable loss of revenue could result to Telecom from such a development nationwide. The provision of such free services clearly would not be in harmony with the broad Charter of the Commission. (6) and (7) Any co-operative arrangement between Telecom and the Highways Department in South Australia must await the outcome of the Victorian study referred to in answer to questions (3) and (4). Question No. 52 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, which was created on 11 March 1983, is examining its long-term computer requirements. The Department currently operates one Sigma Data Wordplex 80-2 stand-alone word processor which is hired at a monthly rental of $631. Total expenditure on word processor hardware, software and maintenance during the financial year 1982-83 was $1.262. While at this stage it is not possible to predict future computer related expenditure, the Department does not expect to become a major user of computers. Details relating to points (1) and (2) of the question for the other organisations within my portfolio are given in tables A and B below. Table A AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF SPORT (established in 1981) Expenditure Computer hardware Repairs and and Year software service Total 1981-82li ,.. 67,300 . . 67,300 1982-83 82,800 3,000 85,800 1983-84 (estimate) 79,500 10,400 89,900 1984-85 (estimate) 90,000 17,500 107,500 1985-86 (estimate) 153,100 25,500 178,600 Table B AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION Expenditure Computer hardware Repairs and and Year software service Total 1975-76 . . . . . . 1976-77 . . . . . . 1977-78 . . . . . . 1978-79 . . . . . . 1979-80 . . . . . . 1980-81 113,000 5,000 118,000 1981-82 . . 9,000 9,000 1982-83 69,000 11,000 80,000 1983-84 (estimate) 70,000 15,000 85,000 1984-85 (estimate) . . 15,000 15,000 1985-86 (estimate) . . 15,000 15,000 In response to part (3) of the question, the Australian Institute of Sport has advised that one 20 megabyte disk drive, with a purchase price of $15,000, is expected to become obsolete within the next five years. The Australia Tourist Commission notes that although some of its equipment may become obsolete, at this time there is no proposal to replace any equipment. Question No. 74 Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs investigated the Innocents Relief Appeal Association to determine whether the organisation is acceptable to allow donations made to it to be tax deductible; if so, what has been the result of the investigation? Senator Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Innocents Relief Appeal Association has been approved as an organisation to which the Minister for Finance might grant the tax deductibility concession. The Minister for Finance will now need to consider whether he can approve and gazette the Innocents Relief Appeal Association's special overseas fund before gifts to that fund qualify for deduction. Question No. 228 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) Did the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine analyse an Australian study on the causes of skin cancer in women. (2) Did this analysis show a link between fluorescent lighting and skin cancer. (3) Did this study especially indicate a link between fluorescent lighting and malignant melanoma. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian study to which the honourable senator's question refers was analysed jointly by workers from Sydney Hospital and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The study was designed to test for a link between oral contraceptive use and malignant melanoma. (2) and (3) The study did not examine skin cancer other than malignant melanoma . However, as well as finding that fluorescent lighting at work was associated with an increased risk of malignant melanoma, the study also found that fluorescent lighting in the home was associated with a decreased risk: only the former finding has received any publicity. The authors concluded . . . 'The findings should be interpreted cautiously until further relevant data accumulate '. The report has also been criticised heavily in correspondence to the journal in which it was published. Senator Grimes —On 10 May 1983 (Hansard, page 306) Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice regarding regulations or practice about the disposal of medical records of patients in situations where a medical practitioner retires, closes the practice or dies. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: According to information available at the present time, there is no Commonwealth or State legislation regarding the disposal of patients' medical records on cessation of a medical practice. The overall view taken by the Australian Medical Association is that patients' records should be retained wherever possible. In situations where the practitioner retires and the practice is not sold, it is assumed that the practice has probably been allowed to run down. As a consequence, many of the records may no longer be active. I am advised, however, that as a general rule the Association would recommend that patients' records should be maintained for a considerable period because of the potential for their need should litigation be initiated for any reason. With regard to Senator Elstob's suggestion for the establishment of a central register which would provide a record of drugs prescribed to patients, it is considered that the Australian health care delivery system does not lend itself readily to the operation of such a register. The matter was examined last year by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee which put forward a proposal for the creation of registers of groups of patients who have been prescribed certain newly marketed drugs. It is envisaged that the project would involve groups of about 10 000 patients for each drug. A discussion paper outlining the proposal was widely distributed to professional and consumer groups in May 1982 and responses are being evaluated. It is acknowledged that, while such registers would provide a valuable additional resource of surveillance of the safety of new drugs in Australia, they would not record all patients who might be taking a particular drug. The creation of such registers would also require resolution of questions regarding the possible invasion of personal privacy and the maintenance of confidentiality . These issues are important elements in the Committee's current consideration of the proposal. Fears that the Australian registers as proposed would be very expensive to maintain would appear to be borne out by recent United Kingdom experience where a proposal for a large scale, but not all-embracing, register to permit retrospective assessment of drug safety was abandoned partly due to the high cost involved. Senator Grimes —On 24 May 1983 (Hansard, page 676) Senator McIntosh asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice covering surgeons: performance of operations. I undertook to seek further details from the Minister. The Minister for Health has provided the following additional information: The Department of Health has no substantial information to suggest that this type of practice is widespread. However, in recent times the following matters have come to the Department's notice: One matter in South Australia involved referral to the Australian Federal Police of a case in which an account was raised for an operation by a medical practitioner who was not apparently present at the operation. It emerged that this was a 'one-off' case which arose because of a misunderstanding and no further action was taken. In Queensland, inquiries are presently being undertaken into cases where accounts were raised for operations by practitioners who may not, in fact, have performed the operations. Section 129 of the Health Insurance Act provides, in effect, that a person shall not issue a document such as an account for a medical service that is false in a material particular and is capable of being used for the purpose of obtaining payment of medical benefits. If, in the circumstances outlined by Senator McIntosh, a medical practitioner issued an account for the performance by him of an operation which he did not, in fact, perform, it is likely that this would constitute an offence under section 129. Any cases of apparent medical benefits fraud which come to the notice of the Department of Health are investigated by the Department. If Senator McIntosh, or any other person, possesses information concerning possible cases of medical benefits fraud, I ask that that information be provided to the Department of Health. Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, without notice, on 26 May 1983: Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health outline this Government's proposals for supporting worker health centres which provide such important awareness of worker health hazards? Can the Minister comment in particular on the Government's plans to have the hazardous material asbestos banned from use where alternatives exist and, where asbestos must be used, to have the process guaranteed to ensure worker safety? Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I share the honourable senator's concern that due emphasis is given to occupational health and safety. Workers' health centres-though not referred to specifically in statements relating to the Government's occupational health and safety policies-are regarded as State-based services. As such, they are the responsibility of the respective State Governments, though Federal funding is already provided to the States for these services through identified health care components of the general revenue grants. Under the Medicare arrangements, the States will receive an additional $18m per year for community health services, including services provided by workers' health centres. My Department has no jursidiction over the use of asbestos. The Department has, however, been actively involved in the development of the National Health and Medical Research Council Report on the Health Hazards of Asbestos. This report, published in 1982, contains detailed information on the health effects of asbestos and includes codes of practice on handling, processing and repair of asbestos-based friction materials; working with asbestos cement (fibrocement) building materials; safe removal of asbestos-based thermal/acoustic insulating materials; and asbestos and demolition. The report has been distributed widely to Federal and State authorities, unions and industry. However, as is the case with other recommendations emanating from the National Health and Medical Research Council, it is a matter for consideration by the individual State and Territory governments as regards their possible incorporation into State legislation.